Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Comment

Representation ID: 20231

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(ii) - Proposed provision of new supermarket: Chamber members consider that the provision of additional food retail space at the Jempson's site in Market Square would be good and that this is the only possibility of providing increased food retail area within the curtilage of the town. Any further retail, however, should go hand-in-hand with more parking provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 20232

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(ii) - Proposed provision of new supermarket cont: The provision of a totally new 1,000 sq.m. supermarket either at the existing Tesco Express site to the south of the town or any other location not within the town's curtilage would be a disaster for the existing retail outlets of all types and would threaten the very nature of the market town. An expanded retail area at the Tesco Express site would also result in considerable traffic hazard at the road junction.

Comment

Representation ID: 20233

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(ii) - Proposed provision of new supermarket: Rother's attention is drawn to Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres published 2005, clauses 3.21, 22 and 23. The Chamber considers this to be very pertinent to the proposal for a new supermarket adjacent Battle town centre. An example of another market town where a supermarket has been located on the edge of the existing town centre, with consequent disastrous results for the town centre itself, is Edenbridge.

Object

Representation ID: 20234

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(b)(ii) - Proposed relocation of Martin's Oak Surgery: Chamber members also considered that the recommendation to replace the Martins Oak surgery to be totally misguided. The current facilities are ideally placed for use by local residents, particularly young families accessing the local schools and the elderly living in assisted accommodation throughout the town. Its location also adds to the economic life of the town as users of the surgery typically use the High Street shops at the same time as visiting the surgery. A new building out of the town centre would be much less accessible and would weaken the economic viability of the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 20235

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(a)(i) - Tourism: This clause concludes that sustainable tourism should be achieved by maintaining and where possible raising the tourism profile of Battle. The Chamber members consider that the current TIC is inadequate and must be made to be far more proactive in supporting and promoting the town and district as a whole.

Comment

Representation ID: 20236

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.40(e)(i) - Parking: Chamber members consider parking provision must be a key priority in improving the economic life of the town. Sufficient free parking provision was also considered important.

Object

Representation ID: 20237

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Battle Chamber of Commerce

7.44 - Chamber representation: In clause 7.44 the lead agencies with whom the Council propose to work are listed. Battle Chamber of Commerce is not included. We believe this must be an administrative oversight on the part of GL Hearn. Please include the Chamber as a lead agency under the headings of 'The Economy', 'Town Centre', 'Development and Housing'.