(6)Option 1: A policy defining a development boundary

3.2 Under this option the following policy would be applied:

New development will be accommodated within the development boundary for Hastings as defined on the Proposals Map.

3.3 A suggested boundary is shown on the consultation plan in appendix B

(4)Option 2: Not having a development boundary

3.4 A second option is not to define a development boundary and rely on other policies that protect certain areas from unsustainable development. The other policies would be National and international protection of delicate ecological sites, natural environment protection policies from the Planning Strategy.

(14)Option 1: A single policy

3.9 This option includes a policy providing guidance on the various aspects of design for the ease of use by applicants. It is formed in a way that allows the designer a degree of flexibility in their approach.

Suggested wording:

All proposals must reach a good standard of design, which includes efficient use of resources, and takes into account:

1. Protecting and enhancing local character and showing appreciation of the surrounding neighbourhood's historic context, street patterns, plot boundaries, block sizes, height and materials.

2. The layout and siting of buildings making efficient use of land, the orientation of frontages to achieve attractive streetscapes and the maximisation of solar gain.

3. Assessment of visual impact, including the height, scale, and form of development that should be appropriate to the location, especially given the complex topography of the Borough and the need, in some instances, to consider the visual effect from key viewpoints.

4. The density of the development is compatible with the area's existing character.

5. Good performance against nationally recognised best practice guidance on sustainability, urban design and place-making, architectural quality and distinctiveness.

In the case of telecommunications prior approval for the siting and appearance of antennae will be given and full planning permission granted for telecommunications installations provided that the appropriate matters from the list above have been adequately considered in order to minimise the effect upon the character and appearance of the locality and taking account of technical constraints, there is no realistic prospect of a visually less intrusive site or mast, a building or other structure, being available.

(3)Option 2: Split the guidance into separate policies

3.10 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; this might help to reinforce the view that each aspect of design is important in its own right. A greater number of policies, however, covering one area could also have the consequence of reducing their impact when considering planning applications. The flexibility to respond to planning applications would remain if there were more policies that provided more detail but they might be less concise and less user friendly for applicants.

(1)Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

3.11 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, especially around design matters, and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards across the Borough. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

Option 4: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

3.12 It could be sufficient to rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(10)Option 1: A single policy

3.17 This is a policy providing guidance on the various aspects of amenity for the ease of use by applicants. It is formed in a way that allows the designer a degree of flexibility in their approach.

Suggested wording:

In order to achieve a good living standard for future users of proposed development and its neighbours, permission will be given where it can be proven that the following have been carefully considered and can be demonstrated:

1. Careful use of the scale, form, height, mass, and density of any building and buildings.

2. Dwellings must be designed to allow residents to live comfortably and conveniently with sufficient internal space. The guidelines for minimum internal floor areas are: 1 bedroom/2 person 51m²; 2 bedroom/3 person 86m²; 3 bedroom/5 person 93m²; 4 bedroom/6 person 106m²

3. There is adequate storage for waste, and means of its removal (including recyclable materials) has been given careful attention

4. Means of landscaping and how this contributes to crime prevention; a permeable and legible network of routes and spaces to create a public realm that is attractive, overlooked and safe.

5. Arrangements being in place for the future maintenance of any public areas.

6. Considerate design solutions for the spaces between and around buildings, as well as respect to the character of the surroundings; a well-designed scheme in terms of private, semi-private and public open space

7. Appropriate levels of private external space, especially for larger homes designed to be marketed for family use. In terms of proposed family dwellings the council would expect to see the provision of private garden space of at least 30m²

Development will not be accepted where there is:

8. Insufficient scope to accommodate necessary servicing areas, ancillary structures and landscaping

9. Significant impact upon the area's character or the amenity of neighbouring properties.

(1)Option 2: Split the guidance into separate policies

3.18 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; this might help to reinforce the view that each aspect of amenity is important in its own right. A greater number of policies, however, could be confusing for applicants with the possibility that some might be missed when preparing a planning application. The flexibility to respond to planning applications would remain if there were more policies and they could maybe provide more detail but they might be less concise and less user friendly for applicants.

(1)Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

3.19 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, especially around design matters, and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards across the Borough. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

Option 4: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

3.20 It could be sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in the Planning Strategy. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(8)Option 1: A single policy:

3.26 The option includes a policy providing guidance on the various aspects of access for the ease of use by applicants. It is formed in a way that allows the designer a degree of flexibility in their approach.

Suggested wording:

Attention must be paid, not only to the access onto the site, but also access into, and within all parts of any resultant development. This includes:

1. When considering the layout of a site, priority is to be given to non-car based modes

2. The enhancement and promotion of pedestrian and cycle access.

3. Good accessibility for all, especially for people with a physical or sensory impairment.

4. Good performance against nationally recognised best practice guidance on internal building design and layout.

5. Planning permission will only be granted for development which would generate additional traffic on an un-metalled carriageway, if an agreement is made that the road in question remains private.

(1)Option 2: Split the guidance into separate policies

3.27 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; this might help to reinforce the view that each aspect of access is important in its own right. A greater number of policies, however, covering one area could also have the consequence of reducing their impact when considering planning applications. The flexibility to respond to planning applications would remain if there were more policies and they could maybe provide more detail but they might be less concise and less user friendly for applicants.

(1)Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

3.28 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, especially around design matters, and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards across the town. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

Option 4: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon guidance from the County Council and the Planning Strategy

3.29 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in the Planning Strategy and the East Sussex County Council Parking SPG. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(11)Option 1: A single policy

3.32 This option includes a policy providing guidance on two aspects of ground conditions for the ease of use by applicants.

Suggested wording:

Assessments of existing ground conditions should be undertaken, and details submitted to the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place.

Planning permission will only be granted for development providing:

1. On land potentially subject to instability (such as steeply sloping sites or in areas with a history of land instability), the applicant supplies convincing supporting evidence that any actual or potential instability can be overcome through appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures.

2. An assessment of ground conditions, particularly where there is presence of contaminative substances on the site, or surrounding area has been fully undertaken. It is the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer to provide this assessment. Applications for development within 250 metres of a landfill site or land suspected of contamination require investigation and demonstration that development is acceptable.

(2)Option 2: Split the guidance into separate policies

3.33 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; there might be an argument that each aspect ground conditions should be dealt with separately. A greater number of policies, however, covering one area could also have the consequence of reducing their impact when considering planning applications. The flexibility to respond to planning applications would remain if there were more policies and they could maybe provide more detail but they might be less concise and less user friendly for applicants.

(4)Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

3.34 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards across the town. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

Option 4: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

3.35 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(3)Option 1: A single policy

3.38 This option includes a policy providing guidance on some aspects of pollution for the ease of use by applicants.

Suggested wording:

Planning permission will only be granted for development providing:

1. External lighting proposals avoid unnecessary light pollution beyond the specific area intended to be lit.

2. A level of air borne pollutants does not exceed statutory guidelines, unless appropriate mitigation measures are agreed.

3. Noise creation that is detrimental to neighbouring and/or local amenity is kept to a practical minimum; appropriate means of assessment may be required.

Where prudent, the Local Planning Authority will consult with the Health and Safety Executive on applications near 'notifiable installations' (examples include high pressure gas mains and over head power cables). Determining factors are the distance, risks and nature of the proposals.

Option 2: Split the guidance into separate policies

3.39 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; this might help to reinforce the view that each aspect of pollution is important in its own right. A greater number of policies, however, covering one area could also have the consequence of reducing their impact when considering planning applications. The flexibility to respond to planning applications would remain if there were more policies and they could maybe provide more detail but they might be less concise and less user friendly for applicants.

(1)Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

3.40 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards across the town. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

Option 4: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

3.41 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(4)Option 1: A suggested policy

3.44 The availability of water resources and the impact of increased abstraction on environmental water needs (i.e. those of rivers, wetlands and estuaries, including the needs of navigation, fisheries, recreation and nature conservation) as advised by the Environment Agency will be taken in to account in the determination of development proposals

Suggested wording:

Development will not be permitted within areas where there is significant risk to ground water resources.

Development may have impact upon water resources locally. As well as overall availability, considerations will also be given to possible environmental effects such as unacceptable low river flows or drying of wetlands; on site, immediately offsite and further away from the development. Where appropriate advice will be sought from the relevant body; the Environment Agency or Southern Water

The protection of ground water sources and reserves is also of importance. Therefore development that would threaten the quality of ground water will be prevented, in accordance with advice from the Environment Agency.

Option 2: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

3.45 An alternative is to rely on national policy and objectives and policies in the Planning Strategy. This could lead to a situation where there is not enough guidance on the specific circumstances of Hastings and its ground water resources. The Environment Agency and Southern Water are statutory consultees, however, and will comment on those applications that might affect ground water.

(2)Option 3: To make the policy more or less stringent.

3.46 A less stringent policy than that suggested in option 1 is possible. This could allow for a more flexible approach to considering potential applications, but might result in less efficient decisions through the need for increased investigations. Or it could be argued that any guidance should be more stringent, this could stifle development however, and this could also lead to decisions not being made in an efficient manner.

3.47 Adjusting the prescriptive nature of a policy for this particular issue would need to be done in a careful way in order to remain compliant with the guidance from the Environment Agency.