Box 13 - Preferred Strategy Direction for Battle
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19100
Received: 11/12/2008
Respondent: mr steve hill
1)New surgery needs to be kept north and west of the town centre
2)Lower Marley Lane floods badly and will be costly to develop
3)We need more than the planned <10 houses per year
4)Parking regulations need to be more strictly enforced, new provision should be around the railway station
5)New retail space should be in one large development
1) Any replacement for the Martins Oak surgery needs to be north/west of the town centre, to balance the provision in the south/east at the railway station. One possibility is next to the fire station, either where the ambulance crew houses are or on the site of the present youth centre, another is next to the primary school on the field already owned by ESCC. Another possibility is at the Watch Oak, which is a site earmarked as suitable for development.
2) If development for employment is contemplated around the junction of Marley Lane with the A21 it will be expensive. This area is already subject to flooding, which global warming and sea level rise will only exacerbate. Flood-proofing any development here will be very costly. It would be better to avoid development here and restrict it to extending the business park half way along Marley Lane.
3) Present plans call for housing development (beyond that already planned and committed) at a rate of less than ten per year for the next 15 years. This is insufficient to keep Battle a growing and vibrant town and should be at least doubled if not trebled. Battle seems to have an aging population and we need to encourage more young people into the town so that it has a future beyond the next generation, by which time many of the current residents will not be around to contribute to the economy.
4) Parking provision in the town is not actually too bad, but there are an awful lot of -especially elderly- people who don't want to walk too far from their cars. Tough. They should walk more; it would be better for their health and the planet's. These are the people who contribute to the congestion by parking on double yellow lines and then complain about the congestion they have caused. What is needed in Battle, at least in the first instance, is far more rigorous application of the present parking regulations so that people become accustomed to using the car parks. There is a frequently-repeated call for locals to park free; this is nonesense and must be resisted. Locals can walk into town; if they choose to use their cars they should be charged for the privilege. Any new provision must recognise the shape of the town and be placed somewhere near the railway station, both to balance provision and to keep commuter traffic from parking on the roads. Incidentally, why can there not be yellow lines around Glengorse, with parking by residents permits only?
5) There needs to be an expansion of retail space in Battle but this needs to be in one large unit, not several small ones. Small shops tend not to survive long here, in fact the newsagent is the only small shop that survives of those which were here when I arrived in Battle 20 years ago. Both Jempsons and the Co-op would be very difficult to develop, given the restrictions of their sites, so a single new unit is needed. The overflow section of Mount Street car park would be a good place to put a new supermarket, and the sloping site would make it easy to provide car parking beneath the store itself.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19108
Received: 09/01/2009
Respondent: Mrs Joan Goldsworthy
At the Battle meeting on 24th November I thought the BTC Chairman was too dismissive of the suggestion that more off street parking should be provided in the south east of the town. He suggested the out of town commuters clogging our residential roads did not add economic value to the town. Perhap not but the residents in those once pleasant roads do. Whatever the decision about new railway stations at Wiltings and/or Glyne Gap we need more parking in the area of Battle Station.
At the Battle meeting on 24th November I thought the BTC Chairman was too dismissive of the suggestion that more off street parking should be provided in the south east of the town. He suggested the out of town commuters clogging our residential roads did not add economic value to the town. Perhap not but the residents in those once pleasant roads do. Whatever the decision about new railway stations at Wiltings and/or Glyne Gap we need more parking in the area of Battle Station.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19176
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES
Under the Preferred Strategy Direction for Battle (f) Development and Housing section i) should say 'Providing for 920 additional dwellings in Battle over the Plan Period...' and Section iv) should include 'land to the south of North Trade Road, west of High Street', within its area of search for the reasons given in representation 19174
Under the Preferred Strategy Direction for Battle (f) Development and Housing section i) should say 'Providing for 920 additional dwellings in Battle over the Plan Period...' and Section iv) should include 'land to the south of North Trade Road, west of High Street', within its area of search for the reasons given in representation 19174
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19280
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Ian Dunlop
The Marley Lane "business park" is a farce.It is not a business park at all. It has meant the destruction of woodland to provide huge,ugly warehouses that provide no jobs,only bring in massive trucks that clog up the streets of Battle. No further "development" of this sort is required.
The Marley Lane "business park" is a farce.It is not a business park at all. It has meant the destruction of woodland to provide huge,ugly warehouses that provide no jobs,only bring in massive trucks that clog up the streets of Battle. No further "development" of this sort is required.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19281
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Ian Dunlop
500 extra houses in/near Battle will, with the grossly excessive Blackfriars estate, help to destroy further Battle's former tranquilty, add to the congestion, increase demand for "relief" roads, more water etc etc.This scale of building is destroying Batlle year on year.
500 extra houses in/near Battle will, with the grossly excessive Blackfriars estate, help to destroy further Battle's former tranquilty, add to the congestion, increase demand for "relief" roads, more water etc etc.This scale of building is destroying Batlle year on year.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19297
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Mr David Ashton
No justification for despoiling and upsetting the equilibrium of Battle with an "allocation" of new housing, just to meet a quota
I object to the core strategy in respect of the development and housing. I understand the general planning policy is that new development in the area of outstanding natural beauty is to be opposed, or at least subject to very careful scrutiny. I appreciate that strategy setting is different to considering individual planning applications, but I cannot see how the strategy can be so far at odds with planning guidelines. Battle is a distinct settlement in many senses, and I would deplore the "bridging of the development gap" between it and Hastings, which has a very different character. I also understand that housing demand in early 2009 is not indicative of "normal" conditions, but I wonder where the demand would come from, with little employment in directly in the town, and not very good transport links to elsewhere (like many others, I am a London commuter, and travel time has been been increasing in recent years).
The defining characteristics of Battle, for me, are historic significance, being unspoiled, and the straightforwardness of being an unpretentious small town with a loyal group of residents. Of course this sounds like nimby-ism, but in truth, there is no need or justification to take these qualities away from the people who live here
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19298
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Mr David Ashton
Don't take services out of Battle High Street - keep Martin's Oak surgery where it is
I would like to comment on the "vibrant and distinctive town centre" aspect of Battle - a desciption with which I agree, and which in major part must be due to the wide range of services that are available in a compact area - indeed within walking distance for many residents, including myself. This walking distance is important; it reduces short journeys by car, and that, in addition to environmental and health benefits, means that traffic congestion, although bad, is not as bad as it could be! I am a patient of the excellent Martins Oak doctor's surgery, and I believe that not only are their premises perfectly fit for purpose, but they also provide a lovely surrounding environment with their maintenance of the garden at the rear. I have not discussed this with the doctors, but I strongly believe that the surgery should stay where it is, in the high street, near the pharmacies & other shops (and indeed car parks, for those who cannnot walk)
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19310
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
As a Core Strategy document, this should indicate the broad development strategy for Battle with more detailed policies being set out in other DPD documents. As regards item f, while parts i- iii are appropriate, at the Core Strategy level there is no need to specify locations of 'peripheral expansion'. This should be considered and justified in for example, the Housings Allocations DPD and at this stage, there is no sound reason for prejudicing a more detailed study of potential sites and locations by listing areas of potential peripheral expansion in the Core Document Policy. Part (v) should therefore, be amended to refer to 'modest peripheral expansion' or similar.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19318
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
Part (II) is not required as this would be permitted by the settlement having an identified built up area boundary (which should be reviewed as part of the Housing DPD to permit small scale peripheral growth in addition to identified housing sites).
Part (III) should be retained as existing identified sites are part implemented.
Part (IV) while Battle has scope for peripheral expansion, in the Core Strategy this should be stated in broad terms without identifying 'areas of search'. This would otherwise prejudice a more detailed assessment and search at the Housing DPD allocations/built up area review stage and potentially prejudice suitable candidate sites outside the areas of search currently mentioned. For example, without a more detailed assessment there are no sound reasons for ruling out peripheral development in the Battle 'Section 2 and 3' areas identified in the Figure 2 of the Urban Options Background Paper.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19353
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Russell Calderwood
Additional dwellings in Battle will put extra pressure on the local schools, in terms of needing to enlarge. Also will create additional traffic movements to the detriment of existing traffic and pedestrians. This may lead to a requirement to change existing road layout of North Trade Road and generate need for bypass of Battle.
World Heritage status would enhance Battle's role as tourist attraction.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19590
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council
It is considered that the 500 houses planned for Battle will likely erode strategic gap.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19796
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Preferred strategy for Battle - Box 13
Para b:
It is requested that the text be adjusted to; a) follow the style set by Box 10; and,
b) make sure (iv) does not say that development contributions will be sought towards the costs of addressing existing infrastructure deficiencies, as follows
"(i) New Early Years facilities
(ii) Replacement of the Martins Oak surgery
(iii) Improving the provision of Open Space, Sport and Recreation facilities, as recommended in the Audit and Assessment
(iv) Improving facilities for pedestrian and cycle movements to services and facilities and for leisure and exercise from both existing and new developments.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19835
Received: 04/02/2009
Respondent: Crowhurst Society
Box 13 d(iii) - On what basis is the statement at' d' made. Surely SATURN has little to offer when it comes to predicting traffic changes on roads like that through Battle. The logic of a reduction resulting from the Link Road needs to be questioned.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19976
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Jeremy Field
Residential development: I believe that the proposed level of development over the period is reasonable and proportionate. Villages and small towns grouping of development into fewer larger sites is less harmful to the local environment. Piecemeal development in every available large garden or green space can have a seriously deleterious impact.
Martin's Oak Surgery: I understand that the Practice wishes to expand the range of its on-site services. if there is no way of doing this on the existing site any alternative site should be in very close proximity to retain the considerable advantages of its location.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19977
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Jeremy Field
Blackfriars Primary School: I believe that the apparent attractions in terms of reducing cross-town traffic are superficial.
Parking: Much of the problem arises from commuters from Bexhill and North Hastings/St Leonards driving to Battle and parking for free wherever they can. Parking on the High Street should be maintained to slow down traffic and protect pedestrians.
Tourism and Jobs: I would like to see much higher profile in the LDF for action to develop jobs and tourism.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19978
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Jeremy Field
Retail space: The suggestion that another 14,500 sq.ft of retail space is required in Battle is I believe inappropriate. Any new retail development that took business away from existing shops would be potentially very damaging. Any new unit large enough to provide for this market would seriously detract from the existing three shops. The best solution would be for either the existing Jempsons/Budgens unit, or possibly Tesco, to be allowed to expand on their existing site.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20032
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Robert Mears
It is essential to provide car parking at SE Battle.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20033
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. Robert Mears
It is essential to retain the green belt area between Battle and Hastings on the A2100.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20060
Received: 23/01/2009
Respondent: Battle Methodist Church
Paragraphs 7.33 and 10.41
Support provision of amenities at Blackfriars/Marley Lane area.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20061
Received: 23/01/2009
Respondent: Battle Methodist Church
Paragraphs 7.33 and 10.41
Propose replacement Methodist Church with hall/community facilities on Blackfriars primary school allocation site. Community use would be open during the week as a drop in for all ages and would be catalyst for the development of community life and provide community support in partnership with other agencies. Hall to seat 100 (possibly with sealed off sanctuary area), kitchen, toilets, storage and small rooms. Disabled access and car parking for 20+ vehicles. Requires 1/2 acre as part of integrated plan for whole site which would also include Early Years facilities.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20064
Received: 21/01/2009
Respondent: Mr PETER VENN
Medical Care - Martins Oak Surgery should not be moved. Cars may need to be used at any new location.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20065
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Musgrave Budgens Londis
Agent: GR Planning Consultancy Ltd.
Paragraph 7.40 and Box 13(e)(ii)
Object to 1,000sq.m. net of convenience (food) floorspace and policy not going further in confirming that this need can and should be met through the expansion of existing foodstore. Consider potential for at least 1,394sq.m net. No other potential sites. Expasnion of existing store is sustainable. Would increase footfall and linked trips within the centre and give it 'critical mass' to compete with larger foodstores elsewhere. Contrary to PPS6. Request wording 'subject to detailed site assessments' is deleted. Replace by a commitment to accommodating the projected need within the Market Place and through expansion of the store.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20070
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. J. Harmer
Paragraphs 7.14 to 7.16
The strategy ignores stated attributes and constraints. Battle should be treated as a special case. 82% of District within AONB, therefore further major development should be kept outside of it. Such development must be in Bexhill. This is more than enough, especially as no new primary school has been agreed and further development should be conditional upon this. Battle has a higher proportion of children (17.7%) compared with Rother District in general (15%) and this is likely to go higher with more affordable housing included.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20071
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. J. Harmer
Good that Battle strategy recognises need to minimise cross-town traffic flows.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20073
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. J. Harmer
Not helped by more housing on east side and both schools on west side. Development will lead to more traffic congestion unless better public transort and concerted action to divert through traffic away from High Street. Replacement surgery should be within easy walking distance of present location. Provision of improved access to rail station, additional parking on south east side of town and road junction improvements welcomed, but are needed for development already approved. At times the existing car parks are under-used because of the high charges.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20084
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright
Agent: Batcheller Thacker
7.20-Box 13: Through public consultation it is understood there has been more support registered for para 7.19(1) ie land to the south of North Trade Road, west of High Street and north of 'Battlefield'. Development in this sector is strongly supported. Reference has been made to a recent completed housing development nearby - that scheme has not suddenly become unsustainable because Sectors 4 and 5 are presently identified as preferred locations for future development. Development within Section 1 also provides an opportunity for mixed use, community related development, possibly linked to the nearby college.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20085
Received: 29/01/2009
Respondent: Messrs. F. Mitchell and Cartwright
Agent: Batcheller Thacker
A wider point is that if, as a result of the LDF process, Battle is to have an enhanced role within the spatial plan, land in addition to that identified in Sectors 4 and 5 should be taken into account.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20124
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Highways Agency
Sections (d) Accessibility, point (iv) and (e) Town Centre point (i) make reference to the provision of additional off-street parking in and around Battle.
The HA have concerns that this provision of additional car parking conflicts with the Transport and Accessibility chapter's objectives - "increase the potential for travel by more sustainable modes" - and (b) Local Accessibility and sustainable Travel Patterns of the preferred strategy.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20172
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Cllr. Kathryn Field
To move the surgery has the potential to be detrimental to business and to increase traffic congestion which is contrary to objective (iii). Congestion would also be encouraged with the building of an extra 1,000 square metres of convenience shopping although the town could support the extension of the current largest supermarket.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 20195
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: GR Planning Consultancy Ltd.
For Battle, the provision of 1,000 sq.m. net of convenience floorspace should be directed towards the expansion and enhancement of the Market Place Budgens/Jempsons foodstore.