Please see attached letter for full comments made by The British Horse Society.

Overall Priority 2 – Live Well Locally, Paragraphs 2.9, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These
provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site)
(A) All major development proposals for new dwellings must meet the following criteria:

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Further, proposed “improvements” to existing infrastructure must be an improvement for every user. For example, tarmacking a bridleway to provide a “cleaner” path to school would result in a less safe and amenable path for other users as it would be more slippery for horse riders and would result in faster movement of bicycles putting slower moving users at risk. Access to the coast should be improved for all wherever possible. Whilst a pleasant provision for walkers, the coastal path currently mostly provides nothing for those on a bike or a horse.

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site)
B) All development proposals of more than 50 homes must meet the following criteria:

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Further, proposed “improvements” to existing infrastructure must be an improvement for every user. For example, tarmacking a bridleway to provide a “cleaner” path to school would result in a less safe and amenable path for other users as it would be more slippery for horse riders and would result in faster movement of bicycles putting slower moving users at risk. Access to the coast should be improved for all wherever possible. Whilst a pleasant provision for walkers, the coastal path currently mostly provides nothing for those on a bike or a horse.

As explained above, off site routes should include all VRUs and those away from the road side should be created as bridleways or restricted byways.

Proposed Policy LWL4: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling & Public Transport (Within the Site):

Connecting beyond the site, filtered permeability, “safe routes accessible to all”, junctions, crossings, shared use routes, should all include equestrians

Please see attached letter for full comments made by The British Horse Society.

Overall Priority 2 – Live Well Locally, Paragraphs 2.9, 2.10, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These
provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site)
(A) All major development proposals for new dwellings must meet the following criteria:

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Further, proposed “improvements” to existing infrastructure must be an improvement for every user. For example, tarmacking a bridleway to provide a “cleaner” path to school would result in a less safe and amenable path for other users as it would be more slippery for horse riders and would result in faster movement of bicycles putting slower moving users at risk. Access to the coast should be improved for all wherever possible. Whilst a pleasant provision for walkers, the coastal path currently mostly provides nothing for those on a bike or a horse.

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site)
B) All development proposals of more than 50 homes must meet the following criteria:

Walking, wheeling & cycling routes should be truly inclusive multi user routes. Leisure use extends the value of routes provided primarily for commuting and school journeys. Where away from the roadside, new routes should be created at bridleway or restricted byway status. These provide the best benefit to tax payers as they include more users, thus providing more health and wellbeing benefits as well as providing more opportunity for those with a disability to enjoy the routes on horseback or (on byways) in a carriage.

Further, proposed “improvements” to existing infrastructure must be an improvement for every user. For example, tarmacking a bridleway to provide a “cleaner” path to school would result in a less safe and amenable path for other users as it would be more slippery for horse riders and would result in faster movement of bicycles putting slower moving users at risk. Access to the coast should be improved for all wherever possible. Whilst a pleasant provision for walkers, the coastal path currently mostly provides nothing for those on a bike or a horse.

As explained above, off site routes should include all VRUs and those away from the road side should be created as bridleways or restricted byways.

Proposed Policy LWL4: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling & Public Transport (Within the Site):

Connecting beyond the site, filtered permeability, “safe routes accessible to all”, junctions, crossings, shared use routes, should all include equestrians

All of these require safe space to cross roads, all of the road crossings in battle are poorly maintained and badly lit. A lot of traffic does not stop and there are no police around to enforce. Coaches park outside the battle abbey so that buses can not access the bus stop.

Live Well Locally

The Live Well Locally concept will be particularly difficult for residents within Icklesham Parish as none of the four settlements have a doctors surgery, the closest ones being in Rye and Hastings. There is also two primary schools throughout the Parish that serve all four settlements. These schools (Winchelsea CEP and Icklesham CEP) are very small schools and would not be able to take an influx of extra children. Two of the wards have small village shops and one has a Co-Op. None of these shops would be suitable to do a weekly food shop. Icklesham does not have a shop at all.

There is a bus service in each of the four settlements however the service is infrequent and at times unreliable.

Policy GTC2

Icklesham Parish Council are concerned about what this policy would mean for historic and listed buildings. IPC note that the polilcy states that HER1 would apply but it would be interesting to note which policy would carry more weight when deciding on a planning application.

Policy HER1

Please refer to note above concerning GTC2.

Policy DEV3

IPC would like to know if Net Zero developments would be considered outside of development boundaries.

Policy LWL3

Both Rye Harbour and Icklesham have potential sites identified for development. Both Rye Harbour and Icklesham have a bus service although the service is only once an hour during the week and once every two hours on a Saturday. There is no bus service at all on a Sunday in Rye Harbour. If new development is to go ahead, could Rother consult with Stagecoach about increasing the number of bus journeys?

Rye Harbour has good cycle paths however cycling in and out of Icklesham means cycling on the road with fast traffic both in and out of the village.


Policy HOU6

Planning Enforcement Team very over stretched and relying on Parish Councils and residents to flag any issues. Issues with HMOs may not be obvious to Councillors or other residents. Will the Enforcement Team realistically have time to Enforce such planning conditions?

Policy HOU17

Would these sort of developments be considered in Winchelsea Beach? IPC are concerned about the potential extra kitches and bathrooms and the strain this would cause to an already overloaded sewer system and ongoing surface water flooding and sewerage issues.

Policy ECO6

The Parish Council would like to know if this would also be the case for caravan parks extending their opening times during winter months? There have been instances recently where extension to opening times have been allowed despite objections raised by residents and the Parish Couoncil and evidence of extreme surface water flooding on specific sites being provided to the Planning Team and Planning Committee.

Policy ENV1

The Parish Council would like to know if anything can be done to ensure that any contributions are actually spent on improving local infrastructure as we know that the sewer networks in both Icklesham and Winchelsea Beach are in desperate need of updating. The Parish Council feel that this is a necessary step before any further development takes place in either ward.


Potential Sites Identified in Icklesham

ICK0041 & ICK0017

As previously explained, Icklesham's sewer network is in need of an upgrade and the Parish Council feel that this should take place before any further development takes place. The Parish Clerk has an email from Southern Water which indicates that they are aware that the Water Treatment Works (WTW) in Icklesham gets overloaded which causes it to back up the line. The Clerk has asked Southern Water whether there are any plans to update the Water Treatment Works and they have advised there is no planned investment prior to April 2025 at Icklesham WTW. However, there is planned investment in AMP8 (April 2025 to 2030) to the monitoring of flows entering the WTW. Certainty of this investment is yet to be concluded by OFWAT in the PR24 determination for AMP8.


Potential Site identified in Rye Harbour

ICK0046

Parish Council have previously raised concerns about the local infrastructure not being able to cope with this level of development. Particularly the roads as Rye Harbour is effectively a cul de sac. Harbour Road already gets heavily congested, particularly in the summer months when visitors attend to visit the Discovery Centre and the Nature Reserve. ICK0046 has been identified as suitable for 40 dwellings which is a large development for Rye Harbour which is very small in comparison.

I strongly support Policy LWL3 section (B) i) d. regarding street lighting compliance with the ILP standards. I would like Rother additionally to require street lighting to be dark sky compliant as defined by standards published by Dark Sky UK
https://darksky.org/what-we-do/darksky-approved/

There is no cycling infrastructure near where I live. Nothing.
If the area marked as BAT0014 is ever developed (see HELAA Part 2 – Chapter 3), it would be an ideal opportunity to install the Battle Schools Greenway, which is a route from Claverham College into Battle town centre (including the extension of the BSG which goes to Battle Railway Station) as detailed in the LCWIP for Battle. With large developments being thought about each end of the town (Blackfriars/Glengorse to the East, BAT0014 to the West) it makes sense to put in some cycling routes to avoid cross-town traffic problems

Sport England supports this policy

We welcome these suggestions but would like Rother to go further. We would also like the Plan to consider supply chain logistics eg micro-distribution sites and the potential for leisure and tourism routes in rural areas as there are many locations that could benefit from visitors walking and cycling and routes around Rother.

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached submission.