12. Environment

Comment

Representation ID: 19460

Received: 24/02/2009

Respondent: Fairlight Parish Council

Coastal Erosion / Landslip / Unstable Land
This appears not to be mentioned in the main text. Flood Risk is dealt with at Para 12.38. Erosion etc should receive equal prominence. Rother District Council has had responsibilities in this matter as the Coast Protection Authority.
Although erosion etc affects fewer people than flood the consequences are usually more drastic, resulting in the total loss of properties without compensation. Fairlight has been affected by the loss of properties in Rockmead Road and, earlier, in Sea Road.

Support

Representation ID: 19510

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

The aim, objective and strategy in box 27, 28, 29 and 30 seem good.

Comment

Representation ID: 19551

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Councillor Michael Ensor

The creation of the Pebsham Countryside Park is welcomed, and the sooner the waste landfill is closed and the park is created the better. However this is linked to the completion of the Newhaven Incinerator. But the threat of the use of the Ibstock Brickworks quarry off Turkey Road is still present. The directive from Brussels that no new landfill sites should be investigated to confirm whether this site can still remain on the strategic reserve for landfill

Support

Representation ID: 19622

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

The proposals on the theme of the Environment in general, and on Design Quality and the Built Environment in particular, are excellent.

Object

Representation ID: 19635

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

Key issues are missing or do not have enough emphasis are:
tree preservation policy and enforcement;
the development of management plans for Conservation Areas;
and the need to preserve and record archaeology.

Support

Representation ID: 19639

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: Campaign for a Democratic Rye

(Section 12 Support)

Object

Representation ID: 19646

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

There is a lack of focus on the archaeology of the district, which tends to get lumped in with "heritage". In particular, we believe that there needs to an initiative to compile, consolidate and interpret archaeological data in order to better inform planning decisions and development policy. All developments in historic areas or buildings should be assessed archaeologically and that assessment should be interpreted and published as a matter of course. The data should be consolidated and made accessible in a countywide GIS. We wonder whether the ANGst3 type of approach recommended for greenspaces (p114) is not applicable to archaeology.

Comment

Representation ID: 19723

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Messrs. Chishick, Commotto and Terry

The document admirably addresses the need to maintain areas of remoteness, which includes control of light pollution. However, it lacks strategies to deal with light pollution in inhabited areas. Light pollution from inhabited areas spills over into remote areas: even at a great distance, light from settlements can be seen as flare on the horizon. Light pollution is also a major source of annoyance to neighbours and a source of energy waste. New developments should use lights sparingly and efficiently, being directed only where needed and not shooting into space. This should be a matter of quality design.

Comment

Representation ID: 19747

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: RSPB

It would be good practice to state the present known condition of the designated sites (SSSI condition) so increased protection can be warranted. This protection should extend to bio-diversity outside of designated sites. Need to maintain all networks of habitat. Concern over impact from recreational disturbance to designated sites and the species that they support. Green open spaces will reduce recreational disturbance to local designated sites. Increased access management to Natura 2000 sites may also form part of the mitigation.
12.23 .
We would strongly support and commend option 2, and see this as the correct way forward. Local Development Frameworks should identify important areas for habitat restoration/re-creation, by means of appropriate policies and maps. The RSPB are currently mapping potential restoration areas, which could be used to fulfill this requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 19765

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Archaeology and archaeological potential does not seem to be mentioned - there is little time depth to the core strategy. Understanding of the layers of historical environment built and rural would help define the various distinct elements that go to make up Rother.
Historic Landscape Characterisation is now completed for Rother and should be mentioned in the Core Strategy to help define the character and potential of discrete areas.

This evidence should be used to bridge the gap between the strategies for Landscape Stewardship and Design Quality and the Built Environment. Policy development in this area would contribute greatly to understanding what makes Rother distinctive and is considered essential to the delivery of the Core Strategy's objectives, as set out in Box 2.

Comment

Representation ID: 19771

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Chapter 12

A reference to following should be added to the text:
The need to identify, protect and manage Local Sites (which in Rother are called Sites of Nature Conservation Importance)
Note: reporting on management is required under the National Indicator: NI197 - Improved Local Biodiversity - proportion of Local Sites where active conservation management is being achieved.

Comment

Representation ID: 19804

Received: 30/01/2009

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

The Environment needs to be seen as an asset, this can be applied to the Landscape Stewardship section and Biodiversity and Greenspace. This is addressed to some extent in the latter in the context of the creation and enhancement of green networks.

Also relevant to this is the concept of Ecosystem Services. Provision for maintaining natural environments could be incorporated into policy frameworks.
With reference to green networks and green infrastructure, a consistent terminology should be applied throughout the document.

Note that Box 30 (e) contains an incorrect reference; this should be policy NRM5, not 4, of the South East Plan (proposed changes).

Comment

Representation ID: 19851

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

12.3 Needs to be enshrined as a guiding principle.

Comment

Representation ID: 19857

Received: 04/02/2009

Respondent: Crowhurst Society

12.45 Local Parish Councils need to be involved and made aware of the support that can be provided.All Parishes in low lying areas need a flood defence plan.

Support

Representation ID: 19875

Received: 27/01/2009

Respondent: BALI

BALI fully supports the Section 12 (Environment) and each individual Preferred Strategy contained within it. However it finds plans and policies elsewhere in the Core Strategy conflict with its Aims and Objectives and many of the Preferred Strategies for the environment. This we find particularly the case with the Preferred Strategy for Landscape Stewardship and that for Biodiversity and Open Space.

Support

Representation ID: 19892

Received: 25/01/2009

Respondent: Brightling Parish Council

Core Strategy Section 12 Environment.
Brightling Parish Council broadly support this section together with the aim and objectives.

Support

Representation ID: 19957

Received: 28/01/2009

Respondent: Ewhurst Parish Council

Design quality and the built environment should be a fundamental consideration in the planning process.

Comment

Representation ID: 19999

Received: 04/01/2009

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

Para 12.18 Design quality and the built environment to be a fundamental consideration in the planning process.
Whilst consideration of design quality is inevitably subjective, failures should never be allowed.

Object

Representation ID: 20000

Received: 04/01/2009

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

Para 12.38 The Environment Agency estimate of numbers of properties at risk neither takes into account existing or proposed sea/flood defences nor states whether both tidal inundation or fluvial flooding is included.

Para 12.42 The statement that regeneration objectives would decline if development is only permitted outside flood risk areas, is made without qualification and cannot be accepted. Rock Channel (North) is now protected by new flood defences but is specifically stated to be excepted by suitable flood risk management.

Object

Representation ID: 20037

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

There is no mention of waste minimisation anywhere in the document, yet this is a fundamental requirement for any environmentally sustainable future.

The LDF should make provision for a Household Waste and Recycling site.

There should be reasonable support and encouragement for the development of community composting, communal anaerobic digestion facilities, materials reclaimation facilities and other facilities or activities that may assist in the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste/resources.

The LDF too readily makes use of the words 'environment' and 'sustainable' and these important concepts will get diluted and confused by overuse.

Option 2 under paragraph 12.33 is preferred.

Support

Representation ID: 20194

Received: 21/01/2009

Respondent: The National Trust

The National Trust supports the Preferred Strategy for Design Quality and the Built Environment, including the preparation of Conservation Area Appraisals for historic settlements within the District. We also support the Strategy for Biodiversity and Greenspace. The Trust is actively involved as a partner in the Romney Marsh Living Landscape Project.

Comment

Representation ID: 20401

Received: 29/01/2009

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

There is no mention of biodiversity within the environment section. This is an indicator of environmental quality and sustainability and a key component of environmental services that we depend on.

We have concerns that there is conflict between what is proposed in different sections of this box.

Comment

Representation ID: 20437

Received: 20/01/2009

Respondent: Winchelsea Archaeological Society

Welcome stronger more extensive references to importance of archaeological heritage and need to protect and better understand that part of local heritage.
All Conservation Areas deserve dedicated section.
Include management plans to preserve and enhance Conservation Areas.
Welcome commitment to work with County Archaeologist. Arrangement should be noted.
Should promote the investigation, interpretation and publication of archaeology.
Should include commitment to improve understanding of archaeology requiring all archaeological investigations commissioned as condition of planning consent are published.
Design guidance should include archaeological advice or referral to a source of advice.