5. Overall spatial Development Strategy

Support

Representation ID: 20185

Received: 21/01/2009

Respondent: The National Trust

We strongly support the retention of the development boundaries for villages within the rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 20197

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

Comment

Representation ID: 20198

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

Support

Representation ID: 20199

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 5.52: The Council's preferred development option based upon settlements' service roles is broadly supported (Option 2). This identifies an allocation for Battle of up to 500 dwellings. It is acknowledged that much of the district is environmentally constrained, bar (broadly) Bexhill, but the regional spatial strategy requires allocations for the coastal area and hinterland to be met. Is the distribution of development between Bexhill, Battle, Rye and villages actually achievable?

Comment

Representation ID: 20200

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

There has to be a question mark of the Link Road and Rye allocations. If in addition potential sites identified in the SHLAA are not deliverable, and otherwise meet PPS3 requirements, then the distribution may need to be amended. What flexibility is there to achieve that in the emerging plan? Has the SHLAA informed para 5.36 and 5.52?

Comment

Representation ID: 20201

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 5.87: It is noted that in the Council's consideration of contingencies, there may be scope for more development of Battle than currently planned. I also belileve that to be the case.

Comment

Representation ID: 20210

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled.

Comment

Representation ID: 20211

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

Support

Representation ID: 20223

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Table on Page 30

The housing proposals set out in the table for the Hastings fringes are supported in principle as an associated part of development of land in Hastings Borough for housing b ) Opportunities for the early release of land in this location should be prioritised.

Support

Representation ID: 20308

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

We particularly support the comments in paragraph 5.17 to the effect that "simply allocating sites will not be sufficient to bring about the step-change", and that there is a need for a "holistic strategy to stimulate economic activity".

Object

Representation ID: 20311

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraph 5.87

We object to this paragraph because it is factually incorrect. Land on the south side of Rock Channel is equally free of any such designations. The Council has not properly considered all of the development opportunities around the town.

Object

Representation ID: 20467

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr Susan Prochak

As the LDF is to reviewed annually, housing figures should include developments from windfall sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 20495

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Andrew

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Paper - 29/01/09
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008: 5. Overall spatial Development Strategy
As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled

Comment

Representation ID: 20496

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Paper - 29/01/09
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008: 5. Overall spatial Development Strategy
As I have commented elsewhere, it appears the whole balance of the emerging plan is influenced by the Link Road, since it provides a basis for achieving many of the policies set out within it. The question arising is whether a plan is prepared based on the assumption the road does proceed, subject to further review, whether the plan is delayed until a decision is made (such as happened in Maidstone, with the Kent International Gateway) or, as the Council has attempted, whether some account is taken of possible contingency arrangements in the event the road is delayed or cancelled

Comment

Representation ID: 20497

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.

Support

Representation ID: 20498

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

The Council's preferred development option based upon settlements' service roles is broadly supported (Option 2). Is the distribution of development between Bexhill, Battle, Rye and the villages actually achievable? Question mark over the Link Rd and Rye allocations. What flexibiity is there to amend the distribution if SHLAA shows sites not deliverable? Has the SHLAA informed para 5.36 and 5.52

Comment

Representation ID: 20499

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 5.87 It is noted that in the Council's consideration of contingencies, there may be scope for more development of Battle than currently planned, I also believe that to be the case.

Comment

Representation ID: 20505

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Andrew

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

My preference would be to wait for there to be more certainty regarding the Link Road and therefore, consequential allocations. In my view there is a strong argument that the plan should not proceed until the road issue is sufficiently resolved, since the contingencies add a layer of unnecessary complexity to what should be an absolutely clear policy direction for the district.