Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Comment

Representation ID: 23345

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

Policy DRM1 (Option B) is supported together with the proposed policy wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 23346

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

Whilst there is background evidence to support the policy formulation around the defined areas of the proposed strategic gaps, specifically, in relation to the Bexhill-Hastings/St Leonards proposed Strategic Gap, Hastings Borough Council believes it will be helpful to state that at the present time we are continuing to discuss the potential for a substantial sports development on HBC owned land at Bexhill Road within Rother.

We recognise that the scale of development likely to be proposed may trigger the 'exception' test which is not only part of the proposed Policy DEN3 but is already adopted Policy DS5.

Comment

Representation ID: 23347

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

The preferred housing allocation is supported in principle.

Comment

Representation ID: 23348

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

Whilst we support this residential allocation in principle we would like to add the following caveats:

* No development can take place before a planning application has been submitted to and approved by Hastings Borough Council in conjunction with the planning application to Rother District Council for development of this site;

* The development may be required to contribute to transport improvements on The Ridge as identified within the Hastings Infrastructure Delivery Plan subject to advice from Highways at East Sussex County Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 23349

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

The preferred employment allocations (Land east of Burgess Road (HF18a) and Land north of A265, Ivyhouse Lane (HF8e)) are supported in principle.

Comment

Representation ID: 23350

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

We support this allocation subject to the following caveats:

*No development can take place before a planning application has been submitted to and approved by HBC in conjunction with the planning application to RDC for development of this site;

*The development may be required to contribute to transport improvements on The Ridge as identified within the Hastings Infrastructure Delivery Plan subject to advice from ESCC Highways;

*We are pleased to see the retained and enhancement of trees along the north/east perimeter as shown in Figure 61 to protect the amenity, but recommend this be added as a policy requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 23351

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

We support this allocation subject to caveats:

*No development can take place before a planning application has been submitted to and approved by HBC in-conjunction with the planning application to RDC for development of this site;

*The development may be required to contribute to transport improvements on The Ridge as identified within the Hastings IDP subject to ESCC advice.

*Offsite improvements may be needed as a result of the incorporation of an access route which joins Ivyhouse Lane at the southern end of HOV11 allocation within the Hastings Development Management Plan (2015);

*Amend policy criterion (v) from HOV12 to HOV11.

Comment

Representation ID: 23352

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

We support Policy HAS4 and will work with Rother on any guidance that may support this policy approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 23353

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

We support the continued development and maintenance of the Combe Valley Countryside Park which forms an important part of the 'Shared Approach' for Hastings and Bexhill.