Box 13 - Preferred Strategy Direction for Battle

Object

Representation ID: 20205

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 7.20, box 13: The plan obtained from the Council shows Battle divided into what appear to be five sectors, plus one referred to as 'Battlefield'. Sector 3 is described in the written statement as land to the east to the A2100 and west of Little Park Farm. The Council's plan does not annotate the areas lying to the east of the area expressly marked 3. For the purposes of this response, reading the plan clockwise, Section 3 is subdivided into 3a, 3b and 3c.

Object

Representation ID: 20206

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 7.20 cont: Whilst my client owns the majority of areas 3b and 3c, in his SHLAA representation he only revealed land within 3a, to the west of Fullers Farm. Objection is made to para 7.20 of the draft strategy because it is considered this parcel would be a logical extension of the existing built up area. Sector 3 appears to have been ruled out in principle as a potential development area within the plan. This parcel would appear to be a more appropriate location for possible development than others falling within preferred Sectors 4 and 5.

Object

Representation ID: 20207

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 7.20 cont: I note however that whether Sectors 4 and 5 are taken forward, they will be subject to further investigations, although it is not clear whether that further work will be limited to the sectors themselves, or whether it will range more widely. Given the somewhat uncertain footing upon which the whole plan is based, sites within Sector 3 should not be ruled out as potential development areas.

Object

Representation ID: 20208

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Para 7.20 cont: Whilst the advantages of developing land to the south east of Battle are appreciated, with access to the station and relatively easy access to Hastings that avoids the Battle town centre, some provision for development should be made to the north and west of the town, particularly for those whose journey to work takes them north (given the relatively limited house building opportunities provided for within the rural areas over the plan period).

Comment

Representation ID: 20231

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(ii) - Proposed provision of new supermarket: Chamber members consider that the provision of additional food retail space at the Jempson's site in Market Square would be good and that this is the only possibility of providing increased food retail area within the curtilage of the town. Any further retail, however, should go hand-in-hand with more parking provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 20232

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(ii) - Proposed provision of new supermarket cont: The provision of a totally new 1,000 sq.m. supermarket either at the existing Tesco Express site to the south of the town or any other location not within the town's curtilage would be a disaster for the existing retail outlets of all types and would threaten the very nature of the market town. An expanded retail area at the Tesco Express site would also result in considerable traffic hazard at the road junction.

Comment

Representation ID: 20233

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(ii) - Proposed provision of new supermarket: Rother's attention is drawn to Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres published 2005, clauses 3.21, 22 and 23. The Chamber considers this to be very pertinent to the proposal for a new supermarket adjacent Battle town centre. An example of another market town where a supermarket has been located on the edge of the existing town centre, with consequent disastrous results for the town centre itself, is Edenbridge.

Object

Representation ID: 20234

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(b)(ii) - Proposed relocation of Martin's Oak Surgery: Chamber members also considered that the recommendation to replace the Martins Oak surgery to be totally misguided. The current facilities are ideally placed for use by local residents, particularly young families accessing the local schools and the elderly living in assisted accommodation throughout the town. Its location also adds to the economic life of the town as users of the surgery typically use the High Street shops at the same time as visiting the surgery. A new building out of the town centre would be much less accessible and would weaken the economic viability of the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 20235

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(a)(i) - Tourism: This clause concludes that sustainable tourism should be achieved by maintaining and where possible raising the tourism profile of Battle. The Chamber members consider that the current TIC is inadequate and must be made to be far more proactive in supporting and promoting the town and district as a whole.

Comment

Representation ID: 20236

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(i) - Parking: Chamber members consider parking provision must be a key priority in improving the economic life of the town. Sufficient free parking provision was also considered important.

Object

Representation ID: 20240

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Box 13 (c)(iii)

Given the weight of other countryside protection policies the need for a strategic gap is questioned as a matter of principle.

Notwithstanding this, any strategic gap designation between Battle and Hastings needs to reflect new housing and access proposals at the fringe of Hastings. It is considered that any such designation must avoid prejudicing the strategy of the two planning authorities to provide for and deliver future housing and other development in this location.

Box 13 needs to be amended so that the allocation at NW Hastings is not compromised by such designation.

Comment

Representation ID: 20258

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Local Action Plan Steering Group

The preservation of the strategic gap between Battle and Hastings in particular, but also in respect of the boundaries of Battle as a whole.

Object

Representation ID: 20274

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Box 13d: Traffic Flows & Car Parking - The origin of these journeys, however, is critical in determining where any new car parking facility should be located and our belief is that the south east side of the town centre would be the wrong choice. The current parking problems in that area are more associated with the use of the railway station than general visitors to the town. Those problems would diminish through a combination of the proposed new station at Wilting and expanded car parking provision at the station itself.

Object

Representation ID: 20275

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Box 13d cont: Surveys suggest that less tourist visitors to the town originate from the south than other directions and the majority of those from outlying areas using the town's 'service centre' facilities also arrive from those directions via North Trade Road, London Road, Marley Lane and Powdermill Lane. The pressure on the town centre will therefore continue and the choice of location for additional off-street car parking should reflect that. We believe that this would be consistent with the key strategy aim "to deliver measures that minimise the demand for cross town vehicular traffic". It is unfortunate, of course, that the approval of the Blackfriars development has already compromised this objective.

Comment

Representation ID: 20276

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Box 13b: Location of esssential facilities - In order to achieve a reduction in traffic it is also necessary to ensure that enhanced facilities within the town are easily accessible on foot. The proposed relocation of the Martins Oak surgery must satisfy this criterion if the experience of Rye in relocating a town centre practice is not to be repeated. In the absence of any significant vacant spaces within the town centre the Council therefore believes a careful assessment needs to be made of the services which must remain in the town centre and those which could be relocated thus releasing land for other facilities..

Comment

Representation ID: 20278

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Box 13e: Retail floor space - Core Strategy proposal for increased retail floor space. As with other services, the Council would be concerned if such an increase took people out of the town centre since that could have the opposite effect to that desired of retaining trade in the town. An extension of one of the smaller supermarkets (presumably Budgens/Jempsons) would clearly be preferred. A converted Memorial Hall, however, could accommodate an internal mall incorporating quality shops and boutiques.

Comment

Representation ID: 20279

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Town Council

Box 13a: - Employment sites - Regarding employment sites, the Council agrees that Marley Lane, with its improved A21 junction is the best location. We are less sure whether Station Approach has potential in this respect.

Support

Representation ID: 20286

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

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

Representation ID: 20319

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Janet Bond

I believe item 2 is the way forward by sensitive urban infilling and redevelopment. If the planning department changed their criteria of 'No Back Land development' then areas of land within the Battle development boundary could be utilised. Digging up vast areas of green belt is not the way forward for Battle.

Object

Representation ID: 20323

Received: 02/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Coward

Box 13 part (d): Traffic - Battle is already congested at peak times and at other times traffic is grid locked, with a further 450-500 homes this would seriously add to the congestion, further the current build out at the Post Office crossing is adding to the blockage of the high street; this crossing should be by traffic light control and build out removed.
Powdermill Lane and Station Approach should have roundabouts at these junctions.

Object

Representation ID: 20324

Received: 02/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Coward

Box 13 part (d): Parking - Car parks should be free to encourage people to shop and support their local traders, parking for locals used to be free till 10am and should be reinstated. Currently Bexhill parking is mostly free of charge perhaps Battle and other rural areas should be treated the same way or Bexhill should pay parking and use the funds to help develop market towns and rural areas with their costs.

Object

Representation ID: 20328

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

We object to item (f)(iv) of this box on the grounds that the area of search for peripheral expansion of the town has been inappropriately defined. Land between Hastings Road and Marley lane has already been allocated for development in the current Local Plan.

Land north of North Trade Road and west of London Road (A2100) should be included as being a potential location for additional peripheral expansion of the town.

Support

Representation ID: 20354

Received: 12/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Enterprise

The plan to tackle traffic congestion in Battle is also welcomed. Improving both road and rail services will lower congestion, give commuters more choice about the method of transport they use. 10% of businesses in Sussex are in favour of 'cheaper parking and more availability',

Object

Representation ID: 20365

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Jack Seabrook

The Core Strategy for Battle should describe it as a Country town, it is no longer a market town.

So far as traffic congestion in the town centre is concerned it is difficult if not impossible to understand, how the siting of over 500 new homes in Battle can have anything but a seriously adverse effect on the present situation.

To claim that the Core Strategy
aims to 'minimise cross-town traffic flows is wildly optimistic and something which cannot be achieved unless a by-pass is provided
for through traffic using the A21. If the very pleasant character of Battle is to be preserved the proposed additional residential development should not be carried out.

Comment

Representation ID: 20390

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. David Carver

Paragraph 13.4

The importance of good rail links is well set out in the strategy.

However, the strategy must include a statement to the effect "that no development will be allowed that could restrict or delay the dual tracking of the line from Ore to Appledore". Such a ban would make it easier to upgrade the line at a future date should traffic and economic conditions warrant it. The line was, of course, double tracked until quite recently and the existing land and bridges for it are still in place.

Support

Representation ID: 20391

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. David Carver

Paragraph 13.4

Fully support the need for improvement to the A21 Tonbridge/Pembury and Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst. The need for improvements to the A27/A259 is also urgent, especially around Winchelsea, Hastings and Worthing. More and more heavy goods vehicles are using this route, and the narrow roads and sharp bends are dangerous.

All future devleopment must demand and include cycle tracks, not part of an existing road nor half a footpath.

Object

Representation ID: 20404

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

It is important that environmental services and biodiversity are valued, protected and enhanced if the strategy is to be sustainable and proposals within it are to contribute to quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 20503

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Block

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Objection is made to para 7.20 because it is considered this parcel would be a logical extension of the existing built up area. Sector 3 seems to have been ruled out in principle as a potential development area within the plan. This parcel would appear to be a more appropriate location for possible development than others falling within preferred sectors 4 and 5. Sites within sector 3 should not be ruled out as potential development areas. Some provision for development should be made to the north and west of the town.