Question 12 re. the split between the coastal belt and the rest of the District

Comment

Representation ID: 18524

Received: 06/12/2006

Respondent: Aroncorp Ltd

Agent: Broadlands

Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 18581

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 18618

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Ewhurst Parish Council

Development should take place largely on the District’s brownfield sites and the Bexhill-Hastings fringe.

Comment

Representation ID: 18643

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

The inclusion of Rye in the coastal belt may be geographically tidy but the special constraints of landscape and heritage militate against any significant housing development in Rye apart for new developments in the industrial zoning in Rye Harbour Road. Rye would be more appropriately included in the â€~rural’ rather than the â€~coastal belt’.

We support the findings in the draft South East Plan that there is no scope for greenfield expansion to the east of Eastbourne/Hailsham and Bexhill. We urge the LDF to incorporate this conclusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 18661

Received: 01/02/2007

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Croudace acknowledges that the coastal areas and rural areas of the District have different needs, and in effect, area specific policies should be developed to reflect this. However, whilst Croudace accepts that the Draft South East Plan has allocated two 'different housing requirements for the area, it is not considered that this requirement should be stringently applied and should be used as a suggested housing requirement rather than an absolute~ requirement. This approach would provide a more robust and proactive policy with sufficient flexibility to respond to any changes in the housing market. In addition, it would avoid the potential overheating of the market in the coastal belt whilst maintaining opportunities for sustained and appropriate growth in the rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 18738

Received: 08/02/2007

Respondent: Highways Agency

The HA would expect that local planning authorities will assess the impact on the trunk road network of rural growth options. We would, therefore, like to see emerging policies that would minimise demand at source and require the mitigation of trunk road impacts throughout all stages of development planning, implementation and operation. This is particularly relevant to rural areas, as alternative transport choices tend to be limited, meaning that levels of reliance on the private car can be much higher than in urban centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 18818

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: AmicusHorizon Ltd (Rother Homes)

Our only comment is that Rye should not be included within Bexhill and Hastings fringes as part of the coastal belt. It is distinctively different and should be treated as a separate entity.

Comment

Representation ID: 18887

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Strutt & Parker

Yes the split between the coastal belt and the rest of the District illustrated in the table at Paragraph 12.15 is appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 18914

Received: 16/02/2007

Respondent: Councillor David Vereker

There would be no point in having an AONB designation if any substantial increase in rural housing was allowed.

Comment

Representation ID: 18939

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

It is also sensible to treat Bexhill in line with development in Hastings and a rural/coastal split seems logical.

Comment

Representation ID: 19007

Received: 26/02/2007

Respondent: Natural England

Care must be taken not damage the areas bordering and including the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in coastal areas not lead to conflicting policies between reducing flood risk and need for development.