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?

There are a wide number of options when considering renewable energy. Whilst biomass is one, this should come at the expense of other suitable options. Instead of a policy requiring biomass provision, a policy should be developed to encourage development to be built sustainably with increased insulation for example. This would subsequently be supported by adopted Building Regulations.

New residential houses should be encouraged to look at renewable, including biomass, forms of heating. This would be especially relevent for new social housing and locations that do not have access to mains gas. New community or commercial buildings should also look to offset their heating with some form of renewable energy.
More support to properly manage local woodlands to provide local sources of woodchip would help.

most local woodlands are managed and there are many suppliers of logs for wood burners, stripping hard wood should be discouraged not encouraged, there is a vast and wasted amount of builders and joinery off cuts that get skipped, I personally stripped out skips when we did an extension and allowed the builders only 1 skip for the whole build, the joinery in netherfield has a converter to produce nuggets for the fire, this should be mandatory.

We believe that RDC should work with the High Weald AONB Unit to encourage the use of local sources of biomass/wood fuel, but recognise that large scale importation of wood fuel from outside the District would need to be very carefully controlled in view of the problems created by such traffic.

In any policy, use of locally sourced biomass/wood fuel should be encouraged, particularly for any commercial/industrial developments. It should be policy that all dwellings, wherever possible, should be built with chimneys to allow for the possibility of the use of wood burners.

Dwellings should have open fires and chimneys
Promoting agricultural colleges that encourage sustainable courses such as the Bird Park at Flimwell and Woodland Enterprise Centre.

NCS have major concerns regarding the effects of large scale bio-mass fuel production on the landscape. Location of biomass plants should depend on ease of access and addressing concerns as to potential air pollution.

The move in favour of wood fuel may have a large detrimental effect on our surroundings with an increase of illegal logging. When ordering logs, people do not question where the supplier has obtained their logs, it is more of a price driven process. Illegal loggers do not care if they are cutting down ancient woodland.
installing a woodburner does not necessarily mean efficient heating as the heat does not move about to different rooms easily, therefore further detail with regard to design etc needs to be made to ensure that heat transfer is maximised throughout the property in question.

Rye Conservation Society is concerned at the effect on the landscape of large scale bio fuel production.
Problems of access for large scale delivery vehicles and possible environmental pollution are issues to be addressed in any policy regarding bio mass units.

Wood has always been a local fuel and houses should be designed with chimneys to allow the residents to use woodburners or open fireplaces.
If biomass burners using wood are to be allowed in small businesses, such as schools, they should be able to show where the wood will be coming from.

The SRNP encourages the use of biomass/wood fuel in its Policies EN3.2, EN5.2, HO7 and HO8. We wish your policy to reflect the same principles

1 Rother should work with the High Weald AONB Unit to educate people regarding the use of biomass and wood fuel from natural sources.
2 In planning new dwellings, RDC should impose a condition that all are provided with proper, not false chimneys.
3 In relation to any application which involves a large scale boiler using biomass or wood fuel, Rother must insist on a transport plan for the fuel to reduce any damage to the environment to an absolute minimum.

We express concern that the promotion of biomass/wood fuels will lead to an increase of heavy goods vehicles on the inadequate road network in the district. In addition we are not convinced that sufficient information exists to show that this is a safe form of heating on a large scale.

Rother is one of the most wooded areas within England and therefore has a large
resource of biomass that could be exploited for wood-burners and small scale biomass boilers and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants. We would support any policies that encourage the use of this sustainable resource. Bringing back large areas of woodland into active management has the potential to be very positive to biodiversity as evidenced by the work of the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England, The Forestry Commission and the Butterfly Conservation Trust, all of which are actively working with landowners to this effect.

Planning policies should be put in place that not only encourage the householder e.g.
chimneys/flues on all new properties for wood burners; but also to make it easier for
landowners to set up wood fuel businesses e.g. buildings, storage facilities etc.

The current system of asking for all new developments over a certain size to explore the use of biomass / CHP does not seem to be working as developers tend to show that they are not viable. Often it is the public sector that has to lead the way and therefore it is suggested that all new public buildings of a minimum size should have a system installed. This would kick start a local market for fuel. Consideration should also be given to retro-fitting existing public assets. Swimming pools would be a prime target as they have a year round need for heat.

The policy wording for larger developments to 'consider' biomass is not strong enough. There is a need for a proper viability analysis to be undertaken and for RDC to employ their own consultants to review rather than accepting the results.

In conclusion, there is a need to strengthen use of biomass as suitable for smaller
developments and public buildings so that this form of energy is given more serious
consideration.

It should also be borne in mind that adequate insulation saves more energy than can be generated by householders. It is essential therefore that the highest standards are sought.



6.20 Comments on solar paragraph as no question for response

There needs to be a DRM2- to encourage where appropriate wind and solar, and to
make solar mandatory on all commercial and industrial buildings; and any application to alter/extend industrial building needs to carry an obligation to fit rooftop solar.

Encourage:
* Solar thermal panels for "family" properties.
* Community solar schemes.

The National Grid needs updating so that the above average generation rates achieved within Rother can be utilised fully. In the meantime, where there are grid problems, smart meters should allow neighbours to share.

Could RDC council monies be used to improve the grid?

The document from Maidstone BC which in turn was borrowed from Cornwall CC and
Ashford BC gives detailed guidance and it would be helpful for RDC to provide similar
guidance:

Reference; Maidstone Borough Council: Planning Policy Advice Note:
Domestic and Medium scale solar PV arrays (up to 50kw) and solar thermals
Jan 2014

Items 6.21 & 6.22 of the DaSA are deeply flawed. The 'unduly onerous' (para 6.22) is dubious to whom? Any developer will always say such is 'unduly onerous'. CS SRM(i) does not contain a target for energy reduction proposals. Without, such it is not effective. Target should be to cut predicted C02 emissions by the equivalent of 20% over and above what current building regulations require.

The validation checklist referred to in paragraph 2.21 of the Renewable Energy
background paper is inadequate and in urgent need of updating. Other local authorities, such as Maidstone Borough Council, include the following condition for ALL new build houses (threshold 1 dwelling): 'Prior to any development above damp proof course level, details of proposed renewable energy sources shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.' This clearly demonstrates that RDC can, if it so chooses, impose much tighter and binding rules, for ALL new build development. The difficulty in applying the current policy is due to a lack of will by RDC. As it is, rather than relaxing Core Strategy Policy SRM1, it should be tightened.

Reference: RDC Development and Site Allocation Local Plan, Renewable and Low
Carbon Energy - Background Paper. November 2016
Examples of criteria RDC should be setting:

* Are as many as possible of the sloping roofs oriented as much as possible to the
South and West in order to be fitted with solar panels?

* Are locations for solar panels included in the design of the roofs - even if not
fitted?
* Where solar panels can be fitted have you considered providing space in the
dwelling for batteries?
* Are heat pumps being considered?
* If so have you included in the design suitable locations for them?
* Have you considered installing under floor heating?
* Are electric charging points being included for electric vehicles?
* All new commercial and industrial roofs over (100) sq. m. must install solar panels
on south or south west facing roofs.
* All new developments should consider specific on-site positioning to maximise the
possibility of installing solar roof panels and for increasing passive solar gain.

6.23 Praise to RDC for this clause as this applies to every development/dwelling.

Stronger policy wording required. Biomass/wood fuel from local sources required better support.

Question 4 relates to biomass/wood fuel from local sources, and Core Strategy Policy SRM1 (i), which requires schemes of 100+ dwellings to consider the potential for CHP. Para 6.22 of the DaSa confirms that evidence to date suggests that this threshold is too low, and it is noted that a CHP could not be secured at the strategic development at North East Bexhill, for over 1,000 units.

Since the Core Strategy was adopted, there have been a number of changes to the Governments approach to energy, and standards set out within planning policy. Most recently (via the Housing and Planning Bill) the Government has committed to a review of energy performance requirements under Building Regulations. The Government is clear that it aims to strike a balance between carbon goals and
the stimulation of growth in the house building industry.

The NPPF (para 173) states that, when pursing the delivery of sustainable development, careful attention must be given to the 'viability and costs in the plan-making and decision process/ CHP are expensive, and have the potential to render housing development unviable. This would not aid the stimulation of housing delivery, in accordance with Government objectives. Rather, it could hinder the delivery of growth by imposing increased costs on development, and is not "justified" or "effective", in accordance with the NPPF.

In this regard, no viability assessment work is available to demonstrate that RDC has considered the implications of CHP on sites of any size. It is therefore considered that reference to the consideration of CHP should be removed in totality, rather than a new "threshold" being set.

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

Landscape

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Page 23

There are opportunities, especially in existing light industrial areas. There would be significant benefits if this would promote the sustainable management of the extensive woodland in the district, much of which is ancient and lacks positive coppice management.

Ecology

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Page 23

There should be policies for the sustainable management of woodlands to benefit local industries such as those related with biomass/fuel. Such policies should seek to provide multiple benefits of woodland management, e.g. planting on a catchment basis to help address issues of flooding/water management, increasing local skills and employment opportunities, enhancing biodiversity, encouraging local sources of building materials etc.