Option 1: A single policy

Comment

Representation ID: 2387

Received: 29/03/2012

2 person area of 51sq m including 1 bedroom I would not consider to be a good living area.at 25.5 sq m per person

6 person area 4 bedroom considering this would normally be over 2 levels i.e. 53 sq m for 6 persons i.e. less than 9 sqm per person. I consider this to be akin to sanctioning developers to build the equivalent of rabbit hutches for people and a long way from a good living standard.

Object

Representation ID: 2509

Received: 25/04/2012

There is a danger that the minimum standards for living accommodation and amenity space could become the maximum. As long as the proposals meet the guidelines then they are considered acceptable. Small, rabbit hutch type buildings crammed together with little space between them for landscaping that would break up the mass of brickwork seem to be the norm. Garden areas of 30m2 are not sufficient for family use. Modern developments do not seem to include public open space, which would make up for the lack of private space. Children need somewhere save to play.

Support

Representation ID: 2747

Received: 02/05/2012

I thoroughly endorse policy 3. I have two friends who live in Magdalen Road in very small pokey flats with no garden and who take advantage of the convent gardens with its wonderful trees and wildlife everyday to exercise. They do indeed add to the wellbeing of the residents.

It would be absolute sacrilege to cut down any of the trees or build on this beautiful countryscape overlooking the townscape of St Leonards

Support

Representation ID: 2926

Received: 24/04/2012

I support the single policy options and proposed wording.

Support

Representation ID: 3096

Received: 27/04/2012

Support Option 1 BUT rephrase the introduction wording ' permission will be given where it can be proven ... to read 'permission will not be granted unless it has been proven ...' . Clause b] relating to unit sizes is welcomed, but may be the subject of a misprint

Comment

Representation ID: 3134

Received: 27/04/2012

Para 3.17 - The draft policy (clause f) touches on some of the matters considered above, but further clarification is necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 3311

Received: 26/04/2012

Option 1 'a single policy' - is the most appropriate option but not in its current form.

The guidance is excessive in respect of Option 1b which proposes internal space standards. The proposed standards are significantly above the HQI and even London Plan standards. The Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) measure the quality of housing schemes against Housing Quality Indicators (HQI), of which the size of units is just one indicator of ten that measure the overall quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 3312

Received: 26/04/2012

Another local authority within East Sussex (Wealden) only applies to affordable housing and is lower at 51m2 for a 1 bed flat, 67m2 for a 2 bed flat and 76m2 for a 3 bed flat. There is no justification or evidence as to why such excessive standards are considered appropriate in Hastings. The proposed policy cannot be considered to be sound.

Notwithstanding the likely viability implications of the proposed standards, such specific standards can become outdated and setting such limits could constrain and discourage development where an appropriate local design response can be achieved and agreed with the council.

Comment

Representation ID: 3313

Received: 26/04/2012

Instead, it would be common practice for the council to rely on policy guidance and best practice guidance. The 'Access' policy 1d (p. 17) states that good performance will be measured against nationally recognised best practice guidance on internal building design and layout, so it makes sense to take a joined up approach across both policies. Nationally recognised standards take account of the potential of future adaption of a new home to support the changing needs of a family's life cycle, from raising young children to declining mobility.

Comment

Representation ID: 3416

Received: 03/04/2012

(3.17b) Planning policy should give greater consideration to the construction of family dwellings rather than multi-storey flats. Families with children require personal ground space for recreational purposes. I would recommend a prohibition of any further multi-storey accommodation within the town so as to discourage further single occupancy flats that become family homes.