Policy BX1: Overall Strategy for Bexhill

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20579

Received: 08/09/2011

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

* The strategy for Bexhill is determined substantially by the Link Road - see previous representations.

Full text:

* 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

Representation Summary:

* The strategy for Bexhill is determined substantially by the Link Road - see previous representations.

Full text:

* 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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

See previous comments made on policy EC1

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.)

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

BX1(ii) is unsound as it does not detail relevant local studies and national policies.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

'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.

Full text:

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.