12.12

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20736

Received: 27/10/2011

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Hodgson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Winchelsea Beach is not included as a service village.

On the Rye side of Rother only Peasmarsh and Winchelsea Beach have large food stores and ATMs. Peasmarsh has Jempson and Winchelsea Beach the CO-OP.

Winchelsea Beach also has a ladies hairdressers which attracts customers from other villages.

It also has a motor mechanics in Suttons industrial park.

It now has a Butchers shop and deli in the Ship public house and there is also a wet fish and vegetable shop.

Full text:

Winchelsea Beach is not included as a service village.

On the Rye side of Rother only Peasmarsh and Winchelsea Beach have large food stores and ATMs. Peasmarsh has Jempson and Winchelsea Beach the CO-OP.

Winchelsea Beach also has a ladies hairdressers which attracts customers from other villages.

It also has a motor mechanics in Suttons industrial park.

It now has a Butchers shop and deli in the Ship public house and there is also a wet fish and vegetable shop.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21055

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Robertsbridge Enterprise Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

RE: Two Rural Service Centres (RSCs), Robertsbridge and Ticehurst, and a number of other Local Service Villages (LSVs). But fails to articulate why such a distinction should have been made, or the stragey consequences for Rother or designated villages. This is apart from their definition within the Rural Settlements Study.

Some support should additionally come to RSVs in order for them to maintain and enhance their rôle, to be vibrant hubs and achieve sustainability.

Existing businesses should be retained and new ones created and supported to ensure the continued sustainability of the RSCs against threats posed by other towns.

Full text:

We note that the proposed Core Strategy differs from the current Local Plan in identifying different strands of rural settlements. In para 12.12, it refers to two as Rural Service Centres (RSCs), Robertsbridge and Ticehurst, and a number of other villages of sizeable populations as Local Service Villages (LSVs). Having created the distinction between RSCs and LSVs, it does not then go on to articulate why such a distinction should have been made, or what the consequences of such a distinction should be in terms of the strategy for Rother and in particular for those designated villages. This is apart from their definition within the Rural Settlements Study.

Common sense should dictate that, having identified a distinction and honouring Robertsbridge and Ticehurst with the title of RSC, some help and support should additionally come to those two villages in order for them to maintain and enhance such a rôle into the future, especially since such action should be designed to achieve sustainability in the wider community by ensuring that the RSCs are, and continue to be vibrant hubs, adequately equipped to maintain their designated rôles.

In particular that means there should be special consideration afforded to the retention of existing businesses and the creation and support of new ones to ensure the continued sustainability of the RSCs against threats posed by neighbouring towns or those further afield, such as Tunbridge Wells and Hastings.