Figure 12: Distribution of Rural Housing Allocations

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20540

Received: 24/08/2011

Respondent: Devine Homes

Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Figure 12 should distribute the rural housing to settlement in accordance with a Rural Sustainable Hierarachy with a greater proportion given to the larger settlements. At present Robertbridge only appears to provide around 11% of the Rural housing. This does not recognise the settlements strategic importance and has left smaller rural settlements taking a much higher proportion when ranked against a sustainable matrix.

Full text:

Figure 12 should distribute the rural housing to settlement in accordance with a Rural Sustainable Hierarachy with a greater proportion given to the larger settlements. At present Robertbridge only appears to provide around 11% of the Rural housing. This does not recognise the settlements strategic importance and has left smaller rural settlements taking a much higher proportion when ranked against a sustainable matrix.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20573

Received: 21/09/2011

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Portchester Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The identification of Robertsbridge for 109 to 119 additional dwellings between 2011 and 2028 is objected to.

This is because it is considered that the village has capacity to accommodate in the region of 250 additional dwellings without having any material adverse impact on the AONB and other constraints.

Figure 12 should be amended to reflect this.

Full text:

The identification of Robertsbridge for 109 to 119 additional dwellings between 2011 and 2028 is objected to.

This is because it is considered that the village has capacity to accommodate in the region of 250 additional dwellings without having any material adverse impact on the AONB and other constraints.

Figure 12 should be amended to reflect this.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20739

Received: 28/10/2011

Respondent: Royal Court Developments Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

My objection is two-fold:
1. I do not believe it is necessary to have a range of housing requirements for each village in Figure 12.
2. I believe the figures should be described as "up to" a certain level and for that level to be tested at the Site Allocation Stage in terms of the availability of further information in viability and sustainability factors.
3. I believe the Ticehurst housing figures are low.

Full text:

My objection is two-fold:
1. I do not believe it is necessary to have a range of housing requirements for each village in Figure 12.
2. I believe the figures should be described as "up to" a certain level and for that level to be tested at the Site Allocation Stage in terms of the availability of further information in viability and sustainability factors.
3. I believe the Ticehurst housing figures are low.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20851

Received: 10/11/2011

Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Yet again Robertsbridge is expected to bear the brunt of new development. Following the last public inquiry in 2006, the inspector concluded that as 300 new homes had been built here in the last 30 years, any ned development shoud be for the local need i.e low-cost/sheltered housing. RA1 talks about the vitality of villages, by restricting some villages to zero growth, what happens to their vitality?, it dies as the younger geraration of villagers (who may have long links to the village) are force to move to other villages/towns. No justification for each level on building has been made.

Full text:

Yet again Robertsbridge is expected to bear the brunt of new development. Following the last public inquiry in 2006, the inspector concluded that as 300 new homes had been built here in the last 30 years, any ned development shoud be for the local need i.e low-cost/sheltered housing. RA1 talks about the vitality of villages, by restricting some villages to zero growth, what happens to their vitality?, it dies as the younger geraration of villagers (who may have long links to the village) are force to move to other villages/towns. No justification for each level on building has been made.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20856

Received: 10/11/2011

Respondent: Iden Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Iden Council feel that comments made in their letter dated 27th January 2009 to David Marlow stands. In short: Iden would accept the suggestion of a further 15 houses between now and 2026 should these be as mixed sized/value individual new homes distributed across the village retaining the village charm and character and historic nucleated development. A policy of "infill" or estate development would not seem appropriate. Homes would have to be sensitive to the character of the village and area and so would suggest that the Parish Council should be involved right from the beginning of any development.

Full text:

Iden Council feel that comments made in their letter dated 27th January 2009 to David Marlow stands. In short: Iden would accept the suggestion of a further 15 houses between now and 2026 should these be as mixed sized/value individual new homes distributed across the village retaining the village charm and character and historic nucleated development. A policy of "infill" or estate development would not seem appropriate. Homes would have to be sensitive to the character of the village and area and so would suggest that the Parish Council should be involved right from the beginning of any development.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20877

Received: 09/11/2011

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We do support this policy, but in a Housing needs
survey we could only identify a need for 9 affordable housing units.

Full text:

We do support this policy, but in a Housing needs
survey we could only identify a need for 9 affordable housing units.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20998

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The PC considers that there is insufficient evidence or justification to support the high number of new houses for Robertsbridge.

Full text:

The PC considers that there is insufficient evidence or justification to support the high number of new houses for Robertsbridge.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21170

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Mr John Keeling

Agent: DPP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Support is not given to the proposed range of housing for each village prescribed in the Core Strategy or the lowering of housing numbers derived from the SEP. It is considered access to affordable housing and a good range of services is essential to maintain vitality and viability in rural villages and a restriction on growth in villages will undermine the health of rural settlements.

It is considered in the case of Sedlescombe there is greater potential to deliver more housing and associated infrastructure than the figure prescribed in the emerging Core Strategy.

Full text:

Figure 12 summarises the distribution of the total housing requirement for the rural areas. Whilst we support the logic of distributing numbers according to village size and development potential we do not agree with the suggestion of a range of housing for these villages. Nor do we support the lowering of the original target derived from the SEP figures. We are concerned that the Council's approach to housing targets is fundamentally flawed in that it plans for underprovision. Given the Government's emerging policy in the NPPF we have serious misgivings about the Council's ability to deliver sustainable development given this overt plan for under-provision. In rural villages access to affordable housing and a good range of services is essential to maintain vitality and viability. A restriction on housing growth in villages will ultimately undermine the health of individual villages and will significantly inhibit the likelihood of other forms of development (such as employment) coming forward.



In the case of Sedlescombe my client's site has the potential to deliver more housing numbers than is stated in Figure 12. This will allow for the provision of a much-needed replacement pre-school facility as well as enhanced primary school facilities, employment uses and public open space. These non-residential uses will not be delivered by a smaller scheme and therefore the benefits of these uses for the village will be lost. Whilst we have not evaluated the development potential of all other villages it is clear from Sedlescombe that the housing numbers set out in Figure 12 will ultimately frustrate the Council's intention (as stated in the preamble to policy RA1) to maintain the vitality and viability of this particular rural settlement.

We therefore consider that the Council's approach to housing delivery in the case of Sedlescombe is ineffective and is therefore unsound. To remedy this we would like to see the housing targets for all villages set to the higher level. In the case of Sedlescombe we would like to see the housing target increased to at least 60 or that reference to the figures being minimum added.