8. Implementation

Comment

Representation ID: 19019

Received: 06/09/2007

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

The final SPD should provide greater clarity about the expected contributions to be delivered through the Section 106. Priorities should be identified.

A viable development is fundamental and flexibility for unexpected costs is needed.

The SPD should clarify whether developers of the market housing are expected to subsidise the S106 requirements that will arise from the affordable housing element.

The SPD should set out a contingency plan should land ownership issues become a barrier to development. Possible future development should be taken into account in road design.

Comment

Representation ID: 19023

Received: 27/07/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

The Highway Authority may also wish to secure Local Sustainable Access Improvement Contributions (LSAIC) in accordance with its adopted SPG. Any development which is to be occupied in advance of the Link Road would have to be supported by a Transport Assessment. The use of Watermill Lane to serve the western area development will also need to demonstrate that highway safety for users will not be compromised and that the streets and junctions in this area can accommodate additional traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 19036

Received: 24/07/2007

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

A link is needed between the provision of housing and employment in terms of phasing of the site. Notes that the large-scale housing is expected to play a key role in funding infrastructure and kick starting business development, but there does not appear to be a mechanism proposed to ensure business development does take place. This would be presumably be achieved through the Section 106 agreements.

Comment

Representation ID: 19044

Received: 30/07/2007

Respondent: SEERA

Paragraph 8.14 stresses the need for development to contribute to the Link Road. The SPD could be enhanced if information was added to the table (8.29) to clarify in general terms of scale, scope and timing of contributions to the Link Road. This may assist in maximising the contributions to this important piece of transport infrastructure.

Paragraph 8.8 indicates some development may be possible in advance of link road. Better wording is needed to clarify that the SPD will only facilitate firm commitments of the link road are in place prior to any development commencing.

Comment

Representation ID: 19047

Received: 27/07/2007

Respondent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

This section fails to:

1. Set out a realistic programme for the Link Road;
2. Identify how any shortfall in public funding for the Link Road will be made up in order to enable the scheme to proceed;
3. Set out a realistic programme for development
4. Explain how community and employment uses are delivered alongside new housing and the implications this may have for delivery.

There is particular elaboration on the reasons why the Link Road programme is unjustifiably optimistic. Substantial contributions in advance of development are very difficult to achieve. More time is required for detailed consents.

Comment

Representation ID: 19049

Received: 27/07/2007

Respondent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

The 'Masterplan' sets out objectives for a mixed-use development however; currently there are no obvious interlinkages between the provision of new jobs and social/community infrastructure with the phasing of new housing. 'Triggers' for infrastructure provision and employment land delivery should be set out.

It is appropriate for a 'Masterplan' to acknowledge potential problems that may occur in delivery and unhelpful to publish and commit to a programme that is likely to be unachievable. The Implementation section should be reviewed to identify risks and formulate a more realistic programme.

Comment

Representation ID: 19053

Received: 26/07/2007

Respondent: ATLAS

An implementation strategy is particularly critical given relationship to Link Road, need for land equalisation strategy and other infrastructure considerations. It should also ensure the qualitative objectives of the development are met. Although this section would be developed following the completion of the viability study, ATLAS suggest that it should set out a clear strategy to move the site forward. It should include
* How and when critical infrastructure will come forward
* Phasing of business land in relation to residential
* The planning process that this site will go through

Comment

Representation ID: 19064

Received: 27/07/2007

Respondent: Boyer Planning Limited

There should be specific guidance enabling early development in advance of the Link Road of up to 120 dwellings on a triangular area north of Pebsham Lane and south of Pebsham Stream. This will meet a shortfall in housing supply. Also, services are available nearby and vehicular access exists south via Pebsham Lane.

Comment

Representation ID: 19079

Received: 11/10/2007

Respondent: Beulah Baptist Church

Request that the Council includes within the Section 106 obligations on the developer that a church building is provided to serve as a church/community centre.