Villages

Support

Representation ID: 19296

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Wealden District Council

Support for the approach taken to spatial distribution within rural areas, in particular, the focus on local needs and the recognition of environmental/landscape constraints whilst ensuring a sustainable approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 19528

Received: 22/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Graham Alexander

Winchelsea has a poor postal service and relies on Rye and hastings for banking, medical dentistry - none of which avialble in Winchelsea. We rely on the car. Poor bus service does not help.

Object

Representation ID: 19539

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust

Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew

Paragraphs 9.15 to 9.21
Paragraph 9.18 states that the Preferred Option for housing distribution in villages is composite of number of options, but primary focus on Service Centres, as well as taking account of local need, dispersed development and accessibility, as well as environmental constraints.
PPS7 makes clear that away from larger urban areas, LPAs should focus most new development in or near to Local Services Centres where employment, housing, services and other facilities can be provided close together. It notes that this should help ensure those facilities are served by public transport and
provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling. It notes that these Centres, which might be a country town, single large village or group of villages, should be identified in as the preferred location for development.
Based on this, the Document should establish a housing distribution strategy in rural area with primary focus on Service Centres, to maximise the opportunity for accessibility by non-car
modes of transport. The housing distribution strategy for the rural area should therefore also focus on those few larger villages which provide the broadest range of local services served by public transport, such as bus and train.
These factors should determine the most appropriate location for development.
There is no justification for a more indiscriminate, dispersed approach, as the Document presently indicates will be used in part to influence the distribution strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 19541

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust

Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew

Some LP allocations have yet to be permitted or implemented, including Policy VL8 for mixed use in Robertsbridge.
Given the previous detailed consideration of such allocated sites, and the ultimate consensus
that these represent the most suitable locations for development within the rural area, strong
support is offered to the proposed approach of
supporting the delivery of these outstanding allocations in the early phase of the replacement
LDF plan period. This will ensure that the previously identified need of these allocations can be addressed asap, rather than being delayed by a wider review of development phasing up to
2026.

Comment

Representation ID: 19544

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust

Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew

Paragraphs 9.36 to 9.40
Rural Areas - Economy
The Employment Strategy and Land Review Document acknowledges that there is a
need for new employment floor space within rural areas, estimating this to be 10% (10,000m2) of the overall 100,000m2 required.
Paragraph 9.37 of the LDF Core Strategy Consultation Document indicates that the village of Robertsbridge (amongst other villages) has a particular need for employment. It acknowledges
that development of employment generating uses will be encouraged alongside housing
development on mixed use sites, where this is feasible.
PPS7 states that one of its objectives for the rural areas is to achieve sustainable economic growth and diversification. This underpins the wider aspirations set out in PPS3 for achieving a close connection between provision of additional housing and employment in order to promote sustainable development.
Given the acknowledgement in the Council's RSS that Robertsbridge already benefits from a good range of services and is therefore suitable for additional housing growth, it is appropriate that the village is also identified as suitable for additional employment floor space. This will not only underpin the existing role of the settlement contributing to the wider aims of sustainability, it will also help to ensure the appropriate balance of new jobs with new housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 19565

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Support for identification of Burwash as Local Service Village, but it is contended that its role as a potential housing location has been underplayed as there are opportunities that should not be overlooked and a good range of services in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 19570

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraph 9.20/9.21
Paragraph 9.21 states that other villages have been listed as having potential for (housing) development (in the Rural Settlements Study). It is considered that these should be added under the Local Services Villages category to reflect the Core Strategy so that there is clarification and to avoid ambiguities. This would then reflect the proposals shown on Map 1: District Key Diagram.

Object

Representation ID: 19571

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraph 9.23 (page 72)
The specific reference to Burwash is considered to be negative and can be interpreted as a prejudgement of the role that the village may play in providing for future growth. It is considered that this should be omitted.

Object

Representation ID: 19572

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Paragraph 9.33 RE: Phasing
This is considered to be an unsupportable approach and would fail to correct situations where allocated sites fail to come forward whereas alternative proposed housing sites may be able to brought forward to yield housing much more quickly. As phrased, any such consideration would be ruled out and this could lead to shortfalls of provision and missed opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 19652

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

In implementing Distribution Option 2 in villages,
the problem of demographic imbalances in villages should be specifically highlighted, in order to invigorate communities. In a village like Winchelsea, the severe skew in the demographic profile undermines the vitality of the community. In many villages, there are not enough young or middle-aged people to maintain a wide range of social and community activities. Restoring demographic balance gives added urgency to policies such as affordable housing, but also requires new policies, e.g. an improved online infrastructure to allow home working.

Support

Representation ID: 19679

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Para 9.16
We strongly support option (a). Other options are more problematic. Option (b) could be helpful in achieving the broader Aim for rural communities by maintaining a critical mass and balancing the demography of villages, but it should be used cautiously and selectively, or it could unconsciously transform into options (d) and (e). We oppose options (d) and (e), as they seem to be recipes for ribbon development and would be detrimental to the AONB. Option (c) will exacerbate the over-centralisation of services and condemn smaller rural communities to the role of soulless dormitories, as well as exacerbating problems such as traffic. We agree that development must support existing services and community facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 19680

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Para 9.24
We are opposed to the use of greenfield sites for new development, as proposed in paragraph 9.24. Any greenfield development must be small-scale and sympathetic to the existing settlement and landscape setting. Large-scale peripheral developments will conflict with the objectives of maintaining the distinctiveness of and sense of community in villages (Objectives (i) and (iii)).

Object

Representation ID: 19681

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Paragraph 9.37
Winchelsea is listed in paragraph 9.37 as having a particular need for employment. The demography of Winchelsea (over 50% retired) suggests otherwise.

Support

Representation ID: 19682

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Para 9.39
We support paragraph 9.39 on the need for tourist facilities accommodated sensitively in appropriate locations.

Object

Representation ID: 19684

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Services and Communitv Development
There is no strategy on preserving local services in this section which only considers standard facilities: shop, post office, open space and village hall.
Need for "community resource centres" overlooked. These could provide a day-to-day hub for community activities, with wide range of services (photocopying, access to PCs, meeting rooms, computer lessons, access to Parish, District, County and other official documents, drop-off for prescriptions, drop-in room for the police, etc) and by simply acting as a physical centre to the village. Winchelsea had such a centre until closure in 2007.

Object

Representation ID: 19685

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

(a) For the Economy
This is too general and vague. How will "additional small-scale local job opportunities" be encouraged? Why will the strategy not seek to create opportunities, but only exploit existing opportunities (note that it says "encouragement of. ..opportunities where there are opportunities")? How will home-working be encouraged (please note our comments on the need for adequate infrastructure).

Object

Representation ID: 19817

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

Housing Options
Consideration should be given to smaller villages with fewer facilities so that more investment would allow them to develop facilities to ensure their future

Object

Representation ID: 19839

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

Crowhurst enjoys very few services. Will regeneration bring anything to villages? Will Crowhurst get a local bus service?

What help is available for Public Houses if they are the sole village amenity?

Developers develop for profit -they cannot be allowed to dictate what is and what is not
acceptable as far as our environment is concerned A 'rottweiller' approach needs to be taken to development requirements by RDC acting as the guardian of the area..
d)iii Free bus passes are of little use if there is no access to buses -as is the case in Crowhurst.

Comment

Representation ID: 19861

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Farm Crisis Network

9.45 - I suggest the addition of 'Churches, Church Halls etc these are often under-used facilities even in the smallest of Rural communities. They can even be used to provide accommodation for Post Office, Bank ,Shop etc

Support

Representation ID: 20474

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Rother and Hastings CPRE

Page 72 9.20 We support this approach (i.e focus on service centres).