Preferred Approach 1: Location of New Housing
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 94
Received: 07/07/2008
An ecological appraisal is needed before site allocation, particularly when considering greenfield sites. It is not possible to comment on the potential impact of this approach without knowledge of the sites in question.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 115
Received: 07/07/2008
The land identified in Option 3 has poor access to shopping and transport links, and would damage a neighbouring SSSI.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 247
Received: 23/07/2008
(7.5) Government figures and housing quotas are vague to say the least. Have you, or any other local authority challenged these? What has happened to your empty buildings policy?
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 248
Received: 23/07/2008
(7.10) Building roads (in relation to the 'Country Avenue Concept' is not a sustainable option. It underpins unsustainable development where the car is the first transport choice. This is totally unacceptable.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 262
Received: 23/07/2008
7.17 disagree
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 306
Received: 23/07/2008
Hastings should negotiate with Rother for provision of new housing, rather than try to achieve most of what is proposed within our borough boundaries. We are in danger of creating slum areas of tomorrow if we squeeze more and more development within the borough.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 326
Received: 23/07/2008
Would prefer to see option 4 adopted. This would provide greater flexibility and would enable, for example, pockets of low grade agricultural land in the east of the borough to be used. Paragraph 7.11 implies that the South-East plan may dicate that this is required anyway.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 382
Received: 24/07/2008
North-west St Leonards housing site - Essential that buses serve the area and it will need a "community space" like a rentable building for local people. For both the Ore Valley MC, and eventually the North-West housing area, the Church of England locally (which I head up) is planning to provide a community worker to develop the sense of community in these new-build areas (and connect with existing residents/ facilities). We would be happy to work with others in the planning and realizing of these objectives.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 426
Received: 24/07/2008
At 7.2 you refer to 55% of respondents, how many respondants?
The Ridge has traffic issues currently. The greenfield site at Breadsell relies on acess from Rother DC, but surely there would still be an impact on The Ridge.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 507
Received: 23/06/2008
No comment
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 579
Received: 25/07/2008
Para 6.17 - We must avoid building on Greenfield sites at all costs. It is not acceptable to reduce the green spaces within urban areas. It does not fit in with ensuring everyone lives within a short distance of a green space.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 581
Received: 08/07/2008
Breadsell Lane - This greenfield site should not be developed. A reduction of the countryside is unacceptable and I believe, in planning terms, it could be a disaster if the planned services such as public transport, shops etc to not materialise. Even the Conquest Hospital is a nightmare in terms of transport with bus services, which to not reflect the needs of staff or patients. It would increase the use of cars being driven into the town centre and create a marginalised community. All developments should have infrastructure, which encourages walking, and cycling and this development is simply far too away from the hub of things.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1077
Received: 07/07/2008
Number of people: 2
I ask that the Council include in the Local Development Framework that the land within the boundary of My Way Lodge being classed as Brownfield land be developed for residential development in preference to the Greenfield land proposed to be allocated in the draft plan. (Note Greenfield land will still be required.)
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1081
Received: 07/07/2008
The Breadsell Lane site in the northwest of the town is the closest to the A21 and would cause the HA greatest concern. The HA is concerned over the timing of this development in relation to the timing of any improvement to Baldslow. In line with your approach 35, it will be necessary to demonstrate that this development is supportable in transport terms, particularly; being an edge of town site there needs to be significant sustainable travel initiatives to ensure that there is not an unacceptable level of car based travel associated with the development. It is anticipated that this will be open to analysis once the traffic modelling work has been completed.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1092
Received: 08/07/2008
All new houses should be accessible on walking and cycling network
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1112
Received: 08/07/2008
Accept the major development location east of Breadsell Lane and its implications for land in Rother District subject to further assessment (in liaison with this Council) of its potential to constitute a sustainable urban extension through provision of associated jobs, local facilities and transport infrastructure, and the critical need to safeguard an effective 'Strategic Gap' between Battle and Hastings. This Council will make appropriate provision in its Core Strategy to enable the development consistent with the above considerations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1149
Received: 04/07/2008
My personal view is that these Government imposed housing targets will be detrimental to the South East in terms of the pressure on waste, water, hospital and school services, and the loss of countryside and farmland is final and unacceptable. As a HUB member, I would ask that any new housing development provides infrastructure for walking, cycling and public transport, and discourages car use.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1170
Received: 08/07/2008
New housing must be connected to walking & cycling network
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1184
Received: 04/07/2008
All new housing should have: walkways, cycleways & easy access to public transport
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1227
Received: 08/07/2008
ensure that all new housing developments have infrastructure which encourages walking, cycling & the use of public transport & discourages car use for local journeys.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1251
Received: 03/07/2008
We support the Council's desire to work with developers & partners (including land owners) to support & bring forward new housing growth & related development during the LDF period (paragraph 5.4). In terms of scale of the proposed land release under option 3, it is felt that this approach is an essential & positive way forward.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1255
Received: 03/07/2008
The table under paragraph 6.17 sets out the individual housing contributions that the four Area co-ordination zones within the Borough will provide in the period 2006-2026, (though the zones do not appear to be defined on an accompanying plan). An element of flexibility may be needed should circumstances require adjustments to the distribution to be made.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1256
Received: 03/07/2008
Paragraph 6.19 implies that the option 3 proposed land release is only a 'contingency plan' designed to provide 1000 new homes for release between 2021-2026. It is considered that this is potentially misleading & does not portray the release as a central part of the Council's housing strategy. We would like to see a shift of emphasis to ensure that the release is described as a key component of the Council's housing strategy to overcome the shortfall of new housing from urban sites.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1259
Received: 03/07/2008
We agree with the Council's approach described in paragraphs 7.5 & 7.6 to exclude windfall sites from the housing provision calculations to avoid the threat of being deemed 'unsound'. Full support is given to the Council's choice of option 3 in paragraph 7.7 which includes a combination of urban sites & a new housing allocation at NW Hastings to meet its obligations with the necessary degree of latitude over final numbers.
Consequently full support is given to the Council's PA 1. It is noted that the Council consider the sustainability of the location is likely to depend on inclusion of an element of new employment development & community facilities. In this context, greater emphasis should be given to the proposed allocations location in close proximity to existing employment development to proposed employment sites (adopted local plan allocations) & to local transport network. With appropriate linkages provided as part of the development of the major housing site, access between existing & future employment sites & proposed major housing allocation will be ensured emphasising the sustainable credential of the latters location.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1260
Received: 03/07/2008
Options 1 & 2 have been discounted in paragraph 7.8 though this only provides a brief 'summary' of the reasons for this approach. Its brevity could be open to possible critiscism for not being a sufficiently well-defined & robust appraisal
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1261
Received: 03/07/2008
this approach states that the detailed planning of the area (housing allocation at NW Hastings) will be guided by a Supplementary Planning Document that will be prepared alongside the Site Allocations DPD. At this stage it is mentioned that there may be other approaches to define how the land can be best developed and this may include a masterplan for the area & or an action area plan. Whilst it is accepted at this stage that these matters are yet to be determined in detail, the owners wish to be a full & active particpant in the process. As the representatives of the land owners, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss their role in the preparation & production of future planning policy & proposals that relate to their land.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1262
Received: 03/07/2008
Paragraph 7.9 refers to the Sustainability Appraisal prepared by the Council including the fact that Option 3 is preferable to Option 4 in terms of securing better opportunities for essential infrastructure provision. Whilst agreeing with this approach, it is considered that the comprehensive planning of the area will avoid a more piecemeal appraoch to housing provision involving a multiplicity of peripheral greenfield sites. Relying on ad hoc sites naturally involves many land owners who need to be willing to develop their land. In this context it is important that the Council is aware that owners whom we represent are willing to see their land developed & at an early stage. They are keen to engage with council & appropriate stakeholders who will be involved in the allocation & development process. The owners' land is not constrained, there is common ownership between the northern section of proposed housing allocation & identified means of access to it from Battle Road. The lack of constraint is a material consideration which adds to the realistic prospects of this land being brought forward for new development.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1263
Received: 03/07/2008
In terms of its deliverability , attention is drawn to Government advice in PPS3, especially to paragraphs 54-57. A single greenfield site with limited numbers of ownerships & a low level of constraint will deliver housing more quickly & more efficiently than numerous individual & unassociated urban sites.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1270
Received: 03/07/2008
Paragraphs 7.15 & 7.16 are regarded as vital area for further consideration. As drafted, the site will not be released until 2021 unless annualised housing yields fall below pre-designated thresholds for 3 consecutive years. In the event that annual targets are not met, there will be a lag between the time that the shortfall is identified & the time that the necessary EIA & planning application processes can be carried out to facilitate new housing on allocated land. In practice this could take 18mths-2yrs. In the event a decision has to be taken for earlier release of allocated housing land, the Council could find themselves with a significant housing deficit already (3 yrs at 15% or more). Coupled with the time needed to bring land forward to a point where building on the ground can start (& bearing in mind that housing will not be available for some while after groundworks etc are initiated), the overall scenario is one of potentially serious delays in housing supply. Furthermore, the approach as drafted in the CSPAD could leave the Council open & vulnerable to 'planning by appeal' on other unidentified greenfield sites in the Borough in the event that housing yield does not meet annualised targets.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1271
Received: 03/07/2008
Doubt may also be cast on the ability of the site to yield 1000 new homes in only a 5 yr period. There is also the point that the 1st yr or 2 of development will be spent completing groundworks & essential infrastructure when the yield of new homes will be relatively reduced as a result. This is an issue that would apply to any site of this nature & size.
In response, it is suggested that the release period for the housing allocation should be reconsidered to allow for a longer development period from at least 2011-2026. In this way a more realistic timetable for new housing to be brought forward will be created. this in turn will provide the necessary framework for new housing to be built over a longer period adding to the Council's supply targets year-on-year. it will avoid the relative uncertainty of having to rely solely on a multiplicity of urban sites being brought forward during that period.