The Hastings Development Management Plan Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report November 2012

Object

Representation ID: 5390

Received: 14/04/2013

I disagree with much that is written in this document. The use of so many words seems designed to send me to sleep but my analysis is that you are going to continue to destroy historic buildings, deny the community of open space, and reduce biodiversity. In short you don't care.
I expand upon this if possible using this website.

Object

Representation ID: 5391

Received: 14/04/2013

Para: 7.3.19 Exceeding the target of new homes by 60% is all good but the definition of previously developed land is vague.
Is it land developed in medieval times, or in the last 10-20 years? Focusing on a target that becomes more important than applying common sense.
It is inappropriate to develop Speckled Wood and the land South (across the road from it) that was fenced off by SEEDA and Robsack Meadow.

Object

Representation ID: 5392

Received: 14/04/2013

8.1.3 If you care so much about it why did you allow the scout hut to be destroyed in one of the most
deprived wards int he whole of Sussex. Near Linley Close. Oh, for profit so someone could build housing
for a bit of profit.

Object

Representation ID: 5393

Received: 14/04/2013

8.1.5
Which is why you need to protect Speckled Wood from development so that the community can run it as a Local Nature Reserve which is their request And the SEEDA area across the road. Also, Robsack Meadow.
This paragraph is an admission that your policy is going to result in loss of green space and reduction in biodiversity and you don't care. The aim should be to prevent this.

Object

Representation ID: 5394

Received: 14/04/2013

14.10
There is no mention of monitoring programmes and has been little evidence of monitoring at any sites in Hastings. You do not have to build alongside SSSIs sites alongside these should be withdrawn from the plan.
None of the policies mention biodiversity monitoring. The same goes for those impacting local wildlife sites. You and I both know that as you build on areas of woodland and meadows biodiversity will decline. Your policies are weak and will not prevent this.

Object

Representation ID: 5395

Received: 14/04/2013

14.11
In particular building in areas of woodland such as Speckled wood will increase the likelyhood of flooding, it is ghyll woodland.

Object

Representation ID: 5396

Received: 14/04/2013

14.14
This is ridiculous since you want to knock down so many trees for the Link Road and splat other areas of woodland such as Speckled Wood.

Object

Representation ID: 5398

Received: 14/04/2013

15.1.4
This is not true as you are going to build on so many of the green spaces and reduce biodiversity. These words will not protect biodiversity nor will the policies. Mitigation without monitoring is pointless. No one can ever access whetehr or not it has worked. Movign species

Object

Representation ID: 5399

Received: 14/04/2013

15.1.6
Protecting heritage assets but you don't have a list of heritage assets, seem to want to knock down many of the historic buildings. Hold Victorian buildings in low regard. Never list anything that is Victorian. It is supposed to be an important town for its Victorian architecture and you are destroying it at a rapid rate.
You reward developers by giving them permission after their buildings have either burned down or been allowed to fall into disrepair. Nothing in this document addresses your general direction towards allowing people to make money by destroying the historical.

Object

Representation ID: 5400

Received: 14/04/2013

15.1.6
In particular the site of the Former Convent of the Holy Child of Jesus should be protected.