A: Proposed Target - Housing Provision

Comment

Representation ID: 1774

Received: 16/07/2011

We do not need a huge amount of new homes. There is little employment prospects here in Hastings - people from outside the area will not be attracted to move here no matter how many new homes you build.
Sort out the empty properties that are going to rack and ruin first. Get your priorities right here.

Support

Representation ID: 1781

Received: 16/07/2011

I support the idea of a proposed target for housing provision. It seems sensible to aim for the 4,200 new homes which were required under the previous plan as a change of Government might very well lead to that or a very similar target being reinstated.

Object

Representation ID: 1816

Received: 27/07/2011

Hastings TTWA has a JobsDensity of .70 (for every 100 working age people, there are 70 jobs) The proposed additional employment land in the strategy wont provide work for an additional 3,418 households, let alone enable Hastings to close the gap with England in terms of JobsDensity and worklessness. Housing demand is low in Hastings, with houseprices lowest in the region, and vacant housing rates(4.7%) above the national average(3.3%). I propose an alternative housebuilding strategy: for every two notional jobs created (through expansion of employment sites) one housing unit is built,with all large sites earmarked for employment rather than housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1820

Received: 18/07/2011

Reduce target to zero new homes. There is not enough employment to support the existing level of population.

Object

Representation ID: 1824

Received: 05/08/2011

Without seeing the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan we are not able to make a proper assessment but on the basis of the information provided we believe that the lower growth scenario is more realistic. We believe the proposed target of 201 new homes per year is likely to involve too many high density developments and too much reliance being placed on windfall development and developments in the pipe line; experience in our area suggests that many in the the latter category may not get built.

Object

Representation ID: 1872

Received: 05/08/2011

Savills, on behalf of Stuart Lyons, object to the policy approach to housing delivery over the plan period. The current approach is inconsistent with the CALA Homes judgement and emerging National Planning Policy Framework whilst it would not address housing demand for the Borough. Proposed housing numbers are below that of the South East Plan requirement. There is also a need to identify further sites for development to contribute to 5 year supply. Our client would like the opportunity to discuss the delivery of appropriate sites prior to further progression of the Core Strategy by the Council.

Object

Representation ID: 1875

Received: 07/08/2011

I would agree there needs to be a balance but 3,418 seems too high. The document states that Hastings needs high skilled people to move here but that is a question of job creation more than housing. If jobs are available then workers will create the demand-not the other way round. Whatever figure is agreed upon I am concerned about how it will be monitored. Who will keep track of developments and monitor the role of the Planning Committee to ensure the total isn't exceeded? Will regular updates be publicised about the number of new homes approved?

Object

Representation ID: 1876

Received: 07/08/2011

My full comment points to four areas in which the thinking behind the document seems illogical and woolly:
1) Packing more people in = "regeneration".
2) New dwellings = "economic growth".
3) Growth is good.
4) We should pluck a number of new dwellings out of the air, and set it as a "target".

St Leonards comes over as Hastings' poor relation.

Object

Representation ID: 1887

Received: 07/08/2011

We think that there should be 100 new homes per year rather than the target of 201

Object

Representation ID: 1910

Received: 07/08/2011

Hastings does not need houses built all over St Helens Wood, this is the largest and most beautiful woods in the Hastings area. Building houses will destroy it forever, it was gifted to the town and should remain a unique gift. Due to the hilly terrain there is no road assess, the Ridge would not cope.

Object

Representation ID: 1952

Received: 30/08/2011

Background paper leaves out detailed breakdown of statistics to support this approach. The town is not in need of large increase in population which is what will happen. Land is not available to fulfil targets, or are you relying on increases in density? Affordable housing should not affect quality of life of established communities. Support Scenario 2 - will take pressure off building at high density, infrastructure provision. Windfall will still occur and support delivery of family homes using existing victorian stock.

Comment

Representation ID: 1993

Received: 04/08/2011

More information is required to justify use of windfalls, and vacant properties as part of housing supply. Advise ESCC are consulted on supporting background paper.

Whilst scale of housing allocations proposed in areas closer to the Link Road are supported, some other highway capacity issues could arise on parts of A259 Hastings Rd and The Ridge as a result of development in eastern parts of the town.

Housing should be provided in areas where there is existing transport infrastructure, or where new infrastructure can be accommodated.

Support reduction in housing numbers and acknowledge environmental benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 2045

Received: 08/08/2011

I would support the target proposed in Section 3 as long as our current green and leisure spaces are kept intact and used for the benefit of all the town's people. This includes not building/objection to proposed building in St Helens Wood of a proposal 190/290 dwellings and any use of the Pilot Field or The Firs football pitches for any purpose other than leisure. Our allotment areas should be increased and not decreased if we are to promote healthy eating. Current empty homes should be developed BEFORE any more sites are developed including building demolition that could be flats.

Comment

Representation ID: 2068

Received: 08/08/2011

Prior to building new properties empty houses should be utilised first.

Object

Representation ID: 2077

Received: 09/08/2011

The target proposed of 201 new homes per year is too high. The town does not have the infrastructure to sustain this amount of homes, some parts of the town already has a very high density of housing without the amenities to support quality of life ie. play areas, community facilities, nurseries, bus services.

Comment

Representation ID: 2087

Received: 08/08/2011

Welcome the extension of the Plan period to 2028, which is consistent with the Rother Core Strategy.

Support

Representation ID: 2088

Received: 08/08/2011

The proposed housing target supported, as it appears to be both realistic and capable of contributing to the regeneration of the town. The regard to the need to balance land for housing with land for jobs, as well as the role of housing in relation to the demographic mix, is also supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 2100

Received: 08/08/2011

3.4 The proposed target for New Homes has only been assessed so the target may not be correct the actual need could be higher or lower. You have based the figure on passed requirements - we cannot foretell the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 2122

Received: 25/07/2011

Whichever local housing target is decided upon, the Council needs to identify any potential impacts on the Strategic Road Network from the new target. Although Hastings doesn't have any trunk roads within its borough, it is bordered to the east/west by the A259 and the A21 to the north. It is important to consider cross boundary impacts and recognise the capability of the SRN as a potential constraint. Once the quantum of impact is established, the next vital step is to identify realistic mitigation measures to minimise the individual and cummulative site impacts, to ensure housing provision identified is deliverable.

Comment

Representation ID: 2124

Received: 08/08/2011

Has the number of empty properties been considered before this target considered.

Object

Representation ID: 2134

Received: 08/08/2011

The figure is too high because it is already a very densely populated urban area.

Object

Representation ID: 2135

Received: 08/08/2011

The figure is too high because it will lead to an unacceptable loss of green space (lungs) and degrade the living environment.

Object

Representation ID: 2136

Received: 08/08/2011

The figure is too high because this is a historic seaside town with many densely populated conservation areas. Cramming hundreds of new builds into these areas will be seriously detrimental to the character and appearance of these areas.

Object

Representation ID: 2137

Received: 08/08/2011

The figure is too high because overall the adverse effects of this target, will lead to an exodus of home owners and skilled workers, and also damage tourism. All of which will be 'detrimental to regeneration'.

Comment

Representation ID: 2147

Received: 05/08/2011

The proposed targets are a bit hit and miss. If you build more homes you may get people coming from all the country, London and Brighton may send all the people who are on their waiting list? How many young people are at school at the moment? If there are 400 a year leaving school they may take up the 200 new builds a year as they pair up, it may sound a bit out of order but one needs to control the number's moving in from outside.

Comment

Representation ID: 2158

Received: 22/08/2011

It is felt that given the population projections set out in paragraph 3.8, the preferred option under-provides housing over the Core Strategy period.

At the least it is considered that the South East Plan figure should be followed if not a higher allocated figure more in alignment with population projections.

Comment

Representation ID: 2159

Received: 22/08/2011

The recently published Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is now a material consideration in the plan making process. Paragraph 14 requires planning authorities to prepare local plans that objectively assess development needs which would tend to reinforce the aim to better reflect the future needs of the Borough's population with an increased housing allocation. In line with NPPF (paragraph24) the Core Strategy should be for a 15 year period ie. to 2026. Even if the Council pegs housing allcations on its 'preferred' figure of 3418, this will increase the annual yield to 228 dwellings, a modest but material increase.

Comment

Representation ID: 2160

Received: 22/08/2011

The Council will need to provide for a rolling supply of deliverable sites sufficient to meet the criteria set out in the emerging NPPF. This will include an additional allowance of at least 20% to ensure there can be choice and competition in the market for land. As drafted the CSIC does not make sufficient allowance to meet the demands of new Guidance adding to the need for allcated housing numbers to be increased.

Comment

Representation ID: 2161

Received: 22/08/2011

Developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 and 11-15 need to be provided for and it is felt that the Council should be revisiting land at Breadsell Lane to fulfill their supply of housing sites, whether this is on a strategic or non-strategic (less than 200 homes) basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 2162

Received: 22/08/2011

The CSIC reflects the Council's heavy reliance on windfall sites. Emerging guidance advises against this approach in the 5 year rolling supply period and in the first 10 years of supply, unless there are genuine local circumstances. Whilst the Council appears to be making great play on the historic delivery of windfall sites, continued reliance may leave the Core Strategy open to challenge as being unsound in the light of NPPF guidance.