Core Strategy Issues & Options

Comment

Representation ID: 18761

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Local Plan Aim 2 is supported, but emphasis should be placed upon the need for partnership working between all relevant parties to ensure that adequate infrastructure and services exist to support communities and facilitate new development.

An additional aim is recommended: "supporting enhanced education provision to raise aspirations and attainment levels to create a skilled workforce to deliver the social and economic aims".

Comment

Representation ID: 18762

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

SEERA will be providing strategic guidance on site allocations for gypsy and traveller sites. Whilst the final form of regional policy is to be finalised, the Council will need to acknowledge its duties under Circular 01/2006 â€~Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites’.

Comment

Representation ID: 18763

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Older people’s housing needs should be catered for, including housing accessible to key services, of varying tenures, with an emphasis on encouraging older people to live in their own homes. RDC should work with Health, Social Care and Social Housing partners to identify options to help shape the market (social rented and private sector) and ensure developments do not encourage the in-migration of older residents, yet meet identified local needs.
The need for affordable sheltered and extra care housing is supported and liaison with ESCC is recommended.

Lifetime Homes should be specified as a standard for all development.

Comment

Representation ID: 18764

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

With reference to question 5 The District Council can support the "educational sector" in two key ways. Firstly as planning authority in respect of supporting the necessary infrastructure at existing and new education sites. This is particularly significant as funding is promised by Government to refurbish or replace schools over the next 10- 15 years. Secondly as a partner in terms of linkages with local communities and local businesses.

Comment

Representation ID: 18765

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Poor transport infrastructure serves only to reinforce this part of the Sussex Coast sub-region’s peripherality and limit opportunities to develop suitable business premises. The Link Road is essential in addressing local environmental problems, releasing employment sites and establishing the conditions for regeneration and growth.

The strategy for the Sussex Coast in the South East Plan seeks a step change in the sub-region’s economy to reduce unsustainable out-commuting. Much depends on the delivery of key transport within and beyond the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 18766

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

The document does not explain the role of the County council as Highway Authority in securing developer contributions towards sustainable transport improvements and its current joint work with RDC on an accessibility audit for the area. The audit will be key in determining accessibility strategies , the distribution of development and the location of services in the district.

Consultation on the draft Hastings and Bexhill Local Area Transport Strategy will take place in the first half of 2007.

Comment

Representation ID: 18767

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

The aim should be for high environmental performance from new build, in line with RPG9 Policy INF4. The County Council has published a SPD on Construction and Demolition Waste which encourages greater resource efficiency in the use of materials and subsequent reduction of landfill waste.
Department for Education and Skills’ guidelines for new schools include the need to plan sustainably and to increasingly apply BREEM and Design Quality Indicator assessment methods.

The location of development also has a bearing on this issue and issues such as flood risk and environmental designations should be observed in the allocation of land.

Comment

Representation ID: 18768

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Themes 5 & 3 make no reference to infrastructure policies in the South East Plan (Policy CC5), Structure Plan (Policies S2, S3) and Circular 05/05 and the Planning Gain Supplement.

It is important to be aware of the infrastructure requirements of development options although their detail can only be realistically determined at a later LDF stage. The advice in Circular 05/05, paragraph B30 should be noted.
ESCC should be involved in providing the evidence base for development contributions and the setting of policy requirements.
The Preferred Options should acknowledge potential changes if the Planning Gain Supplement is introduced.

Comment

Representation ID: 18769

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

The South East Plan district development levels are contingent on key infrastructure. Should these schemes, including the Link Road, not come forward as planned, the development rates will be challenging.

To advocate significantly higher housing levels would have implications for the issues in paragraph 11.11. Whilst higher development levels could bring more affordable housing, it would also bring adverse effects such as insufficient employment development. This could result in increased job competition, higher out-commuting and elderly in-migration. This scenario would also require a greater greenfield component with implications for the quality and character of the environment and infrastructure delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 18770

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Although there is no reason to conclude that Scenario C (diminishing supply) is likely to occur, it would be inadvisable to plan for Scenario B (dynamic growth). Scaling back greenfield allocations now in the expectation of higher brownfield yields will be problematic in the longer term if brownfield site development maintains current levels.

It would be prudent to plan for a continuation of current trends or indeed allocate more greenfield sites, particularly with regional housing figures uncertain. If the local housing market improves, it would be easier to phase back the release of greenfield allocations in response to higher brownfield yields.