Policy BX1: Overall Strategy for Bexhill
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20579
Received: 08/09/2011
Respondent: Hastings Borough Council
Policy BX1 relates to an overall strategy for Bexhill - this is supported as an important part of the strategy is about improving transport connections within and between the towns
Policy BX1 relates to an overall strategy for Bexhill - this is supported as an important part of the strategy is about improving transport connections within and between the towns
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20696
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: A AINSLIE
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* The strategy for Bexhill is determined substantially by the Link Road - see previous representations.
* The strategy for Bexhill is determined substantially by the Link Road - see previous representations.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20711
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* The strategy for Bexhill is determined substantially by the Link Road - see previous representations.
* The strategy for Bexhill is determined substantially by the Link Road - see previous representations.
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20740
Received: 28/09/2011
Respondent: The Theatres Trust
Soundness: We reluctantly find the document to be sound, from our point of view, with regard to Policies BX1 and CO1 as they will (obliquely) protect your cultural facilities, we think. However we have some comments on inconsistency.
Soundness: We reluctantly find the document to be sound, from our point of view, with regard to Policies BX1 and CO1 as they will (obliquely) protect your cultural facilities, we think. However we have some comments on inconsistency.
Comments: We find the document confusing as to its intent for the 'cultural' topics. The words 'culture' and 'cultural' appear many times throughout the document but not in any policy.
Item 9 on page 18 (Main Issues), states that there will be better facilities for sports, leisure and culture. This is probably reflected in Policy CO1 for Community Facilities except that the definitions of the term 'community facilities' in the footnote on page 102 does not include sports and leisure. It also ignores sui generis use which would exclude theatres and other leisure facilities. We suggest a more inclusive definition for 'community facilities' should be included in the Glossary for clarity, rather than as a footnote, along the lines of community facilities provide for the health, welfare, social, educational, leisure and cultural needs of the community. Or the footnote should include sports and leisure and sui generis.
Paragraphs 16.15 on page 128 states that one of the main policy areas for the ecoomy is Tourism, leisure and culture, yet leisure and culture do not appear in Policy EC6 on Tourism nor in the accompanying text.
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20776
Received: 27/09/2011
Respondent: Trinity College
Agent: Bidwells
Trinity College supports the overall strategy for Bexhill (Policy BX1).
Trinity College owns a large part of the land already allocated at North East Bexhill, which is anticipated to deliver a large proportion of Bexhill's growth over the period 2011-2028 and can confirm that it is committed to releasing the land for employment, residential and other associated uses at the appropriate time.
Trinity College looks forward to working with the Council and its partners to deliver growth at North East Bexhill.
Trinity College supports the overall strategy for Bexhill (Policy BX1).
Trinity College owns a large part of the land already allocated at North East Bexhill, which is anticipated to deliver a large proportion of Bexhill's growth over the period 2011-2028 and can confirm that it is committed to releasing the land for employment, residential and other associated uses at the appropriate time.
Trinity College looks forward to working with the Council and its partners to deliver growth at North East Bexhill.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20902
Received: 09/11/2011
Respondent: Laurence Keeley
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
May I invite you to visit my website www.campaign-for-change.co.uk for more of an insight to this issue of housing.
It would create a better quality of life for residents in this area.
North Bexhill Plan - Pebsham Area.
Should the land north of Bexhill be covered in houses and concrete?
Is building more houses growth?
Why should young people have to borrow vast sums of money to live in a house that keeps them poor for most of their lives, leaving them unable to save for a pension or eventual care?
May I invite you to visit my website www.campaign-for-change.co.uk for more of any insight to the issue of housing.
This good farm land should be kept for food production with the possibility for a portion becoming a community farm, while we must appreciate the need for housing, there needs to be a new layout and design for this area where two thirds of the land will remain open space, I proposed a tearing design where everyone would have their own department but have a community establishment with in the complex.
Re-open the old railway line from London Road Sidley to Crowhurst having a tram running the line, with a viaduct rebuilt to minimise disruption to the wildlife and area of scientific interest and natural beauty, the viaducts could have outlook viewing area, with a new station at upper Wilting linking to West St Leonard's station.
If there msy be a road then this could take the same route, with a spur road going to Queensway using what is already there, at the Inquiry in December 2009, the main objections to this area was the area of scientific interest and wildlife that would be disturbed, but with a new viaduct the wildlife would return, the scientific part would still maintained.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20903
Received: 09/11/2011
Respondent: Laurence Keeley
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
See previous comments made on policy EC1
See previous comments made on policy EC1
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20951
Received: 10/11/2011
Respondent: Hillreed Developments Limited
Agent: Mr Alister Hume
Support for strategy but unsure where the inclusion of the statement "housing options for older households" derives from. This requirement has not been raised at pre-application meetings with LPA officers concerning the Preston Hall Farm site (within the adopted BX3 area.)
Support for strategy but unsure where the inclusion of the statement "housing options for older households" derives from. This requirement has not been raised at pre-application meetings with LPA officers concerning the Preston Hall Farm site (within the adopted BX3 area.)
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20957
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy BX1 does not mention the word 'regeneration' as does RDLP BX1(iv). It is unsound because it is unable to be effective and cannot therefore comply with current national policy.
Policy BX1 does not mention the word 'regeneration' as does RDLP BX1(iv). It is unsound because it is unable to be effective and cannot therefore comply with current national policy.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20958
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy BX1(i) is too ambiguous and therefore unsound because it is not as effective as the current Rother District Local Plan (RDLP) which states: BX1(i) "to develop its residential, employment, shopping and service centre functions". There is no mention of 'shopping' in either BX1(i) or BX1(vi) when talking about Bexhill's function. It therefore lacks an overall vision for the town. It does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.
Policy BX1(i) is too ambiguous and therefore unsound because it is not as effective as the current Rother District Local Plan (RDLP) which states: BX1(i) "to develop its residential, employment, shopping and service centre functions". There is no mention of 'shopping' in either BX1(i) or BX1(vi) when talking about Bexhill's function. It therefore lacks an overall vision for the town. It does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20959
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy BX1(iii) is unsound because it has weakened the same point stated in RDLP BX1(ii) which states: "to provide for both the growth of local firms and appropriate inward investment in order to improve the range of job opportunities for local people as well as to ensure that residential development is sustainable". There is no mention of 'sustainability' within Policy BX1(iii) of the Core Strategy. It is therefore contrary to the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.
Policy BX1(iii) is unsound because it has weakened the same point stated in RDLP BX1(ii) which states: "to provide for both the growth of local firms and appropriate inward investment in order to improve the range of job opportunities for local people as well as to ensure that residential development is sustainable". There is no mention of 'sustainability' within Policy BX1(iii) of the Core Strategy. It is therefore contrary to the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20960
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy BX1(vii) is not as strong as the current RDLP BX1 and is therefore unsound. It also does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.
Policy BX1(vii) is not as strong as the current RDLP BX1 and is therefore unsound. It also does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20985
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: Gullivers Action Group
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
In BX1(ii), by omitting a reference to important local published robust and credible evidence as required by national planning policy, Rother has made an unsound submission.
In BX1(ii), by omitting a reference to important local published robust and credible evidence as required by national planning policy, Rother has made an unsound submission.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20997
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: Cantelupe Community Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
BX1(ii) is unsound as it does not detail relevant local studies and national policies.
BX1(ii) is unsound as it does not detail relevant local studies and national policies.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 21000
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: Cantelupe Community Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
In BX1(iv) as the area that this organisation is concerned with is recognised as a deprived area, it is critical that the impacts of development proposals are thoroughly researched and local consultation takes place. This is vital as the area is already densely flatted and welfare is a recognised concern.
In BX1(iv) as the area that this organisation is concerned with is recognised as a deprived area, it is critical that the impacts of development proposals are thoroughly researched and local consultation takes place. This is vital as the area is already densely flatted and welfare is a recognised concern.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 21108
Received: 11/11/2011
Respondent: Bexhill Old Town Preservation Society
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
'Provision for a new railway station adjacent to Ravenside Retail Park':
-How might the land on the sea side of Ravenside support a station?
-There have been concerns about instability there.
-Visitors to Ravenside tend to purchase bulky goods or large quantities of shopping. It is difficult to imagine there would be any congestion relief here because of a station as car transport is more effective for this kind of shopping.
There should be a co-ordinated approach with Hastings to facilitate effective movement between the two towns.
v(b) 'Provision for a new railway station adjacent to Ravenside Retail Park':
It is unsound because:-
This proposal was included in the SEEDA document 'Forward - a masterplan for Hastings and Bexhill' which was published in November 2002. It was part of a 'metro' system which would also include a station at Bulverhythe, Marina (St Leonards), Ivy House and Wilting (Wilting has been shelved by Hastings BC)
- How might the land on the sea side of Ravenside support a station?
- There have been concerns about the instability of the earth there.
- Visitors to Ravenside tend to do so to purchase bulky goods or large quantities of shopping. Many seem to come from Hastings and St Leonards. It is difficult to imagine that there would be any relief to the congestion on the local road because of the provision of this station as car transport is more effective for this kind of door to door shopping.
There should be a co-ordinated approach with Hastings Borough Council to facilitate effective movement between the two towns (by rail, cycle and road). This would be in our long term best interests.
Bexhill can be both a 'dormitory area' for Hastings (and Eastbourne) commuters as well as a vibrant town in its own right with opportunities for people of all ages.