Question 15 re. the most appropriate development option for Bexhill

Comment

Representation ID: 18529

Received: 06/12/2006

Respondent: Wm. Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Agent: Peacock & Smith Ltd

The town of Bexhill is the main centre in Rother District. Bexhill is predominantly residential in character, although it has an established employment, shopping and service centre role. The extent of the town's role as a service centre is influenced by the nearby larger towns of Hastings and Eastbourne. In this regard, at Question 15, our client considers that directing development to Bexhill and the fringes of Hastings (Development Option 3) would be most appropriate to maximise the towns' combined potential for regeneration, whilst maintaining their distinct identities.

Comment

Representation ID: 18584

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

If the Government housing targets have to be met we suggest the identification of a location inland from the coast which would allow a "small new town" development with all services - schools, shops, medical facilities, etc. Consideration should be given to developing the redundant Mountfield Gypsum mine site, including below ground development, which is on a bus route and is close to the A21 ; and the reopening of Mountfield Station (rather than building a new one at Upper Wilting). This would allow green space between urban centres to be better protected in all our interests. If Pebsham Countryside Park is to be overlooked by an 800 house development it can hardly call itself a park or recreation facility away from a town or urban surround.

Comment

Representation ID: 18628

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

HBC strongly supports Option 3. Focusing development purely at Bexhill (options 1 and 2) would not assist future Hastings development opportunities and does not adequately support the wider needs of the sub-region.

Option 3 will help to ensure Hastings and Bexhill share the value of being part of a wider community with more opportunities and a wider range of facilities and attractions. It reinforces the logic of the Regional Hub.

The two Councils are involved in a range of initiatives. To ignore this interdependence could fail to capitalise on an opportunity to strengthen the two Councils regionally.

Comment

Representation ID: 18644

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

We support Option 3 â€" co-ordinated development at Bexhill and on the edge of Hastings whilst preserving the recognised strategic gaps between the two settlements as far as possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 18664

Received: 01/02/2007

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Despite the potential delays in the delivery of development at Bexhill due to the need for the Link Road, Croudace considers that Option 1 represents the most appropriate development option on the basis that Bexhill represents the most sustainable development location within the coastal area. Whilst there may be some development opportunities at Hastings, it is considered that significant constraints exist which would limit the quantum of development.

Comment

Representation ID: 18693

Received: 02/02/2007

Respondent: Mr. A. Miskin

Agent: DMH Stallard

Options 1 and 2 ignore the possibility of development on the Hastings Fringes.

Option 3 takes advantage of the location close to the Link Road. Option 3 would allow smaller scale development at Bexhill, retaining its local character, and would support Hastings’ character as a larger urban centre. Option 3 supports the Hastings/Bexhill Taskforce’s aims.

Land use should be guided by transport, allowing improved links by non-car modes, and the creation of sustainable communities, locating development close to local facilities.

The clear allocation of large-scale development is more beneficial than ad hoc development which could gradually erode local character.

Comment

Representation ID: 18698

Received: 02/02/2007

Respondent: Mrs. P.C. Ward-Jones

Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

Land west of Bexhill, identified in Options 1 and 2 has a role in delivering the strategy as a major strategic development as part of a wider strategy including strategic infrastructure, or as a smaller stand-alone development, or both.

Our client’s land extends north and south of A259, in close to Little Common and the town centre. (Landownership plan enclosed with letter). Facilities are within walking/cycling distance or via public transport. It is well related to the built up area, existing vegetation could form a landscape framework and a Masterplan could address assets protection, development mix, land use and density.

Comment

Representation ID: 18727

Received: 08/02/2007

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

A number of development scenarios are set out in the draft DPD. The development strategy for the district will be underpinned by infrastructure improvements that are required to address poor connectivity.

Option 2 of strategy A is supported {expansion of Bexhill's role) but it is considered that greenfield development opportunities should not be limited to the north and north west {north of Barnhorn Road), and that consideration should be given to development south of the A259. Development in this sector would relieve the pressure to build in an area the council recognises is an attractive area of countryside. It would also be a more sustainable location for development leading to a more compact urban form in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 18740

Received: 08/02/2007

Respondent: Highways Agency

Potential traffic and transport implications of all proposed development locations should be considered as a proactive input to the sustainable planning process. Where individual developments are likely to have significant implications, Transport Assessments needed, including Travel Plans. Travel Plans required for all types of development, including residential sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 18750

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

Should recognise that majority of residents live in Rother because it is not like Brighton, Eastbourne or Hastings. The area should be left largely unchanged. It meets residents’ requirements on quality of life.

Not providing a Tourist Information Centre in Bexhill and the closure of some public conveniences, both of which are major tourist requirements, reinforces current feeling that the Council is out of touch with local feelings/opinions. It is not compatible with the strategy direction to foster tourism.

Comment

Representation ID: 18751

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

Conserving the countryside/areas of tranquillity and strictly controlling development is not compatible with proposals for new build/highways/businesses.

Comment

Representation ID: 18772

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Support is given to options which seek to improve connectivity and accessibility to jobs and services in the Bexhill/Hastings area, however there is concern about the concept of 800 dwellings at Wilting Farm given the potential for adverse impacts on the landscape and Countryside Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 18773

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

If the bid for the replacement of Bexhill High School is successful, the intention is for its relocation to the Gunters Lane site but to use part of The Downs site for a new Vocational Skills Centre.

It would be more sustainable (for service provision) to plan housing growth to make use of existing spare capacity in primary schools but it is recognised that additional capacity, through expansion or new build, may be needed in some areas of planned housing. In the case of new provision, the assistance of the District Council in securing new sites is welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 18783

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

The HBF support option 3 for co-ordinated development at Bexhill and on the edge of Hastings. We have given the same support for this option to Hastings fBorough Council. In accordance with Draft South East Plan recommendations, the HBF consider that greenfield development is an option which would afford the Hastings and Bexhill areas the greatest opportunities to improve service provision, education provision and transport infrastructure, improving the areas competitiveness with the rest of East Sussex and Kent.

Comment

Representation ID: 18850

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Land Securities plc

Agent: CGMS Ltd

We support Option 3: Coordinated development at Bexhill and on the edge of Hastings through improving retail opportunities, which would be beneficial for Bexhill and Hastings. Retail parks in this area would improve the retail offer and provide a local/district centre for the additional dwellings proposed. Furthermore, improving leisure facilities by identifying sites would prevent the settlements from becoming dormitory, as is often the case with people travelling further afield for such facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 18857

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: The National Trust

We find it difficult to comment on the three options put forward in this section in the absence of a plan identifying the land a little more clearly and a fuller assessment of the implications of each option. However, in principle the National Trust would support a strategy that focuses development in Bexhill (and Hastings) with restricted development in the other towns and rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 18877

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Forestry Commission

We have no comment on which options is most appropriate, however there must be no damage to ancient woodland which ever option is taken.

Comment

Representation ID: 18899

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Wealden District Council

Options for Area Strategy A; Bexhill, Section 13, include development both to the North and West of the Town. It needs to be ensured that the infrastructure is suitable to cater for any growth. In particular, this includes ensuring that the carrying capacity of the A259 trunk road going into the Wealden District, reflects any increase in traffic, and the drainage patterns within the Wallers Haven water catchment are not altered in any way which would increase the risk of flooding.

Comment

Representation ID: 18941

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Option 3 is realistic but should include the ambitions of Option 2 -to expand Bexhill's Role. Bexhill needs to develop a new sense of purpose and identity beyond "a place to retire" or "dormitory for Hastings".

Comment

Representation ID: 18953

Received: 22/02/2007

Respondent: Southern Water

Southern Water will meet demand for water and wastewater arising from new developments, as identified in adopted DPDs.

Adopted LDFs will inform investment plans (to be finalised in early 2008).

Detailed knowledge of the location and timing of new development is required. This will inform Southern Water investment programme. Southern Water is unable to provide necessary services for major new development until funding is approved by OFWAT.

Development that takes place in advance of adequate water and waste water infrastructure may lead to service failures such as low water pressure, flooding of property and environmental pollution.