Box 4 - Preferred Strategy for timing of Bexhill/Hastings Link Road

Object

Representation ID: 19083

Received: 11/11/2008

Respondent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Remove (b) (ii) as this is contray to Government advice on maintaining a 5 to 15 year deliverable housing supply.Replace with new bullit point (b)(ii) allocate additional reserve housing sites in sustainable town and rural settlements to be brought forward if necessary to meet and maintain development levels.

Object

Representation ID: 19103

Received: 01/01/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Wright

The proposed Link Road should not be built because it would have a devastating effect on the Combe Valley, which is a beautiful area of countryside, particularly the part adjacent to Adam's Farm which the road would cut through.
Also, the loss of this irreplaceable asset would have little effect on traffic congestion, as it would only transfer the worst of the blockage from Bexhill Road to Little Common Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 19110

Received: 11/01/2009

Respondent: Ewhurst Parish Council

Ewhurst Parish Council would like to see here a reference to the need for work to start on the proposed A21 Baldslow Link Road during, or shortly after, the construction of the Hastings- Bexhill Link Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 19142

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr Susan Prochak

Any delay on the construction of the Link Road releasing housing land, should not impact on the rural areas which have in the last 10 years had greater development than Bexhill. As the Plan has to be annually reviewed, all windfall developments should be counted in to housing targets.

Object

Representation ID: 19254

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Aroncorp Ltd

Agent: Broadlands

The Strategy should provide a clear plan to address any shortfall in housing supply arising from delay or cancellation of the Link Road. This should be triggered on any predicted shortfall without need to review the Strategy with the consequent delay and uncertainty associated with that practice (that is likely only to exacerbate the housing supply problem that, as paragraph 5.8 confirms, has been a factor in Rother for many years).

Comment

Representation ID: 19345

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Sea Space

The document devotes considerable space to setting out the pivotal significance of the Link Road to the strategy and the possible consequences of it not proceeding or being delayed. We believe that is wholly appropriate and therefore support the intentions set out in Box 4 subject to one caveat. The supporting text explains the implications for housing and employment development but Box 4 only concerns itself with housing. It should include actions relating to employment as well.

Object

Representation ID: 19386

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Strongly disagree that appropriate growth in Rother is dependent on the construction of the BHLR. The Highways Agency should not be accorded the status of final arbiter of what development can take place. Employment and housing can be constructed in Rother and continue to be served by improved public transport and much less damaging road infrastructure

Object

Representation ID: 19430

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Mrs. Lyons

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Support is given to the contingencies proposed in paragraphs 5.92 and 5.93, which are proposed to reduce the risks associated with reliance on the Bexhill/Hastings Link Road to bring forward development. A number of sites within Hastings' fringes should be identified in the Sites Allocation DPD, for both immediate development, and as contingency sites in the event of a Link Road delay.
Box 4 only refers to the contingency approach towards housing development, and does not apply it to economic or other development. The Preferred Strategy should be amended to
include a contingency plan for these, should the Link Road be delayed

Comment

Representation ID: 19591

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Parish Council would like to state that if the Link Road does not go ahead it would want to see a reduction in the number of houses planned for north Bexhill. Your statement that new houses would be "spread around the villages" causes great concern because our roads would not cope, there is no bus service and the post office and village shop have closed.

Comment

Representation ID: 19794

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Preferred strategy re BHLR - Box 4
Para (a):
Amend to read along the lines of: "...Link Road and related local complementary measures as a critical ...."

Comment

Representation ID: 19826

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

Agree with the supposition that development should follow service provision.

Object

Representation ID: 20014

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: The Newcombe Estates Co. Ltd.

Agent: Martin Robeson Planning Practice

The Council's intention to review the Core Strategy in the event that the Link Road is opened after 2016 or cancelled altogether (Box 4c(ii) is fundamentally unsound

The Core Strategy should be flexible and housing contingences set out in the first place.

Object

Representation ID: 20036

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Michael Rosner

Oppose Link Road. Rational answer is a Bexhill by-pass instead of just tinkering with increasing congestion problem.
Dispute presumed 3 main objectives of Link Road;
1) Aim: Ease congested A259.
Point: A259 between E'bourne and Hastings voted 9th hardest road in country to navigate. How will 5,600 homes and light industrial units ease congestion? A greater volume of traffic will end up at King Offa lights causing greater gridlock on already dangerous A259. From 2000 to 2006, section of road King Offa Way to Barnhorn lane accounted for 5 fatalities and 100+ accidents. Link Road will just move congestion to another location.
2) Aim: Link Road as artery for regeneration.
Point: Have we got infrastructure and does Bexhill want this type of development. Will industry be attracted to to East Sussex with its inadequate road and rail communications.
3) Aim: Build a spur for proposed Link Road for purpose of using Ashdown brickworks as landfill site.
Point: Inadequate road access for heavy refuse lorries. Oppose having large landfill in Bexhill.

Object

Representation ID: 20058

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

Paragraphs 5.79 to 5.93

Would like alternative plan, widening the existing road via Little Common, Pear Tree Lane, Lunsford Cross, towards Catsfield onto Crowhurst, coming out at Telham, then joining The Ridge. Old railway line could be use for monorail having car parks at both ends of new development, therefore the new housing will be car free. Houses would not be spread over the development are but would consist of a number of families who, while having their own accommodation, will be under one roof, therefore the transport would pass through the accommodation onto the multi-storey car parking. The monorail would be in operation all the time.

Object

Representation ID: 20081

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Box 4: Link Road - this does not meet PPS3 requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 20090

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. R.T. Caine

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Link Road - this does not meet PPS3 requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 20099

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Box 4: Link Road - this does not meet PPS3 requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 20108

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. J. Auer

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Box 4: Link Road - this does not meet PPS3 requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 20121

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Highways Agency

Paragraph 5.79 to 5.93

The HA is pleased to note a contingency plan has been developed should the Link Road for whatever reason, not be built or be significantly delayed.

The HA would, however, suggest that the contingency plan be further expanded.

Object

Representation ID: 20122

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Highways Agency

Paragraphs 7.79 to 5.93

It is not clear where the figures quoted at paragraph 5.84 have come from. It is understood that the HBLATS did not cover this and would like to know how these figures were arrived at. It should also be clarified that delay would still result in the full quantum of development being delivered but not in the Plan period. A cancellation would result in reducing the quantum of development achieved not only in the Plan period but beyond.

Support

Representation ID: 20141

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Trinity College strongly supports the Council's efforts to secure the early construction of the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road.

Object

Representation ID: 20142

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Trinity College objects to the omission of the potential for certain areas of land at NE Bexhill to be brought forward in advance of the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road's construction

Suggested change:
Trinity College suggests that subject to detailed transport assessment, the Core Strategy should acknowledge the potential for the release of land at NE Bexhill for development in advance of the Link Road's construction.

Object

Representation ID: 20202

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Link Road - this does not meet PPS3 requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 20250

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

SEEDA supports the general direction of the Core Strategy which seeks to focus development in a hierarchical manner directing the majority of housing and employment land to the main town of Bexhill to. strengthen regeneration and growth of the Hastings/Bexhill area, followed by commensurate development of the market towns of Battle and Rye, and finally the rural villages within the High Weald AONB. While the approach employed is complimentary vis a vis Hastings, we again consider that the visions and overall spatial development strategy should be more closely aligned to the work of SeaSpace.

Support

Representation ID: 20251

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

Aspirations of the Core Strategy are dependent on the realisation of the proposed Link Road between Bexhill and Hastings, and we strongly support the implementation of this vital piece of local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 20362

Received: 16/01/2009

Respondent: Messrs. R. & J.C. Stapylton-Smith

Agent: DHA Planning

Lack of robust policy alternative in the event that the Link Road application is called-in, refused or significantly delayed. It is proposed that this should set out an alternative growth strategy that re-distributes the level of development at Bexhill dependent upon the Link Road to the remainder of the District in accordance with the settlement hierarchy.

Object

Representation ID: 20396

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

The Bexhill Hastings Link Road scheme has been passed by ESCC Planning Committee despite being assessed as environmentally damaging by experts in this field. It is our opinion that this scheme will damage the ecological functioning of the valley and we have concerns that future development in this area will further contribute to this damage.

The timing of the road and subsequent development should be guided by ecological factors in order to minimize the impacts. There are also legal implications associated with timing of development work and necessary licensing.

Object

Representation ID: 20500

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Link Road - this does not meet PPS3 requirements.