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

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

A compact development is just an estate. If an area does not have shops, Drs etc it just becomes a ghetto.

Q1.

Sadly the vision feels unachievable. Rother Officers avoid dialogue or face to face contact with some residents, who as a result have little trust in RDC’s integrity and competence. Disillusion with poor quality planning includes perceptions of cronyism and corruption. How will an infrastructure baseline be established? For example “Sensitive, sustainable and well-designed development that meets local housing and employment needs will be complemented by the timely delivery of supporting infrastructure.” RDC should revisit past developments that fall short of this criteria, where community complaints have been high. In Fairlight Cove we’ve lost amenity for 2 years caused by a poor quality, cramped, steep development of 16 houses. Residents dispute it’s built to the planning consent approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. Storm overflows cover the lane with sewage, before the 16 new houses are even connected. A resident survey describes the gridlock of parked vehicles on our bus route, obstructing junctions and folk struggling to get on/off their driveways. Over decades there appears to have been no imaginative attempts to meet village overflow parking needs. For example removing wide grass verges to create parking spaces. We can’t see strategic joint working by RDC with our Parish Council. Our precept has increased by 40% in the past few years without extensive consultation and Parish Councillors spend our tax on their high running costs, meetings and social projects for retired people that duplicate existing locally funded voluntary sector provision by professional staff. Accountability and evaluation systems are lacking for Parish Councils to maintain infrastructure. Parts of Fairlight are lanes with high numbers of walkers, no pavements or footpaths, very few seats and signage clutter. A baseline study would show village assets in poor repair, with an increase in vehicle movements. Parking and speeding are increasing problems. Results from the 2023 Parish Council Residents Survey are not in the public domain. In relation to ‘Quality of Life’ residents regularly state a priority is public toilets. The decision by RDC to not cover the cost of public toilets at our local beach and in Rye indicates how removed you are from meeting basic expectations and needs of your residents, visitors to our area and local businesses.

Q2.

‘Conserving and enhancing the significant landscape and environmental quality across the district’ It would help if RDC insisted on professional quality Construction Management Plans or contractors signed up to the ‘Considerate Contractor’ Scheme. Also if RDC Enforcement Officers were resourced and supported to penalise construction sites in the same way they penalise residents or local builders, especially for radios, drug use and aggressive behaviours on site. Planting Management Plans and TPO’s are ignored, trees and hedgerows are cut, with no apparent penalties. Residents are encouraged to provide free labour to report alleged breaches of planning consent, but then Developers break the rules with impunity. The perception is that Rother Officers are too close to Developers, whilst being unwilling to meet with residents. There appears to be no monitoring of what the CIL funds are spent on in parishes in relation to the exisiting Local Plan and no minimum standard of “community consultation”.

Q3.

‘By supporting strong, safe and sustainable communities’ In Fairlight Cove there is a minimal bus service, which unfortunately can be disrupted at very short notice by road closures. Leaving school children or people without mobile phones disorientated and abandoned. Plus there is poor access to travel around our village for people with disabilities. There appears to be no baseline of how many village roads are difficult to use for disabled people, due to issues such as rough surfaces/moonscapes, pavement parking, cracked pavements or speeding traffic. New charges for car parks across RDC and HBC means people now drive into Fairlight Cove to park for free and some camp overnight outside residents homes. HBC is commonly perceived online as having corrupt working practices in relation to planning and development sites.

Q5.

SO 9 feels very important, but unless there are new initiatives in villages, there appears to be no resources to make this happen. It is difficult to get a face to face appointment at Hill Surgery, Hastings, few people can get through to reception. For people on low incomes, without a computer or mobile phone it is especially hard.

Q.27

There seems to be an opt out clause on Density. There seems little point in having policies, if you then create ways for property developers not to meet them.

Q.33

LWL3 Facilities at bus stops and iii Coastal Access This would be very important if it could be implemented.

LWL5

We welcome these policies in terms of height and steep sites, for example if a village is predominantly small low dwellings, very tall buildings stand out. For example at the entrance to Fairlight Cove and in the “transition” of the new Market Garden Site to the south.

LWL6

We welcome these policies in terms of height and steep sites, for example if a village is predominantly small low dwellings, very tall buildings stand out. For example at the entrance to Fairlight Cove and in the “transition” of the new Market Garden Site to the south.

Q45.

Streets For All. We welcome the shared streets policy especially “street furniture, good signage and way finding that is accessible to all to encourage walking and prioritise vulnerable users.” It would be beneficial to identify who currently lives in a ‘street’ or a ‘road’ and whether 4.62 SUDS and 4.64 could be implemented across the District. If RDC had clear design standards and guidelines, this would help Parish Councils who may not have access to professional expertise in planning. Community pride and cohesion is undermined by dirty and deteriorating infrastructure, Pett Level Road, Pett Level Toilets, Highways Pavement repairs, Southern Water sewage etc

Q.48

RDC needs to work with Parish Councils to create Parking Strategies for villages where parked vehicles now dominate the public realm, block footways, crossing points and sight lines.

Paragraph 5.16

Quiet Lanes and Slow Ways should be introduced on the 1066 walk and popular coastal footpaths as a priority.
This is a key issue for Fairlight enabling all generations to stay in rural communities for their lifetime and a source of frustration that new homes have not addressed the housing needs of local residents.

Q.54

The notion of “Hastings Fringes” feels unclear and ‘sensitive growth’ lacks a number, clarification would help.

Q.59

We object to the notion that a minimum of 35 dwellings in Fairlight is “sensitive” growth, we assume the site is East Field. This has been contested so many times over the years and the Field continues to flood, the sewage continues to overflow on Lower Waites Lane and Stream Lane. The increased traffic puts enormous pressure on village lanes which are in a poor state of repair. Pett Level Road is unpassable during the evening time due to the size of the pot holes. Access to a Post Office, Doctors Surgery and Dentists is limited.

Q.72

“Including the undeveloped coast, also has high intrinsic amenity value and is an important resource for nature conservation, leisure and tourism.” This would be more convincing if Pett Level Road were usable as a road, the moonscapes by the road side could be used for parking and the public toilets were open throughout the year.

Q.82

DEV3 The development boundary concept sounds confusing. If Fairlight Cove has a development boundary in the Local Plan surely the boundary of Waites lane is facing the ‘countryside’. Therefore an allocation of East Field for 35 houses would not meet the policy?

Q.90

DEV6 The Strategic Green Gap between Fairlight and Hastings is warmly welcomed, as are all the Gaps in the Plan. There are regular incidents where large vehicles e.g two buses/lorries etc get wedged along the narrow lanes travelling east along Fairlight Road which is claustrophobic and parked vehicles dominate. The areas open character feels essential to demarcate the start of the countryside.

Q.101

HWB5 Green and Blue Infrastructure
There is no minimum length for new development to be built away from a water course. In the case of the Market Garden Site in Fairlight, three new builds are on the banks of the stream and the earth has subsided as a result.

Q.102

A minimum precise measurement length should be insisted upon for all new developments near a water course. There is also no clear mention in Construction Management Plans for Site workers not to litter or pollute a water course. Also to store construction materials such as water proof insulation, glass etc a few metres from the edge so as they don’t fall into the water course.

Q.123

HOU5 Rural Exception Sites
This feels like another ‘get out’ clause. There is no clarity as to what RDC mean by “meaningful community engagement” If RDC has any examples of how this had worked in practice that would be helpful. Otherwise it could be removed.

Q.129

HOU8 Access to Standards Paragraph 8.72 This feels like another ‘get out’ clause

Paragraph 8.137

ESCC parking guidance is an under estimate, for the number of people who actually use a garage. The number of cars owned per household in rural areas and the fact that most dwellings have visitors and delivery vehicles. The car parking spaces are mean on new build developments, causing parked vehicles to over flow onto rural lanes and bus routes.

Q.144

”… private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required, other than in exceptional circumstances where this cannot be achieved in an otherwise acceptable development” We strongly object to the wording and opt outs within this Policy. At the Market Garden Site in Fairlight residents allege the 10 metre gardens have not been created. Allowing flexibility on the 10 metre rule makes a mockery of it being a Policy. This allows for Developers to erect cramped buildings on irregular and sloped sites. This is very disappointing. Similarly the policy can be avoided if “future occupiers of the dwellings will have a lesser requirement for amenity space” How can this be proven if properties are sold on the open market, another loophole for allowing dwellings with low amenity. It leaves little room for outdoor washing lines which have an environmental impact if clothes is dried indoors. Also the capacity for play equipment, to plant veg/fruit trees, store bicycles/canoes etc. We object to 8.136.

Q.146

The Policy is inappropriately flexible. Getting away with squashing the tiniest housing units onto a plot seems to be the game for a few Developers and RDC are encouraging it with this type of policy.

Q.166

Like most of our responses our comments relate to balancing new developments with maintaining infrastructure or improving strategic working with ESCC or Parish Councils. If the majority of visits are day trips then the issue of parking, overflow parking and public toilets remain very high on the list of problems to be addressed, which currently fail to meet customer expectations. The poor state of ESCC roads is a major factor in putting off visitors.

Q.180

LAN1 This is very important, especially to the undeveloped coast.

Page 356 (ix) The failure of RDC to stop Developers clearing trees and hedges is depressing.

Q.191

ENV 4 Fairlight Cove Coastal Change Management Area is important to support the work of the Fairlight Preservation Trust.

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.

Why does the plan propose housing density levels for Battle not even endured in the most deprived areas of London? I don't think anyone living in those densities would hold them up as an exemplar to be followed!

While I agree that a gentle increase in density spread across the area can be useful (i.e. garden infill developments or detached into semi-detached), such a sudden increase in density will cause serious mental health issues, strain on roads, infrastructure and services.

Average DPH (dwellings per hectare):
Inner London 46.7
Outer London 16.3
London 22.5
England 1.8
(source: data.london.gov.uk)

Providing services for older residents should include access to services without requiring Internet access. Rother are increasingly moving all services to online which is discriminatory to those without Internet access.
A further element to compact living is providing suitable facilities such as public toilets and better public transport links.

The ranges in densities are too wide. All developers want to make as much money out if a site as possible, so there will probably be no developments at the lower end of the scale, with all of them approaching the maximum levels. This needs sorting out to make homes that people may want to actually live in rather than as a stepping stone on the housing ladder. Without a visual, it is impossible for a lay person to know what these densities would look like.

Sport England supports this policy that it agrees will help to promote densities capable of supporting local facilities and Active Travel

We support the overarching principles of compact development. Our clients’ sites will contribute to these overarching principles of compact development by providing sites of appropriate density to support the local community, services and economy. Our clients’ sites as mentioned, are 1km from Ticehurst Village Centre and will be able to promote suitable active transport methods such as walking, cycling and wheeling to the village.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

Please refer to attachment

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached the full submission regarding Land at Breadsell Farm covering background information to the site as well as detailed responses to questions 27, 28, 32, 51, 52, 54, 55, 60, 61, 77 and 90.

Please see attached full submission from Nexus Planning on behalf of their client Devine Homes regarding the Local Plan and HELAA Site SAL0012: Land at Bishops Lane, Robertsbridge

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

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

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

See attached representations regarding:

- Proposed Vision - Chapter 2 of the draft Local Plan
- Proposed Development Strategy - Chapter 5 of the draft Local Plan
- Proposed Policy GTC1: Net Zero Building Standards
- Proposed Policy GTC5: Heat Networks
- Proposed Policy GTC8: Biodiversity Net Gain
- Proposed Policy LWL1: Compact Development
- Proposed Policy HOU2: Affordable Housing
- Proposed Policy HOU2: HOU12: Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding

Please see attached representation from Bell Cornwell on behalf of the Trustees of Steellands Farm, in relation to HELAA sites TIC0043 and TIC0044 which contains an indicative layout plan.

Please see attached full representation

Please see attachment

See the two attachments which comprise the representation from Bidwells LLP on behalf of the landowner of HELAA Site BEX0050: Land south of Barnhorn Road which comments on the Local Plan itself as well as the suitability of site BEX0050.

See full representation as attachment

Please accept this response to your consultation on the draft local plan for Rother 2020-2040 as your online consultation webpage is difficult to navigate and I became totally lost in the bureaucratic jargon and only managed to reach page 260 before burn-out.

The Draft itself is difficult to decipher what is actually being said, requires much cross referencing with other lengthy, confusing documents and I have had to deal with this draft in a ‘bite-size’ manageable way so may well miss important points, which I hope others will pick up on.

In short, the summary of many hours of reading:
Housing should be confined to brown/grey field sites, in urban surroundings that can cope with the demands of contemporary living, before greenfield sites (especially the HWNL) are even considered.
The Local Plan does not set any limits on anything so cannot possibly have any value as a plan for sustainable development. Development with no limits is unsustainable.
Please provide a map of the development boundary for Catsfield. (For example page 224, DaSA adopted 2019). Maps like this provide clarity for the lay-person rather than struggling through huge documents such as the Draft Local Plan, the HELAA reports, HEDNA etc. but unable to locate any meaningful maps.


RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS:

Q2. What are your views on proposed twin Overall Priorities to be ‘Green to the Core’ and ‘Live Well Locally’?

I have to disagree that RDCs vision is achievable. On the face of it the vision appears to indicate a respect for the environment and the rural communities within, but simply introducing the word ‘green’ does not equal sustainability and, likewise, the word ‘well’ is simply subjective. Therefore, rather than slogans which are open to interpretation or challenge by developers with their eye on today’s profit not tomorrow’s generations, perhaps something a little less open to subjective interpretation would be better. Ie. Today’s priority is tomorrow’s environment. It is clear that we need to protect our environment, both natural and built, because we won’t get a second chance tomorrow. The High Weald National Landscape must be protected as this will be our legacy to following generations – this is sustainability. A climate emergency and protecting our National Landscape is in absolute contrast to the aims of profit-driven developers and speculators, so the question is, how will RDC make developers/speculators adhere to these twin priorities and share their vision?
Regarding Catsfield where I live: The proposed number and design of dwellings on CAT0001 and CAT0016 sites in the HELAA report is really too large for the rural character of the village to subsume into the settlement and should be decreased. Large housing estates will urbanise the rural character - already seen in Ninfield in Wealden district. Therefore, such large housing estates are neither ‘green to the core’ nor beneficial to residents.
Why has Catsfield been singled out to provide 60 new dwellings when other villages have a nil target? How is this figure determined? Is the development boundary for Catsfield being altered without resident’s knowledge?
Q3. What are your views on the key issues (listed at paragraph 2.13) that have been identified and is there anything significant missing?

Simply carving up the country-side will not make houses affordable. Brown/grey field sites must be used before green spaces.
For instance, BEX008 is earmarked for industrial use. Why isn’t the site earmarked for residential buildings if there is a national housing crisis? The infrastructure is already in place.
The site MOU0012 is a vacant industrial site - why is the landowner not incentivised to free up this site? Is he holding out for residential planning?
I understand RDC has a partnership with Hastings. Have they audited empty brownfield sites and properties together, such as the old Post Office, that could be refurbished for residential dwellings?
What is significantly missing is a clear brown/greyfield register for the area if RDC is to conserve its special landscapes such a the HHWNL. Such a register should be in the public domain.

Q22. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy for Biodiversity Net Gain?

Conserving special landscapes like the HW National Landscape will not be achieved by building more houses over it. By definition house building cannot leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand. BNG can only be achieved on brown/greyfield sites. Brownfield/grey sites should be used first and RDC should make this clear in the Local Plan. Please provide the brownfield maps to the public.

Q25. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy for the High Weald National Landscape? Q26. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering.

Hopefully, these policies will protect the HWNL. However, for the policy to be sustainable there must be clear limits and boundaries and there is not! Therefore, the policy has little value without limits.

Q27. What are your views on the Council’s proposed policy on compact development?

I am unsure what ‘compact development’ means in practice. I assume it means making the best use of infrastructure by building in those areas, predominantly urban, where infrastructure is already in place, which makes sense. In rural villages, like Catsfield, infrastructure is poor. Public transport is non-existent in Catsfield and residents rely on private vehicles to get to work, to shop etc. usually over poorly maintained roads and lanes. No mobile signal is available in the village and no fibre WiFi is available. Drains overflow, water pressure is low or nonexistent and the village regularly suffers from power cuts. This is all down to poor, unmaintained infrastructure but I made the choice not to live in an urban environment with its good infrastructure but enjoy our wonderful countryside of Sussex.
Again, housing should be confined to brown/grey field sites, in urban surroundings that can cope with the demands of contemporary living and if that is what ‘compact development’ means then I support that.

Q28. What are your views on the area types and densities proposed as a key driver to Live Well Locally?

Please advise where the current map of the development boundary around Catsfield can be found? 25-45 dwellings per hectare makes little sense to ordinary residents - please clarify before I can comment.

Q51. What are your views on the Council’s preferred spatial development options? Q52. Do you have any comments on the merits of the alternative Spatial Development Options, that do not form part of the preferred development options – as explained in the background paper? Q53. Are there any other development options that the Council should consider as part of its Local Plan?

These concepts are confusing to the ordinary resident and need to be explained in clear English. I cannot comment on something that is so confusing.

Q62. What are your views on the vision for Battle and surrounding settlements?

RDC’s target of 60 houses for the small village of Catsfield does not correspond with Rother’s vision quoted from Page 140 - 'Sensitive small-scale development will be delivered in villages surrounding Battle, at densities consistent with the surrounding area, where it is sustainable and does not negatively impact the setting of the High Weald NL.’
Needs a total rethink regarding the number of dwellings. However, Page 145 - para 5.60/61 introduces the idea that the target of 60 houses for Catsfield is purely hypothetical!

Q77. Do you agree with the principal identified by the Council of achieving a stepped housing delivery with greater levels of delivery planned for later in the plan period?
How will RDC incentivise developers to adhere to this principal? Without strict limits this principal is unachievable! Page 177 identifies a problem with land-banking by developers - 'there have been significant delays in the build out of sites.’ This practise needs to be penalised as it affects the price mechanism of houses thus pushing up prices. How is RDC tackling the issue of land-banking?

Q82. What are your views on the Council’s approach to development boundaries?
Page 186, para 5.119 - 'This Local Plan will review each settlement’s boundary, especially in relation to potential allocation sites.’ How can residents possibly comment on something they have not seen? Please produce the Development Boundary map for Catsfield so I can make an informed comment.

Q103. Do you feel that this policy is sufficient to protect open space?
No. The policies have no limits so developers will perpetually challenge them - mission creep.

Q104. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy on public rights of way?
PRoWs are a historic right and should remain. Not diverted nor ignored nor moved surreptitiously (which has been seen in Catsfield). New PRoW are always welcome!

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.

Please refer to document attached