Figure 12: Distribution of Rural Housing Allocations
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
We do support this policy, but in a Housing needs
survey we could only identify a need for 9 affordable housing units.
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
The PC considers that there is insufficient evidence or justification to support the high number of new houses for Robertsbridge.
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
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.
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.