proposed development boundary - The second issue
Comment
Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012
Representation ID: 2317
Received: 03/02/2012
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
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
Yes, as it is
Support
Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012
Representation ID: 2539
Received: 26/04/2012
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
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
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.