Core Strategy Issues & Options

Comment

Representation ID: 18941

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Option 3 is realistic but should include the ambitions of Option 2 -to expand Bexhill's Role. Bexhill needs to develop a new sense of purpose and identity beyond "a place to retire" or "dormitory for Hastings".

Comment

Representation ID: 18942

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Opportunities for ongoing development should resist the desire for nothing to change which will lead to stagnation.

Comment

Representation ID: 18943

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Option 1.

Comment

Representation ID: 18944

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Rye needs to engage with its hinterland and develop enhanced facilities to encourage people living close to, but outside, the town to use it. Lack of parking and difficult access to the High Street area mean older people and those with mobility difficulties are the least likely to find the town accessible.

There is a great need to diversify local employment opportunities and to target higher grade occupations.
Once again the need for affordable housing is linked with the ability to provide suitable employment opportunities. The imperative of climate change means people need to be able to live and work in close proximity.

Comment

Representation ID: 18945

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Rye cannot survive as a market town unless there is an adequate level of growth. If it stagnates it will also become less popular as a tourist destination.

Comment

Representation ID: 18946

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

There can be an overarching vision for the rural areas but with flexibility to respond to local needs. It is vital that any strategy enables a local community to retain key services to meet the needs of its residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 18947

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

All options have merits. Option 2 is necessary to support a thriving rural area. There will be additional demand in larger villages (Option 3) and yet there will still be a need for some dispersed development (Option 4 ). As above, there needs to be the flexibility to respond to local need.

Comment

Representation ID: 18948

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

Key issues today are transport, environmental issues, energy generation, health and the way communities relate to each other. They are also the centralisation of services, empowering communities, freedom of information and the explosion of information technology.

I believe the tone and structure of the core strategy misses how these current issues are converging to shape the look and feel of communities. Renewable and cheaper energy, healthier lifestyles and exercise, informed choice, devolved political power, environmental protection are dominant themes and have become as important as the traditional emphasis on housing, education and job creation.

I do not believe that the 5 themes of the core strategy reflect this strongly enough.

Comment

Representation ID: 18949

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

The policy context is perhaps the weakest section of the document.

The section has not referenced the two Area Investment Framework strategies (East Sussex Economic Partnership and the Hastings and Bexhill Economic Alliance ).

What is not evidenced in this section is an analysis of the policy framework or conclusions as to what the current and future drivers and constraints are. This is perhaps the biggest omission in the document in that it is necessary to understand these priorities in order to understand how Rother fits into sub regional strategies.

It makes sense to frame the Rother LDF in a way that fits with these strategies. From the document it is not clear that this is being done.

Comment

Representation ID: 19010

Received: 27/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

In Bexhill's case there are a lack of multi-use facilities for community use, lack of suitable indoor sports facilities, restrictions over the use of some playing fields and a general lack of investment in physical community infrastructure.