Box 17 - Preferred Strategy for Villages

Object

Representation ID: 19761

Received: 26/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Gary Standen

Netherfield needs more suitable housing for local residents both senior citizens and young people. For the village to remain sustainable for the present residents and local businesses the shop, public houses, school, village hall and local transport need more users.

Comment

Representation ID: 19798

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Preferred strategy for the Villages - Box 17

Para (d):
In keeping with the comments on para (b) in Box 13 (above), It is recommended that the text be adjusted to;

a) follow the style set by Box 10; and,

b) make sure (ii) cannot be interpreted (by some) as implying that development contributions will be sought towards the costs of addressing existing infrastructure deficiencies, as follows
"(i) Locating development so as to be accessible to a wide range of transport options;
(ii) Promoting local accessibility improvements where appropriate
(iii) Continuing to support key rural bus services and wherever possible improve access to services by bus and other forms of transport.

Object

Representation ID: 19816

Received: 23/01/2009

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

"We feel that further development in Burwash, Burwash Weald and Common above that already allocated is not required."
"Burwash Weald and Common have possibilities for small development. there is already permission for 4 houses on the old Conservative Club site."

Comment

Representation ID: 19864

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Beckley Parish Council

We note that you state that an investigation may be appropriate for a small scale allocation of affordable housing of say up to 10 dwellings in Beckley. We would be very interested to be informed where and when you see this site being made avaialable.

Support

Representation ID: 19921

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

The emphasis given to the need to maintain and promote employment sites in the villages is supported. It is essential, in the interest of maintaining balanced communities, that there remains to be an appropriate balance of jobs to dwellings in the rural areas. Whilst it is acknowledged that the retention of some sites purely for employment purposes may not be viable, the quantum of any enabling development required to bring forward employment sites should be guided by a robust viability assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 19922

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Development should be located in accessible areas which can capitalise on existing transport infrastructure, particularly public transport, and where necessary and appropriate, provide for any improvements in local transport infrastructure commensurate with the level of proposed development. It is not the role of new development to rectify existing deficiencies of provision.

Object

Representation ID: 19923

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

It is not accepted that the level of development for the rural areas of 1,250 - 1,300 dwellings is robust as the Core Strategy itself acknowledges that this needs to be the subject of further assessments.

The phasing of development should be carefully considered so as to ensure that the Core Strategy is not overly restrictive and inflexible. It is not considered appropriate for the Core Strategy to include such specific details, especially as this will be refined by the Site Allocations DPD.

Support

Representation ID: 19924

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Croudace supports the suggestion in (v) that all existing Local Plan allocations, including reserved sites, should be released for development with only new allocations being subject to any potential phasing policies.

Object

Representation ID: 19925

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

In the meantime however, the number of units proposed at Westfield (identified as a local service village) is higher than Ticehurst which is identified as a rural service centre. Apportioning more development to the rural service villages than the rural service centres does not accord with the development strategy that the Core Strategy seeks to adopt.

Comment

Representation ID: 19994

Received: 16/01/2009

Respondent: Lark Row Developments Ltd.

We are supportive of the Preferred Strategy -
The need for increasing employment opportunities, particularly for higher value jobs, is key to the long term sustainability of vibrant villages with good local services. The strategy, in this Section and in the Economy Section would benefit from additional work and analysis of the options and means to secure economic development consistent with protection of the environment and heritage.
On housing, the detailed numbers need to be informed by site availabillity.

Object

Representation ID: 20007

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: The Newcombe Estates Co. Ltd.

Agent: Martin Robeson Planning Practice

A broad objection is raised regarding calculation of new housing provision in the rural areas and villages. Furthermore, given that the Council has now undertaken a Rural Settlement Study, it is not understood why the proposed number of additional dwellings in certain villages appears to have been arbitrarily determined.

Indeed given the need to provide further contingencies in the event that the Bexhill - Hastings link road is delayed or cancelled, then it will be necessary for a greater proportion of growth to be directed to sustainable village locations.

Object

Representation ID: 20050

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

Paragraphs 10.24 to 10.32

Every village could be asked to find a site for 15-20 homes under the Community Land Trust plan.

Object

Representation ID: 20052

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

People owning second homes create a problem with local people not being able to buy a home, therefore they move away. We are losing the village community way of life.

Object

Representation ID: 20059

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

No need for exception sites, all land under the Community Land Trust would be rented or have a 25 year lease. Local villagers would be asked to elect the site for such housing, compulsory purchase may be an option.

Object

Representation ID: 20074

Received: 25/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. Jolyon Holden

Rural housing policies as set out in the preferred option seem to ignore the needs of the smaller villages. This will hinder the achievement of sustainable balanced development across the district. These policies encourage the transformation of larger villages into small towns at the expense of the vibrancy and distinctiveness of unique smaller villages. These smaller villages need sufficient new affordable and adverse housing options.
I must therefore object to the lack of policies supporting a degree of natural organic growth within the smaller villages.
I feel that the key is not to encourage larger speculative housing develoment but to look to sensitive infilling or change of use.

Support

Representation ID: 20111

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Mr. J. Auer

Agent: Batcheller Thacker

Box 17: The allocation of up to 40 units for Catsfield is supported. It is considered, though, there is an opportunity to increase this allocation within the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 20162

Received: 01/01/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

It is stated that development boundaries will be retained, but in the table of villages considered appropriate for housing growth, Crowhurst has been allocated up to 15 which would entail building outside the development boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 20165

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Bell Cornwell

The policies referred to should be the most up-to-date. In this case these are the policies included in the Proposed Modifications to the South East Plan rather than to the original draft plan. There is already some inconsistency in that the numbers of dwellings referred to are those in the Proposed Modifications.

There is a lack of clarification as to how the core strategy boxes relate to the two main policies in the South East Plan as Proposed to be Modified.

Object

Representation ID: 20167

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Bell Cornwell

The figure of 1250- 1300 dwellings proposed in subsection e) of Box 17 is substantially less than that required to meet the figures in the South East Plan and the additional potential increases required by paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8. The figure for the remainder of the District outside the Sussex Coast Sub-Region should be 1600 dwellings if not more.

Object

Representation ID: 20168

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Bell Cornwell

Given that Northiam is designated as one of the Local Service villages having "all the characteristics of a viable and sustainable community", it should be allocated a higher level of housing development than 10-50 dwellings. We would propose a figure of between 50 and 100 dwellings as being more appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 20292

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: SEEDA

Suggest that home working which constitutes a high proportion of employment in the district, that ICT infrastructure improvements should be sought to facilitate and stimulate rural enterprise.

Comment

Representation ID: 20349

Received: 12/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Enterprise

The plan to ensure the continued economic sustainability of the countryside is supported, in particular the proposal to encourage 'additional small-scale local job opportunities [and] the retention of employment sites, local shops and public houses.' It is vital to ensure these communities are as self-sufficient as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 20356

Received: 16/01/2009

Respondent: Messrs. R. & J.C. Stapylton-Smith

Agent: DHA Planning

Greater reliance should be made on Rural Service Centres with less development at Battle and Rye.

Support

Representation ID: 20358

Received: 16/01/2009

Respondent: Messrs. R. & J.C. Stapylton-Smith

Agent: DHA Planning

Support for community service provision and greenfield allocations with particular regard for Banky Field Ticehurst.
The allocation of sites for development that help provide new community services that meet identified need, particularly outdoor receation and allotment provision in the western rural area of the District
The recognition that greenfield allocations adjacent to existing settlements may be appropriate in certain circumstances to help deliver the development strategy for the District and rural area in a manner that maintains landscape and sustainable development objectives
Supporting the role, function and continued vitality and viability of identified Rural Service Centres

Object

Representation ID: 20407

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

The Preferred Strategy for villages does not cover the natural environment

Object

Representation ID: 20438

Received: 17/11/2008

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Hodgson

Winchelsea Beach is close to both the town of Ashford and it shigh speed rail link to London. It has some of the best facilities in Rother including a Co-Op superstore. It is less then a 5 minute drive to Rye. There are two available roads and bus routes to Hastings. Its features make it ideal for elderly residents. It is protected by the same sea wall that protects Rye and Rye Harbour.

Object

Representation ID: 20446

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: Mrs. L. Fraser

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Mountfield village -together with the immediately adjoining hamlet of Johns Cross -has a thriving village school. It is on the A21 highway with excellent road links, and also on the junction of the A2100. It has a church, a village hall, a pub, a football pitch, and a variety of local business operations. Its character and sustainability relies on its diversity in terms of people, provisions and opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 20461

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

It is important that new development avoids the mistake of post-War social housing developments in making large, distinctive additions to the edge of villages to form separate communities (not mixed, balanced communities). Winchelsea was fortunate to have Trojans Plat: in scale with the village and well- designed and built.

Comment

Representation ID: 20472

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

Both Robertsbridge and Etchingham have sensitive flood risk areas however, the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment indicates that this need not automatically preclude development in and around these villages as the flood risk is variable.