Main Changes to Local Plan 2030

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

7 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
LRM Planning Limited (Owen Jones) 05 Sep 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/998
  • Status: Accepted
MC34 Policy S31 Hamstreet, Land north of St.Mary's Close 3.1 Hallam control the land at St. Mary's Close, which is identified as a residential allocation. Hallam support the principle of this proposed allocation. 3.2 MC34 proposes three principal changes to this allocation. 3.3 Firstly, and as with other changes to the expression of capacity of allocated sites, it proposes to replace the earlier phrasing of "up to" with "an indicative capacity of 80 dwellings. This proposed change is supported f
KCC (Council) 31 Aug 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/799
  • Status: Accepted
Policy MC35 S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St. Mary's Close (Page 136, Paras f + h) PROW KCC supports Policy S31 (f) and (h) and the additional text added to these sections of the policy.
George Alan Hurst 30 Aug 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/472
  • Status: Accepted
The proposed development north of St Mary's Close and opposite Hamstreet Academy is in my view unsound for development. Drainage: The proposed development site is in certain areas approx. 1.8metres above the land in St Mary's Close, which could cause flooding when developed. Buffer Zone: The proposed development will take away privacy from dwellings in St Mary's Close and therefore needs a buffer zone between the two sites if planning goes ahead. Traffic: Congestion on the Ashford Road which
Paul Alan Hurst 30 Aug 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/481
  • Status: Accepted
* Concerns about flooding/drainage due to the proposed site being 1.8metres above the properties in St Mary's Close and the cascading water that already runs down Ashford Road and into the village, causing drains to overflow. * Considerations for a buffer zone helping to provide an effective sound and noise barrier between the proposed site and properties at St Mary's Close that back onto the site, including privacy over dwellings and consideration to the abundance of wildlife. * Concerns over
Natural England (Sean Hanna) 17 Aug 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/115
  • Status: Accepted
Natural England welcomes the text contained within bullet point 'K' regarding the need to consider potential impacts to the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI but recommend that the text is amended along the following lines '…how they can be avoided or fully mitigated'
Orlestone Parish Council (Susa… 04 Aug 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/61
  • Status: Accepted
Having now had an opportunity to study your proposed changes to the Draft Local Plan (June 2016) we are very disappointed that you have chosen to disregard all of our comments, concerns and suggestions in relation to Policy S31. A survey undertaken by Orlestone Parish Council in 2016 indicated that a substantial majority of those living in the Parish were against it. We would also like to see some of the new housing provided here as local needs housing to ensure that they are not all £700,000 ma
David White 01 Aug 2017

Main Changes to Local Plan 2030 Policy S31 - Hamstreet, Land North of St.Mary's Close (MC35) Content

  • Comment ID: MCLP/53
  • Status: Accepted
I am appalled that this site remains in the Local Plan despite overwhelming opposition from the local population and the Parish Council. Not only has the poorly defined prospect for development been continued within the plan, somehow capacity for a 60 bed care home has magically appeared alongside the originally proposed 80 houses and ill defined sports facilities and car parking for the local school. All of the previously raised objections to the expansion of the village envelope, the high ris