Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Object

Representation ID: 19310

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

As a Core Strategy document, this should indicate the broad development strategy for Battle with more detailed policies being set out in other DPD documents. As regards item f, while parts i- iii are appropriate, at the Core Strategy level there is no need to specify locations of 'peripheral expansion'. This should be considered and justified in for example, the Housings Allocations DPD and at this stage, there is no sound reason for prejudicing a more detailed study of potential sites and locations by listing areas of potential peripheral expansion in the Core Document Policy. Part (v) should therefore, be amended to refer to 'modest peripheral expansion' or similar.

Object

Representation ID: 19318

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Part (II) is not required as this would be permitted by the settlement having an identified built up area boundary (which should be reviewed as part of the Housing DPD to permit small scale peripheral growth in addition to identified housing sites).

Part (III) should be retained as existing identified sites are part implemented.

Part (IV) while Battle has scope for peripheral expansion, in the Core Strategy this should be stated in broad terms without identifying 'areas of search'. This would otherwise prejudice a more detailed assessment and search at the Housing DPD allocations/built up area review stage and potentially prejudice suitable candidate sites outside the areas of search currently mentioned. For example, without a more detailed assessment there are no sound reasons for ruling out peripheral development in the Battle 'Section 2 and 3' areas identified in the Figure 2 of the Urban Options Background Paper.

Object

Representation ID: 19319

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

To be consistent with box 5, the objectives need to include the intention to retain/review built up area boundaries around rural settlements considered suitable for infill development or modest expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 19320

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

While it might be appropriate to list settlements where built up area boundaries are to be identified, the specific number of proposed dwellings (or dwelling range) should be excluded, as this should be the subject of more detailed investigation in assessing/reviewing built up area boundaries and potential housing sites as part of the Housing Allocations DPD. This would then be more consistent with item (h) in Box 3.

Object

Representation ID: 19321

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

A. It needs to be made clear that the countryside policy relates to all land outside defined built up area boundaries around settlements.

B. Greater clarification is needed in relation to open market residential re-use of rural buildings. The words 'redundant' and 'agricultural' should be removed from item (b)(iii) as this is not consistent with PPS7.

C. What is the Council's policy for the re-use, redeveloped or extension of rural previously developed sites (i.e. those sites outside settlement boundaries)?

D. What is the Council's policy towards the enlargement or extension of existing dwellings/business uses located in the countryside?

Object

Representation ID: 19322

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

While it is acknowledged that in most parts of the south east region there is a critical shortage of affordable accommodation, the setting of thresholds should be carefully considered so as to avoid discouraging developers from bringing forward suitable housing sites or larger housing sites in sustainable locations. In the towns including Rye and Battle, there is no reason why this should not be set at 15 dwellings rather than any lower figure, given that these are the most suitable locations for accommodating the majority of the new housing needed to meet housing targets.

Object

Representation ID: 19323

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Agent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

The policy could provide for the allocation of affordable housing sites (as in Wealden District) with developer contributions from all new open market housing within village settlement boundaries. Such contributions could then be used to acquire and service the allocated affordable housing sites. Such a policy could be introduced in addition to an 'exceptions' sites policy. The alternative of reducing the threshold to as low as 3 new dwellings is likely to result in no new housing sites coming forward in rural settlements, weakening any potential for affordable housing in such settlements.