QUESTION 10: Is it appropriate to plan for about 1% of the total housing target for the District (i.e. 55-60 new dwellings) as self-build and custom housebuilding or, if not, what would be the appropr
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 21918
Received: 17/12/2016
Respondent: Ms Val Hunnisett
Agree 1% is a reasonable starting allowance.
Agree 1% is a reasonable starting allowance.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 21960
Received: 20/12/2016
Respondent: Vanessa Crouch
Agent: Stiles Harold Williams
No comment
No comment
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22156
Received: 31/01/2017
Respondent: Rye Town Council
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
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
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22358
Received: 19/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The self-build market is generally a growing one in the UK and allows for distinctive dwellings, rather than the stereotypical house-builder models, and as such is to be welcomed. Whilst not denying SBCHA 2015, why is there a need to set a target in the light of the inclusion of a possible policy referred to in the following question?
The self-build market is generally a growing one in the UK and allows for distinctive dwellings, rather than the stereotypical house-builder models, and as such is to be welcomed. Whilst not denying SBCHA 2015, why is there a need to set a target in the light of the inclusion of a possible policy referred to in the following question?
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22395
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council
Self-build should be viewed as windfall - small plots becoming available to private individuals
Self-build should be viewed as windfall - small plots becoming available to private individuals
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22419
Received: 17/02/2017
Respondent: Northiam Conservation Society
NCS agrees with 1% target
NCS agrees with 1% target
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22478
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers
No, I do not feel that self-builds need to be protected and given specific targets. They may be encouraged as a 'brownie point' in favour of a development, but no development should have a mandatory requirement to provide them. This might place them in the wrong location.
No, I do not feel that self-builds need to be protected and given specific targets. They may be encouraged as a 'brownie point' in favour of a development, but no development should have a mandatory requirement to provide them. This might place them in the wrong location.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22502
Received: 18/02/2017
Respondent: Rye Conservation Society
Rye Conservation Society agrees to the proposed policy and wording.
Rye Conservation Society agrees to the proposed policy and wording.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22579
Received: 19/02/2017
Respondent: Mrs Sheena Carmichael
1% seems very small, why not be positive and aim for more? I would suggest at least 4%.
1% seems very small, why not be positive and aim for more? I would suggest at least 4%.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22622
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We do not believe it is appropriate to plan for a specific number of self-build dwellings. We have not so provided in the SRNP.
We do not believe it is appropriate to plan for a specific number of self-build dwellings. We have not so provided in the SRNP.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22658
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
No need to set a target.
No need to set a target.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22771
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Icklesham Parish Council
Support the policy.
Support the policy.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23226
Received: 18/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Dominic Manning
Strongly disagree. The figure of 1% is too low. Would prefer to see a figure of at least 25%. The Register is highly suspect, how many people are even aware of it and why they would feel the need to register, as it will not assist them directly.
The purpose of the 'Self build and custom housebuilding act 2015' is questionable, in particular as it would appear that it allows local planning authorities to massively underestimate demand, so is worse than useless. From first-hand experience, the demand for self-build plots is high & there is a desperate shortage.
Strongly disagree. The figure of 1% is way too low. The UK average for self-build is 10%, with many European countries at 50%. Would prefer to see a figure of at least 25%. The Register is highly suspect, as it begs the question, firstly as to how many people are even aware of it and secondly why they would feel the need to register, as it will not assist them directly if they do. They will hardly be prepared to wait decades for the policy to take effect, when their motive is that they are wanting to build a new home now. The purpose of the 'Self build and custom housebuilding act 2015' is questionable, in particular as it would appear that it allows local planning authorities to massively underestimate demand, so is worse than useless. From first-hand experience, the demand for self-build plots is high & there is a desperate shortage. The usual, and often unsatisfactory, recourse in Rother DC is to 'bungalow gobble', as there are simply no sites available.