Option 1: A single policy

Comment

Representation ID: 2322

Received: 20/02/2012

Parking Issues:

Parking continues to be a worsening problem within the Beaufort Road and Vale Road areas and the 2 hour waiting restriction has exacerbated the situation further, sending the Asda and Bus station workers to seek parking further down Beaufort Road and surrounding area. An example of this is the often blocking of residents drive ways and parking nose to tail making the life of local residents extremely difficult.

I would like to make the following suggestion: Remove parking restrictions, thus alleviating the situation for residents. As both Beaufort court and the doctor's surgery have their own parking facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 2529

Received: 26/04/2012

You are talking about several different aspects of access which cannot be covered by one single policy as it has too many elements. You are talking about access to the proposed development, access to the individual properties and acceptable design for individual needs. Many physically disabled people will not be able to get around without a car so using public transport or a bike will not be an option. Access to the property is an important aspect, providing a downstairs loo, but the requirement of negotiating over 40 steps to get into the property is bad design.

Comment

Representation ID: 2545

Received: 26/04/2012

How do Hastings Borough Council envisage non-site specific access improvements being brought forward and their relationship with this Development Management Plan (both in terms of policy and the cumulative impact of site development).

There is also a potential policy gap with regard to general improvements to the network to facilitate sites, particularly in terms of junction improvements which complement the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (primarily at Baldslow and along The Ridge), and the issues relating to the Air Quality Management Area in the Bulverhythe/Bexhill Road area.

Support

Representation ID: 2927

Received: 24/04/2012

I support the single policy options and proposed wording.

Support

Representation ID: 3097

Received: 27/04/2012

Support Option 1 BUT include a clause requiring adherence to ESCC Parking SPG's mentioned in the text.

Comment

Representation ID: 3287

Received: 26/04/2012

Whilst we note that access is considered within the general guidance section of the Management Plan, the need for Transport Assessments and Travel Plans to be submitted in support of applications is not included. To enable a robust assessment of the transport impacts of development to be undertaken it is requested that either amendments are made to the Access Policy or that a new Transport Assessment Policy is created. The amended/new policy should outline the necessity to assess applications that could have a material transport impact using Transport Assessments and also include the need for Travel Plans.

Support

Representation ID: 3314

Received: 26/04/2012

Option 1 'a single policy' - is the most appropriate option.
We support the reference to the access guidance provided by East Sussex County Council and nationally recognised best practice guidance. However, with reference to comments made to the draft 'Amenity' policy, we suggest that there should be consistency across the draft policies by following nationally recognised best practice guidance for internal building design and layout.

Comment

Representation ID: 3331

Received: 26/04/2012

Paragraph 3.26, Option 1:

Bullet point b - also need to make reference to public transport as well.
Bullet point e - Un-metalled streets could be made up to an acceptable standard through a legal agreement and remain private, or could be made up to an adoptable standard and adopted as public highway by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) subject to agreement.