QUESTION 2: Do you agree that the optional water efficiency standard should be adopted and the proposed policy wording?

Agree

No Comment

Fully support conservation of valuable water resource.

Comments by Rye Town Council on the Rother DC Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) (Local Plan)


1.The 2014 Core Strategy recognised that it needed a Development and Site Allocations Plan [DaSA Plan] (up to 2028) to identify the sites required to meet its provisions and to elaborate certain policies. It would need to tackle two specific issues affecting dwellings: to consider adjusting existing development boundaries to reduce the constraints on meeting targets; to address the shortfall of deliverable sites against the 5-year target.

2. It is noted that the DaSA Plan records the preferred sites across Rother District in two categories:

- sites where no Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is being made
- sites identified in Neighbourhood Plans; Rye is in this category.

4. Rye Town Council has considered the DaSA Plan in its three parts.

- It has NOTED Part A - the Context: (the Core Strategy), with its development requirements (not for review), and related policies. Where NPs are being prepared these are listed (Rye is listed).
- It COMMENTS on Part B - Development Policies as below. Many of these draft policies affect the RNP. Some have argued that it would have been useful to have had these as Rye was drafting its RNP, but we are where we are. We have been specifically encouraged to consider the definitive housing requirements for the Rye Neighbourhood Plan area (Rye targets have already been reconciled by Rother officers) and the policies for Development Boundaries and "Gaps".

- It has NOTED Part C - There are the Site Allocations for those parishes where no NP is being made. The only site allocations in this section relating to Rye are in Rye Harbour which we have considered in the RNP. Also there is discussion of traveller sites including one in Rye.

5. Whereas we had, at first sight, presumed that Part B might conflict with the emerging Rye NP, this is not the case. As agreed, here is the Rye TC comments in consolidated form on the three parts of DaSA.

The Rother District Development and Site Allocations Local Plan

Part A - Neighbourhood Plans (NP) - Rye NP is listed as being drafted. Version 8 emerging plan is on the website. www.ryeneighbourhoodplan.org.uk
Rother Officers have reconciled numbers in the RNP with the DaSA.

Part B Q1 - Water Efficiency -Support approach: adopt standard through Bldg Regs

Part B Q2-4 - Suggest Rye Harbour for turbines and biomass. Solar panels are not mentioned and could be fitted to large industrial and educational buildings in Rye. Support approach - should adopt national guidance standards.

Q5 - Retention of sites of social or economic value - Support approach and proposed criteria for retentions.

Q6 - Equestrian development - Support approach - as drafted

Q7 - Affordable Housing - Support Option B, in line with PPG (None under 10; 30% over 10 dwellings)

Q8 - Access to housing and space standards (Older people) - Support Option E

Q9 - 10 - Custom and self-build housing - 1% of target of 160 houses= 2 for Rye Rye could support 5 homes which is around 3%. Support Option D; a site is identified in Rye NP

Q11 - External residential areas - Support proposed policy

Q12 - Extensions to residential gardens - Support proposed policy

Q13 - Extensions and alterations, including annexes - Support proposed policy

Q14 - Boundary treatments and accesses -Support proposed policy

Q15 - Shopfronts and advertising - Strongly support proposed (more prescriptive) policy

Holiday Sites - Support proposed policy

Q16 - Existing Businesses and Sites - Support proposed policy

Q17 - Landscape and AONB - Support proposed policy

Q18 - Strategic Gaps - Rye-Rye Harbour to be extended Support the proposed definition of strategic gap, but given the unique nature and profile of Rye could be extended to gaps on the Eastern and Western approaches: New Road, Military Road and New Winchelsea Rd

Q19 - Bio diversity and Green Space - Support the policy approach

Q20 - Drainage - Support the policy approach

Q21 - Land Stability - There is a risk of (sandstone) rockfall around Rye. The rock structure is of similar composition to cliff structure of Fairlight / Pett . The risk locations include East, South and West Citadel; land above Military Rd and at Cadborough. Rye should be specifically identified and a similar policy applied to land at risk above and below where historical falls have occurred. Propose inclusion of Rye as for Fairlight and Pett Level

Q22 - Environmental Pollution - Support policy approach

Q23 - Comprehensive Development -Support policy approach

Q24 - Development Boundaries - The RNP proposes two changes to the development boundary of Rye. Policy approach should cater for this.

Part C - Targets
Rye (and Rye Harbour) Overall Targets: 355-400 dwellings (40 in Rye Harbour), 10-20,000 sqm employment. Dwellings Number Breakdown has been agreed with Rother DC Officers:

Total Completions Large Site Small Site Windfall
355 198 22 6 22
Balance: 107

Rye Harbour - Allocation to Rye Harbour - 40 dwellings - Support policy approach; as directed by Rother DC, and for historical reasons, the RNP has text covering the target of 40 dwellings in Rye Harbour (Icklesham Parish)
The 40 are included in the Rye target of 400 as above.

Traveller sites - Traveller Site - Rye Gritting Depot is listed but not a preferred option - Support policy approach

Fairlight Parish council agrees the proposal.

It is unclear what arrangements would apply if a planning application for a swimming pool were to be made.

Yes, I agree

Yes

We agree with the use of the higher water efficiency standard. We would wish however, to see in addition a standard for all commercial and industrial buildings as well, given we all are in a water-stress area.

Ticehurst Parish Council favour option B

Recommendation that developments of six dwellings + should adopt a grey water strategy to prevent wastage.

NCS agree with preferred policy

Yes, the highest level of water efficiency should be used, although I cannot see how this can be achieved by stating a limit on each new home. Surely the amount of water used is down to whoever lives in the property. Any new homes built should not make existing residents any worse off in terms of hose pipe bans etc, during the summer. You do have a duty to ensure that new developments do not adversely affect existing residents.

Rye Conservation Society agrees with the proposed policy wording.

Agree that optional water efficiency standard should be adopted with proposed wording.

Agree, the SRNP supports in principle the aspiration to the optional high water efficiency standard in its own Policy EN5.1 requiring new development to demonstrate 'minimising water use'.

We support the adoption of the optional water efficiency standard and urge that Rother does three further things:
1 extend Policy DRM1, to apply to all extensions to dwellings;
2 adopt the equivalent BREEAM standard as compulsory to all new commercial buildings and extensions thereto;
3 lobby the Government to improve the optional and base standards.

We accept the wording of the Policy but ask that guidance on the provision of rainwater be prepared to enable its re-use by the occupiers.

Policy DRM1 page 25 should include a requirement to reprocess brown water
and rainwater from all new housing and industrial buildings.

Water Efficiency Background paper is too weak - validation checklist should be mandatory.

Policy should be expanded to include all new developments (domestic and commercial).

RDC as an area of serious water stress should aim to achieve better than a 110 litres per day per person usage.

Grey water and rain water harvesting should be encouraged on all new builds and refurbishments.

The Plan is far too long and over-prescriptive and should not introduce any land use policy that duplicates the requirements or control achievable through the separate Building Regulations procedure. The requirement of a "letter of intent" is meaningless and will simply add unnecessarily to the planning application validation requirement. Draft Policy DRM1 (Water Efficiency) should be deleted as not reasonably necessary as it could not form the basis for refusing any planning application.

The optional water efficiency standard of 110 units is strongly supported given that
Rother is identified as an area of 'serious water stress'. However, it could go further by incorporating grey water and / or rainwater harvesting, including appropriate placement of downpipes to facilitate rainwater harvesting where practical, within all new buildings (including commercial and industrial buildings) to further reduce demand from the mains and help to manage flows to surface water and sewerage systems. This would tie in with the policy DEN5 on SUDs.

Additionally paragraph 6.10 & the proposed implementation, as described in the
Suggested Notes on page 14 of the Water Efficiency background paper, is too weak. The Validation checklist should include for a mandatory requirement to include the proposed 'letter of intent', rather than a mere 'expectation', otherwise it is too easy for the applicant to either ignore or even be unaware of the requirement. As it is applicant's responsibility to inform the BCB (Building Control Body) about the reduced standard, and there is no process for the BCB to check back with the planning authority, the requirement is difficult to enforce as it relies on the goodwill of the applicant to inform the BCB.
Reference: Water Efficiency Background Paper RDC June 2016

The policy should be expanded to include a standard for commercial and industrial
buildings. The BREEAM standard linked to the efficient use of water is appropriate.
We would refer you to the following that provide more guidance on this subject:
https://www.selfbuild-central.co.uk/green-design-overview/water-conservation
plus paper published by the Environmental Agency

'Evidence Energy and carbon implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater
recycling Report SC090018 August 2010

Strongly agree. Concerned about enforcement of implementation.

Policy DRM1 (page 25) should include a requirement to reprocess brown water
and rainwater from all new housing and industrial buildings.

The Council's decision to implement the higher water efficiency standard of 1101/d/p in new development is considered reasonable. The cost of implementing these higher standards must however be fully considered when assessing the extent of developer contributions.

We consider the need to provide a 'letter of intent' with respect to the implementation of the enhanced water efficiency standard to be onerous. This will simply serve to further complicate the application submission and validation process. As the enhanced requirement will be clearly stipulated in policy it will
be addressed in either the Planning Statement or the Design, Access and Sustainability Statement. If this is not the case it can be raised during the currency of the application by the case officer.

Southern Water supports the option for DRM1: Water Efficiency that implements the higher water efficiency standard, and supports the evidence set out in the Water Efficiency Paper.

Given that Southern Water's water supply area is currently classified by the Environment Agency as a seriously water stressed area, we would encourage a policy that promotes the higher level of water efficiency of 110 litres/person/day, subject to appropriate justification in your evidence base. Although it is not our role to set out the justification for the optional higher technical standard, we would support the stance you are taking within your document. We take this opportunity to point out that the planning authority would need to ensure compliance with building regulations and planning policies as water companies do not have the required enforcement powers and therefore support the use of planning conditions as a means of ensuring compliance with the optional technical standard.

Policy DRM1 (Option B) is supported together with the proposed policy wording.

The following comments, related to biodiversity matters, are made on behalf of the Sussex Wildlife Trust.

If a question from the consultation is not included below, please assume that the Trust has no comments to make at this time.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

QUESTION 2: Do you agree that the optional water efficiency standard should be adopted and the proposed policy wording?

We are concerned that this policy appears to limit itself to water efficiency and believe that it should be broader in its approach to water resource management. The policy appears to consider only domestic water efficiency and we question if the policy should also consider commercial use.

QUESTION 3: Where, if anywhere, do you think could be an appropriate location for wind turbine(s) to be sited in the District?

Any proposal for wind turbines and associated infrastructure, such as connections to the grid, needs to ensure that impacts on biodiversity and their placement within the landscape in terms of their potential impacts on ecological networks are assessed before suggestions are made regarding suitable locations.
Therefore changes in policy wording to reflect this should be made.

QUESTION 4: What opportunities do you think there are to encourage biomass/wood fuel from local sources and how should these be reflected in planning policy?

This could be demonstrated through a policy which encourages biomass potential in commercial and possibly residential developments through appropriate design. However, the policy would need to recognise the importance of protecting woodlands so that their biodiversity value is considered and enhanced through the process. Further, the Rother Local Plan currently does not include an ancient woodland policy; if a wood fuel policy is adopted a separate ancient woodland policy is needed.

QUESTION 7: Do you agree with the policy approach to equestrian developments and the proposed policy wording?

We are encouraged to see the supporting text for this policy recognise the sensitivities of equestrian developments in the countryside and the need to ensure that these features are safeguarded. In relation to this we highlight that in paragraph 7.16 the last sentence states 'However, there is scope for equestrian development in the countryside that is limited in scale'. The term 'scale' perhaps needs defining to add clarity.

We are concerned about equestrian developments being proposed on designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites. Therefore we welcome an approach to more clearly defined acceptable limits of equestrian development in relation to designated sites. The policy could benefit from underlining the need for up to date ecological management plans accompanying proposals, as per National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF) section 165.

QUESTION 12: Do you agree with the proposed policy approach to external residential areas and the proposed policy wording? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

Creative approaches and orientation should be considered when designing external spaces. Their setting within the green infrastructure aspirations of the District should be looked at during the planning application stage. This would ensure a holistic and considered approach to green infrastructure.

While bullet point (i) gives clarity to the external spaces of dwellings of 3 or more bedrooms, there is a lack of commitment to the amount of space need for flat and complex developments. The last sentence of this bullet point states that, 'an appropriate level of usable community and amenity space should be provided'. We are concerned that this statement does not give the decision maker a clear enough direction for its interpretation.

Bullet point (ii) should reference the need to be permeable and where gardens are being lost efforts should be made to ensure there is no loss to biodiversity reference NPPF section 109. The council may find the RHS advice leaflet useful www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=738

We suggest bullet point (iii) uses wording to incorporate green roofs on waste and recycling stores to help add to a developments' contribution to biodiversity as per NPPF section 118 'Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged'.

QUESTION 13: Do you agree with the proposed policy approach to extensions to residential gardens and the proposed policy wording? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

This is an interesting policy and we welcome its inclusion. The Sussex Wildlife Trust have concern that an extension to a garden, if allowed, could in time lead to other development within that garden boundary. Therefore, the type of habitat a garden extension would involve needs to be considered.

We remind Rother District Council that the NPPF section 53 highlights the need to resist inappropriate development of gardens. Therefore perhaps wording to this effect is needed within the policy.

QUESTION 15: Do you agree with the policy approaches to boundary treatments and drives and accesses and to the wording of the proposed policies? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust suggests that policy DHG7 (Boundary Treatments) includes wording to reflect the sentiments of section 118 of the NPPF.

This could be achieved by including a bullet point requiring impermeable boundary features to include gaps or passages beneath them to enable movement of wildlife such as hedgehogs and amphibians.

In addition policy DHG8 (Accesses and Drives) should reflect the need to ensure the proposals for new driveways do not lead to a loss in natural capital delivering ecosystem services. Therefore these should be permeable and look to include biodiversity features. See RHS guidance www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=738

QUESTION 18: Do you agree with the policy approaches to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB and to the respective proposed policy wordings?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the policy approach to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB. We recommend that policy DEN2 be strengthened by the addition of wording requiring development to deliver biodiversity gains which meet the AONB objectives.

We are concerned that the wording in the last sentence of the policy 'major development will be resisted' would not allow a decision maker to be clear when determining an application. What is the level of resistance intended?

QUESTION 19: Do you agree with the proposed definition of the Strategic Gaps, and the policy applying to them? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

Figure 7 demonstrates that an area of the existing Bexhill and Hastings/St Leonards green gaps is proposed to be removed from the strategic gap. However the supporting text (10.19 - 10.21) does not indicate the reasons for the exclusion. We feel the supporting text for this section would benefit from a brief explanation for the reason in inclusion or exclusion of areas.

We ask the council to consider the value of the strategic gaps in harnessing the district's natural capital. This natural capital will be delivering vital ecosystem services to the district and potentially to the authorities adjoining Rother District. Therefore we would suggest that this is reflected in the policy wording by:
'Within these gaps development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must be unobtrusive, not detract from the openness of the area and ensure that ecosystem services are not compromised.'

We believe this additional wording will reflect the importance of strategic gaps for ecosystems service delivery and will also enable the policy to sit in line with NPPF para 109.

QUESTION 20: Do you agree with the policy approach to supporting biodiversity and green space and to the proposed policy wording?

We are encouraged by the manner in which the supporting text for this policy has been approached. The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the inclusion of an 'Enhancement Policy' approach, however the wording should be strengthened to better conform to the wording and ethos of Chapter 9 of the NPPF.

Part i - the qualification of 'in principle' should be removed. The proposal is either supported in full or it is not, 'in principle' adds nothing to the policy.

Part ii - the word 'significant' should be removed. All developments should aim to avoid harm to biodiversity.

Part iii - should look to reflect the sentiments of the NPPF section 109. The first sentence should be amended to read:
'In addition to ( ii) above , all developments will be expected to deliver net gain to biodiversity by retaining and enhancing biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context ....'

Part iv has a requirement for 'larger developments of more than 2 hectare or 50 dwellings...' to produce a green infrastructure (GI) masterplan'. Looking at the allocations, very few meet this requirement. We recognise that there are some larger allocations around Bexhill where we would certainly support the need to produce GI masterplans but we are concerned about the substantial number of allocations which do not meet these criteria. We suggest that the threshold is lowered to 25 dwellings. We also recommend that the policy requires all development to contribute to the aspirations of Rother's Green Infrastructure Strategy.

We suggest that Rother District Council include an Ancient Woodland policy within the Local Plan. This would reflect the ethos of the NPPF which clearly states in section 117:
'Planning permission should be refused for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighs the loss.'

QUESTION 21: Do you agree with the policy approach to sustainable drainage and the proposed policy wording?

Reviewing the supporting text and policy wording there is no recognition of Pevensey and Pett being low lying areas (below sea level) and the associated risk of sea and ground water flooding. We suggest that this is included.

QUESTION 23: Do you agree with the policy approach to managing environmental pollution through the planning process and with the proposed policy wording?

The policy would be strengthened by ensuring that there is mention of biodiversity within the policy bullet point relating to lighting.

Lastly, although the supporting text highlights that the district is not subject to any Air Quality Management Areas, with increasing development we suggest that the council recognise the natural capital that helps filter and deal with pollutants.

Increased levels of development in the district means resources may come under increasing pressure. It may benefit the council to consider talking to the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre about their Ecoserve programme. This programme shows where the district's natural capital is delivering ecosystem services such as air purification in relation to population demand.

QUESTION 24: Do you agree with the policy approach to comprehensive development and the proposed policy wording?

We support recognising the importance of a holistic approach to development which considers the three roles of sustainable development. In order to achieve this within the policy wording we suggest that the policy looks to include wording regarding net gain to biodiversity as per section 109 of the NPPF. We feel that this is important as phased development may overlook the cumulative impact on the district's natural capital and the ecosystem services being delivered.

PART C: SITE ALLOCATIONS

General Comments
The Trust recognises that the presence of designated sites and priority habitats and species has been a contributing factor in the assessment of the suitability of site allocations. We very much support the council's approach to exclude designated sites and sites of high biodiversity value for development. However we note that the site assessments were primarily based on desk-top studies. With the exception of North Bexhill and Spindlewood Drive it does not appear that any on the ground assessments have been carried out.

Given the council's commitment in the Core Strategy objectives 'To protect important ecological resources in the district' and in policy EN5 to 'support opportunities for management, restoration and creation of habitats...' we recommend that preliminary ecological appraisals are carried out for the preferred sites before they are officially allocated. This will ensure that any issues relating to ecology are identified before the plan reaches the examination stage.

We are pleased to see that the 'Key constraints/opportunities' sections for many of the preferred site allocations consider ecological impacts. However, these considerations are again inconsistently reflected in policy wording. For example, policy IDE1 requires that an ecological assessment is undertaken and that any impact on protected species mitigated. Further to this, policy MAR1 states that development proposals should be subject to an ecological survey.

By singling out only two of the site allocations, this may give the impression that proposals for other allocations may not require ecological surveys. The NPPF has a clear requirement for planning decisions to be based on up to date information and for development to achieve net gains for biodiversity. It would not be acceptable for proposals to proceed without the inclusion of up to date ecological information, especially given that thus far the sites have only been assessed at a desk-top level. This position needs to be reflected in the Biodiversity Policy (please see comments for QUESTION 20) and in all the site allocation policies. Therefore the following wording should be added to all site allocations:
'Prior to determination:
A site wide landscape and ecological management plan that is informed by up to date ecological information, including information on the site's utilisation and delivery of ecosystems services, will be produced. Mechanisms needed for implementation will be identified and secured. This will be to the
satisfaction of the local planning authority to ensure long term maintenance of retained and newly created habitats.'

We recognise that information regarding a site's utilisation of ecosystem services maybe too onerous for small allocations. However, we take this opportunity to highlight to the council that the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre are now able to run a programme called Ecoserve. This programme uses biodiversity and habitat data to look at the ecosystems services currently provided by an area's natural capital. It also assesses where the demand for those services are in relation to population. We suggest that this might be a useful evidence base for the council to consider as an aid to helping smaller developments see how they could make a contribution or enhancements to the continued delivery of those services through their site.

Additionally, many of the site allocations are adjacent to ancient woodland. Again whilst this is usually noted in the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section, it is not consistently reflected in the policy wording for the allocation. For example Policy BRO1 part (v) specifies that 'a buffer zone of at least 15 metres is provided to the Ancient Woodland', while the presence of an ancient woodland is not mentioned in, for example, policy BEX1 or BEX2. Conversely policy BEX 9 does specify the need for a buffer to protect the adjacent ancient woodland, but the width of the buffer is not specified.

Core Strategy policy EN1 and NPPF paragraph 118 require the protection of ancient woodland in the district. Additionally, Natural England's Ancient Woodland standing advice is clear that a minimum buffer must be at least 15 metres. We therefore recommend that an Ancient Woodland policy is included in the DaSA and that any site allocation policy with the potential to impact on ancient woodland includes a requirement of a buffer zone of at least 15 metres.

We also note that most of the allocations require the 'retention and enhancement of boundary planting'. We understand that this requirement is primarily to mitigate visual impacts on the AONB, however this is also an opportunity to ensure that each allocation contributes to the creation of an ecological network for the district. We therefore recommend that when boundary planting is specified, additional wording is used, such as:
'Provision is made for the retention and enhancement of boundary planting, for the benefit of biodiversity and for screening purposes'.

The majority of the site allocation policies use the term 'some' when describing the number of dwellings or size of employment space required within a development. This is not a standard planning term and hence we are concerned that its use leaves the policies open to broad interpretation. Given the landscape and ecological sensitivities of many of the site allocations, we recommend that a maximum figure is proposed in each policy. This will provide clarity and ensure that the policy can be robustly applied.

Alternatively, if an approximate value is preferred, we recommend the use of the word 'approximately' rather than 'some' as this is more frequently used in a planning policy context. However, if the council is minded to use this approach, we would ask that an additional requirement is added to the policies to ensure that overdevelopment does not occur. We recommend the following:
'The final number of dwellings/employment size selected must be based on up to date environmental information that demonstrates the current ecosystem delivery of the site and its capacity to absorb the proposed level of development. '

QUESTION 26: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

General comment
The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However, we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb this level of development around Bexhill. All the allocated sites around the north east of Bexhill should be treated holistically and assessed for their impact on ecosystem services (NPPF paragraphs 109, 114 and 117). There must be a strategic approach to the development of these sites to ensure that ecological networks are retained across the sites.

Policy BEX1
We support the protection of the adjacent ancient woodland and the retention of the tree line through the centre of the site, as shown in the detailed map. However, this protection does not appear to be repeated in the policy wording. Additionally, the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section recognises that the land along the Combe stream to the north-west of the site should be retained as an amenity/wildlife corridor. Again, this is not reflected in policy wording. If requirements are not included in the policy, we are concerned that they may be disregarded at the application stage. This could also lead to confusion for developers and inconsistency in the decision making process. Therefore, policy BEX1 should be strengthened to include:
 A buffer of at least 15 metres to the ancient woodland
 The retention of the central belt of trees and enhancements to create a robust corridor between the ancient woodland and the wider countryside.
 The retention of the land along the Combe stream as an amenity/wildlife corridor
The Trust supports the retention of the central tree belt; however, the proposed access appears to sever this corridor. We recommend that the access is reconfigured to ensure the corridor is preserved in its entirety. If this is not deemed feasible wording should be added to ensure that the tree belt still functions as and ecological corridor.

It is vital that any green infrastructure within the site connects well to the surrounding area. We recommend additional wording in section (iv) to insure this:
'landscape and woodland belts are developed, implemented and connected to the wider landscape as an integral part of proposals'.

QUESTION 27: Do you agree with the preferred sites for housing development at Bexhill? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Trust questions whether the district's natural capital is able to absorb this level of development around Bexhill. Before finalising site allocations, especially larger greenfield sites around the development boundary, we recommend that the council assesses the capacity of these sites to provide ecosystem services. We take this opportunity to highlight to the council that the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre are now able to run a programme called Eco serve which uses biodiversity and habitat data to look at the ecosystems services the natural capital is currently providing and where the demand for those services are in relation to population. We suggest that this might be a useful evidence base for the council to consider.
QUESTION 28: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

General comment
As per our comments for QUESTION 26, site BEX2 should be assessed strategically with allocation BEX1 and BEX3. Overall, these allocations cover a significant area of greenfield, which will be providing vital ecosystem services to the district. The cumulative impact of these allocations on the district's natural capital needs to be assessed and accounted for to ensure that the expansion of Bexhill is truly sustainable as per the NPPF. Additionally, any green infrastructure strategy should cover all these sites to ensure permeability throughout the developments and multifunctional benefits across the north east of Bexhill are achieved.

Policy BEX2
As per our comments for QUESTION 26, we are concerned that some of the intentions in the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section and the detailed map are not reflected in the policy wording. We recommend that policy BEX2 is strengthened to include:
 A buffer of at least 15 metres to the ancient woodland
 Part (ii) should include a requirement for the pond to be retained as an ecological feature with landscaping to connect it to the wider countryside

QUESTION 29: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Notwithstanding our general comments in QUESTIONS 26 and 28, if development is to occur here then option 1 would be preferable. This would retain a larger proportion of greenfield and allow more creative approaches to green infrastructure and ecological enhancements. We recommend that information on the site's utilisation and delivery of ecosystem services should be produced and used to inform the site's layout.

The Trust is concerned that the now approved North Bexhill Access Road severs the ghyll woodland at Kiteye Wood.

Any development in this area should seek to mitigate this impact through appropriate habitat creation and/or management. Additionally, the policy should make reference to the retention of the land along the Combe stream as an amenity/wildlife corridor, as per policy BEX1. These requirements could be included in part (vii) of the policy, which we support.

As with previous comments the wording to protect ancient woodland should be strengthened to include a requirement for a 15 metre buffer.

We also recommend that the policy protects the 'Woodland Complex at Buckholt Farm' Local Wildlife Site, to the north east of the site allocation. Whilst it sits outside the development boundary, this ancient woodland could still be harmed by the indirect impacts of the development. These need to be assessed and avoided at the master planning stage.

QUESTION 33: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX7? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust supports the retention of the southern section of the site as an ecology area. However, the wording of section (iv) should be strengthened to include a requirement to enhance the area as per core strategy policy EN5. We recommend:
'The southern section of the site remains undeveloped as an ecology area. Ecological enhancements should be implemented to improve the area for biodiversity. Provision should be made for the long term management of this area.'
QUESTION 35: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX9? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust supports the retention of the tree belts in the centre of the site, the designation as a natural green space and the wording of part (vi). However, it is not clear to us how this corridor will be retained intact given that vehicle access is only proposed from the east of the site. This indicates that internal roads will sever the corridor in order to access the residential area in the North West. This should be a consideration in designing the layout of the site. At the very least we recommend wording to ensure that the integrity of the green corridor is maintained.

We support the inclusion of section (vii), however this should be strengthened with a requirement for the ancient woodland buffer at least 15 metres wide.

Additionally, it should be specified that the pond is retained as an ecological feature, rather than as part of any SuDS scheme for the site.

QUESTION 36: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX10? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust supports requirement (ii), however this should be expanded to specify that integration includes an integrated scheme of green infrastructure to ensure that the entire site remains permeable and receives multifunctional benefits.
The words 'where possible' should be removed from part (v). The pond should be retained and enhanced; this cannot be seen as unduly onerous given the site of the scheme.

QUESTION 37: Which of the development options for Northeye do you prefer? Should other options be considered?

Any policy for this site must include protections against the potential negative impacts of the creation of sports pitches such as flood lighting and impermeable surfaces. We recommend wording is included to ensure that there are no harmful impacts of this type of development.

QUESTION 38: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX11? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

This policy should include wording to manage the type of playing pitches which might be suitable on this site. Consideration should be made to the use of artificial pitches and associated lighting. In particular, potential impacts on bats which are likely to be present in the area should be considered.

QUESTION 43: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX15? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The 'Key constraints/opportunities' section states that 'a large proportion of the site suffers from surface water flooding'. Therefore, we recommend that an additional criterion is added to the policy to ensure that a SuDS scheme is implemented to rectify this issue. We also recommend that green infrastructure is included to both help with the flooding issue and to connect the site to the wider GI network in the town.

QUESTION 47: Do you agree with the preferred site for housing development along the Hastings Fringes? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Trust supports the allocation of brownfield sites of low ecological value over the allocation of greenfield sites. A large amount of development is already proposed for the fringes of Hastings through the Hastings Development Management Plan. We would not support any further urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside without full accounting of the area's natural capital and assessment of the area's utilisation and delivery of ecosystem services.

QUESTION 49: Do you agree with the preferred sites for employment development along the Hastings Fringes? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Trust does not support further urban sprawl at the Hastings fringe; however of the four sites recommended, the preferred sites seem to be the least damaging. As stated previously we recommend that preliminary ecological appraisals are carried out before sites are formally allocated to ensure that there is no significant harm to biodiversity.

Additionally, a wider green infrastructure plan should be required, covering both of these sites in conjunction with the adjacent Hasting allocations to ensure a holistic approach.

QUESTION 50: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HAS2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We recommend that point (iv) is strengthened as follows to ensure net gains to biodiversity as per the NPPF:
'provision is made, in conjunction with the adjoining employment allocations, for the retention, enhancement and long-term future management of woodland to the north of the site for the benefit of biodiversity'.

QUESTION 51: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HAS3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support criterion (iv), however any green infrastructure should be integrated into the surrounding employment allocations, to ensure multifunctional benefits are seen across the whole area.

QUESTION 53: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HAS5, including the boundary as defined in the Policies Map? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We recommend an addition to criterion (ii) to ensure net gains to biodiversity as per the NPPF.
'...the Site of Nature Conservation Importance within it, and creates net gains to biodiversity within the Park...'

QUESTION 54: Do you agree with the recommendation regarding the Hastings Fringes development boundaries? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundaries to be applied to this area?

The Trust strongly supports the designation of a strong development boundary which prevents further urban sprawl into the wider countryside. (Please see QUESTION 47).

QUESTION 56: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEC1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support requirement (iii), but would recommend the addition of 'for the benefit of biodiversity' to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network of the district.

QUESTION 57: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEC2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We recommend that the policy is strengthened to better reflect the contents of the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section. In particular, reference should be made to the requirement to keep the remaining area as amenity land and to the retention of the pond as an ecological feature rather than as part of any SuDS scheme deemed necessary.

QUESTION 59: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Broad Oak? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust strongly supports the exclusion of sites containing ancient woodland and/or designated for their biodiversity value such as BO14. To allocate such sites would be contrary the policies within the Rother Core Strategy.

QUESTION 60: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BRO1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the wording of requirement (v) and the specification of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that this wording is replicated in other policies for sites adjacent to ancient woodland.

We support requirement (iv), but would recommend the addition of 'for the benefit of biodiversity' to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network of the district.

QUESTION 61: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BRO2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support requirement (iii), but would recommend the addition of 'for the benefit of biodiversity' to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network of the district.

QUESTION 65: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAM2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

This policy needs to be strengthened to ensure that the adjacent Local Wildlife Site, Local Geological Site, SSSI and Special Protection Area are protected from harm. Whilst the protection and management of the dunes is a key landscape and ecological objective of the SPD, there does not appear to be a specific requirement to protect and enhance these designated sites. This should be addressed in the policy.

QUESTION 66: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the deletion of the SSSI from the development boundary. Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SSSI is of national importance to biodiversity and should not be degraded through encroaching development.

QUESTION 68: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAT1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The 'Key constraints/opportunities' section states that buffer planting should be informed by ecological surveys, however this requirement is not reflected in the policy wording. Given that the site appears to contain well developed scrub, any application for this site must include a thorough ecological survey to assess if the site can absorb the level of development suggested whilst producing net gains for biodiversity.

QUESTION 69: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAT2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Requirement (iii) should be subject to ecological surveys to assess the impact of severing the hedgerow. We also recommend that 'for the benefit of biodiversity' is added to the end of requirement (iv)(b) to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network in Catsfield.

QUESTION 72: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HUR1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

As the stream/ditch that sub-divides the two lower fields is recommended to be retained for both heritage and ecological reasons, this should be reflected in the policy. We recommend that requirement (vii) is amended to:
'...is retained and incorporated within the layout as an ecological feature. Development should ensure that the biodiversity value of the feature is enhanced and that it is integrated into the wider blue/green infrastructure plan for the site...'

QUESTION 73: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HUR2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

This site is adjacent to Hurst Green Meadows and Woodland Local Wildlife Site. This should be acknowledged in the policy and a requirement to protect and enhance the LWS should be included.

QUESTION 76: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy IDE1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly support the requirement for an ecological assessment. This assessment should inform the design and layout of the development to ensure the site remains permeable to species. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity gains throughout the development should be taken.

QUESTION 79: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy NOR1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Enhancements to the existing tree belts should be sought for the benefit of biodiversity.

QUESTION 82: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy PEA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the protection of the traditional orchard and the aims to bring it into long-term sustainable management. This is a priority habitat and as such its protection and enhancement is fundamental to the council's aims in the Core Strategy. We strongly support requirement (v) and recommend that there is a requirement for a long-term ecological monitoring and management plan for the site.

Requirement (vi) should include 'enhancement' as well as retention to ensure net gains to biodiversity. We also recommend that the requirement for a SuDS scheme is included in the policy.

QUESTION 83: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the exclusion of the traditional orchard from the development boundary. This will help to protect the site in the long term.

QUESTION 84: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Rye Harbour? If not, which site should be preferred?

The Trust strongly supports the exclusion of sites designated as SSSI. These would clearly not be suitable for development and their allocation would be contrary to the Core Strategy and NPPF.

QUESTION 85: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy RHA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The site is also adjacent to the SPA and this should be acknowledged in the policy. We recommend that requirement (iv) is extended as follows:
'...development of RH10 does not adversely impact upon the Rye Harbour SSSI and avoids impacts on the SPA'.

QUESTION 86: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?

It appears a typo is included in paragraph 15.98. The reference to Donsmead, Station Road should be removed.

We support the proposed development boundary as it should prevent further development encroaching onto sites designated for their biodiversity value.

QUESTION 87: Do you agree with Policy RHA2 regarding the Harbour Road Industrial Estate and the proposed boundary changes? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Given the ecological sensitivity of the land surrounding this allocation, we recommend that requirement (iii) is strengthened as follows:
'...a comprehensive landscaping strategy and an ecological monitoring and mitigation plan to improve the overall appearance and the biodiversity value of development.'

QUESTION 88: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Westfield? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust strongly supports the exclusion of sites containing ancient woodland and/or designated for their biodiversity value. To allocate such sites would be contrary the policies within the Rother Core Strategy.

QUESTION 89: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly suggest the policy includes wording relating to up to date ecological surveys and boundary features working for the benefit of biodiversity are incorporated as per our general comments at the start of this section. Further to this, as identified in the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section, the previous ecological appraisals suggested biodiversity gains. The Trust strongly supports the inclusion of wording to support biodiversity gains but seeks that these are not limited to bird and bat boxes. Instead biodiversity gains should be implemented depending on the findings of the up to date ecological surveys submitted at the time of the application. We remind the council that if they are minded to suggest bird and bat boxes as part of the gains for this site in future, wording should be included to highlight the need to incorporate natural features supporting these artificial homes.

QUESTION 90: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly suggest the policy includes wording relating to up to date ecological surveys and boundary features working for the benefit of biodiversity are incorporated as per our general comments at the start of this section. The aerial photograph shows the degraded formal gardens and it would be interesting to see if this allocation could consider how these former gardens might be integrated into the layout of the development site, as it may enable the retention of features of interest.

QUESTION 91: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The southern section of the allocations lies within the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA). We strongly support the requirement for an ecological assessment. This assessment should inform the design and layout of the development to ensure the site remains permeable to species.

Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity gains throughout the development as per the ecological surveys and aspirations of the BOA should be taken.

QUESTION 92: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES4? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We note this allocation falls outside the 2006 development boundary. However, we are supportive of measures taken to encourage modes of sustain able transport and to interlink those benefits with biodiversity gains. The text accompanying the allocated site states that there are locally present protected species. Therefore we recommend that (iii) reads:
'ecological improvements are based on up to date ecological surveys and are implemented in accordance with these findings and those of the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and Rother Green infrastructure Strategy'.

Question 93 - 103

We support the retention of gaps between settlements. While these gaps are often retained for reasons of coalescence and visual sensitivities, we highlight that the Sussex Wildlife Trust also sees the need to recognise the importance of these green gaps in delivering ecosystem services to the local communities (NPPF section 109).

QUESTION 105: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy GYP1, including the boundary as defined on the Policies Map? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly suggest the policy includes wording relating to up to date ecological surveys and boundary features working for the benefit of biodiversity are incorporated as per are general comments at the start of this section.

QUESTION 109: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy (MAR1)? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support the requirement for an ecological survey. We recommend that criterion (i) includes 'for the benefit of biodiversity' and the criterion (iv) requires the use of SuDS.

QUESTION 110: Do you agree with a policy to support the continued allocation for the re-instatement of the railway link from Robertsbridge to Bodiam along its original route?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust support sustainable modes of transport. However, we do not have enough information about this particular scheme to offer an opinion on this policy. It is unclear whether the application has been progressed with the consideration of the existing landowners and the level to which biodiversity interests have been considered.

QUESTION 111: Do you have any comments on this scope or content of the new Local Plan that are not covered by other questions?

We highlight the need for a specific Ancient Woodland Policy as per section 117 of the NPPF.
'Planning permission should be refused for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighs the loss.'

We welcome the inclusion of the green infrastructure study as an evidence base for the local plan. We would like to know if this will progress into a clear strategy identifying delivery mechanisms. We suggest that the local plan may benefit from a specific policy on green infrastructure/ecological networks to ensure consistent integration of this infrastructure within development.

Should you have any further questions regarding our consultation response please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely,
Laura Brook
Conservation Officer

We welcome the policy wording as it will help relieve the pressure on the water environment, including the Pevensey Levels Site of Special Interest.

Ecology
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Page 23

Yes.