Box 6 - Preferred Strategy for Determining the most Appropriate Development Locations

Object

Representation ID: 19085

Received: 11/11/2008

Respondent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Add new point (g)

provide and meet the need for recreational deficency in the Districts towns and Villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 19190

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Northiam Parish Council

(a) Although Northiam is ranked as a Local Service Centre under the services criteria contained in the document it provides few non-car links to jobs and many services.
(c) The current development boundary is felt to reflect the needs of the landscape and environment of Northiam.
(d) The last major development in the village took the mains sewer infrastructure to its limit and subsequent smaller developments have had an effect on the surface water drainage particularly along Main Street and some of its side roads.

Object

Representation ID: 19199

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: OCEAN PARCS LIMITED

Agent: Brett Drury Land & Planning

The preferred criterion do not include brownfield sites as appropriate starting point for new and expanded business (or other uses). PPS4 requires LPA's to accept such sites as an resource for redevelopment even if lacking sustainable transport and located in rural areas - refer to our linked objections

Comment

Representation ID: 19294

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Ian Dunlop

Development using "non-car modes" as described, would neccessitate all development being in urban,not rural areas.
Given the A21 congestion this is eminently sensible,so please concentrate all development inside Hastings and Bexhill.

Support

Representation ID: 19360

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: Natural England

Agent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes in principle Rother's approach to distributing development according to a service centre hierarchy, with development focused primarily in Bexhill, lesser in Rye and Battle, and maintaining 'development boundaries' around rural villages.

We commend Rother's joint vision for Bexhill and Hastings with Hastings Council, recognising that development in these towns needs to be consistent and complimentary (para. 6.11).

We also welcome Rother's explicit inclusion of landscape, environment, biodiversity, and resource efficiency potential as criteria for determining development site allocations (Box 6(c and e)).

Object

Representation ID: 19443

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are encouraged that Box 6: Location of Development on page 35 includes criteria (c), (d) and (e) which seek to ensure biodiversity, flood risk and resource efficiency potential are considered when determining the most appropriate locations for development. This is also further supported by (g), (h), (i) and (k) of the General Development Criteria and relates well to the Environment Chapter of the Strategy.
Recommendation 2:
Include environmental constraints in criterion (g) of the Preferred Strategy for Overal Spatial Development on page 29 to ensure that this is taken in to account when considering sites for development in the smaller rural settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 19461

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Fairlight Parish Council

Para 5.97 sets out the criteria "... drawn from Government and regional planning policies, as the basis for site identification in the Site sets out Allocations DPD." There is no reference to coastal erosion etc. Para 5.97 (d) refers to "Physical and infrastructure constraints, including flood risk, access;" We ask for erosion etc to be added. There is Government Planning Guidance on unstable land, PPG14 Development on Unstable Land, and it would be appropriate to mention it here.

Comment

Representation ID: 19537

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust

Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew

The Council indicate that their preferred strategy for determining the most appropriate
development locations is to apply a number of criteria, taking account of the accessibility of the
site and various physical and environmental constraints and opportunities.
Further criteria should be added to this strategy to state that significant weight will be given to
those development locations which have previously been considered and allocated for
development within the Rother District Local Plan 2006. This will reflect the merits of the site,
which have been identified in earlier assessments, and the consensus that will have resulted from an allocation for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 19593

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Evison & Company

Some development will be required in villages to meet targets but also to allow them to contribute to the achievement of a more sustainable development pattern in rural areas. This not only means development in rural service centres but selective growth in the smaller villages where this will support local services and modernisation of existing facilities.

Confining the search to those areas with good existing linkages and accessibility risks an over concentration of development in areas with capacity and environmental constraints and a relative deprivation of rural areas where new development would contribute to criterion 'b' Contribution to 'building communities', including the potential to retain and improve key services. Some development will be needed in flood risk areas to avoid the stultification of existing communities in a district where a large proportion of its land area is at risk of flooding.

Support

Representation ID: 19654

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

We strongly support the Preferred Strategy for the location of development, especially the reference to accessibility by non-car modes of transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 19829

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

Should also contain severe limitation of development in rural areas.

Object

Representation ID: 19880

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

There is no need for the Core Strategy to replicate the Local Plan.The extension of the Country Avenue to the A269 goes beyond Local Plan and County transport policy. The development at Preston Hall Farm will form part of Sidley and be accessible from A269 with no need of Country Avenue. Development would detract from the regeneration of Sidley. Our objections are environmentally based. It is unjustifiable and unsustainable. Carbon emissions/air pollution will be increased. Large scale development for North Bexhill be replaced with re-development and extension of Sidley.

Object

Representation ID: 19881

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

6.34 makes a presumption of future ESCC Transport and Waste planning that RDC is neither required nor entitled to make. It seeks to facilitate development west of the A269 that is not supported by the Council or the citizens of Bexhill and in particular the transport infrastructure for a landfill site which is only in the very loosest sense planned and whose further consideration is as likely as not to be abandoned. Furthermore no consideration whatsoever is expressed for the massive environmental implications for North West Bexhill of such development as is here envisaged

Object

Representation ID: 19882

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

It is not clear what "development area" which is currently "served only by Sandhurst Lane and Whydown Road" is here referred to nor why it is not also currently served by Peartree Lane.
2. While some development north (and south) of the A259 can be supported, BALI vigorously opposes any development which would reach Whydown Road. Whydown and the Highwoods are clearly distinctive natural landscapes that need to be protected.
We suggest the omission of the section, allthough there is ...... from the east" and also the omission of the word "well" from the phrase "Development may extend well northwards".

Object

Representation ID: 19883

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

Land west of the allocated area North of Sidley along an extension of the "Country Avenue" to the A269 is surely not "West of Bexhill", but North (West) of Bexhill. 2. It is not at all clear which area you mean that "should be developed" beyond that already allocated in Policy BX3 of the RDC Local Plan nor which is the "already planned development" mentioned. 3. The area which you state "should be developed" would seem to be countryside west of the A269 as described in 6.37 which also includes valued ancient woodland. In what sense is this ill-defined area the most appropriate broad location for medium/longer term strategic growth? Such a statement needs to be justified.
5. What does "strategic growth" in this section mean?

Comment

Representation ID: 19884

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Alan Bolden

The Bexhill - Hastings Link Road will create more traffic into the industrial and residential areas north of Hastings. Would be preferable to cross the ridge and connect to A21. Has a N/S/E/W directional movement survey ever been done on the Bexhill/Hastings traffic?

Support

Representation ID: 20021

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. A. Miskin

Agent: DMH Stallard

Support the criteria outlined and consider that land at Breadsell Farm meets all of these criteria, being well located, suitable for mixed-use development, part of a sustainable expansion of the built-up area to promote regeneration of that area and neither physically nor environmentally constrained.

Comment

Representation ID: 20143

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Suggests criteria (F) is expanded to read "(F) commercial potential, including ownership pattern and development viabilitv including helping to secure the delivery of existing commitments if necessary".

Suggests that the strategy acknowledges the potential to balance the pursuit of social and economic objectives against the need to secure environmental objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 20312

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Box 6 does not include any direct reference to the need for economic regeneration There should be a strong 'needs-based' emphasis to the strategy to ensure that development is encouraged in those locations where there is a known need for enhancement. This has not been included.