Skip to main content

Section 5: Place Shaping Policies Bidborough


This response report contains comments received on Section 5: Place Shaping Policies - Bidborough.

Contents

General comments

Comment No.

Name/Organisation

Object/support/support with conditions/general observation

Response

DLP_2130

James Tansley

Bidborough

5.109

See my comment under Speldhurst.  No new homes for Bidborough, despite its reasonably good access tot he A26, A21 and Tonbridge railway station. Conclusion: Jukesy abusing the planning process to try to ensure he gets re-elected.  Now he's gone, let's inject a bit of sense into the plan.

Policy STR/BI 1: The Strategy for Bidborough Parish

Comment No.

Name/Organisation

Response

DLP_597

Sport England

Policy STR/BI 1

Sport England supports bullet point e the new sports hub at Rusthall as it is in line with adopted Playing Pitch Strategy.

DLP_2958

Priya Enefer

I would wholeheartedly support the decision not to propose any site allocations within the parish of Bidborough as it would irreversibly and negatively impact the greenbelt and AONB of the village and negatively impact on residents by increasing traffic, pollution and reducing green spaces and wildlife/ biodiversity.

DLP_3330

Kent County Council (Growth, Environment and Transport)

Highways and Transportation

The Local Highway Authority conditionally supports this policy. The following changes are requested:

Paragraph 4 – “Maintenance and enhancement of, and/or linkages to, public footway network and public rights of way and the local strategic cycle network in accordance with Policy TP 2: Transport Design and Accessibility”

The standard paragraph regarding contributions should feature in this policy - It is expected that mitigation measures will be implemented by the developer. A contribution may be taken if appropriate

Public Rights of Way and Access Service

The specific reference to PRoW in paragraph 4 and the expectation that contributions will be made towards PRoW to mitigate the impact of development (f) is supported.

DLP_4133

Tunbridge Wells District Committee Campaign to Protect Rural England

Support with conditions

We are concerned that the part of this policy referring to developments larger than 100 residential units could encourage applications for major developments which are thoroughly unsuitable in the Green Belt or AONB.  Arguably, for sustainability, any development of more than 20 dwellings in villages and the rural area ought at least to provide some employment possibilities, for example through live/work units.

DLP_4557

Historic England

Policy STR/BI 1: The Strategy for Bidborough Parish et seq. - as with the foregoing comments, we would expect the allocation of sites following on from this Strategy policy to be subject to appropriately robust and detailed heritage impact assessment prior to the allocations being adopted.