GH1
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5302
Received: 30/01/2013
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
For the past 5 years+ hundreds of local residents have protested against this proposal to build on this fragile, biodiverse site.In 1998 the borough ecologist produced a report where he outlined why NO development should take place.His report has been concealed from public view,his opinions discounted and every attempt has been made by planning officers to aquire ecological reports which suggest no harm will come to the woodlands and wilife.This is a blatant attempt to procure planning consent at any price to the detriment of our woodlands and wildife here in Hollignton.It is a disgrace.
For the past 5 years+ hundreds of local residents have protested against this proposal to build on this fragile, biodiverse site.In 1998 the borough ecologist produced a report where he outlined why NO development should take place.His report has been concealed from public view,his opinions discounted and every attempt has been made by planning officers to aquire ecological reports which suggest no harm will come to the woodlands and wilife.This is a blatant attempt to procure planning consent at any price to the detriment of our woodlands and wildife here in Hollignton.It is a disgrace.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5312
Received: 05/03/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This map is not accurate and fails to illustrate the considerable area of Robsack wood which has been excluded from the local nature reserve in order to safeguard the requirement for vehicular transport.A very false indication is shown as the size of the proposed roadway and it is clear that inadequate buffer zones would be possible here.Yet again these planners have produced misleading plans to justify this development.It is clear that the major part of the wildlife corridor of connecting ancient woodland would be destroyed if this development were to proceed followed by the degradation of the remaining ancient woodlands.
This map is not accurate and fails to illustrate the considerable area of Robsack wood which has been excluded from the local nature reserve in order to safeguard the requirement for vehicular transport.A very false indication is shown as the size of the proposed roadway and it is clear that inadequate buffer zones would be possible here.Yet again these planners have produced misleading plans to justify this development.It is clear that the major part of the wildlife corridor of connecting ancient woodland would be destroyed if this development were to proceed followed by the degradation of the remaining ancient woodlands.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5313
Received: 05/03/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Previous objection should read: there is no room for adequate buffer zones..."
Previous objection should read: there is no room for adequate buffer zones..."
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5332
Received: 08/04/2013
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
In 1999 a planning application was either refused or withdrawn by the council who own this land.At the time of writing there is no documentation within the archived files which defines the reason why this planning application did not proceed.I particularly requested sight of this paperwork as it is very relevant to the current objections to this proposal to build on this bio diverse site.It is a most unsatisfactory sitaution as all paperwork relating to planning applications must be available for public scrutiny.I am extremely concerned with the current situation.
In 1999 a planning application was either refused or withdrawn by the council who own this land.At the time of writing there is no documentation within the archived files which defines the reason why this planning application did not proceed.I particularly requested sight of this paperwork as it is very relevant to the current objections to this proposal to build on this bio diverse site.It is a most unsatisfactory sitaution as all paperwork relating to planning applications must be available for public scrutiny.I am extremely concerned with the current situation.
Object
Hastings Development Management Plan Proposed Submission Version
Representation ID: 5504
Received: 12/04/2013
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to development of Robsack A (GH1) which does not I believe conform to policy HN9 or UR8 Sustainability Appraisal p171/172 referring to 'greenfield nature' of site.
It is not possible to develop this site without harm to habitats, natural environment, protected species and detriment to adjoining woodland (Church Wood).
Object to development of Robsack A (GH1) which does not I believe conform to policy HN9 or UR8 Sustainability Appraisal p171/172 referring to 'greenfield nature' of site.
It is not possible to develop this site without harm to habitats, natural environment, protected species and detriment to adjoining woodland (Church Wood).
The Development management Plan is clearly being flouted by inclusion of Robsack A in sites for development the overall conclusion reached in para 6.65 site allocation p87 is not factual and unrealistic taking into account the description.
Land adjacent to Sandrock Park should be deferred for development until the second part of the Local Plan period so as to evaluatie the effect on traffic on The Ridge of the creation of the Bexhill/Hastings Link Road.