paragraph 15 representations on the Main Modifications

Comment

Representation ID: 9643

Received: 04/03/2015

The Highways Agency is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's strategic road network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. The HA will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact the safe and efficient operation of the SRN.

We have reviewed the consultation and do not have any comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 9644

Received: 25/02/2015

It must be very difficult to please everyone who is appealing for their own special cases, but I was concerned that NO mention was given to The old Grove Site plans.

At least you could have recommended that this area be better used to include a badly needed School and local facilities,and another exit from the site.
The education figures prove that this is needed, and the lack of playing field in the area by losing this is shameful.

I had to make this point,and apologise for taking up your valuable time for an area not mentioned in your report.

Comment

Representation ID: 9645

Received: 25/02/2015

It must be very difficult to please everyone who is appealing for their own special cases, but I was concerned that NO mention was given to The old Grove Site plans.

At least you could have recommended that this area be better used to include a badly needed School and local facilities,and another exit from the site.
The education figures prove that this is needed, and the lack of playing field in the area by losing this is shameful.

I had to make this point,and apologise for taking up your valuable time for an area not mentioned in your report.

Support

Representation ID: 9646

Received: 27/03/2015

English Heritage has no substantive comments to make on the above consultation document, but we support the proposed modifications by the Inspector in so far as they relate to our areas of interest.

Comment

Representation ID: 9651

Received: 27/03/2015

Since the end of the Hearings, the clear threat to Hastings County Park has grown: a function suite at Fairlight and the sell-off and expansion of Little Warren Cottage, together with development at Rocklands, mean that minor development 'unobtrusive and wholly in keeping with the character of the AONB' (DMP par 6.308, p213, Focus Area 13) is precisely what is not on offer. Is an Additional Modification feasible to protect it?

Comment

Representation ID: 9655

Received: 25/03/2015

I am particularly concerned that the heritage of the Warrior Square Station area is preserved. I fear that any developments in the Station Bowl will be more in keeping with Ocean House than the existing architecture.

Object

Representation ID: 9659

Received: 25/03/2015

The Inspector fails to request a Main Modification requiring the Council to preface the Hastings Development Management Plan with a note to the effect that the previously Adopted Core Strategy contains an erroneous Housing Need figure which is not in accordance with the Council's own independently commissioned Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Accordingly, the correct figures is a need for 6,863 new homes to be built across the Plan period equating to 404 homes p.a.

Failure to include such a preface will almost certainly result in a request for Judicial Review.

Object

Representation ID: 9660

Received: 25/03/2015

The Inspector fails to request a Main Modification requiring the Council to preface the Hastings Development Management Plan with a note to the effect that the previously Adopted Core Strategy contains an erroneous Housing Need figure which is not in accordance with the Council's own independently commissioned Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Accordingly, the correct figures is a need for 6,863 new homes to be built across the Plan period equating to 404 homes p.a.

Failure to include such a preface will almost certainly result in a request for Judicial Review.

Comment

Representation ID: 9662

Received: 27/03/2015

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the Inspector's Proposed Main Modifications.

Since the Inspector's modifications are positive in respect of the natural environment, I have no further comments on the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 9671

Received: 26/03/2015

Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker for Hastings.

In addition to our representation on policy HN6, which appears to have been dealt with as part of Main Modification 2, we previously made representations on policies HN9 and HN10, all as part of our response to Matter 6.

We are concerned that our proposed amendments for policies HN9 and HN10 have not been considered. Please refer to the statement we submitted on 29th October 2014 for full details.

Comment

Representation ID: 9672

Received: 17/03/2015

I would like to make a representation of 'no further comments' to be added to the Planning Inspector Preliminary Findings on the (HBC) Development Management Plan, this comment is to the main Modifications and the Sustainability Appraisal.

Comment

Representation ID: 9682

Received: 27/03/2015

We still question whether the Plan achieves a balance between the three mutually dependent dimensions of sustainable development.

In particular we are disappointed to see that four sites that are currently designated for their biodiversity value are still allocated for development in the Plan (LRA1, LRA8, GH3 and FB14). We also cannot support the continued squeeze of Marline Woods SSSI and particularly do not think that allocations LRA6 and LRA9 conform to paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Comment

Representation ID: 9683

Received: 27/03/2015

We note Sussex Wildlife Trust's suggested wording for policy HN7 has not be considered and that there is only one minor change listed in the Additional Modifications(HBC/30) for the Plan. The Trust does not consider the current policy and Green Infrastructure Strategy to be sufficient. The design briefs found in Appendix A of Development Management Plan are extremely minimal and do not appear to highlight any true enhancements to the Green Infrastructure Network. It is vital that the GI strategy is properly integrated in the plan making process and not simply seen as a tick in the evidence base list.

Comment

Representation ID: 9713

Received: 20/03/2015

I do not understand why the document I have presented with the four copies as requested and as a consequence I do not see any mention of the very serious flood issues that I covered. Please l am due a full correct answer since I wrote the document I have found further complications, one being ground water problems generated by the Link Road and the new proposed Link between the Link Road and the A21.

Comment

Representation ID: 9714

Received: 20/03/2015

To date there is still nothing that makes the Plan Sound as it lacks reference to the upgrading of our Victorian infrastructure, surface water flooding issues and wildlife issues have been treated inappropriately. The Plan needs a complete shake up to be sound an a common sense approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 9716

Received: 20/03/2015

The Inspector considered the Plan to be unsound because it was considered that the Council did not put enough emphasis on environmental, community and design considerations. Sport England agrees with such a conclusion and would argue that the allocation of The Grove School should also be omitted because it is unclear how this playing field has been assessed in terms of sporting needs. Sport England considers the Grove School allocation to be contrary to the provisions of Paragraph 73 of the NPPF and requests that The Grove School be deleted from the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 11132

Received: 25/03/2015

The Inspector fails to request a Main Modification to include in its' entirety the wording of the Policy that he requested that I write in relation to Self-Build Housing and which the Council subsequently almost entirely deleted.

The Council's actions in so doing meaning that the Plan cannot be considered to have been 'positively prepared' and is therefore,'unsound'.

Comment

Representation ID: 11133

Received: 09/03/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11134

Received: 27/02/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11135

Received: 13/03/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11136

Received: 08/03/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11137

Received: 08/03/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11138

Received: 06/03/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11139

Received: 27/02/2015

The proposals are welcome but I wish to make the following amendment below to make the unsound Plan sound. Please register my opinion and respond via my email address.

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 11142

Received: 27/03/2015

I would like to say The Grove school site that the County Council own should be under the community land trust plan that I did send you for the Examination, this site could still include some school placements for the local junior children. I just reiterate anything over ten houses bring under the trust to keep the affordability on-going for local people.

Comment

Representation ID: 11143

Received: 27/03/2015

The South Saxons' site should not be houses for market purchases, but again the CLT scheme for older people accommodation. I enclose a plan for this if you haven't already had one.