Option 1: A single policy

Object

Representation ID: 2507

Received: 25/04/2012

In this suggestion you have taken 12 previously acceptable policies and lumped them into one general policy. Your suggestion seems geared towards making life simpler for the applicant at the expense of the local residents that will have to look at out of character properties day in, day out. We seem to have a single design of property cropping up all over the town, that do not fit into their surroundings, and neither are they imaginative or innovative. Landscaping does not seem to come into it, wipe the existing ecology away and lay it to grass.

Comment

Representation ID: 2549

Received: 26/04/2012

Sites along the fringes with Rother, particularly where they are within (wholly or partly), abut or are close to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should have regard to the impacts that development may have on this landscape designation. Should development be ultimately proposed on any of these sites along the fringe, an assessment of the likely impacts on the AONB must be considered.

Support

Representation ID: 2581

Received: 27/04/2012

Agree with 3.9 wording but there are to many examples where this has been ignored in the past and is being ignored in current applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 2634

Received: 30/04/2012

Character

The traditional tunnel vision and reactive decision making of Town Planners must be replaced with the willingness to be proactive... and approach buildings as social phenomena rather than merely bricks and mortar. The real value of the built environment lies in its contribution to the quality of life. Over the last 10 years many people have moved to St Leonards and invested money and enthusiasm in improving the town.

An organic regeneration... will be stifled and all that will be demonstrated is the Hastings Council knows the price of a few things and the value of nothing.

Support

Representation ID: 2746

Received: 02/05/2012

Apropos policy 2; I have always felt Magdalen Rd to be particularly beautiful and life enhancing. The convent in and the grounds constitute part of our history and are indeed part of our heritage assets not to be tampered with lightly.

Comment

Representation ID: 2802

Received: 27/04/2012

Design [page 12/3]
d) We feel that the density of housing expected from particular sites is crucial to the amenity of the area. The current applications regarding the Archery Ground and Convent site show that ideally developers could be given a clear steer as to what was acceptable before they even but the land. Sites B02 and B31 both in conservation areas should have the possible densities reduced.

Support

Representation ID: 2925

Received: 24/04/2012

I support the single policy option and am broadly happy with the proposed wording in para 3.9. My only reservation is that the wording of sub para d) could give designers/developers a loophole to perpetuate existing overcrowding.

Support

Representation ID: 3095

Received: 27/04/2012

Support Option 1 BUT in clause e) remove 'and distinctiveness'. This is open to interpretation - is it local distinctiveness [covered by clause a], or distinctiveness of the proposal against its surroundings -which may be contrary to clause a].

Comment

Representation ID: 3127

Received: 27/04/2012

Para 3.9 - The draft policy seems to deal effectively with issues relating to buildings, but is less helpful on issues of landscape context and on-site opportunities to retain and enhance landscape, trees and habitats, green stepping stones and corridors and appropriate access for cycling and walking. Although many of the sites in Hastings will be relatively small, there is value in having policies that will generate these benefits where appropriate

Support

Representation ID: 3329

Received: 26/04/2012

Paragraph 3.9: Option 1 (a single policy) is favoured but would recommend that, subject to the suggestions for respecting character, that each site is considered on its own merits as long as the sustainability criteria is set out within the NPPF are met.

Paragraph 3.9: Point a) of the suggested policy wording could also include a reference to appropriate planting.

Comment

Representation ID: 3373

Received: 27/04/2012

The guidelines on page 14 - 3.17 (b) - should be upgraded to Parker Morris standards
The guidelines on page 15 - 3.17 (g) - 30m2 is not acceptable - even the last Local Plan had a minimum of 10m long.

Comment

Representation ID: 3415

Received: 03/04/2012

With respect to Objective2, housing policy should be made to encourage owner occupation residences rather than social housing. It is a well established fact that such occupants are less demanding on public services such as police, social services, fire and other infrastructure institutions and present a better standard of property management. There is a desperate short supply of such residents in Hastings.

Comment

Representation ID: 3417

Received: 03/04/2012

3.9 (b,d) No mention is made in this section of the need to ensure that the housing density limits need to be reduced in order to provide maximum recycling of household waste on-site and provision of environmentally self sustaining installations. All future housing should include compulsory waste water containment for non essential domestic reuse, methane generation from human waste if possible and the siting of housing to allow maximum photovoltaic panel electricity micro-generation.

Object

Representation ID: 3512

Received: 14/05/2012

I am concerned that the replacement of the Ore Valley Design Codes is detrimental and will result in a reduction in quality. They were old and this has been given as a reason for their replacement. People believe that a comparison of the two shows a weakening of the policy around this area. Making it easier to build cheap lower quality housing of a hugely tall height to maximise profit whilst reducing people quality of life.