A27 - Robsack A, Church Wood Drive

Object

Representation ID: 2229

Received: 08/02/2012

Any development on this important biodiverse site will destroy the habitat, sever the wildlife corridor and cause loss of ancient woodland. This site is directly in the centre of a local nature reserve and surrounded by ancient woodland. All indications show that this is one of the most inappropriate proposed development sites in the Borough. In 1998 the Borough Ecologist produced a report which provided numerous indications why this site should be incorporated into the existing local nature reserve. It is time to take this site out of the Local Plan for development. These woodlands are Hollington's greatest asset.

Object

Representation ID: 2235

Received: 08/02/2012

Your report states you are minded to keep this site as a development site - HUNDREDS of people disagree with your - where is the involvement of local people in this???? You only informed TEN residents of your proposals in 2008 - and yet this proposed development would have an adverse affect on hundreds by depriving them of a local amenity that has been available for decades.

Object

Representation ID: 2262

Received: 19/02/2012

There is only sparce information shown on this site.Nowhere is there any indication that a part of Robsack Wood local nature reserve has been excluded from the local nature reserve in order to "safeguard" any vehicular access that may be required.There is no reference that this planning consent "would not now be issued" due to HBCs barrister's advice.The planning committee was not presented with the full and true situation regarding the extent of ancient woodland and protected species. No where is there any mention of the large population of protected species within this habitat.

Object

Representation ID: 2276

Received: 01/03/2012

This area should be preserved as a woodland, nature reserve. It is an important area of biodiversity and a useful amenity for the local residents. It should be preserved as it is.

Object

Representation ID: 2337

Received: 20/03/2012

In 1998 the borough ecologist produced a report where he stated that no development should take place on this site - this report was not presented to the planning committee in 2008. For reasons unknown there appears to be a relentless pursuit to push for development on this site. Something extraordinary is going on here. Nobody is in agreement to any development on this important site and in 1998 the borough ecologist recommended that this site be incorporated into the local nature reserve. Why have his recommendations been ignored?????????????

Object

Representation ID: 2357

Received: 21/03/2012

Robsack "A" is the only site currently up for discussion which is completely enclosed on three sides by ancient woodland. Any development on this site would cause critical devastation to the ancient woodland and wildlife habitat. Following major development in the area this site represents the last remaining area of open and accessible green space between the two ancient woodlands of Robsack and Churchwood Local Nature Reserve.

Object

Representation ID: 2358

Received: 21/03/2012

Any development on this remaining area of open space would impact on a diversity of important and protected species and would be contrary to the concepts of sustainable use of land and natural heritage and is in direct conflict with Policy NC2 and PPS9. The footprint of any development will result in the destruction of a large area of ancient woodland and would sever the ancient woodland and wildlife corridor.

Object

Representation ID: 2359

Received: 21/03/2012

In 2004 Robsack Wood and Churchwood were granted Local Nature Reserve status. On the inauguration of the local nature reserve a declaration was issued by Hastings Council that these historic woodlands were one of Hollington's greatest assets and local nature reserve status would protect the area from development and protect the wildlife habitat.

Object

Representation ID: 2360

Received: 21/03/2012

In 1998 the Borough Ecologist produced a report which indicated the serious impact any development would have on the woodlands and associated habitat. This report concluded that any development would isolate an area of ancient woodland with the corresponding degradation of the habitat. He stated that any development would not only isolate Robsack Wood completely but would also isolate Churchwood from adjacent habitats and destroy an area of connecting grassland habitat. Robsack Wood would become nothing more than an island woodland. Subsequently this planning application was withdrawn.

Object

Representation ID: 2361

Received: 21/03/2012

Furthermore a part of Robsack Wood has been excluded from the local nature reserve in order to "safeguard" any vehicular access that would be required in order to gain entry into any proposed development.

Object

Representation ID: 2362

Received: 21/03/2012

Neither the ecologist's report nor the exclusion of a part of Robsack Wood ancient woodland was highlighted to any planning committee members when the council brought this site back to the planning committee in 2008. However, through persistence and endeavour by those who wish to protect this important site, the council's own barrister advised that the outline consent should not be issued due to the unanswered ecological questions on this site. Indeed, a planning officer accepted that the true extent of ancient woodland had not been presented to the planning committee.

Object

Representation ID: 2363

Received: 21/03/2012

This site has remained undisturbed for many decades and mapping inventories indicate that the configuration of the site has remained virtually identical to records held as far back as the 1600s. The site and the surrounding ancient woodlands are well used by local residents as informal recreational area. To develop this area would deprive hundreds of local residents an amenity that has been available for a very long time and development would, in due course fragment the woodlands and destroy the habitat. This is unacceptable and very careful thought should be allotted to this site when final decisions are made.

Object

Representation ID: 2364

Received: 21/03/2012

Robsack "A" is a unique site and should be given exceptional consideration before yet further precious woodland areas are decimated by unnecessary development.

Object

Representation ID: 2380

Received: 09/03/2012

This very small area of natural beauty 'green open space' should not be built on, it must be taken out of the 'Hastings Local Plan' the site is situated on the edge of Ancient Woodlands.

The outline plan for two blocks of flats (five stories high) do not blend in with the surroundings, no other buildings in the area are of this heght, no gardens for the children to play in and dangerous woods and drainage systems in the area.

This site has been enjoyed by many people in the past and should be enjoyed by all in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 2492

Received: 11/04/2012

Keep as conservation area. We do not need to cover every piece of open grass land with houses. Hastings is already too crowded/high density housing/flats.

Object

Representation ID: 2536

Received: 26/04/2012

Reasons to remove Robsack from the plan and protect it long term from ANY form of development are very well detailed within the comments here, but even more so, in documents, discussions and petitions ranging as far back as 1997 and as felt by many local residents and councillors alike.

It would be a travesty to destroy Robsack for nothing but financial reasons; more flats in a town with double the national average ? Link road approval, releasing land for an estimated 2000 new homes and the loss of one of the towns greatest assets, green space and ancient woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 2575

Received: 27/04/2012

Totally disagree with any thought of developing this site. A greenfield site. This meadow has significant flora and fauna and one of the last natural sites i this part of the borough. Also surrounded by an ancient woodland that should remain untouched.
How Robsack Meadow has become a potential development site displays the shortsighted thinking of the planning department.

Object

Representation ID: 2665

Received: 26/04/2012

Area 2. Sites: A04 A22 A26 and A27 (object)

The development of these 4 sites with 113 dwellings will be well overcrowded in this area. With the added traffic it will make the junction of Bodiam Drive & Churchwood and Churchwood & Crowhurst Rd very congested. Also small areas of undeveloped land are more beneficial to the wildlife habitats than large open spaces. Also if these areas are overdeveloped it will have a negative effect as people will not want to live in an overcrowded and congested area.

Object

Representation ID: 2909

Received: 26/04/2012

Housing is needed, but it is not needed in green areas and backgardens. There are, as your plans lay out, many suitable sites in our borough but backgardens along The Ridge and green spaces across the borough should not be included and should be given the respect they deserve.

Object

Representation ID: 3001

Received: 10/04/2012

Infrastructure not adequate, more traffic, over populated, not enough water as it is, Ridge and Hastings cannot cope with any more traffic, schools, doctors, hospital shortage

Comment

Representation ID: 3060

Received: 27/04/2012

Site A27 should also be designated as green space (see comments on part B)

Object

Representation ID: 3180

Received: 24/04/2012

Delete this site from new plan. Preseve as woodland and meadow

Comment

Representation ID: 3232

Received: 27/04/2012

Marline Valley Woods SSSI - was in a favourable condition at the last review.

Similarly the impact of housing allocations in the southwest corner of PFA 2 (particularly A04, 22, 26, 27 and D56) on the SSSI needs to be considered

This would be in tune with your amended policy of "Conserving and enhancing protected biodiversity and geodiversity sites and features including Sites of Special Scientific Interest ...."

The site may also be sensitive to air quality and water issues

Comment

Representation ID: 3278

Received: 24/04/2012

Part of the site (southern area) now encroaches within Flood Zone 2 & 3

There should be no loss of riparian connectivity or ghyll woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 3387

Received: 27/04/2012

A27
This site should not have been allocated for development in the 2004 plan. The proposal for flats - appalling. This site should be removed from the site allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 3494

Received: 12/04/2012

This parcel of land is part of Church Wood; woodland first planted in the late
15th and early 16th centuries. A completely unique environment the nurse Oak trees predominantly Quecus robur serve at least two main functions (a. food and shelter/habitat for over 284 species of insects and around 324 species of lichen.
(b. nuts and other morsels (saprophytic wasp grubs and beetles) found in the ground and decaying leaves surrounding these now old dominant trees a plentiful supply of natural sustainable food for many species of birds and wild mammals.

Object

Representation ID: 3495

Received: 12/04/2012

The Cants of Sweet Chestnut are intended to be coppiced on a 20 to 25 year cycle giving a mosaic carpet of changing habitat. The Nurse Tree's job is to draw the growing stools of Sweet Chestnut into tall straight poles. Unfortunately the Council
Officers have neglected to carry on with the correct Coppice Routine. The consequences are obvious even to the casual observer. DISGRACEFUL.

Object

Representation ID: 3496

Received: 12/04/2012

Robsack Wood and Meadow are part of Church Wood and the mosaic habitat is a sustainable source of food for badgers resident in setts in the northeast section of
Robsack Meadow and the south west part of Church Wood. It is a fragile unique habitat, the home of many creatures and plants, the meadow area is noted for containing distinctive communities of flowering plants, woodland slugs, snails, rare crickets and other animal species noted for being poor colonisers and therefore tend to be rare in the relatively unstable environments created in the locality. This type of Primary woodland and its supporting meadow areas are considered to have a very high Ecological Value.