Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Search representations
Results for Millwood Designer Homes Ltd. search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
5. Overall spatial Development Strategy
Representation ID: 20308
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
We particularly support the comments in paragraph 5.17 to the effect that "simply allocating sites will not be sufficient to bring about the step-change", and that there is a need for a "holistic strategy to stimulate economic activity".
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 15 - Preferred Strategy for Rye and Rye Harbour
Representation ID: 20309
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
The preferred strategy is not 'holistic' and it does not take into account some of the key factors that effect economic development. This is particularly the case in the approach to Rye.
No attempt has been made to balance the social and economic needs of Rye against the "environmental factors". The Council's approach is to use environmental constraints as a reason for minimising the level of development.
Rye is suffering unacceptable levels of social and economic depriviation. It is not acceptable to implement policies that preserve the status quo in terms of the environment if those policies do not bring about socio-economic improvements.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development
Representation ID: 20310
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
We consider that this approach is far too negative and places too greater weight on the physical features of Rye and its setting, and does not properly balance these against the socio-economic characteristics.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
5. Overall spatial Development Strategy
Representation ID: 20311
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
Paragraph 5.87
We object to this paragraph because it is factually incorrect. Land on the south side of Rock Channel is equally free of any such designations. The Council has not properly considered all of the development opportunities around the town.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 6 - Preferred Strategy for Determining the most Appropriate Development Locations
Representation ID: 20312
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
Box 6 does not include any direct reference to the need for economic regeneration There should be a strong 'needs-based' emphasis to the strategy to ensure that development is encouraged in those locations where there is a known need for enhancement. This has not been included.
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
6. Bexhill and Hastings Fringes
Representation ID: 20313
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
Paragraphs 6.41 and 6.51
These two paragraphs refer to the constraints on development associated with the AONB, which closely surrounds the town. It also states that development is limited by "access and topographical factors". It is considered that the analysis in these two paragraphs is somewhat over-generalised, to the point where it is actually misleading. their wording should be reviewed in the context of allowing a more flexible approach to be taken to the land on the edge of Hastings
Object
Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Box 11 - Preferred Strategy for Hastings Fringes
Representation ID: 20314
Received: 30/01/2009
Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
Object to part (c)(iii). The reference to "only very limited development" is imprecise and unduly restrictive. There is no indication of how "limited" such development would be.
Also object to any development being "primarily for employment purposes". The development opportunity we have identified is not suitable for employment purposes. It is much better suited to residential development. A substitute wording is suggested.