7. Battle

Object

Representation ID: 20221

Received: 03/02/2009

Respondent: Jempson's Superstore

This is being pursued by the Jempsons Group but the complete redevelopment of the Market Place and including the Council owned Car Park is essential to provide a successful retail centre within the town boundary which would in turn extend the shopping area/street of the town whilst remaining sympathetic to the character of the historic core.

Object

Representation ID: 20237

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.44 - Chamber representation: In clause 7.44 the lead agencies with whom the Council propose to work are listed. Battle Chamber of Commerce is not included. We believe this must be an administrative oversight on the part of GL Hearn. Please include the Chamber as a lead agency under the headings of 'The Economy', 'Town Centre', 'Development and Housing'.

Comment

Representation ID: 20256

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Local Action Plan Steering Group

The area of land at the Blackfriars site, formerly earmarked for a new primary school, should be ring-fenced for community purposes i.e. possible community hall/church, swimming pool, general recreational purposes.

Comment

Representation ID: 20259

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Local Action Plan Steering Group

The preservation of the rural and historic character of the town.

Support

Representation ID: 20265

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

The Council strongly supports these strategic infrastructure projects and would wish to see them in place before any further development in Battle is even considered.

Support

Representation ID: 20266

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

The Council strongly supports these strategic infrastructure projects and would wish to see them in place before any further development in Battle is even considered.

Object

Representation ID: 20267

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Housing Development: Agree that if it is to continue to thrive some change is necessary. It does not accept however that one of the necessary ingredients to achieve this is growth in terms of new housing allocations. It may be a requirement of Government that additional allocations are identified across the District but accommodating this requirement is very different from arguing that additional housing is needed.
Question the appropriateness of basing new allocations on the town's service role. Argue that there is an equally strong case to be made for adopting either the population or trend based option.

Object

Representation ID: 20268

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Housing development cont: Fundamentally however we believe that the circumstances of the town should be looked at on their merits rather than development allocations being based on a formula. We totally fail to see how continuing development will enhance the commercial and tourism attractiveness of the town. Indeed it is more likely to be true that the exacerbation of the current problems could slowly strangle the town. The fact that it will include 40% affordable housing suggests to us that the additional pressure on social services, schools and similar facilities may not have been fully recognised in the consultation document.

Object

Representation ID: 20269

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Housing Development cont: However and reluctant as the Council are to even concede the option of additional development, if this is imposed we would make the following points. Firstly no new development should take place until the Blackfriars scheme has been completed and assessed. Secondly the Council would be strongly opposed to any infringement of the Battle/Hastings strategic gap. This comment applies as much to the proposal for the Breadsell Farm area as it does to the land "south of Hastings Road and east of the historic battlefield" referred to in para 7.19 of your consultation document.

Object

Representation ID: 20270

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Housing development cont: The statements made in para 7.20 overstate the transport/highway benefits of further building on the south side of town, particularly in view of the County Council's decision not to provide a new primary school in this area. These benefits would be even more questionable if the fire/ambulance station site is redeveloped and the enhanced convenience floor-space is at the western end of the town.

Object

Representation ID: 20271

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Housing development cont: If new development is to be considered, our preference is therefore for sectors 1 and 2 to be the main areas for further consideration but that this should be in the form of infillings or small extensions to existing built up areas rather than any large, single development.

Comment

Representation ID: 20277

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Whilst on the subject of the location of community facilities, there is an area of land at the Blackfriars site, formerly earmarked for a new primary school, which Rother District Council has agreed to hold reserved for Community facilities. We would like to see that use of the land recognised and formalised in the LDF.

Object

Representation ID: 20315

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

We object to the 'area of search'. This precludes development to the north of the town on land that could be entirely suitable for this purpose.

Support

Representation ID: 20316

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

We support "continued development to support the town's role".

Comment

Representation ID: 20317

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

However, Battle must also be allowed to foster economic vitality from within, and provide the housing for its growing population.

Object

Representation ID: 20318

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

We object to the conclusion that sectors 4 and 5 offer most potential for development on the periphery of the town. sector 4 is already largely committed for development.

Sector 5 falls within the Strategic Gap. Lillybank Farm would be suitable for a modest extension to the town. It is nearer to the town centre than the Sector 5 land in the Strategic Gap.

Object

Representation ID: 20320

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Janet Bond

Mr Paul Bond - Re 7.10: I support option 1. Within the Battle development boundary there are areas of land in which 1-4 dwellings could be built, causing minimal impact to the surrounding areas. However, due to the Council's criteria of 'No Back Land Development' these areas of land have not been utilised. If this criteria was removed as one of the main reasons for planning refusal, then there would be no reason to start digging up vast areas of green belt to build large estates.

Object

Representation ID: 20321

Received: 02/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Coward

We strongly object to the core strategy on housing for Battle - 245 houses on Blackfriars and Highland Farm; this being a green field site in an AONB. Battle is the jewel in the crown for Rother - any further development in Battle will destroy the market town of Battle and historic area.

Object

Representation ID: 20322

Received: 02/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Coward

Object to proposal in the strategy to build a further 450-500 houses.

Object

Representation ID: 20325

Received: 02/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Coward

Section 7 - Infrastructure - Currently doctors and school are at full capacity - how will they manage with this increase in population!

Support

Representation ID: 20502

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 7.11. Option 2 - continued development to support Battle's role.

Object

Representation ID: 20507

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 7.20: Object to the ruling out of a discrete part of sector 3 , to the west of Fullers Farm. Suggest that this a more appropriate location than other areas falling within preferred sectors 4 and 5. Concern expressed that more detailed investigative work will be limited to sectors 4 and 5. Need for some housing land to the north and west, particularly for those whose journey to work takes them north.