Question 11 re. scenarios A, B and C

Comment

Representation ID: 18513

Received: 30/11/2006

Respondent: HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES

Agent: HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES

Scenario B is the only option that will achieve the step change in housing supply that the Government seeks.

Comment

Representation ID: 18523

Received: 06/12/2006

Respondent: Aroncorp Ltd

Agent: Broadlands

The diminishing supply scenario is the most appropriate. The need to safeguard employment and respect the character of neighbouring development should mean that the contribution that Brownfield land can make to housing supply is reduced. The potential merit of appropriate development of Greenfield land, with potential advantages for infrastructure precision, including affordable housing supply, should be acknowledged.

Comment

Representation ID: 18580

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Any scenario which maintains greenfield land as just that is to be preferred.

Comment

Representation ID: 18641

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

In the table on page 30, rows B and C have been inverted in error.

Comment

Representation ID: 18642

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

We consider that the scenario for reducing potential growth in new housing is preferable, more likely and more appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 18660

Received: 01/02/2007

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

The Council should robustly assess previously developed land. The redevelopment of brownfield land for housing can result in the loss of another use, often employment, with a significant effect on the District’s economy. The costs of brownfield land redevelopment can limit community benefits e.g. affordable housing.

PPS3 is clear that windfall sites should not form part of the Council’s housing land supply. Greenfield development will be required to meet housing requirements and the Core Strategy objectives. The Council must identify deliverable sites, avoiding including windfalls and commitments unless no other sites can be identified to meet the housing requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 18696

Received: 02/02/2007

Respondent: Mrs. P.C. Ward-Jones

Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

Assumptions about windfalls and intensification within existing settlements should not be unjustifiably optimistic (see PPS3). A reducing rate needs to be applied any windfall assumption to reflect non-implementation within the Plan period. The requirement for new development is unlikely to cease in 2026 and a surplus in available sites will contribute to maintaining a continuing supply.

The approach to windfalls and intensification should be based on the identification of deliverable sites and with at best a small windfalls allowance with a diminishing supply in the Plan’s later years.

Comment

Representation ID: 18704

Received: 05/02/2007

Respondent: Mr. and Mrs. Appleby

Agent: Terence O'Rourke

The principle for prioritising development in urban areas is acknowledged but such development should not be encouraged where infilling, redevelopment, intensification and the conversion of existing buildings would be to the detriment of existing residents’ amenity and limit the scope to achieve a mix of housing to meet local needs.

Land availability within existing settlements is often scarce and sites are often small. The need to prioritise development on urban previously developed land is acknowledged but where this fails to deliver a suitable mix, sites beyond defined development boundaries should be considered.

Scenario C is favoured.

Comment

Representation ID: 18759

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: PREM (Rooster) Limited

Agent: Montagu Evans

The mill site at Robertsbridge should be included for residential development. It is an opportunity for redevelopment within the village boundary.

The Local Public Inquiry Inspector stated that this was a suitable site for development but there had been inadequate investigation of its suitability for continuing employment use or of the form which redevelopment might take. If continued employment use of the whole site is shown not to be feasible, there should be a preference for mixed-use including employment.

The site has since been marketed and further work carried out. The site should be included in the assessment of likely supply on previously developed land and buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 18770

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Although there is no reason to conclude that Scenario C (diminishing supply) is likely to occur, it would be inadvisable to plan for Scenario B (dynamic growth). Scaling back greenfield allocations now in the expectation of higher brownfield yields will be problematic in the longer term if brownfield site development maintains current levels.

It would be prudent to plan for a continuation of current trends or indeed allocate more greenfield sites, particularly with regional housing figures uncertain. If the local housing market improves, it would be easier to phase back the release of greenfield allocations in response to higher brownfield yields.

Comment

Representation ID: 18771

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

In terms of education provision and increasing brownfield densities, flats tends to produce lass school-age children (perhaps 15% of the normal yield). This could have an adverse effect on school numbers and education provision, unless a reasonable proportion of family housing is also provided

Comment

Representation ID: 18804

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: The Crown Estate

Agent: Cluttons LLP

We support Scenario C where there is limited potential for capacity sites coming forward. This would be helped by removing the settlement boundary policy in rural areas that leads to cramming with detrimental effects upon local village character. The scenario would allow for a greater number of rural greenfield sites to come forward providing much more significant benefits to rural communities by facilitating affordable housing and community facilities where they are needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 18817

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: AmicusHorizon Ltd (Rother Homes)

Our only comment is that we feel and existing settlement boundaries are often drawn too close around village settlements, and there is often the possibility of utilising adjacent land without harming either the village environment or the countryside around it.

Comment

Representation ID: 18886

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Strutt & Parker

The continuation of recent intensification trends are considered to be the more likely scenario.

Comment

Representation ID: 18913

Received: 16/02/2007

Respondent: Councillor David Vereker

Section 12 is hard to follow and should be simplified. Given Government pressure for intensification one is tempted to go for dynamic growth especially if it leads to the need for less greenfield land. My preferred option would be the status quo with more flats.

Comment

Representation ID: 18938

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Limiting factors such as space and water and ability of infrastructure to cope. Bexhill’s population could increase by as much as 25% in 10 â€" 15 years. Plans needed for community infrastructure, parking, transport. Increasing population without this investment is a recipe for disaster. Corresponding investment in infrastructure with high growth rate scenario for Bexhill could redress the demographic imbalances and assist in economic regeneration. Otherwise Bexhill is likely to have slow economic decline. The status quo is not an option.