6. Bexhill and Hastings Fringes

Comment

Representation ID: 19128

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Councillor David Vereker

I do like the idea of out-of-town distribution points (not mentioned) for Rye and Battle.

There is no mention of how anything is going to be paid for in the vision for Bexhill; I would have thought that regeneration of the town centre was a priority over the Colonade/seafront and should not be done at the expense of the rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 19440

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Ibstock Brick Limited

We believe that the reference to A259 in paragraph 6.34 is incorrect. The A259 trends east - west and therefore the statement 'Development extending west of the A259.....' seems incorrect. We suggest that the reference to A259 should in fact refer to A269.

The Ibstock Brickworks and quarry are indeed located to the south west of the A269. The quarry area has been included in previous Minerals and Waste Local Plan documents as a potential future land fill site.

Object

Representation ID: 19462

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

The Scope/Issues section of Chapter 6: Bexhill and the Hastings Fringes, does not address environmental constraints within this area particularly in relation to the flood risk, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Source Protection Zone (SPZ).
It is encouraging that the vision for Bexhill and Hastings on page 38 includes partnership working on environmental projects.
The Strategy promotes a new railway station at Glyne Gap (an area of flood risk) however subject to an adequate Flood Risk Assessment, we would have no objection in principle.

The siting of any development west of Bexhill would need to be informed by identified flood zones within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and other environmental designations.

Recommendation:
Ensure that environmental constraints such as flood risk, SSSIs and SPZs are included in the consideration of Bexhill and the Hastings Fringes for development potential.

Object

Representation ID: 19492

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Southern Water

Southern Water supports the inclusion of infrastructure sections in all Spatial Development Strategy Areas and specifically the inclusion of text to highlight the need for utilities connections.

To be consistent with the other Strategy Areas and to highlight the need for the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure we propose an additional bullet point is added to paragraph 6.55 as below
• Utilities connections for gas, electricity, water supply and wastewater for existing and new allocations

Support

Representation ID: 19501

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

The Bexhill and Hastings shared vision and objectives are broadly agreeable.

Comment

Representation ID: 19780

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Secondary provision for pupils in the Hastings Fringe area is most likely to be met most effectively by schools in Hastings rather then in Rother District, but this would mean the revision of community areas used for Admissions purposes, and therefore needs much more detailed work.
Paragraph 6.43 refers to location of future major development of around 1000 dwellings. Additional primary school places will most likely be needed for pupils arising from this development, and that these may be best met by providing a new school (1FE minimum size), possibly on the Rother side of the boundary.
Para 6.55 should be amended to ' the new replacement secondary school at Bexhill'.

Comment

Representation ID: 19807

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

• All proposed areas would need to be considered in the context of local character and the need for green infrastructure.
• f) refers to identified shortfall of open space in region of Pebsham. There is a further evidence base for this in the Strategic Open Spaces Study, East Sussex County Council,
• The limits to potential development on Hastings fringes and North West of Bexhill would need to be established in the context of landscape character and capacity and the need to define adequate countryside gaps between settlements.
• The allocation area at Upper Wilting has only limited areas where there is a moderate to low landscape capacity for development.
Development of the upper levels need more detailed assessment to judge, their acceptability in landscape terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 19831

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

6.42 The impact of development on Ancient woodlands is as much to do with proximity as it is to do with actual development. However, development in this area goes against the previous points made about protecting the rural environment and natural character of the countryside. Upper Wilting is surely a natural part of the Crowhurst area rather than Hastings .

6.45 This land needs to be protected -it is yet another strategic gap threatened with development.

6.48. The desire of Hastings to close the strategic gap between it and Rother cannot be accepted whatever the reason for it. The gaps between settlements must be preserved. The area in question is already reeling under the impact of the link road, greenway, flood issues etc etc.

6.50 A Wilting Station will kill of Crowhurst Station. What is the rationale behind such a station? -It is surely only to facilitate more development!

Comment

Representation ID: 19860

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

Keen to see Rother maintain its separate and quite distinct rural identity and identity that may be lost if Rother dances too readily to the tune of its urban neighbour.

Object

Representation ID: 19911

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Croudace welcomes the Council's acceptance of the implications associated with the delivery of the Link Road on the overall development strategy. Whilst Croudace supports the release of sites phased later in the Plan to address any potential shortfall arising from further delays in the Link Road, the Council continues to be to restrictive by stating that allocations in higher order service centres will be prioritised. This goes against the Council's acceptance that 'Distribution Option 2' should not be seen in isolation and that the other options have their own credentials. In the event of a shortfall, the most deliverable site(s) should be released in order to address the shortfall as soon as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 19935

Received: 18/12/2008

Respondent: Mr. John Wilson

Proposed Link Road. The Link Road is in no way a satisfactory replacement to the bypass but will create considerable congestion at both ends, viz Sidley and the Ridge.
Original Shopping Centres. The document does not accentuate the need for curbing the considerable deterioration of the shopping centres. The policy must be to refuse consent for further out of town development.

Comment

Representation ID: 19943

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Richard Sanderson

The link road is not a solution but a stop gap. There will still be traffic congestion. We will not attract work and younger people to our area unless we have a major improvement to our road infrastructure. Enlarge the country park area to make a national country park leisure facility. Extend the seafront to St Leonards with a cycle lane between the towns. Push the government for a major by pass from Polegate roundabout to Guestling in the west.

Object

Representation ID: 19973

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Michael Rosner

6.34 - why does it need to be included at this stage? Should be deleted and withdrawn. Useless without more detail.

Support

Representation ID: 20022

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. A. Miskin

Agent: DMH Stallard

Support the inclusion of land at Breadsell Farm as part of any wider development of Hastings. It is considered that the location of the site is ideally suited to mixed-use development being adjacent to the built-up area of Hastings.

It is envisaged that the approved Bexhill to Hastings Link Road will improve the transport infrastructure in the area surrounding land at Breadsell Farm, providing the necessary highway capacity to enable urban expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 20023

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. A. Miskin

Agent: DMH Stallard

The proposed site at Breadsell Farm does not form part of the AONB, unlike much of Rother, and so its development would serve to protect this nationally recognised landscape.

It is intended that the proposed development of the site would meet the Council's requirements in relation to affordable housing provision. this would further improve the affordability of housing in the area.

Development on the urban fringe in an area lacking physical and environmental constraints appears the logical solution to achieving housing targets and the regeneration of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 20072

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Raymond Hamilton

Paragraph 6.34 assumes the use of Ibstock brick works as a landfill site which I strongly object to.

Object

Representation ID: 20102

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 6.32-6.38: Reference should be made to the scope for development to the west of Bexhill.

Comment

Representation ID: 20123

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Highways Agency

Paragraphs 6.35 to 6.38

Suggest that a clear reference to the HBLATS work is made in order to justify the location of the proposed housing development and associated link road (joining the A259 and the A269). The HA is content that the supportive work has been completed. This will help satisfy the PPS12 requirement that the Core Strategy should be founded on a robust and credible evidence base.

Support

Representation ID: 20148

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Paragraph 6.24

Trinity College supports the general strategy for Bexhill to retain its independence but complementary functions with Hastings.

Object

Representation ID: 20149

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Paragraph 6.26

The Core Strategy should provide a spatial planning framework capable of accommodating scales of development beyond those set out in the draft South East Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 20150

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Paragraph 6.28

The College objects to the lack of provision for any further growth at North East Bexhill.

Suggests that the Strategy accepts the potential for future housing numbers at North East Bexhill to help secure the scheme's overall viability and delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 20153

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Paragraph 6.32

Trinity College objects to the Core Strategy's conclusion that the further expansion of the North East Bexhill allocation compromises the strategic gap with Hastings and the integrity of the topographical limits.

Suggests that the Core Strategy should remain flexible about the potential for North East Bexhill to be considered a suitable broad location for development, until more detailed assessments including Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments have been undertaken.

There ought to be consideration of the need to balance the delivery of the existing allocation (BX2) i.e., through further residential development releases, with any potential landscape impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 20154

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

There appears to be no separate sustainability testing of the merits of further growth at North East Bexhill compared to North West Bexhill.

The Sustainability Appraisal's conclusion for the preferred strategy for Bexhill makes no mention of the North West Bexhill area being inherently more sustainable than North East Bexhill.

Suggest that in light of the lack of published sustainability information indicating a preference for one location over the other, the Core Strategy should remain flexible about where in North Bexhill further development should occur.

Object

Representation ID: 20158

Received: 01/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Hastings Fringes -The proposal to build 1 ,000 houses 'as well as significant employment' is in direct contrast to the Preferred Policy Direction of 'securing long term and effective countryside gaps between Hastings, Bexhill, Crowhurst, Battle and Fairlight. ' This size development will be larger than Crowhurst and right on our doorsteps!

Object

Representation ID: 20230

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraph 6.56

The strategy to release land within Rother District as a part of the wider proposed land allocation in Hastings Borough (land east of Breadsell Lane) should not be dependant on the provision of a new station at Wilting. As drafted, it could be construed that the entire Strategy for the Hastings fringes will require such provision. This may be a justifiable prerequisite for the release of land around Wilting itself but, it is suggested, this should be a specific requirement for that specific area of land only. Paragraph 6.56 should therefore be revised to make this distinction clear.

Support

Representation ID: 20239

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraph 6.58

Support is given to include landowners and developers within the group of 'lead agencies and partners' for development and housing at the Hastings fringes. To be effective as a policy, regular communication with landowners is needed throughout the LDF and Allocations Document processes.

Support

Representation ID: 20280

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

We particularly welcome:
1. A commitment to provide 60, 000 sqm of new business floorspace
2. Suitable premises for small business units,
3. Major development at north east Bexhill.
4. A new vocational skills centre
5. Support for the Bexhill/Hastings Link Road
6. Improving accessibility through a potential new railway station in the Wilting area which could potentially improve local accessibility and links to London and the rest of the South East region.

SEEDA notes that feasibility studies are being considered for a possible rail station at Wilting which could benefit Bexhill and Hastings.

Object

Representation ID: 20313

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraphs 6.41 and 6.51

These two paragraphs refer to the constraints on development associated with the AONB, which closely surrounds the town. It also states that development is limited by "access and topographical factors". It is considered that the analysis in these two paragraphs is somewhat over-generalised, to the point where it is actually misleading. their wording should be reviewed in the context of allowing a more flexible approach to be taken to the land on the edge of Hastings

Object

Representation ID: 20420

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Whatlington Parish Council

Paragraphs 6.43 to 6.50

Object to development at Breadsell Farm and Wilting Farm area. This would result in the loss of the countryside gap between Battle, Crowhurst and Hastings and would breach greenfield sites.

Support

Representation ID: 20509

Received: 14/03/2011

Respondent: Mr Basil Streat

Essential schemes must be co-ordinated such as the activce development of houses and business premises to the north of the town, a multi-storey car park and business premises to the north of the town, a multi-storey car park and on alesser scale the proper use of Devonshire Square and the provision of a Tourist Information Centre. the problem of empty shops must be tackled. these schemes would involve cooperation with outside sources it can be done.
I am distressed to discover that the implementation of the plans and therefore the Regeneration of the town is not being executed because ther appears to be a lack of impetus by the leading party of Councillors and an alarming limitation of comprehension and willingnes to negotiate by some of the senior planning officers.