1 Therefore there should be a separate policy for RSCs recognising their important rôle over and above the LSVs. The Policy RA1 is adequate for LSVs but not sufficiently robust for RSCs if they are to achieve what one assumes Rother planners would wish - that they retain and indeed expand their already vital employment base, that they continue to provide an adequate range of retail facilities including public houses and restaurants, and support a growing emphasis on rural tourism. This is quite apart from any desire on the strategy's part to place additional housing in the RSCs. Policy RA1 (v) rather bizarrely suggests that in order "to ensure the continued vitality of villages" (which include RSCs) there should be provision for additional dwellings. This could only happen if the sustainable infrastructure is maintained and enhanced, particularly in RSCs, so that "vitality" can be "continued" in villages.