6.65
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5306
Received: 25/02/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
If the true facts had been presented to Members and the Inspector this site would not have been taken forward as suitable as a development site in the 2004 Local Plan.The borough ecologists 1998 report clearly identifies the devastation which would be caused to the ancient woodland and yet there is no evidence of this report being presented within the consutlation put forward for the 2004 Local Plan.The consent granted in 2008 has not been issued due to ecology omissions but remains on the planning site as "active". This is a travesty of planning law.
If the true facts had been presented to Members and the Inspector this site would not have been taken forward as suitable as a development site in the 2004 Local Plan.The borough ecologists 1998 report clearly identifies the devastation which would be caused to the ancient woodland and yet there is no evidence of this report being presented within the consutlation put forward for the 2004 Local Plan.The consent granted in 2008 has not been issued due to ecology omissions but remains on the planning site as "active". This is a travesty of planning law.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5327
Received: 06/04/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This statement is misleading and wrong, the planning committee were not given all relevant information in which to make an informed decision, this included the ecology report of 1998 and the fact the site contained ancient woodland. THIS WAS NOT NEW INFORMATION, members of the public had protested about the ommision of this long before the planning meeting, all of which was ignored. Had the true facts been presented to the planning committee, I'm sure planning would not have been granted. It was only after a legal challenge that HBCs own legal department recommended that the planning application be withdrawn.
This statement is misleading and wrong, the planning committee were not given all relevant information in which to make an informed decision, this included the ecology report of 1998 and the fact the site contained ancient woodland. THIS WAS NOT NEW INFORMATION, members of the public had protested about the ommision of this long before the planning meeting, all of which was ignored. Had the true facts been presented to the planning committee, I'm sure planning would not have been granted. It was only after a legal challenge that HBCs own legal department recommended that the planning application be withdrawn.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5333
Received: 08/04/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The ancient woodlands & Robsack "A" have been enjoyed by residents in Hollington for many decades and any development on this bio diverse site will have a negative impact on the woodlands and wildlife.Hundreds of residents have objected to the proposal to build on this site and the council must listen to these people.The site is home to an abundance of PROTECTED wildlife and flora and the intention to remove these creatures from this site is unacceptable.They use this site as a foraging ground and traverse between the site and the woodlands.This site must be removed from the Local Plan.
The ancient woodlands & Robsack "A" have been enjoyed by residents in Hollington for many decades and any development on this bio diverse site will have a negative impact on the woodlands and wildlife.Hundreds of residents have objected to the proposal to build on this site and the council must listen to these people.The site is home to an abundance of PROTECTED wildlife and flora and the intention to remove these creatures from this site is unacceptable.They use this site as a foraging ground and traverse between the site and the woodlands.This site must be removed from the Local Plan.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5363
Received: 11/04/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This proposal would remove an important woodland amenity and area for wildlife. The proposal to develop this site contravenes numerous Policies including policies EN2/EN3/EN4/EN5:
The site should remain undeveloped.
This proposal would remove an important woodland amenity and area for wildlife. The proposal to develop this site contravenes numerous Policies including policies EN2/EN3/EN4/EN5:
The site should remain undeveloped.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5410
Received: 15/04/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Had all the relevant information regarding this site been available to MEMBERS this bio diverse site would never have been carried forward into the 2004 Local Plan.Preliminary research of earlier documentation suggests that there are many contra indications which suggest the decision to retain this site within the 2004 Plan was based on misleading, inaccurate and cursory information.The current outline consent should be declared NULL& VOID because the decision to grant outline consent was made on misleading, incorrect infomation presented to the planning committee. This is a fact.But the planning deparment choose to ignore the law on this issue.
Had all the relevant information regarding this site been available to MEMBERS this bio diverse site would never have been carried forward into the 2004 Local Plan.Preliminary research of earlier documentation suggests that there are many contra indications which suggest the decision to retain this site within the 2004 Plan was based on misleading, inaccurate and cursory information.The current outline consent should be declared NULL& VOID because the decision to grant outline consent was made on misleading, incorrect infomation presented to the planning committee. This is a fact.But the planning deparment choose to ignore the law on this issue.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5412
Received: 15/04/2013
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
As the local councillor I am asked by residents to oppose this site being put into the plan for Developement. Robsack A was porposed for housing development in the 1970/80's which was a notoriously bad time for planning policies. It is believed that this site has fallen victim of those bad policies. The only reason that it is not in the Local Nature reserve is due to its previous allocation and not based on its environmental value. I am therefore asking on behalf of my residents that this site be removed from the plan.
As the local councillor I am asked by residents to oppose this site being put into the plan for Developement. Robsack A was porposed for housing development in the 1970/80's which was a notoriously bad time for planning policies. It is believed that this site has fallen victim of those bad policies. The only reason that it is not in the Local Nature reserve is due to its previous allocation and not based on its environmental value. I am therefore asking on behalf of my residents that this site be removed from the plan.