MOD 11.3

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21415

Received: 26/09/2013

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Mr Graham Clark

Representation:

Policy BA1(iii) should be amended to provide for a minimum number of units for Battle.

Full text:

Policy BA1(iii) should be amended to provide for a minimum number of units for Battle.

Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21434

Received: 24/09/2013

Respondent: Mr David Lowe

Representation:

MOD 11.3 increases the building number from 400-440 to 475-500. This increase does not sufficiently emphasise two important criteria for the planning of housing developments:
1. The development should avoid damaging the quality of the countryside immediately surrounding the town of Battle. This criterion is highlighted in the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.
2. The development should avoid placing additional pressure on town facilities unless there are specific plans to resolve these pressures. Additional housing on the outskirts of the town will result in new households using cars to drive into the town plus extra pressure on car parking.

Full text:

MOD 11.3 increases the building number from 400-440 to 475-500. This main modification is unsound because it is ineffective and unjustified. This increase does not sufficiently emphasise two important criteria for the planning of housing developments:
1. The development should avoid damaging the quality of the countryside immediately surrounding the town of Battle. This criterion is highlighted in the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.
2. The development should avoid placing additional pressure on town facilities such as car parks, roads, NHS services, etc, unless there are specific plans to resolve these pressures. Additional housing on the outskirts of the town will result in new households using cars to drive into the town plus extra pressure on car parking.

Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21485

Received: 27/09/2013

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

Representation:

Building houses seems to be what everybody believes will sort the economy out, but it just delays the crash; the higher things go the further they will fall, so we should stop the problem before it starts.

The Rother plans put forward can only make things worse.

Development areas such as North Bexhill need to be offered as a site where people can grow, play and live.

Work units can only cost a few thousand pounds, yet we have seaspace inviting businesses to invest at rents that one can rarely afford, having paid a development value for the land.

Full text:

MOD 7.8 pg33.
This deprivation of Hastings and Bexhill is caused by the marketing of everything; we have the wrong idea about growth? Building houses seems to be what everybody believes will sort the economy out, but it just delays the crash; the higher things go the further they will fall, so we should stop the problem before it starts.
We have young and elderly people suffering from mental depression, people can't save for their pensions, what do these modifications do for them?
The plans that Rother are trying to put forward can only make things worse.
The large proposed development areas such as North Bexhill off the link road need to be offered as a site where people can grow, play and live in an oasis of peace.
Work units can only cost a few thousand pounds, yet we have sea space inviting big businesses to invest in the area at rents that one can rarely afford, having paid a development value for the land, let's put out a new plan. Consider the document, 'Protect our Open Spaces', we should have a referendum on this document before the idea goes to the full council. At the Link Road enquiry I asked what the County Council were paying for the land they were compulsory purchasing; they replied 'agricultural value'.
With 10,000 unemployed and 4,000 on the housing waiting list, we should do the same for the sake of Rother and Hastings; we should look at land reform on a national scale, start here? Stack the houses, create a community farm and have an elderly people's village!
The strategy as it stands will create debt and despair. It is unsound and Hastings is the same, you are all supposed to be working together, but it would appear a few are not co-operating, are they the ones who are making the decisions?

This point also applies to MOD 7.4, pg.36 regarding Battle and Rye, MOD 11.3 pg.70 Policy BA1 for Battle.

Mod 12.5 pg81, figure 12,
The extra houses should be given to the villages (from Udimore onwards) which could all take 20 houses under the Trust scheme; villages are desperate for homes for locals, unless we build something for them they will become fully occupied by elderly residents.
If you move on 30 years, as the generations die off properties will be bought by the buy to let companies because the local people won't be able to purchase them, in turn they will be let out at outrageous rents that only drug addicts and people who receive benefits can live for, do we want that?

MOD 12.5 pg80 Policy RA1

Each village could take a number of houses under the Land Community Trusy instead of the 1 or 2 mentioned in the Rother Core Strategy Modifications.

Chapter 8 vii 'Provide for employment and housing growth'

Employment work units and shops should be pursued which are affordable for any starter businesses. If the council control the sites and sell these units for cost for new people then the council will have control to monitor these people and see what is happening within businesses, this also means that the extra land can be rented rather than put on the market to be unused or misused.

Supplementary information submitted with the representation can be found here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20689
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20673

Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21542

Received: 24/09/2013

Respondent: Mr Adrian Hall

Representation:

The Modification does not sufficiently emphasise two important criteria for the planning of housing:

(c) the development should avoid damaging the quality of the countryside immediately surrounding the curtilage of a town. This criterion is frequently highlighted in the 2013 SHLAA and applies in particular to Battle;

(d) the development should avoid placing additional pressure on facilities such as car parks, roads and shops, unless there are specific remedies. Battle has traffic and parking congestion as well as insufficient space for additional supermarkets. Expansion of housing will either produce unremedied problems; or the remedies will adversely alter the towns character.

Full text:

This Main Modification is unsound because it is ineffective. The amended Core Strategy and in particular this Modification [ quote ref number] do not sufficiently emphasise two important criteria for the planning of housing developments:

(g) the development should avoid damaging the quality of the countryside immediately surrounding the curtilage of a town. This criterion is frequently highlighted in the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA and applies in particular to Battle ;

(h) the development should avoid placing additional pressure on town facilities such as car parks, roads and shops, unless there are specific remedies for that additional pressure. Battle is an example of a town with traffic and parking congestion as well as insufficient space for additional supermarkets. Expansion of housing at its periphery will either produce unremedied problems in respect of facilities and transport ; or the remedies if implemented will adversely alter the character of the town.