Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Support

Representation ID: 19875

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

BALI fully supports the Section 12 (Environment) and each individual Preferred Strategy contained within it. However it finds plans and policies elsewhere in the Core Strategy conflict with its Aims and Objectives and many of the Preferred Strategies for the environment. This we find particularly the case with the Preferred Strategy for Landscape Stewardship and that for Biodiversity and Open Space.

Support

Representation ID: 19876

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

BALI supports the Preferred Strategy for Landscape Stewardship. It is pleased to note the recognition (12.3) that the "custodianship of such a beautiful natural and built district "as Rother "demands a high level of environmental stewardship". and that the Preferred Strategy is to protect and enhance "locally distinctive landscapes".

Support

Representation ID: 19877

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

BALI supports the Preferred Strategy for Biodiversity and Green Space.
However plans and policies elsewhere in the document would seem prejudicial to the Preferred Strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 19878

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

BALI supports the Preferred Strategy for Transport and Accessibility, welcoming the attention given to public transport, particularly by rail, and the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes.
We are pleased to note that environmentally destructive roads considered elsewhere in the Core Strategy e.g. extending the so-called "Country Avenue" from the Link Road to the A269 and then, it seems (in 6.33), to the A259 are merely suggestions and do not form a part of the Preferred Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 19879

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

For the Environment, we feel there should be specific mention of ("protecting and enhancing") the Highwoods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). BALI therefore suggests a further point under c) regarding the Highwoods.
We believe that extended westward development from the Link Road is not supported and is unlikely to be achievable.
We therefore suggest the omission of any reference to the westward extension of the North East Bexhill development and to any "Country Avenue". If this amendment is not accepted we propose at least the removal of the phrase "linking to the A269".

Object

Representation ID: 19880

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

There is no need for the Core Strategy to replicate the Local Plan.The extension of the Country Avenue to the A269 goes beyond Local Plan and County transport policy. The development at Preston Hall Farm will form part of Sidley and be accessible from A269 with no need of Country Avenue. Development would detract from the regeneration of Sidley. Our objections are environmentally based. It is unjustifiable and unsustainable. Carbon emissions/air pollution will be increased. Large scale development for North Bexhill be replaced with re-development and extension of Sidley.

Object

Representation ID: 19881

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

6.34 makes a presumption of future ESCC Transport and Waste planning that RDC is neither required nor entitled to make. It seeks to facilitate development west of the A269 that is not supported by the Council or the citizens of Bexhill and in particular the transport infrastructure for a landfill site which is only in the very loosest sense planned and whose further consideration is as likely as not to be abandoned. Furthermore no consideration whatsoever is expressed for the massive environmental implications for North West Bexhill of such development as is here envisaged

Object

Representation ID: 19882

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

It is not clear what "development area" which is currently "served only by Sandhurst Lane and Whydown Road" is here referred to nor why it is not also currently served by Peartree Lane.
2. While some development north (and south) of the A259 can be supported, BALI vigorously opposes any development which would reach Whydown Road. Whydown and the Highwoods are clearly distinctive natural landscapes that need to be protected.
We suggest the omission of the section, allthough there is ...... from the east" and also the omission of the word "well" from the phrase "Development may extend well northwards".

Object

Representation ID: 19883

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

Land west of the allocated area North of Sidley along an extension of the "Country Avenue" to the A269 is surely not "West of Bexhill", but North (West) of Bexhill. 2. It is not at all clear which area you mean that "should be developed" beyond that already allocated in Policy BX3 of the RDC Local Plan nor which is the "already planned development" mentioned. 3. The area which you state "should be developed" would seem to be countryside west of the A269 as described in 6.37 which also includes valued ancient woodland. In what sense is this ill-defined area the most appropriate broad location for medium/longer term strategic growth? Such a statement needs to be justified.
5. What does "strategic growth" in this section mean?

Object

Representation ID: 20484

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

BALI concentrates its objections to such plans and policies (or Strategies) on the Northern and Western areas of Bexhill but we believe there are policies for other areas of Rother which also conflict.
The Core Strategy should be further reviewed as to whether the strategies contained within it meet the high standards set in section 12.