Inspector's Preliminary Findings on HBC Development Management Plan (ID/9)

Support

Representation ID: 9675

Received: 27/03/2015

The Sussex Wildlife Trust welcomes the removal of site FB12.

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.

Support

Representation ID: 9677

Received: 27/03/2015

We strongly support the removal of allocation GH1 and would support the site's inclusion into the Church and Robsack Wood Local Nature Reserve.

Comment

Representation ID: 9678

Received: 27/03/2015

Given that this Plan still includes the allocation of four sites for development which are currently designated as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), we do not believe a LWS designation alone would offer this site sufficient protection from development in the long term.

Comment

Representation ID: 9679

Received: 27/03/2015

Qualified support: No objection to this modification providing that a sufficient buffer between the new site boundary and St Helen's Wood LWS remains.

Support

Representation ID: 9680

Received: 27/03/2015

We support the deletion of allocation CV01 and its designation as open space for the benefit of people and wildlife.

Support

Representation ID: 9681

Received: 27/03/2015

We support the deletion of allocation CV03 and its designation as open space for the benefit of people and wildlife.

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.