Box 10 - Preferred Strategy for Bexhill

Comment

Representation ID: 19093

Received: 17/11/2008

Respondent: Hastings & Rother Mediation

Current shopping provision in Bexhill is woefully inadequate, with few good quality shops and limited choice. Thus many local residents shop elsewhere. How will retailers (both local and national) be encouraged to open up in the town, if they have not done so so far? A great deal of work needs to be done in this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 19144

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr Susan Prochak

Bexhill is a unique town as it has not been cloned into a town centre where you could be anywhere in the country. This character should be retained and improved. Its small shops are its character. The shopping area could be reduced. I am not convinced that Bexhill needs a high quality hotel, but one that will attract families. Bexhill is attractive for young families, who want a safe quality environment. I agree with the upgrading and care of the public realm.

Comment

Representation ID: 19346

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Sea Space

The preferred strategy does not live up to the scale of change presaged. Mostly, it is small-scale interventions or proposals. Of particular concern is the town centre. It has been in gentle decline for a long time and, unless a more ambitious approach is adopted, it is difficult to see how it can gain benefit from the new population that is planned around the fringes of Bexhill. The danger will be that spending power will go to other centres outside of Rother. The LDF process should confront the issue and set out a mechanism to address it.

Comment

Representation ID: 19589

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Reiterates the imporatance of maintaining strategic gap between Bexhill/Crowhurst which it feels is threatened by the proposed number of houses and employment facilities planned for its boundaries. This will have a severe effect on our roads already blighted by rat runners.

Object

Representation ID: 19692

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: The Fairfield Partnership

Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

The Core Strategy should have a much more flexible approach to land supply and development locations. Placing the Council's Greenfield allocations on sites that have questionable delivery we consider to be contrary to the requirements of PPS3 and PPS12 in terms of maintaining a responsive supply of land for development and ensuring that sites are capable of implementation.
Land at West Bexhill is deliverable without significant new public infrastructure, and should form a component of the Council's land supply,

Without the delivery of the strategic Greenfield allocation at North-East Bexhill ,there is no 'plan B'. This seems to us to be unsound in the context of the new PPS12.
The Council has evidence in relation to
transportation and landscape matters, and these have been material to the selection of
the Preferred Options. These should be available via the Freedom of Information Act and please confirm that these will become available at this time.

Comment

Representation ID: 19743

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: RSPB

Growth Options
If the area North West and West of Bexhill is allocated for development then this could have the potential for an adverse affect to the ecological integrity of Pevensey Levels Ramsar site and the important wildlife populations that it supports. The main likely pressures will be from recreational disturbance, hydrology, and pollution, and before these sites are allocated an Appropriate Assessment will have to be undertaken as a requirement of the Habitats Regulations.
It would also be against national policy to develop on ancient woodlands.
We would strongly support the proposals for the Pebsham Countryside Park and other open space, which if managed correctly would help to reduce increased recreational disturbance to designated sites from new development identified in the Core Strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 19751

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Land Securities plc

Agent: CgMs Consulting

Box 10e -Preferred Strategy for Bexhill- For the town centre

The preferred strategy for Bexhill town centre is to strengthen the commercial and 'civic centre' role of the town centre, through provision of additional shopping floorspace of some 2,500sqm convenience goods and 4,OOOsqm comparison goods floorspace, primarily through retail expansion adjacent to the railway.

Comments:
Land Securities is keen to work in partnership with the Council in achieving retail expansion of Ravenside Retail Park in a way which would strengthen the commercial role of Bexhill and limit further leakage of expenditure to neighbouring centres. Thus, Land Securities recommends the following addition to the Core Strategy's retail policy regarding Bexhill town centre:

"Should no site be available for development within Bexhill town centre to accommodate the forecast retail floorspace needs, subject to the sequential test of the PPs6, other existing retail developments that are suitable and/or appropriate should be considered to accommodate the identified retail requirements".

Comment

Representation ID: 19753

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Land Securities plc

Agent: CgMs Consulting

Box 1Ob -Preferred Strategy for Bexhill - For services and community development

The preferred strategy for Bexhill seeks to improve key community infrastructure, including leisure facilities for younger people and support for older people, by building a new multi-purpose leisure centre in the town.

Comments:
Land Securities welcomes the suggested strategy of a new multi-purpose leisure centre in Bexhill town centre. Other leisure facilities in the Borough could be relocated to the new facilities to rationalise and provide centralised facilities to the community.

Comment

Representation ID: 19756

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Land Securities plc

Agent: CgMs Consulting

Box 1Od (iv) -The Preferred Strategy for Bexhill -New Station at GIyne Gap

The preferred strategy for Bexhill's accessibility is to develop an integrated transport strategy that maximises accessibility to town, neighbouring centres and Hastings, which include the promotion and reserving of land for a new railway station at Glyne Gap in association with new development and the Countryside Park.

Comments:
Land Securities is committed via a S106 Agreement to the provision of the necessary lands to enable the station to proceed.

Comment

Representation ID: 19769

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Without the BHLR there is no realistic prospect of providing sustainable growth on the level required by the RSS in Rother District.
The proposals for the development of the Hastings Fringes at Breadsell and Wilting are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty.
Windfall sites within Bexhill will contribute to the overall development requirement, but have not been included in the Core Strategy's estimation.
The Core Strategy claims to provide for a range of 5,600 - 5,850 dwellings, the components of supply provides a range of 5,500 - 6,000. This undershoots the requirements. Clarification is sought on the actual level of development the Core Strategy is planning for, and how the uncertainty surrounding the Hastings fringes can be managed.

Comment

Representation ID: 19779

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

BOX 10 - Preferred Strategy for Bexhill
b) For services and community development
It should be made clear that the reference to a new secondary school (i) is in fact a replacement school and not additional to current provision. It is envisaged that the Vocational Skills Centre will be shared by other schools.
It is noted that there is no mention of further pre-school facilities, youth facilities or special needs school facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 19879

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

For the Environment, we feel there should be specific mention of ("protecting and enhancing") the Highwoods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). BALI therefore suggests a further point under c) regarding the Highwoods.
We believe that extended westward development from the Link Road is not supported and is unlikely to be achievable.
We therefore suggest the omission of any reference to the westward extension of the North East Bexhill development and to any "Country Avenue". If this amendment is not accepted we propose at least the removal of the phrase "linking to the A269".

Comment

Representation ID: 19930

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

The overall Strategy for Bexhill is sound, but care will inevitably be needed to ensure that the new Bexhill/Hastings Link Road doesn't take away from Bexhill the very people we need in the town to bring the much needed investment and prosperity.

Comment

Representation ID: 19931

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

Town Centre - suggest a more cohesive, and perhaps radical approach to redevelopment. Need to encourage a vibrant modern town, tastefully linked to the Edwardian seafront; may lift Conservation restrictions, pedestrianise Western Road, relocate station entrance to Devonshire Square and link redevelopment of the Sainsburys site across the railway. Retailing should be focussed as "Devonshire Mall", Sainsburys site and up to Sea Road and Sackville Road but not up London Road. Town Hall Square redevelopment must include Sainsburys and an associated car park to maintain the balance of Town Centre convenience with Ravenside out-of-town retail park facility.

Object

Representation ID: 19972

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Pauline Rosner

Any strategic plan to redevelop an area must be underpinned by an improvement of good communications i.e. road, rail and public transport.
Bexhill will continue to be a back water because it is of no economic relevance to the country.
Link Road with 3,000 plus, new homes and light industry will only cause further congestion.
The only answer is to extend the Link Road in its present form so that it joins with the A259.

Support

Representation ID: 19979

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

Environment - that the development of the Pebsham Country Park addresses this.

Comment

Representation ID: 19980

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

Accessibility: Car parking in the town should be carefully reviewed. Notwithstanding its costs we need some form of multi-storey car park in the Town Centre - probably as a part of the Sainsbury site re-development. The remainder of the Town Centre should be metered (variable timings) and the seafront should remain FREE.

Comment

Representation ID: 19981

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

Accessibility: Rother District Council should apply a 20mph speed limit to the seafront from the junction of De la Warr Parade with Sackville Road to the east as far westwards to the junction of West Parade with Park Avenue (and the new Museum approach).

Comment

Representation ID: 19982

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

Road junctions should provide for safer pedestrian access across to the seafront.

Comment

Representation ID: 19983

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Keith Rhodes

Routing of the National Route 2 Cyclepath along the seafront should now be determined once and for all. This should be created on the promenade from the Sea Angling club at the foot of Gally Hill as far as the Sailing Club. From the Sailing Club as far as the Sackville Road roundabout it should ideally be incororated into the Next Wave pedestrian designs, or follow the road with adjustments to car parking and white lining. From Sackville Road it should return on to the Promenade.

Comment

Representation ID: 20047

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

Paragraphs 6.32 to 6.34

Land north of Bexhill could come under the control of a Community Trust. Not covering the land with concrete, keep open space for natural habitat, build off the ground to stop flooding, have solar panels to save heating and use a monorail for transport. Suggest a portion of land adjoining the development area be used for teaching agricultural and horticultural skills, creating a community farm for young people.

Object

Representation ID: 20103

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Box 10: Reference should be made to the scope for development to the west of Bexhill.

Object

Representation ID: 20151

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.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 20152

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Trinity College suggest that the establishment of the Pebsham Countryside Park in the emerging development strategy, including through development contributions, should be considered in terms of financially viability.

Suggested Change:

Box 10c environment criteria (i) to read:

The establishment of the Pebsham Countryside Park in line with its emerging development strategy, including through developer contributions, where appropriate and financially viable.

Support

Representation ID: 20163

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Urban Vison UK

Generally in support of improving housing, employment and transport in and around the Bexhill area.

Object

Representation ID: 20226

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraphs 6.26 to 6.38

It is considered that the contribution that the land at Breadsell Lane can make should be more explicit in these sections. The development of this land within Hastings Borough is explicit in their emerging LDF and this should be reflected in Box 10. Whilst options north-east of Bexhill, North of Bexhill and west of Bexhill are considered in paragraphs 6.32-6.38, opportunities associated with the north west Hastings fringe do not appear to be included in any obvious way. This needs to be more explicit in the Box and in its preamble.

Support

Representation ID: 20254

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

SEEDA supports the shared vision for Bexhill and Hastings to encourage people into work, to increase educational attainment and upskilling of the population in general and to provide appropriate and adequate employment space to secure a sustainable economic future.

Support

Representation ID: 20262

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

The Bexhill Hastings Link Road will hopefully encourage some traffic away from the town centre.

Support

Representation ID: 20284

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

SEEDA supports the preferred strategy for Bexhill to provide additional business and employment opportunities within the town as part of comprehensive mixed use developments and welcome the joint working approach to Employment and Land Strategy.

The RES identifies 9 priorities for the Coastal South East and considers that the preferred strategy for Bexhill town centre would go some way to achieving these targets.

Priorities 8 and 9 relate to the importance of improving skills and education attainment and therefore provide a new secondary school and vocational skills centre which complements Target 6 of the RES and provide support to college developments in Hastings.

Object

Representation ID: 20364

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Jack Seabrook

The Core Strategy for Bexhill should make it clear that its role is of a seaside residential town. This was decided by a resolution of the Council many years ago, following the collapse of the hotel industry and in order to plan realistically for the future. It may be tempting to think that the town could once again become a holiday resort or a conference centre and indeed the District Council have allocated long-term funds for possible hotel development. It is time to be realistic and state quite clearly in the Core Strategy that Bexhill is a seaside residential town and plan accordingly.