Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Search representations

Results for Sussex Wildlife Trust search

New search New search

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 3 - Preferred Strategy for Overall Spatial Development

Representation ID: 20395

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Is evidence available to show that development levels suggested in the South East Plan will meet local requirement? The figures appear excessive and the Draft South East Plan has assessed as failing on sustainability grounds. How has the environmental and ecological capacity of the district been assessed?

Road infrastructure has been cited as necessary to enable development (see comments re Box 4).

We support section (i) but are very concerned that sections (d), (e) and (f) conflict with this and will result in huge loss of greenfield and impact negatively on designated sites, biodiversity and the wider ecological network. There should be far greater protection and improvement of biodiversity in the area within the context of an ecological network if the aspirations of the Vision are to be realised.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 4 - Preferred Strategy for timing of Bexhill/Hastings Link Road

Representation ID: 20396

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

The Bexhill Hastings Link Road scheme has been passed by ESCC Planning Committee despite being assessed as environmentally damaging by experts in this field. It is our opinion that this scheme will damage the ecological functioning of the valley and we have concerns that future development in this area will further contribute to this damage.

The timing of the road and subsequent development should be guided by ecological factors in order to minimize the impacts. There are also legal implications associated with timing of development work and necessary licensing.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 5 - Preferred Strategy for Development Boundaries

Representation ID: 20397

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Development boundaries should be managed to ensure that development does not act as a barrier to biodiversity, particularly species movement. ths is of importance in the context of climate change.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 7 - Preferred Strategy for ensuring appropriately high quality development

Representation ID: 20398

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Biodiversity features should be designed into all developments for species alongside appropriate habitat creation, enhancement and protection. Developments should be designed in line with the principles of ecological networks.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

13. Transport and Accessibility

Representation ID: 20399

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

We do not agree that the Bexhill Hastings Link Road offers a sustainable option for "economic and social regeneration" when the environmental costs are considered. We support a greater emphasis on sustainable transport options in line with policies on climate change and quality of life.

The Pebsham Countryside Park should be designed primarily around the ecological functioning of the whole area to avoid 'pigeon-holing' wildlife and facilities/activities.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 11 - Preferred Strategy for Hastings Fringes

Representation ID: 20400

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Development sites should be carefully assessed before allocation for development. Areas being suggested here will result in loss of greenfield land and could compromise the functioning of the area's ecological network. We are particularly concerned about land in the Marline Valley and Combe Haven Valley area and the SSSls in the vicinity, which are already under pressure from current development proposals.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

12. Environment

Representation ID: 20401

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

There is no mention of biodiversity within the environment section. This is an indicator of environmental quality and sustainability and a key component of environmental services that we depend on.

We have concerns that there is conflict between what is proposed in different sections of this box.

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 9 - Bexhill Aim and Objectives

Representation ID: 20402

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Bexhill has a number of wildlife sites which should be protected and enhanced. The objectives do not cover the environment (other than built).

Comment

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 12 - Battle Aim and Objectives

Representation ID: 20403

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

We would like to see the natural environment mentioned in the aims objectives beyond the setting of the town in the AONB.

Object

Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008

Box 13 - Preferred Strategy Direction for Battle

Representation ID: 20404

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

It is important that environmental services and biodiversity are valued, protected and enhanced if the strategy is to be sustainable and proposals within it are to contribute to quality of life.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.