MOD 7.9

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21306

Received: 02/09/2013

Respondent: Devine Homes

Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Representation:

The Councils housing figure for Rye is unsound. It appears to rely upon " broad locations in the SHLAA, to maintain the option, but the likely yield is much reduced; it may well be nothing" (Councils Summary Appraisal on Housing Growth July 2013). The Council suggest further opportunities for identifying housing through redevelopment schemes none of which are identified or proven to be deliverable over the plan period.

For the Council (based upon the above) to suggest that a figure of 355/400 dwellings is deliverable in Rye is unjustified as this figure has not been robustly assessed.

Full text:

The Councils housing figure for Rye is unsound. It appears to rely upon " broad locations in the SHLAA, to maintain the option, but the likely yield is much reduced; it may well be nothing" (Councils Summary Appraisal on Housing Growth July 2013). The Council suggest further opportunities for identifying housing through redevelopment schemes none of which are identified or proven to be deliverable over the plan period.

For the Council (based upon the above) to suggest that a figure of 355/400 dwellings is deliverable in Rye is unjustified as this figure has not been robustly assessed.

Support

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21498

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Strategic Land Kent Ltd

Representation:

MOD 7.9 With regard to the additional sentence; please consider adding 'modest' prior to 'potential' and insert 'detailed' prior to 'assessment'.

Full text:

We are pleased that the document no takes on board the thrust of the new LPPF document and no longer refers to the defuncy South East Plan. The increases in housing supply are welcomed which will aid to create a more prosperous local economy which will in turn be significantly beneficial to local communities.

MOD2.2 The inserted text is welcomed but we see no necessity for the final sentence which makes reference to the South East Plan which is no longer applicable, by referencing it as a document only causes unnecessary confusion. Future infrastructure investment should now be based on the new LocalPlan. The final sentence should be deleted.

MOD 7.1 The new reference to the 4,800 dwellings as set out in the South East Plan is unnecessary.

MOD 7.5 The increased supply to at least 5,700 is to be welcomed.

MOD-7.6 We seek to alter the proposed paragraph 7.30 as follows: (changes in CAPS)

7.30 This growth is justified primarily in terms of COMPLYING WITH THE NPPF TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY AND contributing to the projected demand for new homes, as well as in meeting the local need for housing and the need to support economic regeneration. The possibility of further opportunities for sustainable housing (as well as employment) development arising over time is A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY; hence the requirement is expressed as a minimum QUANTUM for the purposes of plan making. These will be further assessed as part of site allocations/neighbourhood planning processes.

MOD 7.9 With regard to the additional sentence; please consider adding 'modest' prior to 'potential' and insert 'detailed' prior to 'assessment'.

MOD 7.10 Please delete the additional modification as it is not necessary.

MOD 7.12 The increased housing provision figures at 5,700 are welcome as a minimum provision.

MOD 7.13 After the words 'sites are assessed' please add 'or subject to planning applications'.

MOD 7.14 Figure 8; the increase for the Villages to have 1,670 dwellings is welcomed.

MOD 7.18. At the proposed paragraph 7.57 the Council is taking windfalls into account. In terms of making an assessment of the 5 year land supply, is the Council making an allowance for the non­ implementation of planning permissions. We suggest that a percentage figure based on evidence be used in order to have a fair methodology.

MOD 8.5. Add on to the modification 'and that this delivery rate will be monitored on an annual basis'.

MOD 8.7. Delete 'support' or 'deliver' and add on to the final sentence 'or to allocate fresh housing land via planning permissions or alternative allocations'.

MOD 8.10. Delete 'marginal but critical' for 'strategically important'.

MOD 9.1 We object to the inclusion of the modification and seek that it be deleted.

MOD 12.4. We support the additional dwelling supply.

MOD 12.6. After 'Neighbourhood Plans', please add on 'or newly approved planning permissions'

Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21564

Received: 27/09/2013

Respondent: Rother and Hastings CPRE

Representation:

The final clause in this proposal is unbelievably vague and cannot stand as a policy. What assessment process; what criteria for assessment? lt is no help as guidance, and RDC needs to consider what criteria if any could be used to identify possible development in these towns and put it to public scrutiny not keep it secret until it has thought of something.

Full text:

The final clause in this proposal is unbelievably vague and cannot stand as a policy. What assessment process; what criteria for assessment? lt is no help as guidance, and RDC needs to consider what criteria if any could be used to identify possible development in these towns and put it to public scrutiny not keep it secret until it has thought of something.