Option 1: A policy defining a development boundary

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Support

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

Representation ID: 2469

Received: 23/04/2012

Representation Summary:

Yes

Support

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

Representation ID: 2523

Received: 25/04/2012

Representation Summary:

I think that a boundary to the built up area of the town should definitely be defined to control its outward expansion. We need to preserve our open land and green spaces on the outskirts of the town. The town is far too overdeveloped as it is with 'garden grabbing' developments eating into our green spaces and destroying our ecology. I cannot wait to get out of this town to see some open green spaces with unfamiliar objects such as trees and wildlife.

Support

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

Representation ID: 2538

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.

Object

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

Representation ID: 2612

Received: 27/04/2012

Representation Summary:

The development boundary shown on exhibition maps and on the paper documents are of a too small scale to provide information to make a comment. The route of the boundary east of Ivy house land is not clear on what is in or outside the proposed boundary.

Support

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

Representation ID: 3126

Received: 08/05/2012

Representation Summary:

The main criticism I have of the consultation, so far as the 'macro' issues are concerned, is that whilst we might be given alternatives (ie: development boundary or no development boundary) not much meat is added to those bones.
I favour the retention of the existing development boundary.

Support

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

Representation ID: 3413

Received: 03/04/2012

Representation Summary:

3.2 In general it would be wise to have development boundaries defining the location of proposed extension.