The snappy punchline of 'Green to the core' and 'Live well locally' is a bold attempt to show a commitment to protecting rural communities and local ecology but your HELAA land allocation of CAT0001 and potential site CAT0016 in Catsfield fly in the face of these claims/promises.
The proposal of 60 new houses (some proposing to be built on protected AONB land) in this small rural village (doubling the size of the main village), is absolutely shocking and I object strongly to these sites being included for allocation in this plan.
These proposals would not only destroy ancient woodland, biodiversity and protected wildlife habitats, they would also severely impact the lives of local residents with increased pollution and a serious decline in the already insufficient utilties and local infrastructure.

Please see:

- Mr John Lovering - Rother Draft Local Plan 2020 (comments of draft Local Plan)
- Land off Uckham Lane - Location Plan
- Landscape Feasability Study
- Transport Report
- Access Plan

Pleased to see RDC putting in a higher BNG than the government std to help protect our beautiful district. Whose responsibility will it be to ensure that landscaping and BNG improvements are successful in the long-term and do not die off or are removed after a few years?

Please see attached comments.

Q22. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy for Biodiversity Net Gain?
Q23. What are your views on the Council going above the national minimum requirement of 10%?
Q24. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?

The Policy seeks a minimum 20% Biodiversity Net Gain as well as setting a number of requirements for BNG delivery.

The Council should not set a higher biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirement for development than the 10% that is that set out in the Environment Act 2021. Requiring BNG above 10% does not meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF. The Council should also note that the recently finalised Planning Policy Guidance on Biodiversity Net Gain at paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214 confirms that ‘Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented’.

It is noted that the Council justify its approach through para 3,48 that states ‘This higher level is justified because opportunities to deliver this off-site, if necessary, are available locally. The viability of development is unlikely to be unduly impacted in most cases.’. The council are clearly making the assumption that the cost of BNG is unlikely to be large and therefore will not impact viability. However, the consultation is not accompanied by a viability assessment and therefore this has not been tested in line with the PPG and it is not possible to determine whether such a requirement is viable without such an assessment being undertaken. Recent updates to the PPG make it clear that the cost of BNG is a viability consideration and therefore, should be viability tested (PPG Viability Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 10-012-20240214)

Until evidence can be produced in line with the PPG. a 10% requirement should also be maintained in order to ensure that the requirement is ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development’ (para 57, NPPF) and consistent with national policy guidance.

The Council should also reconsider the additional wording it proposes with regard to BNG to ensure the policy is in line with the guidance and statutory instruments that the government have recently updated / published regarding statutory Biodiversity Net Gain.

Recommendation
For the policy to be consistent with national policy and legislation the Council should:
• Only seek a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain
• Reconsider the additional policy wording to ensure it is consistent with recently published legislation and planning guidance.

Support the 20% rise, but it's not clear when this applies, and I expect there are loopholes which developers can use in order to avoid making the 20% gain. There is also the problem of where a site is purposely degraded or stripped of biodiversity before a planning application is made, as was the case recently on a large site near to me

Yay! I'm happy with this!