Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24959
Received: 02/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Margaret Burnett
As there are many people of all age groups who are unable to walk or cycle or self-propel over even a short distance perhaps thought could be given to encouraging small local delivery hotspots or volunteers to assist with collection of products.
I am uncertain as to how enough jobs could be generated locally to prevent Rother becoming even more of a commuter zone. Could consideration be given to promoting small "craft" or trade units for use within the district to encourage entrepreneurs to ply their trade locally? If rent and rates are affordable, perhaps we could regenerate this area.
As there are many people of all age groups who are unable to walk or cycle or self-propel over even a short distance perhaps thought could be given to encouraging small local delivery hotspots or volunteers to assist with collection of products.
I am uncertain as to how enough jobs could be generated locally to prevent Rother becoming even more of a commuter zone. Could consideration be given to promoting small "craft" or trade units for use within the district to encourage entrepreneurs to ply their trade locally? If rent and rates are affordable, perhaps we could regenerate this area.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24994
Received: 04/07/2024
Respondent: Ramblers
As a charity which opens the way for everyone to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of walking, Ramblers urge Rother Council to ensure that wherever Walking, Wheeling and Cycling routes interact with busy roads, localized widening of at least 2 metres – optimally 4 metres - is prioritized and guaranteed in order to make walking and wheeling the natural and safe choice for short journeys.
Clearly signposted, Filtered Permeability for Walking, Wheeling and Cycling must be provided between every new development and the closest transport node/s.
Specific examples: the entire pavement approach to and surround of Little Common roundabout, Bexhill; Barnhorn Road between Rosewood Park Estate and Little Common, Bexhill; Powdermill Lane between Catsfield and Battle rail station.
As a charity which opens the way for everyone to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of walking, Ramblers urge Rother Council to ensure that wherever Walking, Wheeling and Cycling routes interact with busy roads, localized widening of at least 2 metres – optimally 4 metres - is prioritized and guaranteed in order to make walking and wheeling the natural and safe choice for short journeys.
Clearly signposted, Filtered Permeability for Walking, Wheeling and Cycling must be provided between every new development and the closest transport node/s.
Specific examples: the entire pavement approach to and surround of Little Common roundabout, Bexhill; Barnhorn Road between Rosewood Park Estate and Little Common, Bexhill; Powdermill Lane between Catsfield and Battle rail station.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26097
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Catesby Estates
Please refer to our full representations and response to Q33
Please refer to our full representations and response to Q33
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26255
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Parish Council
Consideration for mobility scooters and electric scooters.
Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26441
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Bexhill Heritage
We note that train travel is absent from the document and suggest the inclusion of the following paragraph and similar paragraphs for Battle, Robertsbridge and Rye.
With a direct train service to Gatwick Airport/London Victoria, and good connecting services for Charing Cross, Cannon Street and St. Pancras International (HS1), it is generally acknowledged that Bexhill is quite well served by rail, with four main-line railway stations (Bexhill, Normans Bay, Cooden Beach and Collington), Bexhill is overcoming the perception that it is “the end of the line” as a consequence of working closely with the organisations responsible for Bexhill’s rail services. Stagecoach bus company provides the popular, frequent, 99 service linking Bexhill with Eastbourne, Hastings and beyond, as well as other services, including to Conquest Hospital. There is also a town Community Bus, and the Demand Responsive Transport (DRT).
As a matter of policy, the Council should underline its commitment to good public transport links both within and beyond the District.
We also strongly recommend that the following points be included in the Council’s policy:
• evening bus services should be enhanced to facilitate journeys to and from evening meetings or events in Bexhill, including those provided by the De La Warr Pavilion
• cycling routes, to and from, and within Bexhill, should be reviewed and improved as a priority
• an additional rail station stop at Glyne Gap should be provided to serve the beach, swimming pool and Ravenside Retail and Leisure Park.
All the above have the potential to contribute to decarbonisation and to the Council’s Climate Emergency strategy and policies.
The Local Plan should be bold in supporting and addressing these transport issues. Neighbouring West St. Leonards, in preparing its Neighbourhood Plan, is considering the inclusion of a proposed new West St. Leonards station, to straddle the Hastings and East Coastway railway lines, to improve its accessibility and connectivity.
Please refer to attachment
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26476
Received: 18/07/2024
Respondent: Battle Town Council
Q34. Council should make developers responsible for access outside site compulsory.
Q2. Council feels that both are key to our Community with equal priority.
Q24. Clarification of "all qualifying development" is sought.
Council would like to prevent pre-emptive works at sites prior to submission of planning applications.
Q28. Agree the principle but very hard to visualise dwellings per hectare. Particularly when looking at rural areas.
Examples in our location would be helpful ie number of properties in Coronation Gardens per hectare, for example.
Q30. Whilst we feel this is a positive ambition, this may be impracticle for a town such as Battle.
Q33. In agreement with proposals, but clear access must be available. Blackfriars access to Battle Railway Station is a point in case of outside site access.
Q34. Council should make developers responsible for access outside site compulsory.
Q35. Applaud this objective but would once again highlight the Blackfriars development not having easy access to the Railway Station which would make walking outside of this 400m proposal.
Q39. This is an important policy and Council would like this enforced. However, it is disappointing that the Blackfriars development has not been approved in accordance with existing Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan policies.
Q46. Council feels that consideration should be to all disabilities, not only dementia sufferers; such as less ambulant people and those with hearing difficulties etc.
In relation to play areas, these should be sited in an appropriate safe, central location.
Q64. The topography of the central area of Battle town does not lend itself to significant further dwellings to be developed within the development boundary.
There may be very small opportunties for developments outside the development boundary but within the 800m constraint.
Broadly speaking, the number of dwellings suggested seems to be most unachievable.
During the development of the Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan, despite calls for employment opportunity developments, there was only one response.
Q74. These policies should be strictly adherred to, to protect the environment.
Q75. Subsequent to this Reg 18 document, Council would like to emphasise that the "Fir Tree Cottage" site at Netherfield only has temporary permission for three years and must be returned to agricultural use.
Q76. We do not agree that Battle is placed in the "Greater opportunities for growth" column in figure 35. In main part due to the topography of the Civil Parish and, at best, should be placed in the "Medium growth opportunities".
We are pleased to see that Mountfield and Whatlington in our SDO have been recognised in the column "Limited growth opportunities".
Q104. We welcome this policy.
Q116. For planning applications where affordable housing is approved, following applications to change the conditions will be greatly deplicated.
Q119. Council does not agree with this policy. There should be a mix of housing - 'pepperpotting'.
Q121. We do not wish to see this, as above.
Q183. LAN3 paragrpah 3 should have roof lights added as an example of discouraged glazing.
Planning applicants should be encouraged to use electrochromic glass.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26625
Received: 29/07/2024
Respondent: Stephen Nicholls
RDC should be giving serious consideration right across the district, not just on new developments, to
improving the access to the countryside and creating more walking routes for the elderly and disabled
and those with pushchairs. Unfortunately, one of the biggest hurdles to this is the conventional
wooden stile, the design of which is not in keeping with inclusivity protocols, is restrictive for people
that are elderly, have children with them or are physically or mentally challenged. ESCC runs a gates
for stiles scheme and as a keen walker I would personally like to see less stiles and more gates.
Please see attached submission.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26719
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Rother Environmental Group
Walking, cycling and public transport – Add All major development proposals should be required to contain positive proposals to improve direct access to public transport, e.g. providing new footpaths to access as quickly as possible existing train stations and/or bus stops.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27060
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Westfield Parish Council
See points 65-70 in the attached submission.
Please see attached document for the full submission from Westfield Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27245
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Guestling Parish Council
The proposed policies appear relevant to urban areas but do not consider how the objectives will be achieved in villages or rural areas
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27570
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Southern Housing
We believe the broad approach is appropriate and it’s positive to see the local plan Transport Assessment and Infrastructure Delivery Statement will be used to evolve the policy further (paragraph 4.25). This will ensure the policy is appropriate for the local context. As per our response to Q11, it may be beneficial to link this policy to GTC3 and the need for CEMPs to be submitted as part of larger schemes. CEMPs are useful for carbon reduction and waste reduction, whilst avoiding impacts on the transport network and the amenity of neighbouring residents during the construction phase. There are also links here to Policy LWL5, which makes reference to “Material Banks”.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27987
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
LW3(A)i) Access and Provision of Public Transport, p73; It is suggested that the policy should be reworded as emphasis needs to be on providing public transport access to work, education, shopping, social and medical opportunities. Specific reference to Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) should also be omitted as this type of bus service will not continue beyond March 2026 unless significant ongoing funding streams are confirmed (DRT types of bus operation are not commercially viable). In addition, reference to the term ‘shuttle bus’ services is not required as there is no clarity as to what this would be in practical terms.
It is also suggested that the wording in relation to walking distances and amending bus services needs to be amended to recognise the ongoing financial viability of amending bus services to meet this requirement.
For proposed re-wording please see paragraph 1.40 of the attached submission document.
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27994
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
LW3(A)ii) Active Travel Infrastructure, p73; revise to refer to ‘....submission of a Transport Assessment/ Transport Statement*/ Transport Report* that:’
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27995
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
LW3(A)ii) Active Travel Infrastructure, a. and b. p73-74; It is suggested that reference is made to a Non-Motorised User Audit to identify the strengths/ weaknesses/ opportunities for encouraging active travel modes for travel
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27997
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
LW3(B)i) High-quality Walking and Wheeling Routes, p75; The Active travel infrastructure section has two sets of lists. For the second list, and to be consistent, b) should say *‘be step-free'*. It would be useful to add *‘include parking restrictions where required’* to this list.
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27999
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
LW3(B)i) High-quality Walking and Wheeling Routes, p75; There does not have to be reliance on one specific node, so would suggest amending to ‘nodes’
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28112
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Public Transport (Outside the Site), iii) Coastal Access p74; It is noted that this proposed Policy includes a specific reference to the King Charles III England Coast Path (KCIIIECP). This specific ‘Coastal Access’ policy text is welcomed and supported, as it will help to protect and enhance the National Trail. However, it is requested that the wording is strengthened. Suggested text in italics below:
iii) Coastal Access. Public access to the coast must be retained and improved where possible (e.g., through the creation of new path links). The King Charles III England Coast Path National Trail must be protected and opportunities taken to enhance the route (e.g., *improvements to path accessibility*, re-aligning the trail closer to the sea).
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.