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 - Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development

Representation ID: 20395

COMMENT Sussex Wildlife Trust (Miss Janyis Watson)

Summary:

Is evidence available to show that development levels suggested in the South East Plan will meet local requirement? The figures appear excessive and the Draft South East Plan has assessed as failing on sustainability grounds. How has the environmental and ecological capacity of the district been assessed?

Road infrastructure has been cited as necessary to enable development (see comments re Box 4).

We support section (i) but are very concerned that sections (d), (e) and (f) conflict with this and will result in huge loss of greenfield and impact negatively on designated sites, biodiversity and the wider ecological network. There should be far greater protection and improvement of biodiversity in the area within the context of an ecological network if the aspirations of the Vision are to be realised.

More details about Rep ID: 20395

Representation ID: 20355

OBJECT Messrs. R. & J.C. Stapylton-Smith represented by DHA Planning (Mr. David Hicken)

Summary:

Support the minimum District-wide housing requirement as set out within the Draft South East Plan.
Propose the District-wide housing distribution strategy (Para 5.66) be amended to reinforce the role, viability and function of Rural Service Centres and underpin a sustainable pattern of development within the Plan period.

More details about Rep ID: 20355

Representation ID: 20343

SUPPORT Sussex Enterprise (Mr. Mark Froud)

Summary:

Sussex Enterprise welcomes up to 3,300 new homes and substantial new business areas in and around Bexhill town centre.

We support a minimum of 40% affordable housing and back new housing as long as it meets these criteria.

More details about Rep ID: 20343

Representation ID: 20341

COMMENT Sussex Enterprise (Mr. Mark Froud)

Summary:

Housing needs to be priced within the reach of local people. The mortgage gap in Rother is £34,553.

More details about Rep ID: 20341

Representation ID: 20340

COMMENT Sussex Enterprise (Mr. Mark Froud)

Summary:

Without suitable premises businesses could be forced to relocate out of the area. The rents for these premises should also be affordably priced, as 14% of businesses in East Sussex say that their rents have increased in the last 12 months. If high rents are set in the proposed office space, it may price many out of the market, leading to jobs not being created and 'sustainable economic growth' not being achieved.

More details about Rep ID: 20340

Representation ID: 20339

OBJECT Sussex Enterprise (Mr. Mark Froud)

Summary:

This chronic shortage of appropriate office space, if not resolved, could constrain competiveness and growth.

More details about Rep ID: 20339

Representation ID: 20338

SUPPORT Sussex Enterprise (Mr. Mark Froud)

Summary:

The proposal for increased business space throughout Rother District that will increase the current provision by 32% until 2026 is welcomed by Sussex Enterprise. The Voice of Business Survey 2008 showed that a quarter of businesses in Sussex had found their business growth hampered by inadequate new and existing business premises, and this proposal will go some way to remedying this situation.

More details about Rep ID: 20338

Representation ID: 20310

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

Summary:

We consider that this approach is far too negative and places too greater weight on the physical features of Rye and its setting, and does not properly balance these against the socio-economic characteristics.

More details about Rep ID: 20310

Representation ID: 20249

COMMENT SEEDA (Mrs S Coates)

Summary:

SEEDA supports the general direction of the Core Strategy which seeks to focus development in a hierarchical manner directing the majority of housing and employment land to the main town of Bexhill to. strengthen regeneration and growth of the Hastings/Bexhill area, followed by commensurate development of the market towns of Battle and Rye, and finally the rural villages within the High Weald AONB. While the approach employed is complimentary vis a vis Hastings, we again consider that the visions and overall spatial development strategy should be more closely aligned to the work of SeaSpace.

More details about Rep ID: 20249

Representation ID: 20217

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

Summary:

The principle to promote opportunities for extensions to the urban fringe with Hastings Borough Council is supported, notably where this objective applies to land to the east of Breadsell Lane/south of Battle Road.

More details about Rep ID: 20217

Representation ID: 20184

OBJECT The National Trust (Ms. Jane Arnott)

Summary:

We suggest that the Preferred Strategy as set out in Box 3, is amended to state that for Battle and Rye, it allows for development that helps to maintain the small market town roles of these centres, whilst respecting their environmental constraints and their settings.

More details about Rep ID: 20184

Representation ID: 20183

SUPPORT The National Trust (Ms. Jane Arnott)

Summary:

Supports in principle, a focus on the major urban areas of the district i.e., Hastings and Bexhill.

More details about Rep ID: 20183

Representation ID: 20182

OBJECT The National Trust (Ms. Jane Arnott)

Summary:

Whilst we acknowledge that the Preferred Strategy for the District is based on the draft South East Plan we do not support a strategy that requires substantial green field landtake.

We are particularly concerned at the potential greenfield landtake at Battle and Rye and the potential impact on the setting of these important historic centres.

The National Trust would strongly oppose any Core Strategy option which includes an increase in housing allocation for the District higher than that given in the final South East Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 20182

Representation ID: 20164

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

Summary:

The policies referred to should be the most up-to-date. In this case these are the policies included in the Proposed Modifications to the South East Plan rather than to the original draft plan. There is already some inconsistency in that the numbers of dwellings referred to are those in the Proposed Modifications.

There is a lack of clarification as to how the Core Strategy boxes relate to the two main policies in the South East Plan as Proposed to be Modified.

More details about Rep ID: 20164

Representation ID: 20139

OBJECT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Mr John Long)

Summary:

Trinity College objects to the 'Preferred Strategy for Spatial Development' reluctance to acknowledge that the South East Plan expects housing numbers to be minima to achieve and not maximum development ceilings

Suggested change:
Trinity College suggests that the 'Preferred Strategy for Spatial Development' includes the criteria and circumstances and broad growth locations where the South East Plan's housing figures can be exceeded.

The Core Strategy could also acknowledge the need for the site allocations document to identify contingency sites to provide headroom to take account of changing circumstances.

More details about Rep ID: 20139

Representation ID: 20120

SUPPORT Highways Agency (Mrs. Margaret Pratt)

Summary:

Paragraphs 5.52 to 5.65

The HA supports the 'Service Centre' option chosen for development distribution. This approach, as highlighted in paragraph 5.54 will best utilise existing transport links and help reduce the need to travel by car.

More details about Rep ID: 20120

Representation ID: 20018

SUPPORT Mr. A. Miskin represented by DMH Stallard (Miss Rebekah Rider)

Summary:

Support the option of locating growth towards Service Centres. it is considered that land at Breadsell Farm would achieve this through its location close to Hastings, where there are a number of key services. It would also reduce the need to travel due to the opportunity to extend existing bus service routes and the potential to locate a number of community services within the site itself.

We strongly support the location of a sustainable urban extension on the Bexhill/Hastings fringe as part of the Core Strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 20018

Representation ID: 20004

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

Summary:

An objection is raised in relation to the Council's approach to the spatial distribution of housing figures for the district. Notwithstanding consideration of several alternative spatial distribution options the council has in our view failed to give consideration to whether a combined option may exist.

The Council appear set upon a preferred option "based largely on Option 2". It is considered that a wider range of options should be presented at this stage for further consultation.

More details about Rep ID: 20004

Representation ID: 19974

COMMENT R & BG Properties LLP represented by WS Planning (Mrs. Maggie Williams)

Summary:

'Rural Settlement - November 2008' analysed some rural settlements concluding that they would not be suitable for any development. This would appear to conflict with the Council's preferred option set out in the 'Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development'.

Criterion (f) of the General Development Criteria seeks to "embrace the character and amenities of the area, especially the AONB". Whilst this is supported and the statutory duties required the LPA regarding the conserving and enhancement of the AONB are acknowledged, my clients are concerned that sites that are within the AONB should not be automatically precluded from any form of development.

More details about Rep ID: 19974

Representation ID: 19917

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

Summary:

Section 5+ Appendix 3+ Paragraphs 9.28 - 9.29
The total approximate figures should not be treated as a ceiling, but rather as an absolute minimum to be in accordance with the South East Plan. In addition, as referred to in the Core Strategy, the estimates of development yield are subject to more detailed assessment. Croudace has concerns over the Council's calculation of the residual requirement taking into account completions and commitments, as this too is subject to further assessment. In all therefore, whilst the document refers to a residual requirement of some 400 dwellings in rural areas 2008-2026, this may not be truly representative of the current situation.

More details about Rep ID: 19917

Representation ID: 19912

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

Summary:

v) Development Boundaries
Support

The preferred option is supported in that it maintains the principle of development boundaries whilst also allowing for the review of existing development boundaries through the Site Allocations DPD.

More details about Rep ID: 19912

Representation ID: 19906

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

Summary:


Disappointing that SHLAA not made available at the level of development which it projects will occur. Without sight of the SHLAA, assumptions made by the Council cannot be commented on, and the robustness of the Strategy cannot be accurately assessed.

Preferred Option 2 is supported in principle, however does not take account of the constraints.It is doubtful that the projected housing numbers at the four locations as set out in the table are realistic.
Option 3 provides the clear indication of where development is likely to continue as this represents where development has recently been delivered. In all therefore, it is considered that a more realistic approach would be a hybrid of Options 2 and 3.

More details about Rep ID: 19906

Representation ID: 19824

COMMENT Crowhurst Society (Mr. Edmund McCall)

Summary:

C Agreed
D Agreed
E Strongly opposed - fringe and ribbon development destroys the local countryside
Crowhurst on the edge of Wilting Development will suffer from that development.
Build a station at Wilting and that in Crowhurst will close. The closer urban development impinges on village life the fewer the services that continue to exist within the village.

More details about Rep ID: 19824

Representation ID: 19793

OBJECT East Sussex County Council (Mr. Nick Claxton)

Summary:

Preferred strategy for overall spatial development - Box 3

Para (b):
Having regard to para 5.17 of the Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the SEP the strategy ought to be amended to read along the lines of: "....provide for new development in a timely manner, insofar as it contributes to both strategic and local development needs, making better use of existing infrastructure and the availability of additional infrastructure capacity;"

More details about Rep ID: 19793

Representation ID: 19776

COMMENT East Sussex County Council (Mr. Nick Claxton)

Summary:

The preferred strategy for the Economy highlights the roles of key agencies in the regeneration of the area. Emphasis is placed upon the role of the Hastings Bexhill Task Force and Sea Space in securing a step change in the local economy, in accordance with sub regional and local objectives. Whilst this approach is supported, it would be appropriate to amend the Core Strategy's overall aims, objectives and strategy to reflect the joint working with other agencies to secure the regeneration of the area.

More details about Rep ID: 19776

Representation ID: 19770

OBJECT East Sussex County Council (Mr. Nick Claxton)

Summary:

The draft strategy introduces some flexibility to emplyment provision by considering development at Rye Harbour Road. The deliverability of development (20, 000 sqm) at this location is uncertain given its lack of strategic communication links.

The Core Strategy sets out employment land requirements but not job numbers. It is difficult to discern what extent the quantity and distribution of employment land will provide for employment growth.

More details about Rep ID: 19770

Representation ID: 19759

OBJECT Wm. Morrison Supermarkets Plc represented by Peacock & Smith Ltd (Mr Ed Kemsley)

Summary:

Within the document, Box 3 outlines the Council's preferred strategy for the Overall Spatial Vision of the District. We note that this includes the current convenience floorspace capacities for the towns within the District. As outlined at para 2.9 of PPS6 we would comment that the Core Strategy should identify the hierarchy of centres within the District in conjunction with the already published retail need.

More details about Rep ID: 19759

Representation ID: 19748

COMMENT Land Securities plc represented by CgMs Consulting (Ms Peggy Hui)

Summary:

The Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development is to:
(d) "focus new development at Bexhill, giving particular attention to promoting economic regeneration and growth of the Hastings and Bexhill area, including through major mixed use developments; " .

Comments:
Land Securities is firmly committed to economic investment in Bexhill. Notwithstanding the current economic climate, Land Securities continues to receive interest from various retailers who wish to be located in Bexhill. The improved retail provision in the Bexhill area is crucial given the neighbouring centres are all expanding. Ravenside Retail Park can provide large retail units which are very limited in the town centre. The town centre's growth could be focused in providing small to medium sized retail units which are more in keeping with the Conservation Area status of the town.

More details about Rep ID: 19748

Representation ID: 19741

COMMENT RSPB (Mr Nick Wright )

Summary:

It is essential that full regard is given to climate change and sea level rise when allocating major development, especially residential, around the coastal areas of the district. Areas of particular concern are Rye Harbour and Camber, which have significant and moderate levels of flood risk.
Preferred Option
Our preferred option would be to direct maximum development away from designated conservation sites and flood risk areas. Option 3 would seem to be the best choice to achieve this requirement. Until an Appropriate Assessment is undertaken that can demonstrate no adverse effect to the integrity of Natura 2000 sites no option can be endorsed.

More details about Rep ID: 19741

Representation ID: 19604

COMMENT Rother and Hastings CPRE (Mr. Stephen Hardy)

Summary:

Page 29 Box 3 This should specify sustainability for both housing and employment to underpin all ideas, focusing particularly on public transport and energy efficiency.

What do HBC think of the idea in para e)?

More details about Rep ID: 19604

Representation ID: 19592

COMMENT Evison & Company (Mr. Ian Goemans)

Summary:

There are acknowledged constraints on the ability of Bexhill and the market towns to absorb development. Some development will be required in villages to meet targets but also to allow them to contribute to the development of a more sustainable development in rural areas. This not only means development in rural service centres but selective growth in the smaller villages where this will support local services and modernisation of existing facilities. This may require more substantial releases of land on the edge of villages or redevelopment within existing boundaries that will permit the development of mixed communities with a range of house types and affordability and support the modernisation and improvement of run down and relatively deprived areas.

While Option 2 is supported in principle it should therefore be sufficiently flexible to allow greater growth in those villages more remote from the existing service centres which are in danger of becoming increasingly deprived and where services can only be effectively accessed by car owners.

More details about Rep ID: 19592

Representation ID: 19536

SUPPORT Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust represented by Strutt & Parker (Mr. Dale Mayhew)

Summary:

The preferred strategy for Overall Spatial Development includes giving particular attention to meeting local needs and supporting vibrant and mixed rural communities, including limiting growth for a number of villages that contain a range of services, where new development will support such services.
It is acknowledged within the Core Strategy Consultation Document that the district is a predominantly rural area. Given this, the importance of maintaining services and infrastructure in villages is fundamental to the quality of life of a significant proportion of the District's residents. Associated with this, is an average fall in household size. The consequence of this is likely to be a reduction in services and facilities in villages which do not experience housing growth over the plan period. It is therefore of importance that the Overall Spatial Development strategy acknowledges the need for growth in those villages which contain a range of services and therefore positively contribute to residents of the village and its hinterland, in order to maintain and enhance the levels of services, and so sustainability of the rural areas of the District.

More details about Rep ID: 19536

Representation ID: 19498

OBJECT Guestling Parish Council (Councillor Paul Brown)

Summary:

Box 3 (e) "promote in concert with Hastings BC, opportunities for sustainable urban extensions on the edge of Hastings in line with a shared vision for it..." raises concerns in the Parish which have already been mentioned above

More details about Rep ID: 19498

Representation ID: 19464

COMMENT Fairlight Parish Council (Mr. R. Tice)

Summary:

Box 3 (e) Hastings Outskirts development.
It should be clarified that this does not refer to the Fairlight (east) side of Hastings, perhaps by a cross reference Box 11a(iii)

More details about Rep ID: 19464

Representation ID: 19442

OBJECT Environment Agency (Miss Hannah Mears)

Summary:

It is encouraging that the 'Preferred Option' for the distribution of development follows the principle of sustainable development directing development towards existing service centres. This will reduce the reliance on the car reducing emissions and contributing to the improvement of air quality. It is encouraging that it is noted that there may be environmental impacts which will limit the potential for growth in settlements that may otherwise be suitable, such as Rye, Battle and the rural settlement of Robertsbridge, both of which have significant flood risk and land contamination constraints.
Recommendation 1:
Paragraph 5.61 - Include land contamination as a significant environmental constraint to development in Rye which coupled with the element of flood risk has the potential to result in unacceptable impact on the environment.

More details about Rep ID: 19442

Representation ID: 19439

COMMENT Ibstock Brick Limited (Mr. Simon Ingram)

Summary:

The Bexhill to Hastings Link Road is noted as primary importance to facilitate the future expansion of both housing supply and employment uses. The need to raise £10.85 million locally is a major consideration (para 5.82).

The generation of local contributions will no doubt arise partially through planning gain from planned development. The importance of embracing proposed development to assist in achieving this objective is therefore highlighted.

More details about Rep ID: 19439

Representation ID: 19436

COMMENT Ibstock Brick Limited (Mr. Simon Ingram)

Summary:

The forward planning of Mineral resources falls within the MWDF: however the LDF should carefully consider the allocation of new built development so to avoid sterilization of mineral resources.

More details about Rep ID: 19436

Representation ID: 19429

OBJECT Mr. Mrs. Lyons represented by Strutt & Parker (Ms. Emma Gladstone-Thompson)

Summary:

Support is given to the promotion of sustainable urban extensions to Hastings, in collaboration with Hastings Borough Council. However, the Core Strategy relies too heavily on strategic locations at Bexhill and the west of Hastings, and economic development would benefit from
additional, smaller allocations in Hastings' eastern fringes. The allocation of smaller sites is
especially important as the more strategic sites are reliant on the delivery of the
Bexhill/Hastings Link Road. The northeast of Hastings is considered to be an equally important
location as it has good road and rail connections with Rye and the Shepway coast.

More details about Rep ID: 19429

Representation ID: 19385

OBJECT Rother Environmental Group (Mr Christopher Strangeways)

Summary:

Development levels. These will need to be downgraded to reflect current conditions

More details about Rep ID: 19385

Representation ID: 19344

OBJECT Sea Space (Mr. Paul Adams)

Summary:

We believe that the number of dwellings proposed for the Hastings Fringes is too low.

We are of the view that, although the strategy seeks to meet the housing target set out in the South East Plan, 5,600-5,850 should not be seen as a maximum if wider planning and economic arguments arise to justify going beyond that.

More details about Rep ID: 19344

Representation ID: 19343

OBJECT Sea Space (Mr. Paul Adams)

Summary:

The projected retail growth for Bexhill looks rather unambitious (we assume the comparison figure is 4,000m2 not 40,000m2) if the town centre is to thrive. Having said that, the real need in Bexhill is probably more to do with provision of larger better quality retail units, more suited to multiple retailers' requirements, than simply increasing the quantity of shops.

More details about Rep ID: 19343

Representation ID: 19342

COMMENT Sea Space (Mr. Paul Adams)

Summary:

The projected distribution of employment space may be reasonable but, in order to achieve the overall target, we suggest a degree of flexibility is provided for. In other words, if one area proves capable of providing more, it should not be constrained from doing so as it is highly likely that there will be other areas that deliver less.

More details about Rep ID: 19342

Representation ID: 19341

SUPPORT Sea Space (Mr. Paul Adams)

Summary:

We support priority (d) focus of development in Bexhill and economic regeneration and growth in the Hastings and Bexhill area; and (e) sustainable urban extensions on the edge of Hastings.


More details about Rep ID: 19341

Representation ID: 19340

COMMENT Sea Space (Mr. Paul Adams)

Summary:

The provision for 100,000m2 of business floorspace looks to us to be of about the right order for the needs of this area. However, it would have been helpful to include, in the supporting text, an explanation of how it has been arrived at - to demonstrate that it is consistent with the 30,000 net additional jobs by 2016 being sought for the South Coast Sub-Regional Strategy. (Although the chapter on Economy does refer to the Employment Strategy and Land Review, a summarised explanation in this document, as provided for housing, would have been useful).

More details about Rep ID: 19340

Representation ID: 19334

SUPPORT Locate East Sussex (Mr Michael COGSWELL)

Summary:

Infrastructure availability (pp 24)

I strongly support the transport related infrastructure priorities outlined in paras 5.23 and 5.24. Improved transport will enhance the attractiveness of Rother District as a business location.

More details about Rep ID: 19334

Representation ID: 19333

COMMENT Locate East Sussex (Mr Michael COGSWELL)

Summary:

Overall Spatial Development Strategy
Employment (pp 23)

There is little reference to SEEDA's Regional Economic Strategy.
Locate East Sussex supports the target for a total additional supply of some 100,000 sq.m. of employment space to improve sustainable economic growth. It is appropriate that a substantial part of this additional supply be implemented through the development of proposed sites in North East Bexhill - an allocation which LES strongly supports.

Reference could be made to the continuing importance to communities of diversified farms / rural business centres.

Para 5.17 alludes to the importance of retaining employment sites and in passing to deliverability issues. A holistic strategy response is also supported.

More details about Rep ID: 19333

Representation ID: 19293

OBJECT Ian Dunlop

Summary:

To propose 1,300 dwellings in the villages is to propose the destruction of the identities of these villages,to bring more cars[at least 2000 more], more noise,more traffic in the lanes, all of which will contribute to the continuing destruction of the AONB. All new dwellings should be inside the Hastings/Bexhill boundaries.

More details about Rep ID: 19293

Representation ID: 19250

OBJECT Aroncorp Ltd represented by Broadlands (Mr Paul Carter)

Summary:

Acknowledging that the SE Plan figure of 5,600 dwellings is a minimum (paragraph 5.7) and that Rye is located within the "Sussex Coast" part of Rother the Preferred Strategy should provide for more housing at Rye to reflect Option 5 - Housing Needs Based figure of 1,100 dwellings.
Such development would further the objective to plan for balanced communities and support the market town role of Rye and "improve economic and social circumstances" (Box 1 Vision for Rother in 2026) and need not damage the Councils conservation and environmental objectives.

More details about Rep ID: 19250

Representation ID: 19242

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

Summary:

Add:

j. Support and encourage the upgrading and improvement of existing tourism facilities and accommodation. Allow for appropriate tourism development in both urban and rural areas which promote higher value activity and reduce seasonality.

More details about Rep ID: 19242

Representation ID: 19224

OBJECT Sedlescombe Parish Council (Mrs Pauline Raymond)

Summary:

e) This statement is too vague and should specify the area(s) referred to. Sedlescombe Parish Council would not support any extension of the urban fringes of Hastings outwards from the Hastings boundary with Rother District to the south of Baldslow. Large-scale development has already taken place on the Hastings side of the boundary and the area between Baldslow and the parish of Sedlescombe along the A21 should be safeguarded as an important area of countryside. This is especially important now that the Sussex Coast Sub-Region has been identified which touches the boundary of Sedlescombe parish (fig.5, page 15).

More details about Rep ID: 19224

Representation ID: 19195

OBJECT OCEAN PARCS LIMITED represented by Brett Drury Land & Planning (Mr Michael Drury)

Summary:

Housing Evidence base is inadequate in range, out of date and fails to take account of financial viabilty as required in PPS. Does not recognise or plan for sub-sectors such as homes for the elderly and retired

Employment section doesn't recognise Holiday Parks as important and large scale businesses. Doesn't anticipate or plan for changing needs of tourism and leisure industry particularly for rural areas.

More details about Rep ID: 19195

Representation ID: 19187

COMMENT Northiam Parish Council (Mrs Sue Keighley)

Summary:

(b)stresses the need to allow development in a timely manner to meet 'local' needs and the availability of infrastructure.NPC is concerned that Northiam is suffering the cumulative effect on infrastructure of a number of smaller developments not felt by RDC to be individually significant.
(g)stresses that meeting local needs is paramount. NPC is concerned that social housing not needed by Northiam residents may be provided within the village and used to re-house families from urban areas who have no wish to be here. This divides rather than stregthens communities.
The method of recording completed dwellings in villages against development quotas requires clarification.

More details about Rep ID: 19187

Representation ID: 19154

OBJECT Mr Nigel Jennings

Summary:

Paragraph 5.69 states that the proposed allocations across the distruct will slightly exceed the housing target set for 'Sussex Coast' part of Rother. As this is already the most crowded part of the district is this wise? Surely the position of Robertsbridge, Etchingham and Ticehurst on the main line to London and Tunbridge Wells would facilitate the expansion of these communities.

More details about Rep ID: 19154

Representation ID: 19153

COMMENT Mr Nigel Jennings

Summary:

paragraph (h) refers to allowing small scale infill and redevelopment. This presumably includes gardens of existing houses. There has been some concern expressed in recent years about the effect of building in gardens and the way that can alter the charactor of an area and harm urban biodiversity. I would like to see some qualification to this to prevent harm to the neighbourhood charactor.

More details about Rep ID: 19153

Representation ID: 19141

COMMENT Cllr Susan Prochak (Cllr Susan Prochak)

Summary:

To add an ambition to provide buildings and design to reduce the energy use of buildings and to prevent exacerbation of fluvial and surface water flooding.

More details about Rep ID: 19141

Representation ID: 19138

COMMENT Cllr Susan Prochak (Cllr Susan Prochak)

Summary:

In line with the vision of the LDF, village developments should be organic and this should mean small developments to meet housing needs.Village boundaries should be vigorously protected apart from exception sites.

More details about Rep ID: 19138

Representation ID: 19137

COMMENT Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (Planning Policy)

Summary:

The urban focus of the approach is broadly consistent with that proposed by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in its Core Strategy Preferred Options.

Regarding the fact that the next greatest proportion of housing is to be allocated to the villages, this should be closely linked to service provision justification and land release controlled.

More details about Rep ID: 19137

Representation ID: 19082

OBJECT Courtley Consultants Ltd (Mr Howard Courtley) represented by Courtley Consultants Ltd (Mr Howard Courtley)

Summary:

(c) should not encourage the redevelopment of suitable employment land as previously developed land as this would be contrary to the Districts own policies on retaining employment land. We suggest a specific reference to this point in Box3

(g)should emphasise the specific role of Rural Service Centres in meeting a large proportion of the sustainable local and market housing needs in the rural community.

More details about Rep ID: 19082

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

Powered by OpusConsult