proposed development boundary - The second issue

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Comment

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2317

Received: 03/02/2012

Representation Summary:

Would like an amendment to the development boundary to include land in the east of the borough. Land to the south of the playing fields on Barley Lane.

Object

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2389

Received: 02/04/2012

Representation Summary:

Holmhurst St Mary should be OUTSIDE the proposed boundary. Such a huge development in this area would lead to much-increased pressure on infrastucture e.g. The Ridge - should the Hastings-Bexhill Link Road be constructed - would become an even more congested road than it is already - not a good idea where emergency vehicles need to get to the Conquest hospital. More traffic = more air pollution. More school places-new school? Also, not a good idea transport-wise.The addition of so many more people - increased demand for water in a drought area. Green space? Amenity? And so on.

Support

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2470

Received: 23/04/2012

Representation Summary:

Yes, as it is

Support

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2539

Received: 26/04/2012

Representation Summary:

The document gives three options with regards to the use of a development boundary (Option 1). Rother District Council strongly supports the continued use of a development boundary within Hastings borough, as this is consistent with the approach to direct development and investment within defined development boundaries within Rother. This approach also supports the maintenance of strategic gaps between settlements. If changes to the boundary are proposed in due course, then Rother District Council support a continuing dialogue to discuss these proposed changes along the fringe.

Support

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2658

Received: 26/04/2012

Representation Summary:

3.5 - Support development boundary as shown

I agree we must have a housing and development boundary, but do not overcrowd these areas and leave small pockets of Greenfield sites and please greatly consider the enormous impact this will have on an increase volume of heavy traffic in your proposed development sites.

Support

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 3094

Received: 27/04/2012

Representation Summary:

Maintain the existing boundary but include also parts of sites E01 and NEO1 ; this vista is important in creating a sense of place for St Leonards, showing its relationship with countryside and coastline.