Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Object

Representation ID: 20957

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX1 does not mention the word 'regeneration' as does RDLP BX1(iv). It is unsound because it is unable to be effective and cannot therefore comply with current national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 20958

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX1(i) is too ambiguous and therefore unsound because it is not as effective as the current Rother District Local Plan (RDLP) which states: BX1(i) "to develop its residential, employment, shopping and service centre functions". There is no mention of 'shopping' in either BX1(i) or BX1(vi) when talking about Bexhill's function. It therefore lacks an overall vision for the town. It does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 20959

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX1(iii) is unsound because it has weakened the same point stated in RDLP BX1(ii) which states: "to provide for both the growth of local firms and appropriate inward investment in order to improve the range of job opportunities for local people as well as to ensure that residential development is sustainable". There is no mention of 'sustainability' within Policy BX1(iii) of the Core Strategy. It is therefore contrary to the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 20960

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX1(vii) is not as strong as the current RDLP BX1 and is therefore unsound. It also does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 20968

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX2 does nothing to protect the existing office use in the town centre as does RDLP BX7. It is therefore unsound because it is unable to be effective and cannot therefore comply with current national policy. It is also unjustified because there has not been enough consultation with residents and businesses. It consequently cannot comply with national policy in particular the Sustainable Communities Act 2007.

Object

Representation ID: 20969

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX2(i) is imprecise and therefore open to abuse. It is unsound because it is unjustified, not effective, lacks an overall vision for the town and does not comply with current national policy, in particular PPS12: Local Spatial Planning.

The reference to "increased parking capacity" is dealt with in BX2(ii) so there is no need for it to appear here too.

Object

Representation ID: 20970

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX2(iii) omits any reference to an important valued asset of Bexhill. It does nothing to safeguard the existing shop use within the town centre of Bexhill, predominantly already highly regarded small independents. Such a strategy is therefore open to abuse. It is unsound because it is not justified, not effective, lacks an overall vision for the town centre and does not comply with current local policies RDLP BX5 and EM13 and also regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 20971

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX2(v) is imprecise and too general. It does nothing to protect the existing Conservation Area of the town centre and surrounding area. There is also no mention of 'sustainability'. Such a strategy is unsound because it is unjustified and not effective. It lacks an overall vision for the town centre as it presumes development without any protection to the heritage and character. It therefore does not comply with current local, regional and national policies, particularly the Government's presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework and PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

Object

Representation ID: 20972

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: The Bexhill Alliance

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy BX2(vi) does not make adequate provision for protection of conservation areas, all listed buildings and valued open spaces as recognised as a top priority in the Bexhill Local Action Plan 2010, the previous November 2008 draft version of this Core Strategy and the RDLP. It is therefore an unsound policy as it is not justified, not effective and also not consistent with national policy as well as local and regional policies.