MM3 - Design

Comment

Representation ID: 9629

Received: 26/02/2015

Whilst the Inspector's preliminary Recommendations are welcomed, I question the omission of the West Hill green/recreation areas. I respectfully suggest that, without protection from future encroachment of the West Hill itself, the Plan is failing in its soundness. The wording of MM3 is excellent, particularly the reference to the Borough's 'natural and historic assets (including Hastings Castle),' but doesn't include the remainder of the West Hill, which is also an such important example of the town's historic open space. I appreciate the opportunity to comment in the hope that the West Hill green area may yet merit his attention.

Support

Representation ID: 9633

Received: 02/03/2015

This section of the Inspector's Report is of significant importance for Hastings - for far too long inappropriate developments have been endorsed to the detriment of the historical surroundings, views and character of this town. I am encouraged in particular to read the Inspector's suggestion of a specific Policy in this respect.

Support

Representation ID: 9641

Received: 24/03/2015

The Inspector's modifications requiring matters of design to be prioritised over and above those of how many dwellings would fit onto a site are most welcome. I hope that in future where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9648

Received: 26/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection: The following should be added to the text: Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9650

Received: 27/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection:MM3 on design was an admirable statement on the great need for high-quality design in the Borough. (Recent reversals - as at the Archery Ground - suggest a persistent gap locally between theory and practice.)

Regarding MM3, please consider adding the following to the end of the text:
Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be strictly limited to an extent that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9654

Received: 25/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection: The following should be added to the text:

Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9664

Received: 27/03/2015

"I would like to add to this as follows:

Central St Leonards is very densely populated with many flats and very few houses in the area. In a recent BBC interview Jeremy Birch defended the renting of renovated housing to working tenants saying that this would add to the diversity of the population to the area. Would this principle also be appropriate for future developments in Central St Leonards? Surely more reasonable sized houses would be of benefit to the central areas, to further add to the diversity of the population, rather than yet more flats."

Comment

Representation ID: 9667

Received: 24/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection: The following should be added to the text:
Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9676

Received: 27/03/2015

Modification welcomed, agree that the figures of indicative capacity should not be absolute. However we would like to see this proposed policy wording strengthened to include reference to the natural assets on the site, not just the views. For example:

'...Of principle and greater consequence for every scheme, however, will be matters which include the design, height, mass and appearance of the proposed building(s), layout (including the provision of a safe and convenient access), trees, biodiversity, green infrastructure and relationship with the surroundings...'

This would help increase the Plan's emphasis on environmental considerations as per paragraph 4 of ID/9.

Comment

Representation ID: 9685

Received: 27/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection: The following should be added to the text concerning MM3:

Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 9687

Received: 27/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection: The following should be added to the text:

Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the area.
Take into consideration the local residential area and populace with regards to roads, access, parking, noise and other detrimental effects of such development.

Comment

Representation ID: 9689

Received: 27/03/2015

I am in agreement with not a few others who are concerned at the inadequate importance given by HBC's planning department and planning committee to considerations such as design and the need to respect green spaces when assessing housing applications. I therefore put forward the following amendments/additions:

MM3: Add the following:"Where the indicative capacity of a site implies a scale and massing that is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area."

Comment

Representation ID: 9694

Received: 27/03/2015

Qualified support recommending further strengthening of protection: I believe the following should be added to the Policy in MM3 - Where the indicative capacity of a site is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

Justification - Conservation Areas should be respected for what they are - special places. I feel this addition would strengthen this policy and assist in preventing inappropriate development on sensitive sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 9699

Received: 27/03/2015

MM3- Additional wording:
Where the indicative capacity of a site is incompatible with preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, development should be limited to an amount that causes no significant harm to the Area.

This addition is necessary to make clear that rejecting an application can be justified where the scale and massing of a development will result in significant harm to a Conservation Area, even though the development is within the indicative capacity. Without this addition, unacceptable development will be granted permission, impacting negatively on the economic and social vitality of the Borough".

Support

Representation ID: 9706

Received: 20/03/2015

The Inspector is correct in reminding the Planning Team that quality and design are the most important principles for Planners similar to our victorian predecessors, and set features like Burton's designs.

Support

Representation ID: 11148

Received: 27/03/2015

Support