Box 11 - Preferred Strategy for Hastings Fringes

Object

Representation ID: 19104

Received: 01/01/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Wright

The planned developments on the fringes of Bexhill would destroy further areas of countryside and damage the environment. Once these rural areas are lost they can never be restored.
This area is already suffering the effects of over-population, and the infrastructure cannot sustainably cope with further increases, particularly with regard to water supplies, transport and waste disposal.

Object

Representation ID: 19225

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Preferred strategy for the Hastings fringes in Rother District.

Although there is more detail about the management of the Hastings urban fringes and in (iii) long-term countryside gaps between Hastings and Bexhill, Crowhurst, Battle and Fairlight are specified, the Hastings to Sedlescombe gap is not mentioned and some protection needs to be afforded to this gap.

Comment

Representation ID: 19347

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Sea Space

We welcome the potential for development at Breadsell Farm/ Wilting area and agree employment land should be included with development. We accept in 6.49 that development be associated with a new parkway station. However the amount of development proposed falls short required to support a station. Our understanding is that a maximum of 200 dwellings is assumed, half of which within Hastings Borough. We consider this unnecessarily cautious. We believe that some limited visual impact would be justifiable in order to achieve wider benefits. We do not accept that development would compromise the countryside park.

Object

Representation ID: 19348

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Sea Space

Whilst more feasibility work is required on the station proposal to demonstrate whether it can be converted into a deliverable proposal (and we would like to continue to work jointly with Rother and Hastings Councils on this), in our view, a larger scale of land release is essential to make the package work in planning terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 19361

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: Natural England

Agent: Natural England

Natural England is very concerned that pressure for additional expansion to the north-east of Bexhill would impact upon the role of the Pebsham Countryside Park providing a gap between Bexhill and Hastings. We strongly recommend that the draft Strategy set out Council's commitment to supporting the Park as a strategic gap between Bexhill and Hastings and that development will be constrained by the proposed park boundary.
We would welcome a commitment that the Council will work with relevant park authorities to ensure development pressure does not jeopardise the role of the park in providing a significant strategic gap between the two settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 19362

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: Natural England

Agent: Natural England

Natural England notes the proposal for development in the Wilting area, including the possibility of siting a new railway station. We have some concerns on the impact that this may have on both Marline Valley Woods, Coombe Haven SSSI, and the surrounding ancient woodland, particularly if the option is pursued to site the station to the north of Crowhurst Road.

Comment

Representation ID: 19367

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: Natural England

Agent: Natural England

Natural England commends the cross-boundary effort to create the Pebsham Countryside Park. The Park's strategic position between Bexhill and Hastings provides a significant opportunity to protect recreation and open space amenity in light of significant housing and employment growth in both settlements. There remains scope to emphasise biodiversity enhancement with the creation of the park. We would like to see a more explicit reference to and strategy for biodiversity enhancement in the objectives of creating the park. Natural England has concerns about the impact of recreational users to the immediate site and wider local area. Developer contributions could be made from development adjacent to the park.

Object

Representation ID: 19431

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Mrs. Lyons

Agent: Strutt & Parker

The Core Strategy sets out an aspiration to proactively manage the Hastings urban fringe areas. Consideration is given to 'only very limited development' within these areas; however the strategy should acknowledge that effective management is more likely to be delivered through support for some development in these areas. This should be in conjunction with delivery of wider landscape management to the enhancement of the wider urban fringe area. Development, in conjunction with comprehensive landscape management proposals, will deliver the urban fringe enhancement and long term management that the strategy seeks to promote. Failure to do this will provide little or no incentive to landowners within this area to deliver urban fringe enhancements.

Comment

Representation ID: 19481

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

The land between Ivyhouse Lane and Rock Lane mentioned on page 47, Box 11 a(ii) Preferred Strategy for the Hastings fringes in Rother district "joint working to develop multi-functional green spaces". The preservation of the essential nature of an ANOB is important. Exceptional circumstances that might cause this to change should be examined carefully. Hastings residents should continue to be able to enjoy the beautiful countryside that is currently within walking distance of their town.

Object

Representation ID: 19502

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

Section a(iii) should also include Pett, Guestling, Three Oaks and Westfield in relation to "maintaining long term and effective countryside gaps between Hastings...".

Object

Representation ID: 19503

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

Point c(iii) "give further consideration to only very limited development in the peripheral areas of Hastings...." raises concerns. Paragraph 6.58 Lead Agencies / Partners. There is no mention of any involvement from the Parish Councils on the Hastings Fringe, unlike in the Rural Areas where Parish Councils are listed. It would be expected that a democratic input should be welcome from all the Parishes regardless of their location.

Comment

Representation ID: 19588

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Reiterates the imporatance of maintaining strategic gap between Hastings/Crowhurst and Battle/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. It is also considered that the 500 houses planned for Battle will also likely erode that strategic gap.

Object

Representation ID: 19744

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: RSPB

Hastings Fringes
We realise that the housing allocation options in this area are limited, however we do not feel it is acceptable for direct land take from Marline Valley Woods or Combe Haven SSSI sites, as it seems to appear in your preferred strategy. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 states that "every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity". This is in addition to local authorities existing duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981 to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their function, to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs

Comment

Representation ID: 19832

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

Box 10 -Investment in the countryside needs to be quantified -the major investment in the Countryside Park to-date has been at the hand of landowners not the council.

(In the Link Road greenway proposals the cycle track ends at the Queensway!)

Comment

Representation ID: 19833

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

(a)(iii) is vital for the reasons already discussed (this relates to maintaining effective countryside gaps) in other reps.

No mention of water supply.

Why has Rother money been spent on publicising the fringe of Hastings development?

Support

Representation ID: 20025

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. A. Miskin

Agent: DMH Stallard

Support the preferred approach and consider that the development of land at Breadsell Farm would help achieve the provision of new community, health and recreation facilities in support of the proposed allocatio for residential, community and employment use.

Comment

Representation ID: 20075

Received: 12/01/2009

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

Paragraphs 6.42 and 6.47 to 6.50

Understood 200 dwellings proposed at Wilting Farm, 100 of which are in Hastings area, identified too small. 200 dwellings would not produce developer contributions to fund new station. Give further consideration to maximising developable area at Wilting in support of a new station. Target of 500 dwellings should be jointly investigated by the two councils. Landscape considerations would not necessarily preclude this. Not reasonable to make development of 200 dwellings at Wilting dependent on a new station. Site well related to urban areas. Capable of development in a sustainable way.

Object

Representation ID: 20157

Received: 01/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Concerns about the maintaining of the strategic gap between Battle, Bexhill and Hastings & St Leonards and possible increased risk of flooding, which is already an issue in Crowhurst. Another concern is the reference to a new station and what would happen to Crowhurst station. There appears to be much reference to the Link Road -what happens if the Link Road does not go ahead?

Support

Representation ID: 20228

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

(c) (ii)

The proposal to include land to the south of Battle Road for new housing development as part of a larger scheme within Hastings Borough is supported. It is suggested that the policy should also provide for a potential access to Battle Road and that new housing in this location should first be in association with land in this immediate area.

Comment

Representation ID: 20229

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

(c) (iii)

As drafted, it appears that (iii) could contradict the objectives in (i) and (ii). Paragraph (iii) needs to be revised so that it is clear that its objectives refer to proposals beyond those in (i) and (ii).

Support

Representation ID: 20255

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: 20263

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

The A21 Baldslow improvement will hopefully encourage some traffic away from the town centre. The Baldslow junction improvement is particularly important and urgent since heavy lorries currently find it difficult to negotiate the right turn off the A21 to gain access to Queensway. This junction improvement should therefore be given priority irrespective of the timetable for the link road.

Support

Representation ID: 20264

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

There would be a reduction in pressure on Battle Station, and therefore the related traffic and parking problems, if the additional stations referred to in the Strategy document materialise. That proposed for Wilting would be particularly advantageous since it would attract users from Hastings and Crowhurst who currently find the service from Battle more convenient than local stations.

Object

Representation ID: 20272

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

The Council is very concerned about the "Hastings fringes" proposals which, if carried through, would effectively create a new development area in Rother with all the potential for edging further towards Battle.

Object

Representation ID: 20314

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Object to part (c)(iii). The reference to "only very limited development" is imprecise and unduly restrictive. There is no indication of how "limited" such development would be.

Also object to any development being "primarily for employment purposes". The development opportunity we have identified is not suitable for employment purposes. It is much better suited to residential development. A substitute wording is suggested.

Object

Representation ID: 20400

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Development sites should be carefully assessed before allocation for development. Areas being suggested here will result in loss of greenfield land and could compromise the functioning of the area's ecological network. We are particularly concerned about land in the Marline Valley and Combe Haven Valley area and the SSSls in the vicinity, which are already under pressure from current development proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 20473

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

Guestling Parish includes a number of settlements in an ANOB (area of outstanding natural beauty) on the north and east boundary of Hastings. The wish is that these settlements retain their discrete rural nature and that the ANOB is protected from gradual urbanisation.