Core Strategy Issues & Options

Comment

Representation ID: 18743

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

. Future should reflect the needs/aspirations of local people and communities and not what the Council feels should be the views of people.

. Council should not denigrate local views because it does not fit with the Council’s views.

. Council should not pre-empt the result of the consultation exercise. Local opinion may decide development is not required by local residents.

. Accepted that some issues/options must be pursued.

. Preferred options imply that some options or consideration of options must be adopted and not to follow any options or no option at all is not an option which the Council will accept.

Comment

Representation ID: 18744

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

If the Council is serious about relieving the pressure of such things as aging, fear of crime, unemployment etc., then cramming communities closer together and reducing the surrounding natural environment can only make matters worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 18745

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

The Council should expand on the success of the Local Farmers’ markets which reflects the demands for locally produced and locally available produce and which meets sustainable provision of goods through cutting down on transporting goods over unnecessary distances.

Comment

Representation ID: 18746

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

Greater provision should be made in terms of bus and rail services and increased concessions should be made to enable the aging population to have better and increased connections with all parts of Kent and East and West Sussex as well as northwards into Surrey and London.

Comment

Representation ID: 18747

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

Conflict in reconciling increased building and a better quality of life. AONB if it is to be gradually built over will damage quality of life.

Reduce carbon dioxide, lead and other emissions from businesses which pollute the natural environment and in the case of gardens and allotments thereby enter the food chain.

What is the point in development and trying to achieve a better quality of life if in doing so you restrict or destroy the natural environment you are professing to protect.

Need to preserve nature conservation, woodland and agricultural areas. More tree preservation orders needed.

Comment

Representation ID: 18748

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

. Recreation, open space and Allotment provision to be included.

. Housebuilding proposals excessive and unsustainable. Need infrastructure.

. Ensure adequate water supply for gardens/allotments and recreation facilities.

. Need provision for collection/disposal of green waste from allotments/gardens. Encourage residents to compost.

. Support (financial and practical) should be given to all residents to undertake gardening and allotment tending. This would meet the core aim of promoting leisure/healthy community life.

. Expand/encourage Bexhill allotments competition and Bexhill in Bloom.

. Ensure adequate fencing and paving for allotments.

. Provide for allotment holders needs, including disabled.

. More affordable/sustainable village/community facilities

Comment

Representation ID: 18749

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

A quality hotel to compliment and support the role of the DLWP is not necessary. So many hotels have closed. Commercial interests will recognise need for a further hotel in Bexhill should this become apparent. For the Council to provide the hotel is reckless. Location would be a problem on the seafront. The site of the former Grand Hotel would be more sustainable, being closer to the station.

Comment

Representation ID: 18750

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

Should recognise that majority of residents live in Rother because it is not like Brighton, Eastbourne or Hastings. The area should be left largely unchanged. It meets residents’ requirements on quality of life.

Not providing a Tourist Information Centre in Bexhill and the closure of some public conveniences, both of which are major tourist requirements, reinforces current feeling that the Council is out of touch with local feelings/opinions. It is not compatible with the strategy direction to foster tourism.

Comment

Representation ID: 18751

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Bexhill and District Gardens & Allotments Society

Conserving the countryside/areas of tranquillity and strictly controlling development is not compatible with proposals for new build/highways/businesses.