Policy GH1 - Robsack A, Church Wood Drive

I do not see the need to build on an area of woodland which is between 2 ancient woodland areas. The access to the area is very limited and would cause traffic problems in a busy area close to a primary school.the area is a nature reserve and should be protected.

This should be preserved as a green space. It would encroach on the Robsack wood nature reserve and destroy the habitats of a range of wildlife.

This development proposal is in contradiction to many of the council policies. To name a few
DM1 - It is not in keeping with the surrounding area, made up entirely of houses,
DM3 - Building 5 storey flats 10m from existing properties, will effect their light, privacy and be overshadowing.
HN8 - It has not been stated how the needs to develop this site outweigh the nature conservation interests.
EN1 - Inclusion of this site, clearly DOES NOT demonstrate a "presumption in favour" for the conservation of the conservation areas in the greater hollington area.

The Greater Hollington area has gained windfall sites, increasing the total housing proposal to 191 giving an average of 78 people per Hectare (using 2.3 as the average household size from 2011 census). This only serves to increase the density of an already densely populated area. There can be no legitimate requirement for Robsack A to be included as a development site, especially considering the negative impact any development would have on this small, ecological important site.

Although not considered in the Greater Hollington area, site FB1 Grove school, is another windfall site with an expected capacity of 240. This site is actually within 400 metres of the Robsack A (GH1) site and should be considered when putting forward any justification to retain Robsack Meadow as a development site.

You state at the end of this text the following: ALL POLICIES OF THE LOCAL PLAN WILL BE APPLIED AS APPROPRIATE TO ANY SCHEME PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL...this is not demonstrated by the intention to fell ancient woodland, destroy a natural habitat which is home to so many protected species and important flora: any development on this site will be in direct conflict to all the relevant Policies included within this Local Plan - we are being hoodwinked into thinking these policies will protect our green spaces - it is not the case at all.

We are bitterly disappointed and disgusted to learn that the council is considering allowing the development of Robsack Meadow.

The land is in-between the Churchwood nature reserve and the virtually untouched Robsack wood. Both of which have been found to house important wildlife, hence the status of a nature reserve being granted.

Construction of any properties on the border of both of these vitally important protected areas would surely compromise the benefit of having such? Rather than local residents interested in the local nature making the trip to view the areas, both will just turn into a cut through and a playground and they would slowly degrade into the familiar tatty 'urban woodland' that borders the development of tile barn, Tesco's superstore and the top of Churchwood.

Maybe this is the council's intention? Once the nature reserve is scoured bare and all that left is damaged trees, bare earth, dead wildlife and litter the council can then argue that the reserve is not providing a benefit and allow development of this as well?

They state a shortage of housing and lack of suitable land as a reason to consider this again. This will require the destruction of ancient woodland just to allow access to develop the area let alone the tearing up of the meadow for just 32 extra properties. Seems quite a loss for such a ridiculously small benefit? It will break the natural corridor between the two areas mentioned above, meaning that wildlife will find it harder to go between and make the decline of the then isolated Robsack wood happen even quicker, I refer you again to my comment above.

Especially now that there is a disused school a short distance up the road. One that already has access, and utilities and is of a considerably larger area and therefore overall benefit to the sustainability of the town. Both in the number of properties that can be built and also by not disturbing the wealth of irreplaceable nature of the town.

I would suspect that the council does not own this land so therefore is unable to profit from the development of the school so is just looking to profit from selling off another irreplaceable and important asset owned by the residents of Hastings and St Leonard's with the bonus that they also get 32 more properties to meet government new build targets!

This meadow is too important to loose, so please leave it alone!

See attached -
Name: P Brown
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering reps 5903-5906 inclusive.

Insufficient notice given to Ecologists 1998 report and to subsequent appeals, protests and a petition so that the proposed development of 32 flats in two blocks with 40% affordable housing begs many questions in this fourth most deprived area of the Borough with significant economic deprivation.

See attached -
Name: M Jarvis
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5929-5940 inclusive.

See attached -
Name: R Price
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5941-5964 inclusive

I'm writing to object to the proposed development of Robsack Meadow. Having lived in the local vicinity since 1998, I strongly feel a development on this Meadow will have a detrimental impact on the local Community and wildlife alike.

Both Robsack Wood & Churchwood are hidden gems of this Town, providing enjoyment for many members of the our local Community.

These areas are frequented on a daily basis by dog walkers, families and children. In this day and age of technology and fast paced living, it's imperative we preserve these areas for those wishing to escape the stresses of modern day life.

Increasing populations are putting a massive strain on our habitats, but surely there are other alternatives that must be considered before destroying natural habitats.

The Council and its communities must ensure the decisions they make today ensure a sustainable legacy for future generations. The destruction of wildlife habitats is an often irreversible and therefore, developments must be considered with great care.

Robsack Wood & Churchwood were granted Local Nature Reserve status in 2004 and the Hastings Mayor stated, " The Woodlands were Hollington's greatest asset and Local Nature Reserve status would protect the Wildlife within".

How has this been overlooked, along with your Borough Ecologist report in 1998, which cited the consequences to the Woodlands and Wildlife if any development was to proceed?

I'm also aware due to flaws in the planning process, the outlined consent granted in 2007 for two blocks of multi storey flats wasn't issued. Can this be explained?

Whilst I appreciate we need to provide more housing for our growing populations, should our current empty housing stock be considered for redevelopment, rather than building on green sites?

I have seen numerous properties in the Hastings area, that lie either derelict or boarded up. Would it not make sense to make these available for the original purpose they were intended for, rather than consider destroying natural habitats?

I would ask you visit these wonderful woodlands and Meadow area to witness the vast array of plant and animal species that habitat this area. We have Bats, Foxes, Badgers, Owls and a rare Nightingale that visits this area annually for just a couple of weeks at a time.

All this could be lost for us and future generations if your proposed plan is to proceed.

Taking into account the afore mentioned, I ask you consider my objections in your final consultations. Taking into account the points raised above, I ask that you consider these factors in your final decision process.

Robsack Meadow - proposed development
I'm writing to object to the proposed.

See attached -
Name: A Ingleton
Submission dated 22.04.14 covering Reps 5994-6032 & 6034-6040 inclusive