Box 17 - Preferred Strategy for Villages
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19087
Received: 11/11/2008
Respondent: Courtley Consultants Ltd
Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd
Better and more sustainable distribution of rural housing based on the identified settlement hierarachy.
Not allow unsustainable smaller settlements to contribute to housing numbers unless they meet local needs on unsustainale locations via exemption policies.
Remove the 65 dwellings suggested under the "Exception Sites" These are unidentied and thus Windfall contrary to Government Policy.
Finally the Council should refer under Para (i) as Providing a "minimum" for1,250-1300 dwellings
(b)Community Development
add
(iv)specific provision for Open Space should be provided in rural settlements of need i.e. Robertsbrige.
(e)For Housing
(i)Insert word "minimum " 1250-1300 dwellings.
add in after"table below" in paragraph(iv)in order of settlement hierarchy on the basis of sustainability.
Then in Table seperate the settlement catagory into Rural Service Centres ie Rbertsbridge and Ticehurst and Local Service Villages ie Burwash, Hurst Green,Sedlescombe,Nothiam,Westfield, Peasmarsh and Catsfield.
All other settlements refered to in the table should be removed. If local affordable housing need is identified the rural Exception Policy should apply as these remaining settlements would otherwise be unsustainable and as these sites would be unidentified sites and could not be included in the 5 to 15 year availability test.
On the same basis the 65 dwellings under Exception Sites should also be removed from this table.
As Robertsbridge is one if the most sustainable settlements and is recognised as a Rural Service Centre a greater number of dwellings should be given to its range. We propose additional dwellings of 50-100 range in acknowledgement to its regional importance in Rother over the next 20 years.
Para(v) on phasing should ensure the Councils maintains its continued 5 year housing supply and meets it housing needs locally.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19098
Received: 05/12/2008
Respondent: Mrs Claire Hill
Existing facilities must be supported in villages and must be taken into account before approving expansion. In Westfield due to the White Paper on pharmacies we have been told we may possibly lose the Dr's surgery and the school must be able to take extra capacity - these things are outside Rother District Council's control.
Existing facilities must be supported in villages and must be taken into account before approving expansion. In Westfield due to the White Paper on pharmacies we have been told we may possibly loose the Dr's surgery and the school must be able to take extra capacity - these things are outside Rother District Council's control.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19102
Received: 31/12/2008
Respondent: Mr Neil Cameron
Remove Stonegate from Box 17.
The policy approach is inconistent. Stonegate is not identified as a service centre. It is not a sustainable location for new housing development.
If the intention is to promote the development of affordable housing to meet a local need, that intention would best be achieved by allowing affordable housing to come forward under the rural exceptions policy. The effect of including Stonegate in Box 17 will be to encourage market housing on a site/s which could otherwise provide for affordable housing under the rural exceptions policy.
Objection: remove Stonegate from the list of settlements in Box 17.
The preferred option for the distribution of development is based upon option 2 (paragraphs 5.52-5.58. Option 2 seeks to concentrate development in service centres. Stonegate is not a local service village identified at paragraph 9.20. The Rural Settlements Study (at page 92) states that Stonegate is not a particulary sustainable location for development.
The Rural Settlements Study states that there is a need for affordable housing in Stonegate, and envisages that the Core Strategy should identify Stonegate as having the capacity to accommodate up to 15 housing units to meet that need.
If the intention is to allow housing development in an unsustainable location in order to meet a local need for affordable housing it is inappropriate to identify Stonegate in Box 17. The proper course of action is to allow such a proposal to come forward as part of a rural exception affordable housing site (see paragraph 30 of PPS3). It is likely to be counter productive to include Stonegate in Box 17 as this gives an indication that market housing is appropriate, whereas the Rural Settlements Study suggests that the need is for affordable housing.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19139
Received: 26/01/2009
Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
We note that Flimwell has been allocated housing only once the problems of the A21 have been resolved. Therefore we support this approach, which only supports housing development in this location once the infrastructure is in place to deal with it.
We note that Flimwell has been allocated housing only once the problems of the A21 have been resolved. Therefore we support this approach, which only supports housing development in this location once the infrastructure is in place to deal with it.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19151
Received: 26/01/2009
Respondent: Cllr Susan Prochak
Any village identified as a service centre should have priority in preserving its services, particularly post offices, retail space and in creating jobs.
Any village identified as a service centre should have priority in preserving its services, particularly post offices, retail space and in creating jobs.
Bodiam Parish Council have identified the need for a village hall in their LAP.
Can the council review its policies on road signs along and off the A21 to allow businesses to advertise their presence?
As the LDF is to reviewed annually, housing figures should include and developments from windfall sites.
Salehurst and Robertsbridge Parish Council have identified Northbridge Street and Salehurst hamlet as potential conservation areas.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19193
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Northiam Parish Council
(b)It is interesting that RDC rates highly the need for villages to retain services such as public houses and the Parish Council will be pleased to see this reflected in RDC's long awaited action regarding its village pub.
(d) The strategy to improve access does not seem to tie in with the ESCC plans to reduce bus services in the area.
(e) As stated in response to an earlier part of the strategy document a clearer indication of how completions are recorded against development quotas is needed.
(b)It is interesting that RDC rates highly the need for villages to retain services such as public houses and the Parish Council will be pleased to see this reflected in RDC's long awaited action regarding its village pub.
(d) The strategy to improve access does not seem to tie in with the ESCC plans to reduce bus services in the area.
(e) As stated in response to an earlier part of the strategy document a clearer indication of how completions are recorded against development quotas is needed.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19201
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Northiam Parish Council
Rural Settlements Stratagy
The PC feels that Northiam is being expected to take more development than it can support and that this increased development will erode the rural characteristics of the village.
It is felt that it would be preferable to concentrate development on areas where there are jobs, transport and support services rather than increase village development and have to create support services. The type of affordable dwelling needed by small families and single people is more appropriate to town rather than village settings and this is probably where the people concerned would prefer to be.
Rural Settlements Stratagy
The PC feels that Northiam is being expected to take more development than it can support and that this increased development will erode the rural characteristics of the village.
It is felt that it would be preferable to concentrate development on areas where there are jobs, transport and support services rather than increase village development and have to create support services. The type of affordable dwelling needed by small families and single people is more appropriate to town rather than village settings and this is probably where the people concerned would prefer to be.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19206
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: OCEAN PARCS LIMITED
Agent: Brett Drury Land & Planning
Economy section fails to recognise large scale redevelopment opportunities in villages. Fails to recognise the need for the tourist and leisure sectors to expand accomodation and quality of business in villages and in Camber in particular.
• We object to the wording of section (a) 'for the economy' because it doesn't offer any opportunity for larger scale development or redevelopment of the existing tourist, leisure and associated accommodation facilities.
• We object to section (e) 'For Housing' because no provision is made for tourist accommodation as part of the existing housing stock, some of which is already occupied on a semi-permanent basis; we also object to the lack of provision of housing and sites specifically for the elderly, the retired and the semi-retired. For the reasons set out in our objections in Box 3, this does not accord with Government policy which requires policies to be inclusive and also requires Local Planning Authorities to proactively cater for the needs of the elderly and retired.
Although the wording advocates the retension and expansion of employment sites it does not include this for villages
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19207
Received: 28/01/2009
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
(C) For the Historic Environment - we Support the proposal to protect the locally distinctive character of historic buildings and settings and to this end would wish to see assessments for the historic settlements at Salehurst and Northbridge Street to see if they should be included in the Conservation Area schedule.
(b) For Services and Community Development - we Support the proposals but would like to see a strengthening of the protection of business premises against conversion to residential. Without this the village designation as a 'service centre is at risk.
(C) For the Historic Environment - we Support the proposal to protect the locally distinctive character of historic buildings and settings and to this end would wish to see assessments for the historic settlements at Salehurst and Northbridge Street to see if they should be included in the Conservation Area schedule.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19282
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Ian Dunlop
1,200 houses in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is in effect helping to destroy that natural beauty. More houses equals more cars, more noise, more clamour for by-passes etc and constitutes "death by a thousand cuts".Rother must treat the AONB as if it were a National Park and simultaneously strive to get it listed as such.This AONB heritage must be preserved for future generations and not be sacrificed for the selifish demands of today.No future generations are going to thank us for bequeathing them another urban sprawl.
1,200 houses in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is in effect helping to destroy that natural beauty. More houses equals more cars, more noise, more clamour for by-passes etc and constitutes "death by a thousand cuts".Rother must treat the AONB as if it were a National Park and simultaneously strive to get it listed as such.This AONB heritage must be preserved for future generations and not be sacrificed for the selifish demands of today.No future generations are going to thank us for bequeathing them another urban sprawl.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19320
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
While it might be appropriate to list settlements where built up area boundaries are to be identified, the specific number of proposed dwellings (or dwelling range) should be excluded, as this should be the subject of more detailed investigation in assessing/reviewing built up area boundaries and potential housing sites as part of the Housing Allocations DPD. This would then be more consistent with item (h) in Box 3.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19458
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Lucas Land & Planning
We support proposed designation of Ticehurst and draft allocation for housing.
In addition we are of the view that the village can assist in the necessary provision of private sector elderly persons housing and a range of housing requirements, not just affordable housing.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19469
Received: 24/02/2009
Respondent: Fairlight Parish Council
Rother should introduce a policy to encourage small businesses within villages.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19520
Received: 25/02/2009
Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council
40 houses sounds like an estate and Parish Council would like to know on what criterion 40 dwellings are required. Comment that small amount of affordable housing would be acceptable as well as an addition to the small dweliings opposite the village hall colloquially known as the "old Peoples Bungalows"
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19545
Received: 25/02/2009
Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust
Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew
Section (E) sets out aspirations for achieving housing development across broad spread of villages, having particular regard to their Service Centre role, available infrastructure and
services, and local needs and environmental factors.
This should be amended to note that the appropriate housing strategy for the rural area should predominantly focus on those few larger villages which provide the broadest range of local services, particularly where they are served by public transport such as bus and train.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19546
Received: 25/02/2009
Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust
Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew
Box 17(E)(ii) notes that the proposed provision of 1,250-1,300 dwellings in the rural areas over the plan period will be achieved in part by "carrying forward outstanding Local Plan housing allocations". This approach is strongly supported. Existing housing allocations reflect previous assessments and consensus that these represent the most suitable locations for housing development up to the period
2011. Carrying forward these allocations into the emerging LDF ensures a consistency of supply and certainty within the Plan-making system.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19548
Received: 25/02/2009
Respondent: Trustees of the Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust
Agent: Mr. Dale Mayhew
Strong support is given to the identification of Robertsbridge as a Rural Service Centre, having regard to the existing high level of services and facilities in the settlement, together with its relatively high levels of accessibility by public transport, in particular the railway station on the Hastings to London line.
Box 17 identifies Robertsbridge as suitable for 46 dwellings from current unimplemented allocations, with a further 10-55 additional dwellings over the Plan period. The allocation is strongly supported.
This reflects the acknowledgement in the Council's RSS of the Rural Service Village role of the settlement, its existing level of services and the guidance in PPS7 to focus of
most additional housing development in rural areas on service villages to maintain vitality and viability of existing levels of services and infrastructure and to encourage sustainable patterns of transport use.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19561
Received: 27/01/2009
Respondent: Mrs. L. Fraser
Agent: Strutt & Parker
We object to the exclusion of Mountfield village as a service centre. We believe that Mountfield has an important contribution to make to the overall housing needs of the borough, as well as to employment and reduced traffic flows. We also consider that the sustainability and character off the village is dependent on growth - in particular of housing for young families (who in turn willl support the school) and this should be in conjunction with the provision of a proportion of local needs affordable housing.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19563
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers
Object to level of housing development identified for Roberstbridge. Already allowed over 300 houses to be built in recent years.
Any new housing should be 100% for local people. Already have new houses not occupied which suggests no more are required.
Planning applications should not be judged in isolation in villages, but need to look at 'whole picture'. For example if doctors surgery moves to Mill site, the further use of the doctor surgery should be resolved at the same time.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19564
Received: 23/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
Support for identification of Stonegate as village that can accommodate up to 15 dwellings. However, we feel a particular well-contained site can accommodate a higher number. Increase potential dwellings at Stonegate to more fully reflect the opportunities presented by specific site. Stonegate benefits from rail access and a bus service. It is well located to the Rural Service Centre of Ticehurst.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19573
Received: 23/01/2009
Respondent: Mr. D. Redhead
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
Burwash is capable of accommodating more housing growth in the region of 17 - 50 dwellings. The assumed range of 17-30 dwellings (including current unimplemented allocations) does not reflect the lifting of the Highways Authority imposed ceiling to allow more than 17 dwellings at Strand Meadow. In the event of that 17 or more dwellings being built at that location, this would leave a limited balance over the long-term LDF period to serve future needs of parish.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19580
Received: 27/02/2009
Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council
We can accept and welcome the main thrust of the Draft Rural Settlement proposals. We recognize that we are the fourth largest parish in Rother and that in order to maintain a viable and vibrant community we need to accept a limited amount of growth. However the parish is divided into three separate wards and the needs and suitability for development varies between the wards.
(Note: More detailed parts of submission relating to Ticehurst, Flimwell & Stonegate can be found in submissions relating to Background Evidence - Rural Settlements Study).
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19594
Received: 02/03/2009
Respondent: Evison & Company
The achievement of these objectives in particular 'b' will be dependant on new development coming forward to support them. For housing it will mean all of the measures i - vii including the carrying forward of local plan allocations but also some substantial additional allocations outside existing development boundaries in villages with more limited environmental development constraints. This should include smaller villages where there are opportunities not only to enhance sustainability but correct mistakes of the past through development or redevelopment. It must however be subject to a genuine integration into the community and the achievement of a traditional village character with a range of housing densities and tenure types and enhanced local facilities.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19595
Received: 02/03/2009
Respondent: Evison & Company
Support
Paragraph 12.42 is supported.
In addition some development will be needed in flood risk areas to avoid the stultification of existing communities in a district where a large proportion of its land area is at risk of flooding.
In some defended locations such as Winchelsea Beach this will support regeneration objectives with important economic, social and sustainability gains. In this case in particular the relatively recent local plan allocation should be carried forward.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19611
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Rother and Hastings CPRE
Page 76 Box 17 We broadly support the proposals here, but want to emphasise the need to check the current policies regarding the retention of local shops in view of the recent appeal decision exposing deficiencies in the policy. Improvements for cycling and walking including where relevant the promotion of homes zones and quiet lanes should be sought. RDC has a poor record thus far in extracting the developer's shilling and must improve on that record with the advent of CIL.
We do not believe in the light of current DoT pronouncements that the provisions relating to foreseeing the A21 improvements should stand.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19612
Received: 26/01/2009
Respondent: Mr John Boryer
Minutes of Committee meeting enclosed, the implication of which is that Darvel Down & Area Residents' Association consider that Netherfield is suitable for more than 15 new dwellings.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19686
Received: 02/03/2009
Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry
(b) For Services and Communitv Development
Strategy (b)(i) should say what type of support will be provided for local shops and public houses in villages.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19687
Received: 02/03/2009
Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry
(c) For the Historic Environment
There is an error here. Winchelsea has had a Conservation Area Appraisal
Conservation Area Appraisals are useless unless they are assimilated by Planning Committee members and implemented through management plans. In Winchelsea, the existence of the new Appraisal has been helpful in some recent planning decisions, but appears to have been ignored in others. Moreover, there are no plans to translate the Appraisal into positive action through management proposals to enhance the Conservation Area. The elaboration of a Management Policy for Conservation Areas should be a strategy in the LDF.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19688
Received: 02/03/2009
Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry
(d) For Accessibility
Rother could playa helpful role by facilitating the co-ordination of services (eg between rail and bus services) and supporting later services.
In Winchelsea, the topography of the town means that there is no safe pedestrian exit from the town to the north, despite the cycle routes and footpaths that go through Winchelsea. We would ask that the provision of such access be included in the LDF.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Representation ID: 19689
Received: 02/03/2009
Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry
(e) For Housinq
This part of the strategy needs to specifically refer to issues of quality and design