(1)Option 1: To create a shopping area boundary and policies to manage activities within it

6.11 In order to be able to undertake this option we would need to:

• Determine the extent of the shopping area boundary in the town centre.

• Identify what proportions of A1 uses (Shops) compared to other uses in the town centre should it be maintained. A healthy concentration of shops helps to increase the numbers of people visiting that area.

• Identify which areas (roads) were considered as primary and secondary frontages. Primary shopping frontages are the main shop fronts within a town centre as defined by high commercial rental values and usually a high proportion of retail uses.

6.11 Further guidance in the form of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), could also be produced that would be subject to periodic review.

Option 2: To create a shopping area boundary but have less stringent policies to manage activities within it

6.12 In order to undertake this option we would still need to determine the extent of the shopping area boundary in the town centre. This would help to retain the vitality and a concentration of all commercial uses. Having less stringent policies, with less protection of proportions of retail uses or the identification of primary and secondary frontages could result in a dispersal of shops with perhaps a weakening of the core shopping frontages and a less healthy retail area.

(1)Option 3: Not to have a shopping area boundary

6.13 This option would mean relying on the wider Town Centre boundary of the Planning Strategy. This option could allow for greater flexibility in the determination of applications, but might reduce the protection and promotion of a healthy concentration of retail premises.

Option 1: A policy to guide managing commercial centres

6.19 This option introduces a policy basis for managing the shops and services inside defined shopping areas and would highlight it as an important issue requiring specific detail. This is a level of detail over and above that contained in the earlier issues of this document.

Suggested policy:

In the commercial areas (The Old Town, Central St Leonards, Bohemia, Silverhill, Ore, West St Leonards, Battle Road, Mount Pleasant and Mount Road) uses within classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and B1 (as defined in the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order) will be encouraged. A change of use from Use Class A1 will only be permitted where at least 50% of the non-residential premises remain in class A1.

Certain types of retail activity have greater affect on their neighbours; this could be because of what they sell or the hours which they open. The particular nature of alcohol and take away sales means that people use the premises which sell them in a different way to other shops and restaurants.

(2)Option 2: To define commercial centre boundaries but to make the policy more or less stringent

6.20 There might be an option to make the policy less stringent. This could allow or a more flexible approach to considering potential applications, but might result in less efficient decisions through the need for increased investigations.

6.21 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 a consistent manner.

Option 3: To define commercial centre boundaries but not have a specific policy for this issue and add detail to the suggested policies of the general guidance section

6.22 This guidance could be incorporate into a general policy on development guidance. This approach, however, might make it harder for potential applicant to appreciate the importance of this issue

Option 4: Not to define commercial area boundaries for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

6.23 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in he Planning Strategy. This option could allow for greater flexibility in the determination of applications, but might reduce the protection and promotion of a healthy concentration of retail premises.

(1)Option 1: A policy to guide the retention of shops and services outside the commercial centres

6.28 This option introduces a policy basis for retaining the shops and services outside defined shopping areas and would highlight it as an important issue requiring specific detail. This is specific detail in addition to that already provided in this consultation document.

Suggested policy:

Proposals for the change of use or redevelopment that would result in the loss of a shop or service outside the defined commercial areas will only be permitted when:

1. There is an alternative within reasonable walking distance; or

2. It is demonstrated that the existing use is no longer viable.

Option 2: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and add detail to the suggested policies of the general guidance section to deal with it

6.29 This guidance could be incorporate into a general policy on development guidance. This approach, however, might make it harder for potential applicant to appreciate the importance of this issue

(1)Option 3: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

6.30 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in he Planning Strategy. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. It might be the case that this is not, in fact, an issue that needs particular attention in any eventual plan for the town.

(1)Option 4: To make the policy more or less stringent

6.31 There might be an option to make the policy less stringent. 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.

6.32 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 a consistent manner.

(2)Option 1: A policy to guide managing certain types of premises

6.36 This option introduces a policy basis for managing the shops outside defined shopping areas and would highlight it as an important issue requiring specific detail. This is specific detail further to the general guidance and commercial areas already discussed in this consultation document.

Suggested policy:

Planning permission for new shops and services outside the commercial area will be granted provided that:

1. The precise nature of the use proposed (which should be specified in the planning application) including opening hours is given;

2. The proposal would not adversely affect neighbours, for example, causing excess noise or smell

3. The proposal would not, on its own, or cumulatively with other such uses in the area, be likely to result in problems of disturbance or public disorder;

4. Suitable off-street parking can be provided, or there is sufficient on-street parking; and

5. It would not cause inconvenience or danger on the public highway as a result of the additional stopping and manoeuvring of vehicles.

Option 2: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and add detail to the suggested policies of the general guidance section to deal with it

6.37 This guidance could be incorporate into a general policy on development guidance. This approach, however, might make it harder for potential applicant to appreciate the importance of this issue

Option 3: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

6.38 It could be deemed 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.

Option 4: To make the policy more or less stringent

6.39 There might be an option to make the policy less stringent. 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.

6.40 Or it could be argued that any guidance should be more stringent and cover more than just proposals outside the potentially defined commercial areas. This approach could stifle development however, and this could also lead to decisions not being made in a consistent manner.

(4)Option 1: A policy to guide small business enterprise

6.43 This option introduces a policy basis for managing the small business development and highlights it as an important issue requiring specific detail, in addition to that already provided in this consultation document.

Suggested policy:

The intensification or replacement of existing employment uses and for the development of land for small workshops will be permitted where:

1. The proposals are in scale and character with the existing premises.

2. In can be demonstrated that there is reasonable access to the public transport network and an investigation into green travel options (cycling and walking to work) has been made;

3. any increase in traffic would not cause serious inconvenience and/or danger on the public highway; and

4. The development would not cause serious harm to the amenities of local residents as a result of, for example, noise or other disturbance.

Consideration will also be given to the length of time the business has been established on the site, the investment already made, and the contribution to employment in the locality.

Option 2: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and add detail to the suggested policies of the general guidance section to deal with it

6.44 This guidance could be incorporate into a general policy on development guidance. This approach, however, might make it harder for potential applicant to appreciate the importance of this issue

Option 3: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

6.45 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.

Option 4: To make the policy more or less stringent.

6.46 There might be an option to make the policy less stringent. This could allow for a more flexible approach to considering potential planning applications, but might result in less efficient decisions through the need for increased investigations.

6.47 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 a consistent manner.

(2)Option 1: A single policy

6.51 This option would allow an applicant to view a potentially more user friendly single piece of guidance around proposals specifically involving planning permission for tourist facilities. To achieve this particular approach the existing policies would need to be reviewed and potentially grouped together and the likely changes in national guidance would also need careful consideration. There could be some issues that are not covered by the existing policies that also need to be included in the eventual Development Management Plan policy.

6.52 The current local plan policies relating to tourist facilities broadly cover the following topics: (For more detailed information please see the Hastings Local Plan 2004, pages 41 – 47).

New Tourist Attractions: provides guidance for proposals that the should complement the existing built and natural environment of the town; not cause harm to amenity; the scale and appearance of the development is in keeping with the surroundings; protection of identified areas of open space; and that they should be reached by a frequent public transport service and are on convenient pedestrian and cycle route(s).

Amusements: Guidance for amusement arcades, scenic and novelty rides and other amusement facilities – discouraging them from the Town Centre and Old Town Conservation Areas. There is guidance for the ‘Stade area,’ and ‘other parts of the town,’ where generally the forms of amusement are generally acceptable as long as they would not cause harm to the living conditions of people residing in the area and/or its surroundings as a result of noise, other disturbance or the intended operating hours; they are designed in character with their surroundings and they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of any conservation area.

6.53 There is also some guidance towards specific proposals such as those for conference facilities, water-based recreation and the Pier.

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

6.54 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; this might help to reinforce the view that each aspect of tourist facilities 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 applications. The flexibility to respond to applications would remain if there were more policies but their consistent use might be reduced.

6.55 This option could allow for areas for the focus of tourism activities to be identified. Within these areas new facilities will be permitted as long as they adhere to the general guidance of this document.

Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

6.56 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, especially around design matters in heritage terms, 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, and the general guidance from this consultation

6.57 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in the Planning Strategy. The sites identified on the eventual proposals map would relate to the Planning Strategy and the less detailed policies of that plan. 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.

(6)Option 1: A policy to manage proposals involving caravan and camping sites

6.60 This option introduces a policy basis for managing the proposals involving caravan and camping sites and highlights it as an important issue requiring specific detail, in addition to that already provided in this consultation document.

Suggested policy:

Planning permission will only be granted for additional caravan and camping sites or the expansion of existing sites provided:

1. Safe and convenient access to and from the public highway can be provided;

2. The proposal would not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential areas or the wider environment, and an assessment of potential the ecological and landscape impact is provided;

3. The use of the site is restricted to a seasonal basis (between the 28th February in any one year and the 14th January in the following year); and

4. A minimum of one third of the total number of pitches on new or extended static caravan sites is reserved for touring caravans or campers.

Development within Caravan Sites

Planning permission will be granted for development designed to enhance facilities within existing caravan sites, including accommodation and the replacement of static caravans by chalets, provided that the above criteria is adhered to and:

1. It would not be visually intrusive; and

2. It would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of nearby residents.

Option 2: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and add detail to the suggested policies of the general guidance section to deal with it

6.61 This guidance could be incorporate into a general policy on development guidance. This approach, however, might make it harder for potential applicant to appreciate the importance of this issue

Option 3: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

6.62 It could be deemed 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 Borough

(2)Option 4: To make the policy more or less stringent

6.63 There might be an option to make the policy less stringent. 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.

6.64 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 a consistent manner.