Schedule of Main Modifications and changes to Policies Maps

MM14 - Policy BEX6: Part (v) of the policy

a) Considering the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, we suggest a policy requirement for a 'project-level habitats regulations assessment (HRA), with Appropriate Assessment (AA) where necessary' as opposed to an outright requirement for an AA. The suggested wording ensures the requirement of the habitats regulations can be met whilst avoiding potential conflict with the policy should it be the case that an AA it is not needed. For clarity, this advice does not aim to pre-determine the requirement for an AA; this should be informed by the details of the proposal at application stage.

b) Removal of 'on site' from the policy would allow more flexibility in the drainage approach, allowing for consideration of delivering an alternative SuDS design such as connection to a strategic SuDS scheme, should this come forward in the future (part of which may be off-site).

MM15 - Policy BEX7: Part (vii) of the policy

c) The interest features of Pevensey Levels SAC, Ramsar and SSSI are sensitive to changes in water quality and water quantity. In the Pevensey catchment, SuDS are therefore required to address possible impacts to water quality and water quantity. As such, the following (in brackets) addition is recommended:
'a minimum of two types/ stages of Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) treatment will be required to address the possible negative effects from surface run-off and hydrological pathways on the water quality [and water quantity] in the Levels'

d) The recommendations provided above in parts a) and b) also apply to this modification.

MM22 & MM23 - Policy CAM1 and CAM2

e) Regarding the impacts to the SPA/Ramsar site, it may be beneficial to make clear in the policy that development likely to have a significant effect on the SPA/Ramsar should be subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

f) Where the supporting text refers to financial contributions to SARMS, Natural England advises the Council to be clear that the SARMS is to address impacts from future growth in tourism, and any development contributions sought from local development, e.g. through CIL, should be clearly linked to managing the future effects of tourism, and not as specific mitigation under the Habitats Regulations. We refer to our advice in our letter dated 10 May 2019, attached for ease of reference. Please see following link: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=32372

We are aware that a Sustainability Appraisal Addendum and Habitats Regulations Addendum have been released for consultation alongside the Main Modifications, together with a Schedule of Additional (Minor) Modifications. For clarity, Natural England has no comments to make on these aforementioned documents.

We have reviewed the information submitted and have the following comments to make:

MM8 - Amendment to paragraph 6.43 to accord more closely with the PPG as to where ecological surveys and reports are required.
We agree with this modification.

MM13 - Additional reinforcement of the sewerage network will be required to serve the development and therefore, the developer will need to work with Southern Water to ensure necessary infrastructure is provided prior to occupation.
We are pleased to note that the new paragraph after 9.60 (and subsequent consequential paragraph number amendments) will be inserted as stated in the MM13 and the additional policy criteria in policy BEX4 (and subsequent consequential criteria number amendments). We are also pleased with the amendments in MM19 - Additional text in policy HAS2 and its supporting text that requires proposals do not impact water quality in the adjacent Park Wood gills and MM21 - Amend Policy BRO2, its supporting text and the Detail Map regarding sewerage capacity arrangements and amendment to the site boundary to reflect a recent planning application delegated to approve,
regarding sewage capacity.

MM14 - To include the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment at planning application stage & MM15 - To include the policy requirement for two stages of SuDS and an Appropriate Assessment at planning application stage.
We are pleased with the amendments made in both of these. Regarding the two stages of SuDS and an Appropriate Assessment at planning application stage.

MM17 - Amendment to the wording of the policy and supporting text to reflect that there are two culverts running through the site.
We are pleased with the 8 metre from the culverts. Although when possible we would suggest de-culverting, to bring rivers to its natural shape and benefit biodiversity in the area.

MM27 - Additional criterion added to Policy RHA1 and its supporting text regarding on the adjacent Natura 2000 Sites.
We are satisfied with the Additional criterion added to Policy RHA1 and its supporting text regarding on the adjacent Natura 2000 Sites. In particular the amendments to paragraphs 11.197 and 11.200.

MM28 - Additional criterion added to Policy RHA2 regarding on the adjacent Natura 2000 Sites, with additional supporting text & MM29 - An additional criterion is added to require an appropriate drainage scheme with any submitted planning application.
We are pleased that our comments were taken into consideration.

Environment, Environmental pollution
Section 6.78 (Page 95) and Section 6.96 Contaminated Land (Page 98) and Policy DEN7: Environment Pollution (Page 99)
We are pleased that our advice "reference to contaminated land should be changed to say "Land Contamination". Contaminated Land has a specific definition under the Environment Act 1990 Part IIA Regulations." Was taken into account and included in the local plan.

Part A: Development Policies
2. Resource management, Water Efficiency
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency (Page 20)
We couldn't find any reference to our previous comments regarding this policy:
We are disappointed not to see requirements for water efficiency measures for commercial developments. We would expect to commercial developments required to meet BREEAM "excellent" or "very good" as a minimum. Other councils including Rother's neighbour Folkestone and Hythe have policies requiring such suggested standards. We would query why the LPA has seen fit not to mention BREEAM standards.

These comments were first made when responding to your consultation Examiners main Matters, Issues and Questions document, Matter 4 - Development Policies and the question regarding Resource Management.

As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process, and welcomes the opportunity to comment upon this planning document.

Historic England's has no specific comments to make on the proposed Main Modifications, Additional Modifications and associated Sustainability Appraisal Report Addendum.

These comments are based on the information provided by you at this time and for the avoidance of doubt does not reflect our obligation to advise you on, and potentially object to, any specific development proposal which may subsequently arise from this or later versions of the plan and which may, in our view, have adverse effects on the historic environment.

Having reviewed the documentation we do not have any further comments to make on the Main Modifications.

Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network. The strategic road network is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

Having reviewed the documents provided, Highways England does not have any comments.

I note that the papers suggest that the DaSA should be read alongside both documents and complements the Rother core policies. I have looked at the DaSA policies in Part A and consider that the RNP continues to conform. We would expect this, as we worked closely with Rother Planners to ensure that this would be case.

I note on particular the policies below in Part A.

DHG 1: affordable housing requirements
DHG 6: self build
DHG 7: extensions in residential areas for storage, waste and recycling.
DEC 1: shopfronts and signage
DEC 3: employment sites
DEN 2: AONB
DEN 3: strategic gaps including the enlarged gap between Rye and Rye Harbour
DEN 4: green spaces
DEN 5: sustainable drainage
DEN 6: land stability including the Rye Undercliff and Military Rd
DIM 2: development boundaries

Part B Site Allocations

The RNP conforms to the set housing target (up to 400) and notes the Rye Harbour target (40) , which has historically been included with the Rye. It also conforms to the business development target. All details of the site allocations for Rye are covered by the RNP.

In short there are policies in the DaSA above which are particularly relevant to Rye and complement the policies in the RNP.

There are references in the RNP to draw readers attention to this.

Rye Town Council has noted the latest DaSA submission and sees no conflict with the recently made Rye Neighbourhood Plan.