QUESTION 74: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?

No we do not agree with the proposed development boundary.

Amended to include the area shown as HG11. This would offer the ability to build a number of homes, in a layout and with plot sizes similar to the next door houses at South View Close, without significantly changing the development boundary of Hurst Green.

The major changes to the development boundary (as proposed in HUR1) should be placed on hold, pending the completion of Hurst Green Neighbourhood Plan which will have allowed a wider selection of Hurst Green community, over a longer period to have been able to participate in the process. This will also allow for consideration time of other sites (including new ones proposed by residents during this consultation) to have been considered in a similar manor to this process, in addition to the few selected sites proposed within this consultation.

As stated previously I do not agree with extending the boundary until the issue of the A21 which bisects our village is properly dealt with. Our MPs are pushing for the A21 to be upgraded to give better links with Hastings. It would be perverse to use land for housing which has been earmarked for a bypass. As the last village on the A21 we need the Council to improve the situation of traffic through our village, not make it worse.

Would suggest that the area to the north of HG17 (CaravanTech) on the opposite side of the A21 currently scrub and modern woodland should be looked at re development boundary. Small site but screened. Also HG6 and HG2 should be considered for inclusion. Both areas screened and more secluded sites within the AONB

If Neighbourhood Plans are to have any meaning at all, then they should be able to respect parish boundaries. This proposal does not, and the boundary should stop at the edge of Hurst Green parish.

I understand that Hurst Green are starting the NP process, and therefore this may become irrelevant.

Landscape

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS

Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.

Archaeology

Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219

Hurst Green

Yes

Ecology

Hurst Green

Yes