A: Proposed Target - Housing Provision

Comment

Representation ID: 2163

Received: 22/08/2011

To reduce reliance on windfall sites, there is a clear case to support even a non-strategic allocation at Breadsell Lane. This could comprise the land in the northern sector of the previously defined area, omitting the potentially more constrained land to the south. Even at a non-strategic level, this area can deliver a sustainable form of development in accordance with the broad overall aims of Guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 2164

Received: 22/08/2011

In addition, it is considered that there is a very real risk that sites identified in the Council's SHLAA and Preferred Approaches document will not come forward for development due to a range of constraints. When subjected to rigorous testing any sites that are excluded (because they cannot be relied on to come forward within the perceived timescales set out in paragraph 109 of the NPPF (including point 5) will leave deficits in housing numbers which will need to be made up from other sources.

Comment

Representation ID: 2165

Received: 22/08/2011

The Council's pepperpot approach to housing sites can lead to an underlying weakness in its housing strategy again adding strength to the need to provide additional land on the suggested edge of town site.

Comment

Representation ID: 2166

Received: 22/08/2011

Breadsell Lane was originally supported by the Council as a strategic housing land allocation in excess of 200 homes which would contradict paragraph 5.4. There is clearly a site to be included whether this is at a strategic or non-strategic level. If the Counci's strategy is to avoid strategic housing allocations as part of their approach, then to provide the safeguard to ensure housing supply in accordance with NPPF guidance, the area indicated on the appended plan would be ideal to meet with requirements. The council are therefore urged to reappraise the future role that this land can provide.

Comment

Representation ID: 2167

Received: 22/08/2011

The northern section has a lower level of constraint and would not rely on major infrastructure works (Bexhill Hastings Bypass and Baldslow Link) to the same degree if an allocation in the order of 700-1000 homes were being promoted. At a non-strategic level, this area of land would have a significant and beneficial effect on the Council's supply of all types of housing including affordable housing, family homes and self-build schemes.

Comment

Representation ID: 2168

Received: 22/08/2011

Appendix A paragraph 2.12 suggests a lack of development land at the outer parts of the town. It is clear from that Breadsell Lane has a relatively low level of policy constraint especially when compared wiht other outer undeveloped sections of the town and is an edge of town site that is available for early housing delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 2169

Received: 22/08/2011

Appendix A paragraph 2.14 paints a false picture of the town's alleged lack of potential to provide for its housing needs through a green field site release on the edge of town. It is felt that this approach would not stand up to testing when it is quite evident that there is a potentially suitable greenfield site, one that was supported by the Council in the previous stage of preparing the Core Strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 2170

Received: 22/08/2011

In terms of section 3.0 of Appendix A, it is considred that the Council will need to consider a higher housing growth scenario than the medium rate they suggest in order that NPPF requirements can be met. In this context, the 10% contingency suggested in paragraph 3.19 will be insufficient to meet NPPF guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 2171

Received: 22/08/2011

In summary, the Informal Consultation Core Strategy will not meet the aims of the emerging National Planning Guidance as it will not provide sufficient housing land over the Core Strategy duration. It over-relies on windfall sites coming forward and other 'allocated' sites that should note be relied on to meet either the Council's 5 year or later Plan phase supplies of housing land. This will potentially leave the Core Strategy vulnerable in terms of its soundness.

Comment

Representation ID: 2172

Received: 22/08/2011

The Council are therefore invited to reconsider allocation of land at Breadsell Lane that potentially could be limited to the areas comprising the northern part of this area of land to provide the Council with the necessary latitude that will be required. As we have submitted before, this land is not constrained by ownership and can be brought forward at an early phase of the Core Strategy period. It provides the opportunity of habitat management and biodiversity enhancement and can provide a sustainable form of development.

Object

Representation ID: 2173

Received: 08/08/2011

The figure 'imposed' in the South East Plan which Hastings had to comply with was 210 new homes annually. The Planning Dept proposed target is 201 new homes per year. This is only a reduction of 9 per year. An insignificant reduction. The Planning Dept figures are not based on FACT such as the ESCC population figure and to achieve 201pa will require high densities and large numbers of flats and large numbers of windfall sites.

The target for housing provision should be 150 dwellings per annum and include empty homes brought back into use.

Comment

Representation ID: 2186

Received: 08/08/2011

Hastings has a very congested small area between the sea Bexhill & Rother. England is the most densely populated country in Europe and Hastings has already 7x the normal density.

From ESCC figures Hastings has only grown by 1% between 2001-2008. FACT.
Page 50. 2.11 Population Change, the Planners show an increase of 12% between 2011 + 2028. (FICTION)

ESCC figures show Hastings population to stay the same or reduce over the longer term. (rate of natural decrease)

Comment

Representation ID: 2187

Received: 08/08/2011

Taking into account very high density in Hastings (2,886 p.sq. kilometre), and environmental constraints 175 p.annum should be future aim.

Object

Representation ID: 2203

Received: 09/08/2011

I do not support this because:
1. Your research is not transparent.
2. I do not believe there is true demand for 3418 net new homes for local people
3. This number of homes will not be required unless jobs, ie. manufacturing, greatly increases in the town. This will not happen with our dreadful infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 2226

Received: 08/08/2011

The need is for family homes with gardens, garages and for houses (not flats) at proper densities.