Please see attached comments on draft Local Plan, including Brede Valley Landscape Assessment and East Sussex Landscape Assessment.

Net Zero is based on a controversial and unsettled theory about carbon emissions causing climate change. Major climate scientists reject this theory. https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
Climate - The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM

It should not be the basis for planning laws which will reduce our standard of living and basically put us into a prison, e.g. forcing a retrofit of houses to conform to the religion of net zero. And will we be subject to criminal penalties?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/01/property-owners-failing-comply-new-energy-rules-face-prison/

Net Zero is authoritarian. How many people will read 450 pages of verbiage? And why bother? We seem to have no freedom in this totalitarian system (totalitarian= authoritarian + ideology). I hope in the next election Green to the Core and Living Well Together (rural 15 minute cities) will be thrown out.

Strongly support this as priority rather than green field building

Excellent. Essential.

Of course it may be more difficult for older buildings to achieve this. But if we don't make this investment then we'll all fry. People need to be coaxed and persuaded to stop burying their heads in the sand over the measures needed to reduce energy use. One way to encourage people is to offer financial incentives.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

Please refer to attachment

Full representation attached.

Please see attached comments by Historic England on the Rother draft Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18), including representations on:

Policy GTC1
Policy GTC2
Policy GTC6
Policy LWL1
Policy HER1
Policy HER2

Requirement for Development Management policies

Draft Local Plan evidence base documents

See attached.

Please see attached document for the full submission from Westfield Parish Council.

Chapter 3 – Green to the Core
Proposed Policy GTC1: Net Zero Building Standards
Operational Energy (A)(i)(c) - A maximum space heating demand for new buildings (small scale housing) of 15 kWh/m2 per year.
What is small scale housing? 15KWh/m2 per year is passivhaus standard – do you think this is possible for the majority of housing? If small scale housing is only a subset of most of the houses to be built, what is their target for space heating demand?

Proposed Policy GTC2: Net Zero Retrofit Standards
What proportion of dwellings to be retrofitted do you think this will impact? Surely most do not need planning permission?
It has been stated that the current level of demolition and subsequent replacement through new build contributes five times more greenhouse gases than air travel. While unsure of the evidence for this statement, is RDC satisfied that their policy promotes retrofit strongly enough?

Proposed Policy GTC3: Construction Materials and Waste
Do you know if developers currently have designs that use a Design for Disassembly approach or is that something that needs to be promoted to architects?

Proposed Policy GTC4: Water Efficiency
Will this policy be able to keep up with potential future reductions in water usage? The RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) 2030 Climate Challenge promotes 75l/p/day potable water usage.
Would the policy benefit from an “update” statement as GTC1 (A, i, d) does?

Proposed Policy GTC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy
Why does this policy not include criteria about improving biodiversity e.g. making areas into small nature reserves and that any biodiversity improvements should be retained at the end of life of the site?

Proposed Policy GTC7: Local Nature Recovery Areas
Will planners use local Biodiversity Audits (such as Crowhurst has) to help identify areas as important?
Could iii) “it directs Biodiversity Net Gain to where it can be of most benefit” be used by developers to increase BNG offsite from developments, even to non-local areas?

Proposed Policy GTC8: Biodiversity Net Gain
How confident are you that the 20% min BNG will be allowed?

Proposed Policy GTC9: High Weald National Landscape (AONB)
Should there be more to the sentence “To support the integrity and importance of the High Weald NL and conserve and enhance its important landscape and scenic beauty the following policy approaches have been explored:” at the end of para 3.64 on p60?

Chapter 4 – Live Well Locally
Proposed Policy LWL2: Facilities and Services

This policy states that developments in village areas should be within safe walking or cycling distance of a range of seven specified local amenities. The Crowhurst developments are within range of three of the listed facilities. The policy then states that where a development does not comply, it should be within walking distance of a suitable bus stop, with transport to an area containing these facilities. In our case these facilities (food shop, GP surgery etc) are accessible in Battle or Hastings via the station or the flex bus. We suggest amending the policy to include these transport hubs.

Chapter 5 – Development Strategy and Principles
Proposed Policy DEV2: Comprehensive Development and Master planning

If a developer subsequently reneges on specified aspects of an approved planning application, e.g. by reducing the affordable housing element, will the Council consider voiding the approval?

Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries

With reference to paragraph 5.119, can you confirm how, when and in what circumstances village development boundaries may be reviewed?

Proposed Policy DEV5: Development on Small Sites and Windfall Development

Parishes are currently not able to control identification of sites of less than five dwellings through the neighbourhood planning process. Paragraph 5.132 states that it is likely that future neighbourhood plans will be able to identify smaller sites, with no site size threshold. Does this equally mean that small sites considered unacceptable through the neighbourhood plan process would have a presumption for planning permission to be refused?

Proposed Policy DEV6: Strategic Green Gaps

Policy DEV6 refers repeatedly to the vulnerability of the various strategic gaps including between Crowhurst and Hastings/Saint Leonards. How firm is your intention to maintain the strategic gap?

Chapter 11 – Environmental Management
Proposed Policy ENV1: Coastal, Water and Flood Risk Management
Does criteria ii) include during construction of new developments when vegetation that would normally slow water run-off may have been removed but any required flood alleviation has not yet been put in place? (even though this is mentioned in ENV2 (vii))?

Proposed Policy ENV2: Sustainable Surface Water Drainage
Why is only flood risk and not contamination/pollution mentioned in criteria (vii)?

Proposed Policy ENV5: Habitats and Species
Should ancient and veteran trees also be protected by TPO’s if development is taking place near them?
Will developers also be encouraged to use local Biodiversity Audits as information?

Chapter 12 - Heritage
Proposed Policy HER2: Traditional Historic Farm Buildings
Although you mention nesting birds in para 12.29, should it be specifically mentioned in the policy as conversion of farm buildings often ends up blocking access to birds’ nesting sites inside?
Will conversion to residential proposals also have to meet sustainable location criteria as farm buildings are often at a distance from other buildings?

Q1: Re: "1.7 The plan sets twin overall priorities (‘Green to the Core’ and ‘Live Well Locally’)" - I applaud the ambition, but am concerened to see, additionally, a clear statement that BOTH priorities are EQUAL, even if one has to written before the other.

Q6: This is a highly technical policy that really needs another section before ()A) for application to small developments, being undertaken without the benefit of highly qualified experts.

Q9: Agreed a good Policy

Q11: Agreed a good Policy

Q18: Re: "3.36 The opportunity for the development of wind turbines within the district, is extremely limited..." - I beleive very small scale wind power turbines down to single dwelling capability should be considered since technology could deliver economical useful machines within the timescale of this Plan.

Q22/23: RE: "All qualifying development proposals must deliver at least a 20% measurable
biodiversity net gain..." - understood but the metric for qualification is not easy to find?
Agreed a good Policy to go beyond 10%.

Q25: Agreed a good Policy

Q28: Re: "a. Urban areas in Bexhill, Battle and Rye: 60-90+ dph, with higher densities
around transport hubs and town and district centres.
b. Suburban areas in Bexhill, Battle, Hasting Fringes and Rye: 45-75 dph." - it is hard to understand the difference between Urban and Suburban, even with Fig 8? Until 4.15 work is carried out I reserve my judgemment on this Policy.

Q32: In essence a good policy, but some examples e.g. bank have long since gone even from towns within Rother so hardly an OK exemplar. I wonder if 800m is the right parameter - in my road many residents would get their car out for such a distance, few possibly only 20% would walk that distance.

Q33: Whist overall I agree this is a good Policy - I think it needs to be more clearly sectioned, maybe even several seperate Ploicies. Re: "g. Appropriate signage and wayfinding." -this has often or nearly always been overlooked - so a very welcome improvement.

Q35: I particularly like this policy and the 400m parameter, which of course certainly should apply to the Blackfriars development - so a major step forward if it is applied, since previously RDC has in effect only considered on-site access not off-site access.

Q37: I am concerned that no mention is made of former PRoW (FPs) being re-routed through development sites across multiple driveways; rather tah finding contiguous routings through or outside the site connecting to the existing network without having to contend with multiple drive crossings. Though see also Q104 comment.

Q38: Agreed about ixc) Shared Use Routes - the higher age range demographic deprecate shared use, due to (anecdotally) cyclists lack of concern for less ambulant walkers. Very little chance of people buy-in to Demand Responsive Transport, car clubs and car shares!

Q45: Agreed a good Policy; though I note: "inclusively designed so that people with visual, mobility or other limitations will be able to use the street confidently and safely.", so do not see why "iii) Dementia Friendly District" is highlighted, when it would be better to categorise as for example "those with reduced sensory perceptions and mobility"?

Q51: Agreed a good Policy. Crowhurst should be in the Battle SDO; whereas it may be better to exclude Sedlescombe for the battle SDO, due to the decisive split that the A21 causes and Sedlescombe fees more adjacent (connected) to Westfield. Quite evident in Fig 12.

Q62: Re: "5.56 Battle is a small, historic market town." Umm - not a good summary, it should be: "Battle is a small, historic FORMER market town.", since all banks now gone...

Q74: This policy area is so heavily over burdened by national and county council legislation and determination, I recommend the LP only provides for the minimal provision since there is nowadays negligible agricultural seasonal employment upon which much of the legislation appears to be based.

Q76: Fig 35/36 - I do not agree that Battle has " Greater opportunity for growth, since already the constraints discussed show minimal opportunity e.g. NPPF/NL conditions. Furtermore the employment locations expansion in Battle are, as the Neighbourhood Plan Calls showed, almost negligible and certainly not as RDC pushed for when the NP was being developed.

Q84: Agreed a good Policy.

Q90: It is hard to understand why the RDC/Inspector refused to allow the proposed Gap along the Hastings Road at Telham was not allowed in the Battle NP, given these arguments it would have enhanced the protection: "The Gap between Battle and Hastings/St Leonards provides an important function in maintaining the separate identities of Battle and the built-up area of Hastings/St Leonards. The break in the ribbon development between the edge of Telham and the Hastings Borough boundary at Breadsell Farm is highly vulnerable to change particularly in more open areas and the higher ground and ridges."

Q96: In view of the source of this Policy will it now be applied Rother wide?

Q104: Agreed a good Policy. I welcome this new Policy, especially the aspects regarding diversion of FPs within development sites be required to deliver "equivalent" access and "must be replicated" See also comment to Q37.

Q109: Agreed a good Policy.

Q112: Agreed a good Policy.

Q119: I do not favour "100% affordable housing schemes". Surely "pepperpotting" is a better solution?

Q121: Given my comment on Q119, I do not really agree with is Policy, however given the intent for "substantially affordable housing", I would accept the need could be so satisfied.

Q125: Agreed a good Policy.

Q131: I welcome further work on this need.

Q133: Agreed a good Policy.

Q147: I would like to see a strengthening to no permission would be given to changing natural boundary hedges and trees.

Q149: Conversions/extensions of an older wood construction building by using modern brick construction, for example, should not normally be permitted, since they would significantly alter the street scene.

Q153: Agreed a good Policy, however I do not agree that in 8.179 Laurel is preferred - it is too fast growing and likely to over burden other growth.

Q170: Agreed a good Policy. I particularly welcome "xi) Where practicable, the track is opened as a path for permissive public usage or as Public Right of Way, and should be accessible from the existing Public Rights of Way network", since this would make the applicant aware that they could provide a beneficial PRoW spin-off from their operations, not previously or normally offered.

Q178: Agreed a good Policy.

Q180: Agreed a good Policy.

Q182: Agreed a good Policy. Welcomed and for reasons of energy saving an emphasis on PIR use should be paramount.

Q195: Agreed a good Policy. But I am confused by this wording: "vi) For Ancient Woodland, create a development buffer zone of at least 15 metres. An impact assessment will be required where any development is proposed within 25 metres of Ancient Woodland to demonstrate that the proposed buffer zone avoids negative effects on the habitat.", since surely a single buffer zone of 25m would suffice?

Appendix 2: Surely "Market square including Jempsons shop and others should be considered as in the "Battle Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area", even if not contiguously connected? The south-eastern limit of the appears to miss out several shops/cafes of importance...

Q208: "proposed monitoring framework" appears to be a comprehensive methodology to adopt. but i wonder how it will be reported?

Thank you for forwarding this document: below are our comments on policies - together with a supporting rationale.

2.13
Q2, Q3
Agree the principles embodied in 2.13.

 A ’green to the core’ approach should deliver better ‘living spaces’ for children and future generations.
 Compact and less ‘car dependent’ developments should flow from this with a strong emphasis on exploring and expanding ‘active travel’ opportunities and integrated public transport measures - bus/rail.
 The greatest efficiencies will fow from integration of ‘transport’ and ‘land use’ policies that will secure benefits for public health (both mental and physical), environment, social equity, economy - while addressing the twin crises facing biodiversity and climate change. Perhaps the greatest benefits would accrue from ‘traffic reduction’.
 We welcome the very sensible approach of having a joint statement from Hastings BC and Rother DC (the ‘wrap round’ authority). The future ‘district-wide’ and ‘neighbourhood’ infrastructure should include and prioritise sustainable/healthy modes of transport with incentives to use them and with an objective to reduce numbers of vehicles. Successful delivery also requires close working with the Transport and Health authority - ESCC.
 Good publicity to apprise residents, visitors and tourists of non-car modes available to access attractions should be standard - it currently is hugely variable from the useless through mediocre to excellent: it should be standard practice that sustainable transport opportunities are featured in well designd and attractive publicity material.


Q4 Q5
Agree principles. Opportunities that arise from reducing traffic (numbers of vehilcles) would include alternative use of land for a multitude of purposes including housing/nature /acquifer replenishment/childrens’ play/economic activity.

Q6/7/8
Given higher standards are ‘coming down the track’ and that we have a new national administration we might hope for re-energising/accelerating more ambitious energy saving solutions so RDC and all of us might well be prepared (and wish for ) a more nimble approach to delivery of ‘best available’ practice.

We note that although a building or larger housing development may be high performing, if it remains ‘car dependent’ it can hardly be described as sustainable.

Q9/10

Support ambitions for ‘retro-fit’ standards. Reduced car use/increased sustainable mode take-up would free land in existing settlements if provision is made for pedestrian/cycle/bus/train facilities.




Q17/18/19

Support expansion of solar/wind generation subject to landscape/heritage considerations. Rooftop solar is perhaps less obtrusive.

Q20/21

Welcome the focus on ‘nature recovery’. 3.39 recognises that securing ‘designated sites’ is insufficient as a means to securing recovery: the wider countryside (and well managed urban areas too) are crucial if populations/species are to thrive. We note that some areas with notional protection (for example semi-natural ancient woodland of which the HWAONB/HWNL has much) is nibbled away at so needs greater protection and monitoring. The entire east Rother catchment with its many streams also needs protection and monitoring.

Q22/23/24

Yes, go above minimum; developers’ intent to create compensatory gains against damage to existing habitat has to be independently assessed by a third party and monitored over time. Noise and light impact should be taken into account.

Q25/26

I have an interest in the HWNL as I am the owner of 6.02 acres of semi-natural ancient woodland (Fleetwood) and grew up in Etchingham between the Limden and east Rother. It was a wonderfulplace in which to spend my childhood. I accumulated quite a bit of knowledge - flora, fauna, geology, secret places and much of this was on my daily walk to school and back. Much of this environmental capital is intact but the lanes are no longer tranquil or safe places to be and the growth of traffic now limits childrens’ opportunties to learn and therefore love what’s there. Lanes have chewed up verges and ruts - restricting refuge - and taking away childrens freedoms. Add to this the sheer power and size of vehicles and the knowledge that mobile phone use while driving is endemic, the HWNL has suffered and quality of life diminished. Noise is often present with driving styles on two or four wheels tailored to maximise it: the noise footprint is up to two miles in radius. The HWNL is still beautiful but tarnished. It’s not OK. The Plan might usefully attempt to address these issues via its officers and elected members.

In the past, the High Weald Heroes inititiative to apprise its children of the elements that make it special seemed to be a good scheme and might now be expanded to include partnership schools in urban areas to spread the understanding and appreciation of such elements more widely so as to recruit more guardians of the future. Education initiatives could be included in the Plan. Health benefits would accrue, particularly for mental health.

In terms of offering safe walking/cycling family holidays, the HWNL doesn’t perform nearly well enough. Bus and rail connections have improved a little through BSIP but not enough. Adding Eurostar again to access via Ashford would help. Bus rail integration south of Tunbridge Wells is under exploited.

Q27/28/29

Agree with principles and threads.

Q33/34/35/36/37/38

Agree with principles. Flared junctions should be avoided. Cycle/pedestrian priority across junctions should be adopted aas policy. Cyclops style roundabouts should become much more commonly adopted as standard.

Q39/40/41

Agree with principles. 20mph default speed in residential streets and streets with strong character/heritage value would all be safer. Burwash example.


Q42/43/44

Agree with principles.

Q45/46/47

Agree with principles. Stimulating and supportive of social cohesion/mental and physical health objectives. Traffic must not dominate. Conversation is ioften impossible if traffic/vehicle noise pervasive.

Q48/49/50

Too much parking is simply more unnecessary road space: there will be induced traffic. Hard standing can contribute to flooding and denies the acquifers natural replenishment.

Q51/52/53

The ‘A21 development corridor’ presumes the road as the key to likely development sites and suggests road based accessiblity will therefore be key to any development’s success. That sounds a little like ‘business as usual’ However, it can’t be allowed to mask under and unexploited opportunities for movement of people by bus and rail and more locally by electric/conventional cycle and via good, safe pedestrian and cycle links.
The first Multi-Modal Study (2000) found that 68% of traffic on the A21 in the morning peak originated from south of Tunbridge Wells. It would be prudent to examine the potential for bus links to and across the Charing Cross - Hastings railway line to broaden the footprint of public transport accessibility. For example, the A265/268 could give access by bus to the train at Etchingham for Hawkhurst - Hurst Green and Burwash residents/visitors/students. This could also reduce car dependency in any village expansion developments, moreso if accompanied by supportive parking policies in urban centres. Your plan envisages the possibility of a future with less land given to car parks (and hopefully an end to free parking). This could follow future road user charging in whatever form it eventually takes.

Cars are getting bigger. Edge of town developments often feature generous parking spaces and these are often occupied by large SUV type vehicles. We strongly feel that these vehicles are not compatible with high quality living spaces and that there should be strong disincentives aimed at reducing their often intimidating presence in our streets and country lanes and anywhere near our schools.

Q54/55/121

General points:

There should be a strong component of public housing for rent; a strong component of truly affordable housing; a comprehensive cycle network that includes chldrens’ routes to school; 20mph default limits in all residential streets and dsitributor roads where appropriate (it will sometimes be appropriate). An absence of flared junctions and ‘cyclops’ roundabouts if a roundabout is deemed necessary.

Bus services under the new administration can be franchised by the transport authority. There could be some creative dialogues around services that RDC/ESCC feels might be improved by new/enhanced or extended routes.

It remains to be seen whether or not developers will still be able to renege on agreements around any form of planning gain. New policies will emerge that might benefit the community.

Q71

The ‘A21 transport corridor’ can only be examined as a multi-modal study. I already commented at Q53 but would add: there’s no bus connection between Etchingham station and Hurst Green which is a problem for locals (Management of The George - Ruth Hardy: theroyalgeorge@gmail.com).

Q72

Rother’s outstanding countryside is impaired by too much traffic with its associated negative impacts not the least of these being noise. The ridges and valleys are features that give much joy: it is hoped that the streams and rivers are unpolluted but reassurances are needed. In the case of the locally important Conquest Hospital, buses are severely delayed by queuing cars blocking access to the hospital entrance from The Ridge.


Q80

Sustainable transport provision should be designed with cumulative impacts and needs of neighbouring developments in mind. Not sure this has happened in north and West Bexhill (bus delays between Little Common and Northeye suggest that priority measures could have been installed ahead of development).

Q93

The ‘cooling effect’ of trees/shade and planted areas within urban settings is known and should be a factor in development plans, along with rainfall retention against flood risk.

Q98

Agree importance for young and old to have access to community facilities. Youth clubs’ demise has left a gap. These should be accessible by public transport/foot/cycle.

Q 104

Agree public rights of way/cycle routes hugely important for utility and leisure/education functions. These can afford great days out and should be part of the tourism leisure strategies and publicised in conjunction with public transport access in mind.

Q107

CVCP straddles the Bexhill - Hastings Link Road. Tranquillity has been lost to a large extent, but a 40mph speed restriction and acoustic cameras to deter noisy two/four wheeled vehicles would go some way to conferring on the valley some of its lost charm. The nationally important Bronze Age site seems to absent from any publicity.