Preferred Approach 37: Area Co-ordination
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 163
Received: 08/07/2008
Based on specific locations that are considered potential Greenway related assets, several community groups are anxious to develop a more constructive and innovative dialogue with the council regarding new planning polices.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 293
Received: 23/07/2008
(19.12) agree
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 294
Received: 23/07/2008
(19.15-19.18) agree
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 376
Received: 24/07/2008
no comment
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 400
Received: 30/06/2008
Supported very much
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 468
Received: 23/06/2008
No comment
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1368
Received: 08/07/2008
This document is not presented in an accessible way for majority of the general public to think they can or want to get involved. If, as the document says, the towns residents have low educational aspirations, this document does no way to engage with them. This is born out by the fact that fewer than 200 responses were received from a population of over 80,000 to generate these preferred options.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1374
Received: 08/07/2008
6.4 Working with local partnerships & the community to be clear how much & type of development will occur when & how requires meaningful engagement with the community. This should be happening now & does not. For example this document has fallen well short of meaningful community engagement.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1550
Received: 08/07/2008
This is not being carried out. No public consultation officer. Secretive meetings of the East Hastings Area Board.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1623
Received: 07/07/2008
We would support the intent of this policy approach but question whether it is necessary as a policy.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1719
Received: 08/07/2008
We appreciate that resolving all the critical input will be difficult. It may seem that we have stressed the negative without welcoming the better elements. This is an unfortunate outcome of time-pressured consultation.
To resolve this, communities need to feel they have more than one bite so to speak to influence policy & it is clear at this stage they do not feel this. House building, retail space & employment centres are essentially private investments on a large scale undertaken by agencies with often little direct stake in Hastings beyond profit realisation.
At the last AMB, Silverhill's community delegate's telling contribution to the meeting was that she & her community were preoccupied with one thing: the large retail development proposed. All discussion was shut down & she will have left that meeting convinced that the AMB is incapable of serving her community to any end. PA37, surely one of the easilest to realise as it is within our control & resources, is actually one of our biggest challenges.
If however, we take the new youth officers mentioned above we catch a glimpse of the community involvement which this strategy neglects. Development also includes institutions & facilities within which communities must partake if they are to be sustainable & successful: schools (or more acurately academies), colleges, green space, health centres, community centres, heritage preservation. Other areas have also strengthened community engagement in housing solutions too.
if communities are not sufficiently empowered & directly linked to these, then the ability of local needs to influence external investment for the better is sharply diminished. Disempowered communities become hostile agents to development & this hostlity in turn destroys cohesion as minorities within these communities perceive the disadvantage this entrenches.
At this stage we are proposing 3 key tasks to address this:
*A series of community workshops to investigate the disquiet over the gap between the headline vision & preferred approaches with a view to strengthening a more holistic approach. We would be happy to be involved in organising these.
*This could lead to development of 'planB' strategies whose focus is much more on smaller scale change within specific locales & which privilege preservation of local character & valued assets.
*A more rigorous explanation of the sutstainability appraisal matrix.
Silmultaneously this needs to be linked to structures which allow for facilitated community input (forums, HCN, AMBs & LSP) into annual reasessments. At the same time AMBs need to develop ways of articulating discussion of development policy.
We hope this might go some way to eliminating some of the ambiguous phrasing in the document & hence a better understanding of ownership within our community of all the objectives & their preferred approaches.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1737
Received: 07/07/2008
We appreciate that resolving all the critical input will be difficult. It may seem that we have stressed the negative without welcoming the better elements. This is an unfortunate outcome of time-pressured consultation.
To resolve this, communities need to feel they have more than one bite so to speak to influence policy and it is clear at this stage they do not feel this. House building, retail space and employment centres are essentially private investments and on a large scale undertaken by agencies with often little direct stake in Hastings beyond profit realisation. Such is the way of our world.
At the last AMB, the Silverhill community delegate's telling contribution to the meeting was that she and her community were preoccupied with one thing: the large retail development proposal for Silverhill. All discussion was shut down and she will have left that meeting convinced that the AMB is incapable of serving her community to any end. PA 37, surely one of the easiest to realise as it is within our control and resources, is actually one of our biggest challenges.
If, however, we take the new youth offers mentioned above we catch a glimpse of the community involvement which this strategy neglects. Development also includes institutions and facilities within which communities must partake if they are to be sustainable and successful: schools (or more accurately academies), colleges, green space, health centres, community centres, heritage preservation...Other areas have also strengthened community engagement in housing solutions too.
If communities are not sufficiently empowered and directly linked to these, then the ability of local needs to influence external investment for the better is sharply diminished. Disempowered communities become hostile agents to development and this hostility in turn destroys cohesion as minorities within these communities perceive the disadvantage this entrenches.
At this stage we are proposing three key tasks to address this:
A series of community workshops to investigate the disquiet over the gap between the headline vision and the preferred approaches with a view to strengthening a more holistic approach. We would happy to b involved in organizing these.
This could lead to development of 'plan B' strategies whose focus is much more on smaller scale change within specific locales and which privilege preservation of local character and valued assets.
A more rigorous explanation of the sustainability appraisal matrix. Simultaneously this needs to be linked to structures which allow for facilitated community input (forums, HCN, AMBs and the LSP) into annual reassessments. At the same time AMBs need to develop ways of articulating discussion of development policy.
We hope this might go some way to eliminating some of the ambiguous phrasing in the document and hence a better understanding and ownership within our community of all the objectives and their preferred approaches.