Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Search representations
Results for Sea Space search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Paragraph a
Representation ID: 19338
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
The strategic accessibility priorities, as set out, fully accord with those of the Task Force and we therefore support them.
In regard to the Glyne Gap and Wilting Station proposals referred to in (a)(viii), we would like to work further with RDC and others and, provided feasibility can be demonstrated, to see how they can be developed into deliverable schemes.
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 1 - Vision for the Future
Representation ID: 19339
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
We support in "the vision for Bexhill" the recognition that it should be the main focus for development and that it will play "its part within an integrated approach to securing a more prosperous future for the Bexhill and Hastings area"
We are also pleased to see the objective (Box 2) "(iv) To give particular attention to promoting economic regeneration and growth for the Hastings and Bexhill area"
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development
Representation ID: 19340
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
The provision for 100,000m2 of business floorspace looks to us to be of about the right order for the needs of this area. However, it would have been helpful to include, in the supporting text, an explanation of how it has been arrived at - to demonstrate that it is consistent with the 30,000 net additional jobs by 2016 being sought for the South Coast Sub-Regional Strategy. (Although the chapter on Economy does refer to the Employment Strategy and Land Review, a summarised explanation in this document, as provided for housing, would have been useful).
Support
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development
Representation ID: 19341
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
We support priority (d) focus of development in Bexhill and economic regeneration and growth in the Hastings and Bexhill area; and (e) sustainable urban extensions on the edge of Hastings.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development
Representation ID: 19342
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
The projected distribution of employment space may be reasonable but, in order to achieve the overall target, we suggest a degree of flexibility is provided for. In other words, if one area proves capable of providing more, it should not be constrained from doing so as it is highly likely that there will be other areas that deliver less.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development
Representation ID: 19343
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
The projected retail growth for Bexhill looks rather unambitious (we assume the comparison figure is 4,000m2 not 40,000m2) if the town centre is to thrive. Having said that, the real need in Bexhill is probably more to do with provision of larger better quality retail units, more suited to multiple retailers' requirements, than simply increasing the quantity of shops.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development
Representation ID: 19344
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
We believe that the number of dwellings proposed for the Hastings Fringes is too low.
We are of the view that, although the strategy seeks to meet the housing target set out in the South East Plan, 5,600-5,850 should not be seen as a maximum if wider planning and economic arguments arise to justify going beyond that.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 4 - Preferred Strategy for timing of Bexhill/Hastings Link Road
Representation ID: 19345
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
The document devotes considerable space to setting out the pivotal significance of the Link Road to the strategy and the possible consequences of it not proceeding or being delayed. We believe that is wholly appropriate and therefore support the intentions set out in Box 4 subject to one caveat. The supporting text explains the implications for housing and employment development but Box 4 only concerns itself with housing. It should include actions relating to employment as well.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 10 - Preferred Strategy for Bexhill
Representation ID: 19346
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
The preferred strategy does not live up to the scale of change presaged. Mostly, it is small-scale interventions or proposals. Of particular concern is the town centre. It has been in gentle decline for a long time and, unless a more ambitious approach is adopted, it is difficult to see how it can gain benefit from the new population that is planned around the fringes of Bexhill. The danger will be that spending power will go to other centres outside of Rother. The LDF process should confront the issue and set out a mechanism to address it.
Comment
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 11 - Preferred Strategy for Hastings Fringes
Representation ID: 19347
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Sea Space
We welcome the potential for development at Breadsell Farm/ Wilting area and agree employment land should be included with development. We accept in 6.49 that development be associated with a new parkway station. However the amount of development proposed falls short required to support a station. Our understanding is that a maximum of 200 dwellings is assumed, half of which within Hastings Borough. We consider this unnecessarily cautious. We believe that some limited visual impact would be justifiable in order to achieve wider benefits. We do not accept that development would compromise the countryside park.
