7. Land north of Sidley

Comment

Representation ID: 19022

Received: 27/07/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Both South East Plan and Rother's Issues and Options discuss the potential for development to the west of Bexhill. It is important that the disposition of development does not foreclose opportunities to enhance access to the A269

Comment

Representation ID: 19031

Received: 30/07/2007

Respondent: Mr. J. Weedon

If surface is improved and road becomes more attractive to cars it must be clear that it is not a vehicle access to the proposed countryside park. Treatment of surface should not increase speeds. As for the Countryside Avenue passing over Buckholt Lane, it would need to be high enough to allow high vehicles to pass under.

Comment

Representation ID: 19035

Received: 24/07/2007

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

There should be more positive support for general industrial and distribution activities, provided that they meet the objective of the SPD to secure a good quality development, elaborating upon paragraph 7.19.

Comment

Representation ID: 19040

Received: 24/07/2007

Respondent: Sea Space

The configuration of employment sites in Figure 9 should be treated as indicative at this stage. There should be sufficient flexibility to allow for the needs of occupiers to be met, and in the most viable way.

Comment

Representation ID: 19063

Received: 26/07/2007

Respondent: ATLAS

Consider bus access and show on map if proposed. Paragraph 7.21 - Suggest buildings for larger occupancies are broken up.