Policy CLBX - Former Convent of Holy Child Jesus, Magdalen Road

Object

Representation ID: 5375

Received: 13/04/2013

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The council should not consider enabling development for this site. 1. An enabling development would not enhance the character or appearance of the area. 2. It would not be sustainable in terms of infrastructure 3.there would be massive impact on parking and traffic. The historic integreity of the site would be impaired. The site should be developed as a business - a prodcutive school/language school that could maintain and repair the historic buildings. There is no good reason for an enabling development to be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 5428

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

6.280
Policy CLBX

No planning permission for development at the Former Convent of Holy Child Jesus should be granted because:
i) No genuine investigation of the potential for securing the long term future for the property has been made;
ii) development is contrary to Hastings Planning Strategy, Chapter 7 (Open Spaces - Enhancement, Provision and Protection);
iii) development is contrary to Policy HN5
(Non-designated Heritage Assets) and Policy HN6 (Private Open Space).

Object

Representation ID: 5494

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I support the position that enabling development must be an absolutely last resort. Provision for the retention of the maximum private open space must, however, be an incorporated concern.

Object

Representation ID: 5533

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The site should not be designated away from Private Open Space & should not be divided between private open space and the rest, so as to build on the playing fields. That would mean an abuse of HN6.

The site is at the heart of the Magdalen Rd Conservation area & deserves more sympathetic treatment. So too does the Oval and the view from the Museum. These proposals do damage by impinging on policies E4, EN1, EN2, EN3,EN4 & EN5. Policy breaches NPPFpara65.

Object

Representation ID: 5544

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

A policy relating to enabling development should be included in the Local Plan, particularly as there is a current enabling development application. Policy CLBX is not appropriate, it is site specific and doesn't make explicit reference to the English Heritage guidance on enabling development according to which such applications should be judged. English Heritage have been consulted but not formally notified that it has been submitted with a viability appraisal for enabling development. Therefore English Heritage advice doesn't relate to the enabling development application submitted.

Object

Representation ID: 5548

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This should not be called identified use - as that would be contrary to English Heritage guidance on enabling development.

Object

Representation ID: 5549

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Why is identified use called enabling development? when English Heritage have not been formally notified that it is one, complete with viability appraisal, so they can have an independent assessment of the validity of the figures. Over 3 years have gone by and still no notification? Under site ref.CLB5 major development that is not enabling development could take place, also the Italianate East Wing could be demolished.

Object

Representation ID: 5551

Received: 15/04/2013

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The criteria listed under Policy CLBX differ in important regards to those listed in the policy on enabling development in the English Heritage guidance document 'Enabling development and the conservation of significant places'. For example, criteria 'a' and 'c' from the English Heritage policy are omitted from CLBX.