Core Strategy Consultation on Strategy Directions 2008
Search representations
Results for Sussex Wildlife Trust search
New searchComment
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
