Core Strategy Issues & Options

Search representations

Results for Crowhurst Parish Council search

New search New search

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 13 re. the future objectives for Bexhill

Representation ID: 18582

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

It is clear that any future development in Rother cannot proceed with each town taking its own path. An element of co-ordination is essential to avoid duplication and get best value for everyone. The rural villages use Hastings/Bexhill/Battle and vice versa. Objectives should be amended to meet joint needs/plans.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 14 re. the main issues and options that should guide the use of land

Representation ID: 18583

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

This community feels threatened by the work already in hand with regard to a major office development West of the Queensway and the proposed link road. The suggestion that 800 homes and a station built at Upper Wilting means we would lose Crowhurst station and face an urban sprawl spilling across the border from Hastings. This points towards Crowhurst being swallowed up by a conurbation of Hastings and Bexhill.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 15 re. the most appropriate development option for Bexhill

Representation ID: 18584

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

If the Government housing targets have to be met we suggest the identification of a location inland from the coast which would allow a "small new town" development with all services - schools, shops, medical facilities, etc. Consideration should be given to developing the redundant Mountfield Gypsum mine site, including below ground development, which is on a bus route and is close to the A21 ; and the reopening of Mountfield Station (rather than building a new one at Upper Wilting). This would allow green space between urban centres to be better protected in all our interests. If Pebsham Countryside Park is to be overlooked by an 800 house development it can hardly call itself a park or recreation facility away from a town or urban surround.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 16 re. the future objectives for Battle

Representation ID: 18585

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Agreed - current objectives to be carried forward. We do not agree that Battle would benefit from a station at Upper Wilting as Crowhurst (which would not then be viable) is closer and already relieving pressure.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 17 re. the most appropriate development option for Battle

Representation ID: 18586

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Continual development to support the towns role. Option 1 gives Battle the best chance to adapt and grow without losing its unique character. It is better to have controlled change than try to slow down the pace as in Option 2.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 18 re. the future objectives for Rye

Representation ID: 18587

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Rye has considerable potential for growth and development which if managed positively could bring benefit without detracting from its unique character. All the points raised are valid and should be pursued. The town should actively promote its water leisure potential by development of a large marina and low rise associated housing project similar to that at Eastbourne.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 19 re. the most appropriate development option for Rye

Representation ID: 18588

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Option 1 plus developing water leisure potential.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 20 re. the vision and objectives for rural areas

Representation ID: 18589

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

An overall vision and objectives are essential for rural communities as they feel particularly vulnerable to any change which although small in the greater scheme of things, can nevertheless fundamentally change the character of their communities. The overall guiding objective should be to preserve the character of small villages by not putting too much pressure on them through large scale housing development, increasing traffic noise and pollution and threatening them with urban sprawl. They have a special quality of life, sought out by those who choose to live in them, and worth preserving. Each option could apply in different villages throughout Rother.

Comment

Core Strategy Issues & Options

Question 21 re. options for the distribution of new development in rural areas

Representation ID: 18590

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

Representation Summary:

New development should be distributed in accordance with paragraph 16.25 extract from Policy DS2 paragraph (iv) - development where villages already have a range of services which will support it. Otherwise dormitory areas are created.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.