see attached

see attched

There are errors in the Document ERRATUM to Appendix 4 of Sustainability Appraisal (SA/SAE) Environmental Report August 2016. The true situation in Old Wives Lees is not reflected as listed below. Regarding site DN1 (Rep ALP/1795) Land between Cobbs Hill and Long Hill, Old Wives Lees, and DN30, which was filtered out at stage 2. 2.2 is incorrect. Development of the site would definitely cause harm to the landscape and the AONB it is located in, especially in consideration of 5.1. 6.3 states t

Some while ago the residents of the villages of Smeeth and Brabourne drew up a Community Led Plan (CLP). One of the considerations within the plan was that of residential development. The general consensus was that small developments of 6 to 10 houses were acceptable within the confines of the villages and this level of development is still supported. Subsequently a survey was commissioned which was designed to build on the results of the CLP, the Landscape Protection Policy (LPP) being the resu

Policy HOU4 / HOU3a para. 5.39 Unsound The statement that "…housing development proposed should not be out of proportion…" is a double negative. Policy HOU4 / HOU3a 5.39 Proposed amendment: The intention would be clear and made sound if it is expressed as "should be in proportion" Policy HOU4 / HOU3a para. 5.40 is Unsound The statement that "…environmental, social and economic impacts that typically occur where development is proposed that is out of scale with the settlement" is unclear as it

We are concerned that this policy may result in the building to the rear of existing houses, infill and ad hoc expansion to villages without suitable controls. We must preserve the entrance to villages and the village envelope definition needs to be protected. Villages should retain some rural amenity even within the actual village. The over development of random windfall sites will cause the loss of a village's inherent charm.

HOU3a – Residential Windfall developments The policy is unsound because it is not effective and inconsistent with national policy Given the reliance on the delivery of windfall development in meeting the Council's housing requirement we consider this policy to be overly restrictive and will potentially limit the number of sites that can come forward. This is largely due to the lack of clarity that is provided in the policy that will make it difficult for the applicant or decision maker to ensure

Proposed Paragraph 5.42 of this section of the plan states that blanket policies restricting housing in settlements should be avoided unless there is evidence to support them. The parishes are fully supportive of this approach. The structure of the Landscape Protection Policy that was proposed was clear that local communities and parish councils would need to compile appropriate evidence of the change and impacts that were being seen by the community if they were to call on the policy in respec

Given the reliance on the delivery of windfall development in meeting the Council's housing requirement, we consider Policy HOU3a – Residential windfall development within settlements (MC50) to be overly restrictive and will potentially limit the number of sites that can come forward. Over the last ten years Ashford has an average windfall delivery of 167 dwellings per annum. However, they are proposing an annual rate of 100 dwellings per year between 2021 and 2030. Given that this is notably l

We write to object to the proposed inclusion of Old Wives Lees in policies HOU3a (MC50) and HOU5 (MC51.) We have lived in Cobb's Hill for 4 years now, and in this short time, we have seen the through traffic increase immensely. There is no shop, no GP practice, no public house and a very sparse bus service (2 a day, some only term-time.) This means village people must have cars to get to essential services or work (some larger households requiring 2-3 cars.) Two farms close by, are home to over