Box 12 - Battle Aim and Objectives

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19099

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: mr steve hill

Representation Summary:

Don't waste time on swimming pools; build a new primary school south and east of the town; see the bottle-neck of the High Street as an opportunity not a difficulty.

Full text:

There is a repeated call for a swimming pool in Battle; please ignore these calls. It takes a population of approximately 50,000 to make a pool economically viable and I have no wish to see Battle grow to that size.

You correctly identify the 'dumb-bell' shape of Battle as a constraint on growth. One way to ease this constraint is to accept it and locate new developments on both sides of the 'neck' of the High Street. So rather than extending Battle and Langton School, which is already too large, a new school needs to be developed east of the centre, either on Blackfriars or at Starrs Meade. The government has decided that all four year olds should be in school; growing Battle and Langton to meet the population implications of the plan means a school of 650 to 700 pupils; what parent would willingly put their four year old child into a school of 700? Small children need small schools, as all the educational evidence shows.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20171

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field

Representation Summary:

It is not clear whether "enhancing attractiveness" refers merely to the look of the town which is, to a large extent, outside the control of the District Council or its facilities in general. In the case of provision of facilities the policies and proposals outlined later in the document should not conflict with this general objective.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20175

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field

Representation Summary:

The green space in and close to the edges of the Conservation Area are an important "key characteristic" of the town.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20176

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field

Representation Summary:

Support the objective to improve congestion and accessibility, especially by non-car modes.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20177

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field

Representation Summary:

Maintaining the Town's identity is to be welcomed and any breach of the strategic green gap between Battle and Hastings should be opposed.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20178

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field

Representation Summary:

Increased opportunities for local employment is to be welcomed but not at any cost.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20179

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field

Representation Summary:

Improving the level of community and sports/ recreation facilities is to be welcomed.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20260

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Representation Summary:

Box 12: Aims & Objectives - In the most general of terms the Council welcomes the aims and objectives of the strategy insofar as they apply to Battle, but does not believe that an option which would see "continued development to support the town's role" is consistent with those aims and objectives, even with the caveat that such an option would need "careful implementation". Throughout the discussions about what is now the adopted Local Plan and in response to the Preferred Policy Directions consultation on the LDF, the Council has emphasised that there are underlying problems to which solutions must be found before further new development can be contemplated.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20261

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Representation Summary:

Box 12 cont: The pending approval of the Blackfriars project makes it all the more important to address these issues and the Council does not believe that, as written, the Core Strategy consultation document presents a coherent response, particularly in terms of the sequence of events.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20285

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

Representation Summary:

SEEDA welcomes the core strategy identifying the economic importance of tourism to the local economy and the importance of encouraging and supporting innovation and entrepreneurial activity. Priority 1 for the Rural South East is to 'invest in the economic viability of villages and market towns'. We thus support the overall objective to raise profile of Battle which complements Target 5 of the RES, to increase the business stock in the region.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20403

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

We would like to see the natural environment mentioned in the aims objectives beyond the setting of the town in the AONB.