Planning Policy

Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.


You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008 - 5. Overall spatial Development Strategy

Representation ID: 20505

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Andrew represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the Link Road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

More details about Rep ID: 20505

Representation ID: 20499

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.87 It is noted that in the Council's consideration of contingencies, there may be scope for more development of Battle than currently planned, I also believe that to be the case.

More details about Rep ID: 20499

Representation ID: 20498

SUPPORT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

The Council's preferred development option based upon settlements' service roles is broadly supported (Option 2). Is the distribution of development between Bexhill, Battle, Rye and the villages actually achievable? Question mark over the Link Rd and Rye allocations. What flexibiity is there to amend the distribution if SHLAA shows sites not deliverable? Has the SHLAA informed para 5.36 and 5.52

More details about Rep ID: 20498

Representation ID: 20497

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

More details about Rep ID: 20497

Representation ID: 20496

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Paper - 29/01/09
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008: 5. Overall spatial Development Strategy
As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled

More details about Rep ID: 20496

Representation ID: 20495

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Andrew represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Paper - 29/01/09
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008: 5. Overall spatial Development Strategy
As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled

More details about Rep ID: 20495

Representation ID: 20467

OBJECT Cllr Susan Prochak (Cllr Susan Prochak)

Summary:

As the LDF is to reviewed annually, housing figures should include developments from windfall sites.

More details about Rep ID: 20467

Representation ID: 20311

OBJECT Millwood Designer Homes Ltd. represented by Kember Loudon Williams Ltd (Mr Roger Nightingale)

Summary:

Paragraph 5.87

We object to this paragraph because it is factually incorrect. Land on the south side of Rock Channel is equally free of any such designations. The Council has not properly considered all of the development opportunities around the town.

More details about Rep ID: 20311

Representation ID: 20308

SUPPORT Millwood Designer Homes Ltd. represented by Kember Loudon Williams Ltd (Mr Roger Nightingale)

Summary:

We particularly support the comments in paragraph 5.17 to the effect that "simply allocating sites will not be sufficient to bring about the step-change", and that there is a need for a "holistic strategy to stimulate economic activity".

More details about Rep ID: 20308

Representation ID: 20223

SUPPORT Crowhurst Park (Mr Colin Simmons) represented by Kember Loudon Williams Ltd (Mr. Jon Williams)

Summary:

Table on Page 30

The housing proposals set out in the table for the Hastings fringes are supported in principle as an associated part of development of land in Hastings Borough for housing b ) Opportunities for the early release of land in this location should be prioritised.

More details about Rep ID: 20223

Representation ID: 20211

COMMENT Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

More details about Rep ID: 20211

Representation ID: 20210

COMMENT Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

More details about Rep ID: 20210

Representation ID: 20201

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.87: It is noted that in the Council's consideration of contingencies, there may be scope for more development of Battle than currently planned. I also belileve that to be the case.

More details about Rep ID: 20201

Representation ID: 20200

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

There has to be a question mark of the Link Road and Rye allocations. If in addition potential sites identified in the SHLAA are not deliverable, and otherwise meet PPS3 requirements, then the distribution may need to be amended. What flexibility is there to achieve that in the emerging plan? Has the SHLAA informed para 5.36 and 5.52?

More details about Rep ID: 20200

Representation ID: 20199

SUPPORT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.52: The Council's preferred development option based upon settlements' service roles is broadly supported (Option 2). This identifies an allocation for Battle of up to 500 dwellings. It is acknowledged that much of the district is environmentally constrained, bar (broadly) Bexhill, but the regional spatial strategy requires allocations for the coastal area and hinterland to be met. Is the distribution of development between Bexhill, Battle, Rye and villages actually achievable?

More details about Rep ID: 20199

Representation ID: 20198

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

More details about Rep ID: 20198

Representation ID: 20197

COMMENT Mr. & Mrs. Block represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

More details about Rep ID: 20197

Representation ID: 20185

SUPPORT The National Trust (Ms. Jane Arnott)

Summary:

We strongly support the retention of the development boundaries for villages within the rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 20185

Representation ID: 20166

OBJECT Persimmon Homes South East represented by Bell Cornwell (Mr Anthony Hawkins)

Summary:

The South East Plan make it clear that it is not an acceptable option to consider only the minimum number of dwellings required to comply with the RSS.

So as to ensure compliance with the emerging South East Plan the core strategy should show how it is intended to deliver the respective totals of 4,000 (200 per annum) in the Sussex Coast part of the District and the 1 ,600 (80 dwellings per annum) in the rest of the District.

More details about Rep ID: 20166

Representation ID: 20156

OBJECT Crowhurst Parish Council (Mrs. Pat Buckle)

Summary:

The Preferred Policy Direction for the distribution of housing states '200-400 dwellings on the fringes of Hastings with Rother district'. We understand this to be bordering Crowhurst and we have concerns about this number on the boundary of the village, the impact on roads and the infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 20156

Representation ID: 20140

OBJECT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Mr John Long)

Summary:

Paragraph 5.66

Trinity College objects to the omission of further growth at North East Bexhill beyond the existing commitment

Suggested change:
Trinity College suggests that the table should also indicate the potential for further growth at North East Bexhill (see other Trinity College representations).


More details about Rep ID: 20140

Representation ID: 20138

SUPPORT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Mr John Long)

Summary:

Supports the spatial strategy's broad option to focus the highest levels of development at Bexhill.

More details about Rep ID: 20138

Representation ID: 20137

OBJECT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Mr John Long)

Summary:

Objects to the Council's view that it is inappropriate to plan for higher levels of development in the coastal part of the district.

Suggested Change:
The Core Strategy should provide a spatial planning framework capable of accommodating scales of development beyond those minimum figures set out in the draft South East Plan. This would help to provide the strategy with the 'in-built' flexibility to deal with changing circumstances, such as RSS reviews, brownfield sites not coming forward as anticipated, changing market conditions and to aid the viability of existing commitments by providing scope for allocated sustainable urban extensions to be increased in size.

More details about Rep ID: 20137

Representation ID: 20136

COMMENT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Mr John Long)

Summary:

Trinity College suggests that the retailing section acknowledges the role new urban extensions will have in contributing to the District's and in particular Bexhill's retail offer.

Suggested Change:
Trinity College suggest that para. 5.19 include a further sentence along the lines of "The new urban extensions in Bexhill will also provide opportunities for increases in the district's retail offer".

More details about Rep ID: 20136

Representation ID: 20135

OBJECT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Mr John Long)

Summary:

The purpose of achieving sustainability appraisal process and testing is to seek to balance environmental issues with economic and social objectives. In some circumstances, it may be that to achieve social and economic objectives, environmental protection policies may need to be reviewed.

Suggested Change:
Trinity College suggests that Para 5.10 is amended to read ''as highlighted is Section 2: Spatial Portrait there are also very significant environmental constraints. However. these need to be balanced aqainst the pursuit of social and economic goals.

More details about Rep ID: 20135

Representation ID: 20107

SUPPORT Mr. J. Auer represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.57: Development within villages should contribute to their character and the sustainability of services, as well as meeting local needs. The Rural Settlement Study referred to, suggests the possibility if development to the west of the A269 in the Catsfield village appraisal - this is taken to mean the B2204 - subject to further investigation. My client owns land within this sector and reaffirms his interest in bringing it forward for development, preferably earlier rather than later, within the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 20107

Representation ID: 20106

COMMENT Mr. J. Auer represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.52 cont. There is a question as to whether the distribution is realistic, given the uncertainty surrounding the Link Road and Rye allocations. Clearly, if the potential development sites identified in the SHLAA are not deliverable, and otherwise meet PPS3 requirements, then the distribution may need to be amended. What flexibility is there to achieve that in the emerging plan? To what extent has the SHLAA informed the current consultation plan?

More details about Rep ID: 20106

Representation ID: 20105

SUPPORT Mr. J. Auer represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.52: As indicated in para 5.7 some 5,600 dwellings are identified for Rother District up to 2026 in the South East Plan. About 4,000 would be built in the coastal sub region, defined within that plan (Bexhill, Rye, Camber, Catsfield and Crowhurst), with the balance of 1,600 dwellings provided inland covering Battle and all other rural wards. The Council's development distribution suggested in its Strategy Directions document is based upon settlements service roles and is broadly supported. This identifies an indicative distribution of 3,400 dwellings for Bexhill, 500 for Battle, 500 for Rye and 1,200 for villages (including Catsfield).

More details about Rep ID: 20105

Representation ID: 20098

COMMENT TOM SACKVILLE represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.46: On what basis is it alleged that flatted development does not accord with creating a more economically vibrant town (Bexhill)?

More details about Rep ID: 20098

Representation ID: 20097

SUPPORT TOM SACKVILLE represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Paras 5.35, 5.52: The basis for the distribution of development (service centres) is broadly supported. However, there is significant uncertainty as to whether the distribution of development as suggested can be achieved.

More details about Rep ID: 20097

Representation ID: 20096

OBJECT TOM SACKVILLE represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.25: I do not believe it is the case that development must be suspended pending the start and completion of the Link Road. There is some, albeit limited, scope for residential development to the west of Bexhill.

More details about Rep ID: 20096

Representation ID: 20095

COMMENT TOM SACKVILLE represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

More details about Rep ID: 20095

Representation ID: 20094

COMMENT TOM SACKVILLE represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

More details about Rep ID: 20094

Representation ID: 20089

COMMENT Mr. R.T. Caine represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.87: It is noted that in the Council's consideration of contingencies, there may be scope for more development of Battle than currently planned. I also believe that to be the case.

More details about Rep ID: 20089

Representation ID: 20088

SUPPORT Mr. R.T. Caine represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

The Council's preferred development option based upon settlements' service role is broadly supported. Is the distribution between Bexhill, Battle, Rye and villages actually achievable? There has to be a question mark over the Link Road and Rye allocations. If, in addition, potential sites identified in the SHLAA are not deliverable, and otherwise meet PPS3 requirements, then the distribution may need to be amended. What flexibility is there to achieve that in the emerging plan? Has the SHLAA informed para 5.36 and 5.52?

More details about Rep ID: 20088

Representation ID: 20083

SUPPORT Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 7.11: Option 2 - continued development to support Battle's role.

More details about Rep ID: 20083

Representation ID: 20080

COMMENT Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Para 5.87: It is noted that in the Council's consideration of contingencies, there may be scope for more development of Battle than currently planned. I also believe that to be the case.

More details about Rep ID: 20080

Representation ID: 20079

COMMENT Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

There has to be a question mark over the Link Road and Rye allocations. If in addition potential sites identified in SHLAA are not deliverable, and otherwise meet PPS3 requirements, then the distribution may need to be amended. What flexibility is there to achieve that in the emerging plan? Has the SHLAA informed para 5.36 and 5.52?

More details about Rep ID: 20079

Representation ID: 20078

SUPPORT Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

Support para 5.52. The Council's preferred development option based upon settlements' service roles is broadly supported (Option2). This identifies an allocation for Battle of up to 500 dwellings. it is acknowleged that much of the district is environmentally constrained, bar (broadly) Bexhill, but the regional spatial strategy requires allocations for the coastal area and hinterland to be met. Is the distribution of development between Bexhill, Battle, Rye and villages actually achievable?

More details about Rep ID: 20078

Representation ID: 20077

COMMENT Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

More details about Rep ID: 20077

Representation ID: 20076

COMMENT Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright represented by Batcheller Thacker (Mr. Nicholas Ide)

Summary:

It appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made or whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

More details about Rep ID: 20076

Representation ID: 20012

OBJECT The Newcombe Estates Co. Ltd. represented by Martin Robeson Planning Practice (Mr. Miles Young)

Summary:

The risks associated with the failure to implement the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road are clear and documented.

It is noted that the significant growth envisaged by the South East Plan for Bexhill and Hastings is entirely dependent on Link Road construction to provide necessary highway capacity. The Link Road therefore represents the single largest risk to housing growth in Rother.

Whilst several alternative options and contingencies have been considered by the Council, a significant objection is raised regarding the Council's preferred strategy relating to the timing of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road.

More details about Rep ID: 20012

Representation ID: 20010

OBJECT The Newcombe Estates Co. Ltd. represented by Martin Robeson Planning Practice (Mr. Miles Young)

Summary:

Objection is raised regarding the Council's failure to acknowledge historically low housing completion rates. The Council is "wiping the slate clean" and ignoring historic deficiencies in housing supply from as far back as 1991. There is effectively no opportunity within the Council's current proposals to "catch up".

More details about Rep ID: 20010

Representation ID: 19993

COMMENT Lark Row Developments Ltd. (Ms. Marianne Neville-Rolfe)

Summary:

We are supportive of the option based on Service Centre Role for the reasons stated in the document. We also support the statement that this should be taken as a starting point as this will allow variations in both market circumstances and capacity particularly in rural areas.
The potential loss of expansion capacity in Bexhill, should the Link Road not go ahead within the Plan period, also argues for a flexible approach to capacity in rural service centres. The conclusion in relation to the Link Road contingency that the option of faster or additional development in individual service centre villages should be ruled out appears premature in advance of the site assessments.

More details about Rep ID: 19993

Representation ID: 19934

COMMENT Mrs. P.C. Ward-Jones represented by Mr Clifford Dann

Summary:

Comments submitted regarding site specific location for development.

The 'enclosing' area west of Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill, should be included within the development boundary. There remains a serious shortfall of readily available housiing land in the Bexhill area. The Spindlewood site, being immediately available, would help to meet that shortfall.

More details about Rep ID: 19934

Representation ID: 19910

SUPPORT Croudace Strategic Ltd represented by Charles Planning Associates Limited (Miss Helen Roberts)

Summary:

Croudace wholly supports the Council's acknowledgement that the release of allocations should not be withheld arbitrarily. This supports the need for greater flexibility to allow the release of development sites in order to respond to any shortfalls.

More details about Rep ID: 19910

Representation ID: 19909

OBJECT Croudace Strategic Ltd represented by Charles Planning Associates Limited (Miss Helen Roberts)

Summary:

iii) Future Allocations and Windfall Sites
Object/Comment

The information referred to in paragraph 5.72, which is set out in Appendix 3, is based on a number of assumptions regarding the deliverability of both large and small committed sites, which together amount to around 1,330 dwellings.
It is highly likely that the remaining housing requirement will increase based on an initial assessment of those committed sites relied upon.
Appendix 3 is reliant on all current allocated sites being carried forward into the LDF. Many have not been subject to planning applications since adoption of the Local Plan and as such casts doubt over the deliverability of those sites.

More details about Rep ID: 19909

Representation ID: 19908

OBJECT Croudace Strategic Ltd represented by Charles Planning Associates Limited (Miss Helen Roberts)

Summary:

Subsection (g) is generally supported, although, the use of the term "limited growth" is objected to. It would be more appropriate to remove the term "limited growth" and replace with an acknowledgement that growth in the rural villages should be in line with the South East Plan's housing requirement for the rest of District area.
It is clear that the Council, in exercising Policy ST5 (and not Policy ST2 as referred to in paragraph 5.70) of the South East Plan, is seeking to adopt a development strategy that falls below the "Rest of District" housing requirement set out by the South East Plan due to reason of sustainability. It is not entirely clear whether the Council can demonstrate this.

More details about Rep ID: 19908

Representation ID: 19907

OBJECT Croudace Strategic Ltd represented by Charles Planning Associates Limited (Miss Helen Roberts)

Summary:

Subsection (a) refers to a dwelling range of between 5,600 - 5,850 to be provided. It is misleading as this could be interpreted as a minimum and maximum requirement. The imposition of a maximum requirement would be in conflict with the South East Plan It should be clearly noted that both figures are minimum figures.
subsection (b), the Core Strategy should not seek to unduly restrict the delivery of development.

Whilst the principle behind subsection (c) is supported, greenfield land is not supported which represents a very important source of housing land supply. Objection to the wording in paragraph 5.65 which suggests that Greenfield development should be considered as the last option. (c) should acknowledge the contribution that greenfield development can provide in meeting the District's housing requirement.

More details about Rep ID: 19907

Representation ID: 19905

OBJECT Croudace Strategic Ltd represented by Charles Planning Associates Limited (Miss Helen Roberts)

Summary:

The Core Strategy should ensures that there is flexibility to enable the delivery of housing across the District at a sustainable rate in line with the South East Plan annual requirement.

The Council's continual reliance on a single large-scale development is wholly dependent on the delivery of major infrastructure. The Core Strategy should contain sufficient flexibility to enable the delivery of other development sites to meet any shortfall against the minimum housing requirement. Need for the Core Strategy to enable delivery from other short / medium term sites.

The availability of brownfield sites, will likely to reduce in the short term. Small scale greenfield sites should be promoted, which generally have lower development costs, in the early part of the plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 19905

Representation ID: 19825

COMMENT Crowhurst Society (Mr. Edmund McCall)

Summary:

5.66 - 1300 village dwelling 10,000 sq.m of business - how does this impact upon 'villages'? - a shopping mall in Sedlescombe?
5.84 - What is the evidence base (apart from the house not being in any other plan) for this statistic? Is there any reliability in this statement?
5.87 Are we to take from this that the statements about land for housing is not based on anything other than a desk top exercise?
5.93 This would follow on from housing services.

More details about Rep ID: 19825

Representation ID: 19823

COMMENT Crowhurst Society (Mr. Edmund McCall)

Summary:

Surely it is fallacious to say that housing needs in RDC cannot be met without major road schemes.
5.10 Where is the evidence that this proposition works?
5.11 Is the provision of business premises the only driver for the economy -what other help can be given to local businesses? e.g. rate reductions!
5.18/19 Again what about local businesses that are already here? What help will they receive?
5.22 Really? Is this really the case?
The constraint of the SSSI has not stopped Rother supporting the Link Road and development on Greenfield sites next to Acton's Farm!
5.25 The greatest risk to lack of progress is the paralysis brought about by pinning too many plans on the back of the Link Road. Is there not a fall-back position?
5.31 Agreed.
5.32. Too strong.
Benefits of living in the countryside need to be set against the low level of service enjoyed in these areas.
5.65- needs to be underlined throughout.

More details about Rep ID: 19823

Representation ID: 19792

OBJECT East Sussex County Council (Mr. Nick Claxton)

Summary:

Para 5.79

Complementary measures to make better use of the existing transport network are necessary as well as the BHLR. On that basis, the text should be amended to read: "... highway authority that significant growth, as envisaged by the South East Plan, for both Bexhill and Hastings, is reliant upon both its construction and local measures to provide the necessary transport network capacity."

More details about Rep ID: 19792

Representation ID: 19791

OBJECT East Sussex County Council (Mr. Nick Claxton)

Summary:

OVERALL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Para 5.22:
While the definition of infrastructure appears to be inclusive, it would be better;

a) if that point was explicit; and,

b) measures to make better use of existing infrastructure capacity were mentioned (as per para 5.54), i.e. amend to read "....This may be interpreted widely to include "hard infrastructure" - roads, water supply, drainage - community infrastructure - schools, leisure facilities, green spaces and services - measures to make better use of infrastructure - travel plans, travel information, car club - and other local services."

More details about Rep ID: 19791

Representation ID: 19778

COMMENT East Sussex County Council (Mr. Nick Claxton)

Summary:

5.97 b) Contribution to 'building communities', including the potential to retain and improve key services;
It would be helpful if these key services are defined.
Officers of ESCC Children's Services welcome the opportunity to continue working with Rother District Council as it refines and finalises its site allocations and numbers of dwellings

More details about Rep ID: 19778

Representation ID: 19742

COMMENT RSPB (Mr Nick Wright )

Summary:

Bexhill Hastings Link Road
The Core Strategy should avoid all direct land take from Combe Haven or Marline Valley Wood SSSI and any assessed impacts mitigated against.

More details about Rep ID: 19742

Representation ID: 19740

COMMENT RSPB (Mr Nick Wright )

Summary:

5.7 -Recreational and environmental pressures associated with housing and infrastructure could lead to an adverse effect on the Natura 2000 sites (Pevensey Levels Ramsar site and Dungeness to Pett Level SPA site).
The provision of alternative green space and access management measures on the European sites will provide a mitigation strategy in order to offset recreational impacts. The capacity of natural receptors (Natura 2000 Sites) to absorb additional pollutants produced from new development will have to be carefully assessed and mitigated. The Appropriate Assessment will need to demonstrate that mitigation methods will prevent adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites, before housing numbers adopted.

More details about Rep ID: 19740

Representation ID: 19733

OBJECT Tesco Stores Ltd. represented by Development Planning Partnership (Miss Jackie Kirby)

Summary:

Paragraoh 5.66 -Table. We believe that this table should make reference to the fact that this figure is a guide only and should not be prescriptive. The scale of new retail development required should aim to stem the outflow of convenience expenditure from the town. This can only be provided in a modern foodstore, with adjoining car parking.
The Shopping Assessment supports this assessment by stating that extending existing stores will not create sufficient customer attraction and it acknowledges the demand of 'large grocery store retailers' to have a mix of both food and non-food goods (paragraphs 7.45 -7.47).

More details about Rep ID: 19733

Representation ID: 19732

OBJECT Tesco Stores Ltd. represented by Development Planning Partnership (Miss Jackie Kirby)

Summary:

Paragragh 5.65: Box 3 -Preferred Strategv for Overall Spatial Development
We note that item (g) of the preferred strategy gives particular attention to meeting 'local' needs. We believe that this paragraph should make particular reference to convenience shopping as a 'local need'.

More details about Rep ID: 19732

Representation ID: 19731

OBJECT Tesco Stores Ltd. represented by Development Planning Partnership (Miss Jackie Kirby)

Summary:

The 'Rother District Wide Shopping Assessment' identifies qualitative need for additional convenience floorspace within Rye. We welcome the acknowledgement of this need within the Core Strategy. However, the scale of floorspace need identified in the Shopping Assessment is indicative and should be seen as a starting point only. This figure should be taken as a guide only. As it is currently worded, there is not enough attention drawn to the key matter of convenience expenditure leaking from Rye to surrounding areas. It is requested that the second sentence of Paragraph 5.19 be amended as follows:

"However, there is a substantial trade "leakage" from both towns/ particularlv for convenience goods."

More details about Rep ID: 19731

Representation ID: 19730

OBJECT Tesco Stores Ltd. represented by Development Planning Partnership (Miss Jackie Kirby)

Summary:

We note that the strategy set out at Paragraph 5.19 identifies the importance to retain retail expenditure within Rye through a qualitative improvement in local retailing. However, we believe that this paragraph needs to be more explicit as to the nature of the need (i.e. convenience goods shopping supplemented by some ancillary comparison goods floorspace1) and provide a broad indication of the scale of and nature retail development (namely a new foodstore) required to be able to stem the very substantial level of convenience expenditure outflow, thus helping to retain retail expenditure within Rye.

More details about Rep ID: 19730

Representation ID: 19651

OBJECT Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Summary:

The choice of Distribution Options is far from sophisticated. One wonders whether some serious multi-factor modelling would have been justified, given that this matter will be at the heart of the LDF. Options l, 3 and 4 are just extrapolations. Option 5 (housing need) is not convincing, given that it seems to be based on wishes of where one would like to live and ignores key constraints such as job availability. Option 2 (service centres) appears to be the most sensible. However, the horizon of 2026 is so long that a single option is unlikely to be sustainable. Why not Option 4 until 2011 and then Option 2?

More details about Rep ID: 19651

Representation ID: 19605

OBJECT Rother and Hastings CPRE (Mr. Stephen Hardy)

Summary:

Para 5.79 We contest absolutely this statement. It is simply not true: significant growth, if needed, can be accommodated without the BHLR. There were substantial submissions about this to the planning application, but the application was decided on political grounds, not planning ones. Therefore this and subsequent paragraphs fall because they are based on a totally false premise.

More details about Rep ID: 19605

Representation ID: 19603

OBJECT Rother and Hastings CPRE (Mr. Stephen Hardy)

Summary:

Page 27 Para 5.44 This again reflects what has happened in the past and takes no account of current factors in those areas.

Para 5.47 This is flawed, because in the midst of the current recession, you cannot say what housing will be achieved by the end of 2011.
Option 2 appears to be the fairest basis for assessment.
Rother does have a strong record of providing windfall sites for housing. This must be taken into account so that all housing targets are continuously reassessed

More details about Rep ID: 19603

Representation ID: 19602

OBJECT Rother and Hastings CPRE (Mr. Stephen Hardy)

Summary:

We believe the figures in this box should be seriously retested as the ratios, particularly between the various options for Battle and Rye do not appear logically consistent.
Para 5.40 This is not equitable: it is just based on existing population statistics. Therefore it only takes account of previous developments which have swollen certain centres to a point of unsustainability.

More details about Rep ID: 19602

Representation ID: 19601

OBJECT Rother and Hastings CPRE (Mr. Stephen Hardy)

Summary:

Is the Baldslow Link critical to Rother per se? CPRE does not believe that the Bexhill Hastings Link Road (BHLR) is critical either, since it would introduce very significant environmental damage and is being promoted solely in our view to create a new development boundary. It is however critical because of the loss and environmental harm it would cause.
The trap into which this para has fallen is to believe that the housing is dependent on the BHLR. The BHLR is being in fact used as a pretext for designating an area for development.

More details about Rep ID: 19601

Representation ID: 19568

OBJECT Mr. D. Redhead represented by Kember Loudon Williams Ltd (Mr. Jon Williams)

Summary:

Paragraph 5.70 Page 30.
Inland rural village sites can contribute significantly towards meeting the District's housing targets. Controlled growth of villages can help to maintain and improve their viability and to prevent them effectively becoming devoid of community services. It is therefore considered that the role played by Rother's villages in providing housing allocations should neither be underplayed nor underestimated. the amount of housing planned in these locations should be increased towards meeting Regional guidance in the SE Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 19568

Representation ID: 19497

SUPPORT Guestling Parish Council (Councillor Paul Brown)

Summary:

Overall: The aim, objectives and preferred strategy are broadly agreeable.

More details about Rep ID: 19497

Representation ID: 19466

COMMENT Fairlight Parish Council (Mr. R. Tice)

Summary:

Para 5.79 (and elsewhere) Hastings/Bexhill Link Road
The Link Road is clearly essential to the Strategy. If it is not built then one of the options to achieve the South east Plan target is to "Allocate additional sites in other towns or in villages to be brought forward if necessary to maintain development levels" - para 5.86(2). We agree that option should be ruled out - para 5.88. Possibly villages should be referred to in the reasoning at para 5.87, the villages being unable to make up the deficit.

More details about Rep ID: 19466

Representation ID: 19253

OBJECT Aroncorp Ltd represented by Broadlands (Mr Paul Carter)

Summary:

With reference to paragraph 5.87 there is scope at Rye to accommodate more than the 450 dwellings in the 20 year period 2006-2026 as proposed at paragraph 5.66. This paragraph fails to acknowledge that land to the west of Rye is not covered by national designations (see paragraphs 8.31 - 8.33).

More details about Rep ID: 19253

Representation ID: 19252

OBJECT Aroncorp Ltd represented by Broadlands (Mr Paul Carter)

Summary:

The proposal that the approximate development level for Rye in the twenty year period 2006-26 should be confined to 450 dwellings is inadequate.
The Strategy does not contain the evidence referred to in paragraph 8.25 on which the case for the lower figure of 450 dwellings is advanced.
There is no evidence to support the proposal not to provide for a range of housing numbers at Rye

More details about Rep ID: 19252

Representation ID: 19251

OBJECT Aroncorp Ltd represented by Broadlands (Mr Paul Carter)

Summary:

With reference to paragraph 5.61 the Strategy should acknowledge that there is an opportunity at, and adjoining, the current Local Plan residential allocation at Udimore Road, Rye to achieve more dwellings than the 135 benefitting from the grant of planning permission. The approved access could accommodate such development and there are no overriding environmental issues that outweigh the benefits of making best use of this residential commitment including the delivery of affordable housing that should be considered an important objective in furthering the aim to improve the economic and social well-being of Rye

More details about Rep ID: 19251

Representation ID: 19240

OBJECT Park Holidays UK represented by Rural Solutions (Mr Ian Butter)

Summary:

Tourism is recognised in the South East Plan as a significant element of the local economy, particularly in the coastal resorts and along the south coast as a whole, as well as in rural areas. It is acknowledged as a significant part of Rother's economy.

The SE Plan calls for a comprehensive, long term vision for the role of tourism and related activities in order to shape investment and decisions (SE Plan D10 1.5)

As such tourism as a distinct element of the economy of the area should feature within the overall spatial strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 19240

Representation ID: 19174

OBJECT HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES (Mr Roger Hutton)

Summary:

In summary
The strategy proposed is considered to be unsound as it does not include any contingency plans which would address the issue of delayed (or cancelled)infrastructure.

The Council should include specific contingency plans that the Inspector can examine for soundness when considering the CS.

It is suggested that the Council consider additional allocations of c. 500 dwellings either as phased provision or as reserve sites.

More details about Rep ID: 19174

Representation ID: 19173

COMMENT HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES (Mr Roger Hutton)

Summary:

The draft South East Plan requires the Council to provide for 4,000 of the 5,600 dwellings to be built in Rother between 2006 and 2026 in the coastal sub-region of the district to promote its regeneration.

It would therefore be appropriate for the Distribution Options Table at Paragraph 5.36 to separate the villages in the coastal sub-region from those inland.

This would provide a more accurate picture of whether the distribution between the two areas complies with the emerging South East Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 19173

Representation ID: 19127

COMMENT Councillor David Vereker

Summary:

5.91 Is this strong enough? In my view it should be made quite clear that without the Link Road we will be unable to fulfil our allocation of new builds without destroying (some of) the AONB.

More details about Rep ID: 19127

Representation ID: 19126

COMMENT Councillor David Vereker

Summary:

5.12 The 40% affordable housing requirement will turn out to be a deterrent to devleopers.

5.36 You should leave options open here: so much can change, such as an unanticipated shift from private to public education, that "Service" villages could be overwhelmed.; the smaller communities also need investment.

More details about Rep ID: 19126

Representation ID: 19122

SUPPORT Eastbourne Borough Council (Miss Sue Holland)

Summary:

Eastbourne Borough Council have no adverse comments about this document, and would like to offer its support to the whole of the Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions.

More details about Rep ID: 19122

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult