7. Battle
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19118
Received: 22/01/2009
Respondent: Mr Hugh Arbuthnott
More detailed attention and imagination need to be paid to the issue of traffic congestion.
7.35-7.37. Study of a by-pass route should be undertaken. Park and ride. Battery-powered buses.
Downgrade A271 and A2100 to B roads. Weight limits on lorries transiting Battle. No parking on High Street except for commercial vehicles. I object to extra parking in town Centre and at Abbey (= more congestion). No mention of effects of traffic pollution on climate change or on health caused by heavy traffic.
Swimming pool needed. I object to Old Mill site for children's play-ground.
I note from para 4.9 that, according to the South East Plan "the single most critical issue that has emerged throughout the Plan's preparation is the inadequacy of infrastructure provision to keep pace with new development. The legacy of past underinvestment in the region not only has an adverse impact on the economic performance of the region, but increases environmental impacts and reduces quality of life".
In spite of this statement and the reference in 7.4 to the key issue of traffic congestion and in spite of the aims and objectives set out in 7.5 (i) to (iv), all of which are linked directly or indirectly to the question of Transport and Car Parking, the document only devotes 3 paragraphs to the subject.
7.18 I can't see the inhabitants of Blackfriars walking to Budgen's for their shopping. See below for suggestion of a park and ride at Blackfriars with battery-powered buses.
7.35 to 7.37. There are references to car parking and transport elsewhere in the document e.g.box 13 (d) but the recommendations are so general as to mean very little, while the sections on housing, employment and retail go into considerable detail. In fact, almost all of the strategy must depend on finding a solution to the traffic problem; how else are we going to be able to reconcile enhanced commercial and tourism attractiveness with increased housing growth? Or maintain the town's physical identity and key characteristics which contribute to the AONB? My own suggested improvements are as follows:
7.35 The strategy covers a period of 18 years. This is a long way ahead. It is therefore putting our heads in the sand to dismiss the idea of a by-pass or other radical solutions and rely entirely on the Bexhill-Hasting Link Road and A21 improvements to reduce the amount of traffic. The document does not say how to utilise the "reduction in traffic resulting from the Link road to reduce congestion" (Box 13 (d) (iii)). Nor does the document have any suggestions about the traffic if the Link does not have the desired effect. It would surely be prudent at least to recommend the identification of a by-pass route which would cause the least environmental damage. And until we see if the Link does reduce traffic, it cannot be right to build new houses even on the scale proposed.
7.36 It is right to improve accessibility by alternatives to the car. We can surely foresee the arrival of battery-powered small local buses within the next 18 years (I have already seen them used at tourist sites in India) and one answer to car-parking is to provide park and ride at each end of the town. On the west side of the town, one might be near the pub (The Squirrel Inn) by the junction of the B2096 and the A271 or by the Solar Research centre which has sprung up in the AONB (I assume) at the junction of the A271 and the B2204. A parking place north of the North Trade road and west of London Road (A2100) would not need to be park and ride and would not be too central. Another park and ride might be on the south east - the Breadsell Farm area? Blackfriars? Near the business parks in Marley Lane? Park and ride parks could be for visitors while Mount Street might be reserved for residents of Battle CP.
7.37 only recommends that there should be more car-parking in Battle whereas surely what we should be trying to achieve is fewer cars in Battle, not only to reduce congestion but also pollution; there is no mention of the unhealthy effects of pollution by the present heavy traffic in a narrow street nor its contribution to climate change.( I note 3.2 which says Integral to this [the need to provide the best possible quality of life] must be a greater awareness of, and a sharper response to, global warming and climate change. I therefore object to the suggestion there should be additional provision for car and coach parking in the Town Centre and at Battle Abbey (Box 13 (e) (i) )
The strategy document should recommend that heavy lorries should be discouraged from transiting Battle; that the A271 and the A2100 should be downgraded to B roads and there should be weight restrictions on lorries coming through Battle. If the forecasts are correct and the the Bexhill/Hastings link road and the A21 improvements do actually provide a good alternative to transiting Battle, this should cause no problems.
The width of Battle High Street should be restricted further to provide more room for pedestrians and to discourage heavy lorries (apart from deliveries). There should be no parking for private cars but only for commercial vehicles with business in the High Street for limited periods (eg half an hour). Battle CP residents would use Mount Street car park where there should be more places reserved for blue badge holders; or park and ride.
7.38 The strategy document considers the longer term. There seems no reason therefore why there should not be positive support in the document for a swimming pool in Battle. I object to the idea of using the field around the Old Mill in north Battle for a children's playing area because it has just been made into a wild flower meadow.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19175
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES
i) The environmental constraints at Battle are not as great as suggested
ii) Battle should provide 920 dwellings, sufficient to meet its locally generated need
iii) Sites in sector 1 should be considered as these are closer to the existing schools which will encourage walking to school and thus cause less additional congestion than those located in sectors 4 and 5
iv) Development located to the south west of the town in association with improvements to footpath 82 would provide improved walking access to the school and town centre
Paragraph 5.59 says that the degree of growth proposed for Battle under Option 2 is moderated due to environmental constraints.
However, we consider that the constraints are not as great as suggested and that the town has the capacity for further residential growth without significant detriment to the environment.
In particular we contend that Battle is able to accommodate the 920 dwellings identified in Option 5 of paragraph 5.36 and which the Council acknowledges is the level that is required to meet the housing needs in the town.
We do not agree that the environmental constraints at Battle are so severe that the town should not make provision to meet its locally generated need.
Appropriately located development could be accommodated without having a detrimental effect on the environment.
Paragraph 7.19 identifies 5 sectors within Battle which the Council is considering with a view to accommodating additional development.
Sectors 4 & 5 to the south and east are considered in Paragraph 7.20 (subject to further investigation) to offer the most potential for development in the longer term.
We do not support this view.
As the Council notes sector 5 encroaches on land that is in the strategic gap between Hastings and Battle.
We contend that sector 1 should be seriously considered for some of the required housing development for the following reasons:
Battle's existing primary school, which the County has committed to expand, and Battles secondary school are both located within sector 1.
Developments in sectors 4 or 5 (see fig 2 Urban Options background paper)would generate cross town movements associated with trips to and from the Battle's primary and secondary schools.
Development in sector 1 would generate cross town movements associated with commuter trips to and from the station.
Station bound commuter trips from development to the west of the town are likely to cause less overall traffic congestion as these generally leave and return outside of travel to school time when traffic congestion is at its highest.
Locating development in sector 1 makes walking to and from school a real possibility.
Sites within this sector are also potentially within walking distance of the town centre via public footpath 82.
This footpath could be resurfaced and radically improved utilising developer contributions.
Thus development associated with a footpath improvement would have the added benefit of potentially increasing access to the town centre on foot and reducing car journeys of some existing residents.
In summary we submit that:
i) The environmental constraints at Battle are not as great as suggested
ii) Battle should provide 920 dwellings, sufficient to meet its locally generated need
iii) Sites in sector 1 should be considered as these are closer to the existing schools which will encourage walking to school thus cause less additional congestion than those located in sectors 4 and 5
iv) Development located to the south west of the town in association with improvements to footpath ... would provide improved walking access to the school and town centre
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19781
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Infrastructure
Para 7.43 - bullet point implies that a new primary school is required, this should be amended as this conflicts with the first sentence of para 7.33.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19782
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Implementation
Para. 7.44 - One of the tools listed to implement the strategy is "The use of Planning Obligations". In order to be consistent throughout the document, this should be amended to: "The use of planning obligations such as the requirement for development contributions".
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19808
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Battle
The area east of Powdermill Lane is very sensitive and part of the strategic gap in the local plan; this needs careful consideration and further detailed study. It is within the AONB and close to the registered battle ground. Similarly the area to the north east of Battle would require further study as the topography and visual sensitivity of these areas will be a constraint to development in the AONB.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19834
Received: 04/02/2009
Respondent: Crowhurst Society
7.19 Sector 5 development at Wilting will have a deleterious effect on Crowhurst.. Rother needs to oppose this area of development.
7.26 How exactly is this to be achieved without grid lock in Battle itself
7.39 Much more effort needs to be placed in making Battle the centre of 1066 historical Tourism. A copy of the Bayeux Tapestry, more re-enactments, study days, guided battlefield tours, Battle of Hastings Annual Dinner in Battle Abbey.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19893
Received: 01/12/2008
Respondent: Battle Deli
Sections 7.30 to 7.31 seem to be focused on supermarkets as a source of floorspace for the sale of foodstuffs. This is an unjust distortion of the actual picture.
Many small shops retail specialist food products that cannot be purchased in supermarkets. A blanket assumption that food can only be purchased in large shops with national branding is wholly misguided.
The supermarket appears to be seen as "good" at the expense of the smaller retailer who at best is seen as "irrelevant". I would like to see an acknowledgement in the strategy that supermarkets are not the only place one can purchase food and that smaller food retailers make a vital contribution to the town. Battle is exactly the type of English country town where such shops would be expected.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19932
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Robert Emeleus
I applaud the lack of intention to develop the countryside on The Abbey and Little Park farm areas of the town.The affordable housing issue for first time buyers, whatever the agreed percentage of dwellings, I see as a problem.At Battle and Langton School access between the school and the adjacent bungalow for vehicles to the amenity field parking could be achieved. Commercial Trading should, as far as possible, be retained in the traditional town centre.The future emphasis must be as a Tourist Town, but other shops and essential services are vital.The need for extra grocery store footage is debatable as I feel that Jempsons/Budgens Store is underused.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19933
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Robert Emeleus
The 'free'; extension to Mount Street Car park could be increased and possibly the Park Lane approach to the George Meadow could be widened, and a portion of the field beyond the cricket ground be made available.If Battle is to increase as a tourist attraction, then coach parking is significant. I don't think the proposed mini-roundabout at Station Approach will alleviate passage of traffic in Station Road if parking remains the same. Expansion of the industrial site at the lower end of Marley lane, with main road access off the A21, deserves full support. Desire that the open spaces and environmental quality are allowed to remain.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19936
Received: 09/12/2008
Respondent: Mrs. A. Trott
Object to the development of the Blackfriars site and the proposal to make off-street parking on the south east side of the town. The number of proposed new homes (450-500) is far too large for the town. To the north of the area is a flood plain. If some are built then the developers should supply a school building. More traffic transit at peak times would be unacceptable. The plan to make parking available to the south east of the town is unnecessary. Most people access the town from the west. That is where more parking should be made available.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19937
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Battle & District Probus Club
Traffic volumes. A long term future aim should be the pedestrianisation of Battle High Street to preserve its historic features.
Traffic Management. There is an urgent need for car parking to be made available to the south east of the town. This would reduce cross-town traffic. Other traffic management proposals would improve the traffic situation including an extension to the Station Car Park, and free car parking.
Proposed housing development. The appropriate infrastructure should be in place before any extra housing development is contemplated. A 25% increase in housing in the town would radically alter its character.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19938
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Battle & District Probus Club
Martins Oak Doctors Surgery. There is a considerable amount of opposition to the replacement of the surgery, as pateints are very satisfied with its location and the service received.
A view has been expressed that a new hall to replace Battle Memorial Hall is required.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19941
Received: 20/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Simon Alexander
Generate a much closer relationship with English Heritage.
Properly plan the environment and infrastructure surrounding the three schools in Battle
Properly plan for visitors who arrive by car by arranging suitable parking areas.
Properly plan new roads and new road designations, with the Baldslow Down project taking top priority.
Restrict new house building to what Battle can safely absorb whilst retaining its unique character, and resist at all costs building on the green belt south of Telham.
Develop sensible public transport to tie in with the railway.
Develop the linear strip from Station Approach to Marley Lane, and the light industrial sites in Marley Lane ... both these to increase employment potential.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19942
Received: 20/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Simon Alexander
Change certain key road designations.
No development of the Tesco site on Battle Hill as a grocery store.
Give serious consideration to providing adequate recreational facilities.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20066
Received: 21/01/2009
Respondent: Mr PETER VENN
Retail -
7.31 - The idea of increasing the amount of sales retained in the Town is very commendable but the proposals put forward are totally unrealistic.
7.32 - Superstore shoppers will not pay to park in Battle to shop locally.
The main reasons local and visitors shop in Battle is because of its character and shops which are not large multiples. A supermarket would destroy the character and existing businesses.
Retail and Parking -
The quickest and easiest way of increasing trade in Battle is by providing better and free car parking. Battle has very limited free on street parking.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20068
Received: 21/01/2009
Respondent: Mr PETER VENN
Housing -
17.14/15-The provision for approximately 500 units in the period 2008-2026 should I feel be taken as a minimum level and not what appears to be a maximum.
17.18-The strategy statement 'To discourage the use of the motorcar, locations within walking distance of the centre are favoured' I feel is quite correct and should be one of the most important criteria for the identification of new residential development. The Blackfriars development will place a stress on the town but contribute very little.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20069
Received: 21/01/2009
Respondent: Mr PETER VENN
17.19 - 4 & 5 - of the sectors proposed, 4 and 5 are considerably outside a 'walkability' zone. Sector 2 and more specifically the area west of London Road and north of Netherfield Road is a sizeable area of available land that is within 1 km of the centre.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20086
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright
Agent: Batcheller Thacker
Key diagram - Battle merits an inset diagram.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20092
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. R.T. Caine
Agent: Batcheller Thacker
Para 7.11 - Option 2 - continued development to support Battle's role.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20093
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. R.T. Caine
Agent: Batcheller Thacker
Key diagram: Object to the omission of an inset diagram for Battle.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20125
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Highways Agency
Paragraph 7.42
As the Marley Lane/A21 Junction is mentioned in paragraph 7.42, we would suggest adding the Highways Agency to the Accessibility line of the 'Lead Agencies/Partners Table' at paragraph 7.44.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20128
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Highways Agency
Paragraphs 13.17 to 13.19
The HA would like to recommend that a specific reference to the HBLATS joint working is included in the Core Strategy. It will provide further evidence that specifif mechanisms are in place to deliver the Transport and Accessibility Strategy and demonstrate the joint working that is occurring between Rother District Council, Hastings Borough Council and East Sussex County Council.
As the HBLATS work enters its final stages the HA wishes to remain involved in its development, through to its completion, to ensure it provides the basis for a robust Evaluation of Transport Impacts (ETI).
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20173
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field
The document refers to the high number of people who are dissatisfied with the parking provision but fails to say which aspects are unsatisfactory. It is difficult to see where a new car park to the south east could be situated to be close enough to the centre to be useful without damaging one of the "key characteristics" of the town; the green space close to the centre. Any discussion of transport and reducing congestion and car based travel should include more than the passing reference to cycle tracks in 7.42.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20174
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field
The reference to implementing improvements to the provision of Open Space, Sport & Recreation facilities is to be welcomed particularly in view of the need for an indoor swimming pool in the town. An option for siting any new facilities should be the Blackfriars site.
Any plans, proposals or policies which are damaging and to the detriment of this unique town -its setting, historical role, built and natural environment -should be resisted .
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20180
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field
It is by no means certain that 500 new homes with no promised infrastructure improvements can be supported. It is not enough to say in 7.42 that "Other requirements for infrastructure will be understood as investigative site-based work is completed".
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20181
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field
A high proportion of joint ownership dwellings. The impact on the town of 245 new homes at Blackfriars should be assessed before commitments are made to 255 more.
As a last resort building in the west of the town would be slightly more acceptable providing that the integrity of the Recreation Ground is maintained and that views into the countryside, and essential features of the town, are not compromised.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20186
Received: 21/01/2009
Respondent: The National Trust
The National Trust supports the environmental elements of this strategy and in particular the preservation of the historic character and landscape setting of the town.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20187
Received: 21/01/2009
Respondent: The National Trust
We do not support the element of the strategy which involves potential residential development on the periphery of the town particularly south of the A2100, east of the historic battlefield. We believe that it is unsustainable to consider this greenfield area for development as it lies outside the defined boundary of the urban area, within the AONB and adjacent to the Battle Conservation Area. There are no obvious boundary features in this area to provide limits to development so that the proposal could also lead to a gradual erosion of the defined Strategic Gap.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20204
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block
Agent: Batcheller Thacker
Para 7.11: Option 2 - continued development to support Battle's role.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20220
Received: 03/02/2009
Respondent: Jempson's Superstore
The document sets out in 7.31 regarding a retail study concluding an additional convenience goods floorspace required for Battle of 1000 sq.m. Whilst Jempsons has never wished to stifle competition within the food sector the suggestion in 7.32 looking at new supermarket development is to us unacceptable. We would ask for consideration to given for the inclusion of planning priorities to develop the Market Place, Battle to a much more vibrant and commercially attractive area.