Preferred Approach 36: Community Infrastructure
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1545
Received: 08/07/2008
Analysis required for primary & secondary school provision taking into account the 4200 dwellings. Details of provision for adults & the use by the community of school facilities.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1546
Received: 08/07/2008
Details of Town Centre Library & its commencement & completion date.
A detailed analysis of the needs of deprived areas in Hastings to establish the need for new or upgraded facilities. The existing Library in the Town centre will be redundant & its sale would finance requirements
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1547
Received: 08/07/2008
The sewers in Hastings are old & rarely able to deal with the requirements of new & existing users.
Surely there will be work to do 2006-2026?!!
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1548
Received: 08/07/2008
The Hastings/Bexhill Waste Water Treatment
Does any untreated sewage get discharged into the sea?!!
show outfalls of untreated & treated sewage & pumping stations, treatment centres.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1549
Received: 08/07/2008
The updated policy on Community infrastructure should be available NOW.
Communities affected by development seem to get more dwellings but llittle or no improved infrastructure.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1555
Received: 08/07/2008
The LDF doesn't address public conveniences & commercial provision of toilets & opening hours
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1558
Received: 08/07/2008
The LDF doesn't address undergrounding overhead power cables or improved policing
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1560
Received: 08/07/2008
The LDF doesn't address upgraded facilities for old & young people
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1571
Received: 08/07/2008
The following summarises the F&RS's concerns according to individual fire stations & areas proposed new developments within Hastings Borough Council.
1. All residential development in Ashdown & Hollington & development area B25 in Conquest.
The East Sussex F&RS feels that it might be helpful if future planning approvals could include requests for domestic sprinkler systems to be included as part of the building regulations (or alternatively, informative conditions). The request is due to their concern at the distances of the proposed developments from existing fire stations (in the Ridge, Bohemia Rd & Battle), the poor road links & possible additional traffic in the area, following the alterations to Maternity cover at The Conquest, The Ridge & Bohemia Rd being heavily committed to the residential areas in the vicinity of each fire station.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1572
Received: 08/07/2008
2. Residential development/redevelopment in Baird/Tressell.
The East Sussex F&RS again emphasised the support domestic sprinkler systems would offer the Service. The request is due to concerns related to the nature of the prevailing development character in the area. The F&RS's records indicate that those carry a disproportionately higher risk to the occupiers which the requested sprinkler systems will reduce.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1573
Received: 08/07/2008
The above-mentioned refers to possible conditions being imposed on the approval of all future proposed developments. This is a fairly complicated issues & the F&RS acknowledges that this might need dialogue between themselves & your local planning authority. We will be more than willing to sit down with you & discuss the issue.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1574
Received: 08/07/2008
The East Sussex F&RS is concerned about the fact that their Fire Stations generally do not have a use class awarded to it. They are furthermore concerned that if some of them were to become surplus to requirement, they would not get the best possible value to the respective sites. Being 'sui generis' can therefore be problematic & would lower the site value should they need to relocate, & the existing comes available for redevelopment. They mentioned -
*Bohemia Road - could possibly be redeveloped for residential purposes between 2006-2026.
*The Ridge, Ore - could also be redeveloped for residential purposes between 2006-2026
Seeing that a mere classification or reclassification of a site is not possible, respective change of use applications would have to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1591
Received: 07/07/2008
At submission, the infrastructure requirements of any strategic sites to be allocated in the Core Strategy should be included within the overall infrastructure planning process (para 4.11 of PPS12)
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1592
Received: 07/07/2008
It is not clear how some elements of the strategy will be implemented & what contingencies are in place. PPS12 para 4.45 & 4.56 make it clear that at submission, the Core Strategy will need to be supported by clear evidence of delivery by partners such as infrastructure providers, landowners & developers. It is clear that some discussions with providers have taken place as set out in para 19.5 & there is evidence in places about who will lead a particular development proposal. However, there are some key areas where the strategy should be supported by further evidence of delivery, particularly in some of the place shaping aspirations. For example, there are a number ofkey sites referred to & it is not always clear whether these sites have a planning permission or how they will be driven forward.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1601
Received: 07/07/2008
We are please to see specific reference to infrastructure delivery & evidence of joint working with infrastructure partners in this document. Para 4.8 of PPS12 identifies that the core strategy must be supported by evidence of the infrastructure needd to support the development proposed in Hastings over the plan period & details of who will provide it & when. This should include the infrastructure requirements for any strategic sites that are to be provided. Continued working with relevant infrastructure providers as you prepare the next stages in order to identify timescales & responsibilities for the delviery of key infrastructure requirements will be necessary - poss. link to level of development proposed in parts of the Borough.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1604
Received: 07/07/2008
We are pleased to see that generally you have related the level & location of development to specific places & have sought to identify how the area will change over the plan period. At submission you will need to ensure that all policies are locationally specific & focussed on local issues. PPS12 para 4.30 makes it clear that policies should not repeat national or regional guidance. It is not clear how this approach will add a local dimension to national guidance.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1716
Received: 08/07/2008
There also needs to be stronger articulation of the employment offer to existing local communities. Deepening economic & social exclusion not only jeopardises attracting employers, it also threatens the viability of localised development, for example the Millenium Community. Beyond welcomed targets for mixed tenure & affordable housing, we cannot see a clear picture of developer social contribution in the strategy. Should we not be able to see a stronger link between significant construction & inward investment in developing a workforce to achieve & maintain it?
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1717
Received: 08/07/2008
The PAs do not lay out a strong picture of the facilities available for young people in the town. While ageing population is acknowledged, the relatively high proportion of young poepl & their specific needs are neglected. There are several issues: increased student accommodation need, town centre youth provision, a seafront adapted to include & welcome their use of facilities. It is interesting that whilst consulting 2 opportunities have arisen: an adventure playground (+ existing play area overhaul) & a new build youth centre. Existing strategy has not prepared the town well for such offers & this strategy iwth its vague commitments & forked tongue rhetoric does little to address this. This documents should already be helping us to identifiy sites for these & other facilities. Personally, i hope a maturing community sector will be able to contribute decisively on these issues. How does this document achieve anything more that pitting locales against one another to grab an opportunity as it comes, because there is so little to offer, & what is seems so uncertain to be a priority?
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1734
Received: 07/07/2008
There also needs to be stronger articulation of the employment offer to existing local communities. Deepening economic and social exclusion not only jeopardises attracting employers, it also threatens the viability of localised development, for example the Millennium Community. Beyond welcomed targets for mixed tenure and affordable housing, we cannot see a clear picture of developer social contribution in the strategy. Should we not be able to see a stronger link between significant construction and inward investment in developing a workforce to achieve and maintain it?
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1735
Received: 07/07/2008
The PAs do not lay out a strong picture of the facilities available for young people in the town. While ageing population is acknowledged, the relatively high proportion of young people and their specific needs are neglected. There are several issues: increased student accommodation need, town centre youth provision, a seafront adapted to include and welcome their use of facilities. It is interesting that while consulting, two opportunities have arisen: an adventure playground (+ existing play area overhaul) and a new build youth centre. Existing strategy has not prepared the town well for such offers and this core strategy with its vague commitments and forked tongue rhetoric does little to address this. This document should already be helping us to identify sites for these and other facilities. Personally I hope a maturing community sector will be able to contribute decisively on these issues. How does this document achieve anything more that pitting locales against one another to grab an opportunity as it comes, because there is so little on offer, and what is seems so uncertain to be a priority?