9. Rural Areas

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 35

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19475

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.63 on page 79 considers the upgrading of holiday caravan and chalet developments, however we must note that it is unlikely that an extension to the occupancy of existing holiday caravans or chalets would be acceptable in areas of flood risk. We support the resistance to caravans and chalets to become permanent homes in areas of flood risk, and permanent single-storey mobile home accommodation is considered as 'highly vulnerable'.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19575

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Representation Summary:

Para 9.74.
Under 'Villages (e)" landowners should be included as a 'partner'. Without owners bringing their land forward for development, ther will be no development.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19608

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Rother and Hastings CPRE

Representation Summary:

9.11 Does anyone understand what you mean by 'place-shaping'? Please define.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19610

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Rother and Hastings CPRE

Representation Summary:

Page 71, Para 9.15 The service centre solution does provide the correct measure of balance of communities, provided the total number of houses does prove to be too aggressive or challenging a figure for those local resources. It cannot be assumed that just because a community does have support facilities, that it can accommodate any number of new houses.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19645

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Representation Summary:

The biggest weakness in document is issue of traffic in rural areas. It should identify problem of excessive speed and volume of traffic passing through villages as key concern. In public consultations across the district (most recently, Police Priority-Setting Panels), this problem has been repeatedly prioritised by residents of rural areas. Traffic has a major adverse impact on the quality of life in villages and is responsible for the severance of many communities. The LDF must acknowledge the problem, so that measures to mitigate existing problems and avoid future problems are built into planning decisions. In the current Local Plan and in various places in the document, the need to reduce travel is accepted. Indeed, this need is a driver of the choice of Distribution Option 2 for rural areas. It needs to be highlighted as a strategic objective.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19701

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Representation Summary:

(b) For the Countryside Economy

There should be reference to the need for the telecommunications infrastructure that is crucial to all economic activity these days and which would facilitate new activities such as home-working and high-value creative business.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19703

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Representation Summary:

Infrastructure

Once again, we would urge reference to telecommunications infrastructure, the local quality of which is often poor in rural areas.

Little thought has been given to developing human capital in the form of life and employment skills, and capacity building in the community. The availability of capable and qualified labour is essential to longer-term economic development and attracting high-value employment. Communities need to be capable of initiating and implementing projects to improve the social infrastructure. Much of the district is poorly served for adult education and facilities like libraries.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19704

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Representation Summary:

Implementation

We are sceptical of the commitment to implement "Conservation Area improvements in line with Conservation Area Character Assessments". As noted earlier, the Winchelsea Conservation Area Appraisal still lacks any management policy to ensure conservation and implement improvements. Action is needed.

It would also be helpful to have guidance on Village Design Statements and on improvement of the Public Realm. Guidance on Village Design Statements would enhance genuine community involvement. A useful draft policy on the Public
Realm was produced by the County Council some years ago, but seems to have been buried. It needs to be resurrected and published. Such guidance would be in line with the intention in the Design Quality and the Built Environment section to provide recognised criteria for design and has been provided in other districts.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19705

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Representation Summary:

Lead Agencies / Partners
As parish councillors, we find it difficult to give credence to the idea that parish councils will be partners in implementing the strategies and policies of the LDF . No framework exists to ensure there is systematic and meaningful engagement between Rother District Council and parish councils on the LDF (or anything else).
There is a gap in the coverage of rural areas by Partnerships. Some village and rural areas are covered by the Battle and Rye Partnerships. The WARR Partnership in theory covers all villages and rural areas, even those covered by the other two. However, whereas Battle offers wide coverage, Rye is more restrictive and somewhat uncertain, and cuts across parish boundaries in the case of Rye Harbour. WARR is not equivalent at all to Battle and Rye, in that its funds are more rigidly controlled. In effect, villages and rural areas outside the Battle and Rye areas do not have a Partnership. This gap needs to be filled.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19727

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Representation Summary:

We became increasingly concerned that references to infrastructure, particularly in the Rural Areas chapters, were limited to roads and water, and neglected IT, only to find that issue addressed in paragraph 11.14. Similarly, the sensible approach in paragraph 11.7, that the contribution of land use policies should be considered within wider context of education and skills, is not reflected in the Preferred Strategies for the Economy of Villages and Rural Areas.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19784

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

We would welcome new housing development in areas that would help to provide the required number of pupils to sustain schools with surplus spaces.
We will have to do further work on the fit between the villages proposed for housing growth and the capability of rural schools to support that growth. Our initial conclusions are that the number of dwellings will be beneficial to many villages in terms of helping sustain primary school numbers except possibly in the following schools where there may be problem with capacity and expansion.
Westfield
Winchelsea Beach
Etchingham
Catsfield
Fairlight Cove
Crowhurst
Stonegate
Sedlescombe
Netherfield
Brightling
Both rural secondary schools (Robertsbridge Community College and Claverham Community College) are operating above capacity, but have large sites with potential for expansion if necessary.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19785

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

Strategy Directions - Countryside (infrastructure)
Para 9.72 refers to infrastructure requirements including at bullet point 4:
• "Schools and Education schemes in line with ESCC programmes".
It should be noted that Schools and Education schemes are not solely undertaken in line with ESCC programmes. They are undertaken through consultation and cooperation with
stakeholders, private sector partners, the Diocese and Trusts

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19810

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

Villages and Rural Areas

No adverse comment is made on the distribution of development in the rural areas. However, it is evident that further technical studies are required to assess the impacts of growth at these locations. The County Council welcomes the opportunity to work with the District council on this.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19838

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

Representation Summary:

Again in 9.11 the important role of Parish Council should be stressed. Parish Councillors are the only level of elected representatives that are largely a-political and work to ensure that they know what local people want.
9.13 Village needs are often ignored- i.e. traffic calming in Crowhurst. 9.18 On what service centre is the development at Upper Wilting based!? 9.29 Does this mean that the discussion is devoid of any hard facts? 9.45 What help is offered by RDC to small villages like Crowhurst struggling to meet village needs with an inappropriate Village Hall at its centre.
9.46 The fate of Adam's Farm in Crowhurst illustrates the fragility of the historical landscape and heritage.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19913

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.15 Croudace does not support the reliance placed on the Council's approximate estimates of development. It is not clear how this was calculated and, as required by Policy ST5 of the South East Plan, is not supported by a clear justification that a lower housing requirement is necessary to deliver the overall housing requirement for the District. Notwithstanding this concern, the level referred to in paragraph 9.15 is not reflective of the number of dwellings identified in the table on page 30, i.e. 1,300 dwellings which more accurately reflects the Council's preferred option towards Spatial Development.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19914

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.18
Support

The hybrid of preferred options is supported, and is considered to provide an appropriate development strategy for the villages which primarily concentrates development in the service centres but also has consideration for other criteria.


Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19915

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.20
Croudace supports the identification of Robertsbridge as a Rural Service Centre. The conclusions of the Rural Settlement Study in relation to the village's development potential are also supported. However, it would be beneficial to ascertain how the Council has estimated that the village could accommodate 55 - 100 dwellings up to 2026, which includes the existing two allocated sites providing approximately 46 units. It is assumed that further information regarding this level of development will be made available when the SHLAA is published

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19916

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.24
Support

The acknowledgement that greenfield development in the villages will be required and that such development will need to have regard to the surrounding landscape is supported.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19918

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.32 - 9.33
It is not accepted that "a good track record of windfall housing developments" constitutes a genuine local circumstance and that a more robust justification is needed to support the Council's claim. Whilst past trends do give a relatively good indication of how development has taken place, recently this has been supported by a period of economic boom. Given current market conditions, it is likely that a significant reduction in the number of windfall sites coming forward will occur, thus if the Council continues to rely heavily on windfall sites, this could lead to a housing shortfall.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19919

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 9.34
The phasing of development along the A21 towards the latter part of the plan is unjustified as the Council offers no evidence to suggest that the A21 as existing is not capable of accommodating any additional development. Should the Council wish to pursue a stringent phasing for developments along the A21, this must be supported by robust highways evidence (as is the case at North Bexhill) which demonstrates that developments should be phased. Such an approach will have significant implications for the Council's development strategy for the rural areas given that Robertsbridge, the main service centre, is itself located on the A21. It is noted in Box 17, that only developments at Hurst Green and Filmwell are intended to be phased for the later part of the plan, this needs to be made clear throughout the document.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19920

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Representation Summary:

It is important to ensure that housing delivery in the rural centres is balanced with employment development to promote a sustainable pattern of development which seeks to reduce the need to travel for employment opportunities. It is therefore important that existing employment areas are retained for that use where possible or to be developed as part of a mixed use scheme with employment being the main land use, subject to robust viability assessments.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19969

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Rother Valley Railway Heritage Trust

Representation Summary:

RVR comments on paragraph 9.39:
The Kent & East Sussex Railway is a significant tourist attraction operating on 181 days with around 90,000 passenger journeys. The National Trust at Bodiam has expressed its support for completion of link between Robertsbridge and Bodiam to provide public transport to the major attraction of Bodiam Castle via the mainline.
Paragraph 9.64: It is also a significant contributor to the local economy around Tenterden. Not only is there an economic impact from salaries paid to staff but tourists visiting the railway also visit the local shops and other attractions spending more money while in the area. It is anticipated that there will be a similar impact on Robertsbridge when it becomes part of that tourism corridor.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 19975

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: R & BG Properties LLP

Agent: WS Planning

Representation Summary:

9.27 - The provision of limited housing and community facilities in smaller settlements outside development boundaries is supported.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20110

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. J. Auer

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Representation Summary:

Para 9.20: Identification of Catsfield as a local service village.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20161

Received: 01/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The Preferred Strategy for the Rural Area -(b) we would be interested to learn if Rother is considering contributing to a new Village Hall for Crowhurst, which is badly needed, when it states 'improving provision where necessary'?

Parish Council is naturally interested in benefits to our community, in particular any developer's contributions from housing development and monies arising from the proposed Hastings/Bexhill Link road. These would greatly assist the successful implementation of our Parish Plan.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20191

Received: 21/01/2009

Respondent: The National Trust

Representation Summary:

The Trust welcomes the support given in the strategy for the role of tourism as an important component in the local economy. The need for additional tourist accommodation should be recognised and positive support given for the retention of local shops, pubs and tearooms in villages.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20213

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Batcheller Thacker

Representation Summary:

Question whether there is adequate provision within the plan to allow for development in rural areas that meets an identified rural need, and therefore whether that should be recognised in principle within the Core Strategy, eg to allow for specific infrastructure developments.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20440

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Representation Summary:

The conclusion drawn in paragraph 9.54 is felt to be over-simplistic.

This part of the Core Strategy needs to be more positive in its emphasis to support tourism in the District. Greater latitude needs to be given for the District's quality tourism facilities to be appropriately improved and upgraded so that greater investment may be engendered with greater tourist spend patterns in the District. Encouragement should also be given to improve the provision of recreational facilities in the District.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20441

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Representation Summary:

The approach to static caravan sites should also be applied to existing holiday chalet parks so its potential benefits to upgrade the area's tourism product may be applied much more positively in the Core Strategy.

In this context, sympathetic and appropriate growth of these kinds of tourism faciltiies should not be ruled out. It is felt that this needs to be facilitated in the section.

Support

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Representation ID: 20447

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mrs. L. Fraser

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Representation Summary:

In principle we agree with the general thrust of the Core Strategy proposals, in particular with regard to policy for Rural Areas.