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

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.

Stop building houses, until we have enough doctors and schools to cope with the new people

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 utilities and local infrastructure.
This site is also within a high flood risk area.
See further comments on HELAA Part 2 Chapter 3.

Please see attached representation, existing and proposed sites plans.

Please see attached:

- Draft Local Plan Representations
- Site Location Plan
- Existing Site Layout Plan
- Call for Sites Illustrative Layout Plan

Please see attached representations

SWT are very pleased to see a number of sites rejected in the HEELA due, in part, to their impact on Local Wildlife Sites (LWS). The NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance is clear that LWS should be safeguarded in local plans with policies that protect them from harm and loss, and therefore SWT objects to any housing allocations on a LWS. We note that a number of potential allocations are adjacent to LWS and/or ancient woodland. Given that both these designations will be core areas within the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, it is vital that appropriate buffers are required for adjacent allocations and that the council is mindful of the potential for allocations to hinder recovery opportunities.

SWT is concerned about the potential impact of development to the west of Bexhill on the Pevensey Levels. Again, it is vital that appropriate buffers and stringent surface and wastewater drainage protocols are required. We are particularly concerned about increases in road surface runoff due to a cumulative impact of increased housing. This needs to be addressed strategically as it is often overlooked by individual applications.

We fundamentally disagree with the approach that the council has set out to housing delivery. We appreciate that the final housing target is to be determined, however the council has provided clear evidence that the identified housing needs in Rother imply the construction of 737 new dwellings per annum over the plan period. This is “considerably higher that then currently adopted housing requirement policies” as identified in the HEDNA, yet the strategy wording sets up a target to reach a minimum average rate of 258-364 a year.
Even if the district was to adopt the higher end of the threshold, this would still be less than 50% of the homes needed in the district. Given the fact that Rother currently only delivers 41% of its required housing and needs to deliver more in order to meet its identified needs.
Though this sets out sensitive development in other rural settlements of the district will be included, it is considered that many villages, in particular Ticehurst has the capacity to accommodate further sensitively located housing given the services provided in the village. The landowner’s/clients sites will comply with the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood, and this should be a consideration as part of the wider strategy.
Overarchingly, a more significant commitment is required to the delivery of housing in sustainable locations in rural villages which can accommodate development which are in line with the key objectives of the local authority.

The Woodland Trust does not take a position on housing numbers. We support the objective to encourage the re-use and redevelopment of previously-developed land. Such redevelopment should seek to preserve existing mature trees and protect existing habitats on biodiverse brownfield sites. High density housing should seek to accommodate trees along boundaries, paths and in areas of public space.

The Woodland Trust objects to ancient woodland areas being included in sites allocated as suitable for development.

Areas of natural woodland, in particular ancient woodland, are vulnerable to pollution, encroachment from development, and habitat fragmentation. It is important that any development is located and designed to avoid damaging ancient woodland, providing buffers for designated sites and protecting connectivity between wildlife habitats. Further information is available in the Trust’s Planners’ Manual for ancient woodland.

Where development sites are adjacent to ancient woodland, we recommend that as a precautionary principle, a minimum 50 metre buffer should be maintained between a development and the ancient woodland, including through the construction phase, unless the applicant can demonstrate very clearly how a smaller buffer would suffice. A larger buffer may be required for particularly significant engineering operations, or for after-uses that generate significant disturbance.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 180c) states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: …… c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

The Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI) for the area may be incomplete. We therefore recommend an exercise to complete the ATI (which lists ancient, veteran and notable trees outside woods) across any sites allocated or proposed to be allocated for development, in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 186c) for the protection of irreplaceable habitats.

We recognise the intense pressure to identify and bring forward new sites for housing and employment uses. This pressure makes it all the more important that vital protections for ancient woodland and veteran trees are upheld.

According to the Overall Spatial Development Strategy, the Council will meet the local need for all forms of housing. To achieve this, a minimum of 5,158–7,287 dwellings at an average rate of 258–364 dwellings per annum (dpa) are proposed to be constructed by the end of the Plan period in 2040.

The draft Local Plan is evidenced by a Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment Update (HEDNA) (February 2024) jointly prepared with Hastings Borough Council to assess future development needs up to 2040. This states that the Standard Method calculation results in a minimum Local Housing Need (LHN) figure of 737 dpa for Rother, which is in sharp contrast to the proposed target of 258–364 dpa and the statement within the Overall Spatial Development Strategy is disingenuous.

The Council has consistently failed to deliver against its housing requirement. This has no doubt led to the current acute shortage of housing in Rother and its current identified need. During this time, the need for affordable housing has also become even more acute, with 238 dpa required for affordable rented housing tenure and 87 dpa required to be affordable home ownership tenure. Therefore, the total net annual affordable housing need for the period 2021 to 2044 is 325 dpa (equivalent to 44% of the local housing need figure based on 737 dpa, which is high).

It is clear therefore, that the proposed minimum targets for housing growth do not meet the local need for all forms of housing. The growing need for both market and affordable housing lends emphasis to the requirement for the Council to plan to meet its full assessed need, as required by the NPPF (paragraph 11b and paragraph 23), supporting the Government’s objectives to significant boost the supply of homes (NPPF, paragraph 60). The new Labour Government’s recent announcements about the restoration of mandatory housing targets only go to emphasise the importance of RDC planning to meet the need in full through the plan making process. It is evident that the Council needs to identify further land to ensure that the housing need is met.

It is also important that the Council has regard to any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas when establishing the amount of housing to be planned for, to ensure the Plan is “positively prepared” (NPPF, paragraph 35).

According to the Engagement and Duty to Cooperate Statement, Rother has prepared a Joint Statement with Hastings Borough Council in order to develop and action matters of cross-boundary importance and most importantly, explore joint opportunities to maximise housing delivery. However, other LPAs that neighbour Rother District who may not be able to meet their local housing need include Wealden, Tunbridge Wells, and Ashford, whilst Eastbourne Borough Council has recently declared a Housing Emergency, falling a similar declaration by Crawley Borough Council.

RDC will be required to demonstrate how they have sought to engage with these authorities to establish whether they should be accommodating any unmet need. Demonstrably failing to consider this issue will place the Local Plan at risk of not being found sound. It is therefore even more pressing that the Council plans to meet its housing objective in full, since this could contribute to a worsening housing supply and affordability if there is consistent under delivery of housing in this part of East Sussex and Kent.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

See attached document

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.

Draft Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 – Public Consultation

Hastings Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to formally comment on the Rother District Council Regulation 18 draft Local Plan. Hastings Council is broadly supportive of the Rother Local Plan and its vision, aims and objectives. Specific comments are made here on those areas of the Draft Plan where there are strategic cross-boundary issues. We wish to continue to work with the Rother District Council on these and other matters in the Plan, as work on the Plan progresses as part of meeting Duty to Cooperate requirements.

- Joint Statement:

The Council is supportive of the joint statement and is committed to continuing to work closely together on strategic matters affecting both of our councils’ Plans.

- Housing requirement and Development Strategy:

The joint Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) identifies a need for 14,740 net new homes over Rother’s Plan period. The draft Plan outlines the potential to meet this need through the delivery of between 5,158 and 7,287 new homes. This equates to meeting approximately 50% of the district’s identified housing need, and places a potential pressure on Hastings Council, as a neighbouring authority within the same housing market area, to assist Rother in meeting their full housing need. Rother Council, has, after the start of their Regulation 18 consultation, now formally requested this council’s assistance in meeting their unmet housing need. As established through joint working with Rother planning officers, we will regrettably be unable to assist in meeting any of Rother’s potential unmet need owing to the challenges we face in meeting our own housing targets.

We note that at this draft Regulation 18 stage of the plan making process, (with an additional final public consultation to follow) this draft Plan does not provide any specific allocations but presents sites that have been assessed as part of the Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) process. The draft Plan’s preferred development strategy policy includes development around the Hastings Fringe (as referenced in option SD05 set out in the Development Strategy Background Paper) and identifies small-scale sensitive development around the fringe.

From the HELAA document it can be identified that there are only three sites identified in the Hastings Fringe that would be considered as potentially suitable sites that have not been rejected as part of the HELAA process. Hastings will be keen to discuss these potential sites on the Hastings Fringe and surrounding area as the Rother Plan progresses and further details of specific site allocations come forward. However, in principle, the Council is broadly supportive of the residential development within the Hastings Fringe, subject to the details of specific sites and their constraints.

Furthermore, the council is supportive of the assessment within the HELAA of land at the Breadsell (HAF0007), which indicates that the site is not currently suitable for allocation.

- Strategic Gap:

The Council is broadly supportive of the strategic gaps between Bexhill, Crowhurst and Battle in relation to Hastings, given the importance of the Combe Valley Countryside Park, environmental constraints and the lack of suitability in sustainability terms of these locations to accommodate significant levels of development. The supporting land supply evidence documents should clearly set out how these broad locations have been assessed and discounted for significant development.

- Employment Land:

The draft Plan indicates that it will be possible to meet overall employment needs in terms of having a sufficient supply of land suitable for employment-related development. However, there is an identified undersupply of land suitable for meeting storage and distribution needs. Given the undersupply of land suitable for storage & distribution within Hastings Borough, this could result in a significant under-delivery across the district and borough functional market area combined. The Council would therefore welcome more discussion on meeting employment needs across the two authorities’ areas.

- Flood Risk:

We recognise that flood risks may cross our respective district and borough boundaries. Some watercourses have interactions with, or originate from, watercourses beyond the Hastings borough. In some cases, surface water can enter these watercourses over quite a wide area (the Combe Haven is an example of this). The Council would welcome at this stage in the development of Rother’s Plan, the opportunity to explore whether the Rother Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) is able to consider how surface water discharge may impact on flood risk in Hastings, either through runoff or interaction with watercourses.

- Whole Plan Viability:

As already stated, the Council is generally supportive of the policies that have been proposed in the Draft Local plan and their alignment with Draft Plan objectives. However, the Council notes that there is no whole plan viability assessment underpinning the policy proposals at this time. The Council is therefore keen to understand the viability of Regulation 18 policy proposals set out, as the plan progresses.

We also look forward to the continuing dialogue between the two councils as part of the duty to cooperate process.

The original reponse has been saved as an attachment, titled: 'Regulation 18 Representation - Hastings Borough Council'

Draft Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 – Public Consultation

Hastings Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to formally comment on the Rother District Council Regulation 18 draft Local Plan. Hastings Council is broadly supportive of the Rother Local Plan and its vision, aims and objectives. Specific comments are made here on those areas of the Draft Plan where there are strategic cross-boundary issues. We wish to continue to work with the Rother District Council on these and other matters in the Plan, as work on the Plan progresses as part of meeting Duty to Cooperate requirements.

- Joint Statement:

The Council is supportive of the joint statement and is committed to continuing to work closely together on strategic matters affecting both of our councils’ Plans.

- Housing requirement and Development Strategy:

The joint Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) identifies a need for 14,740 net new homes over Rother’s Plan period. The draft Plan outlines the potential to meet this need through the delivery of between 5,158 and 7,287 new homes. This equates to meeting approximately 50% of the district’s identified housing need, and places a potential pressure on Hastings Council, as a neighbouring authority within the same housing market area, to assist Rother in meeting their full housing need. Rother Council, has, after the start of their Regulation 18 consultation, now formally requested this council’s assistance in meeting their unmet housing need. As established through joint working with Rother planning officers, we will regrettably be unable to assist in meeting any of Rother’s potential unmet need owing to the challenges we face in meeting our own housing targets.

We note that at this draft Regulation 18 stage of the plan making process, (with an additional final public consultation to follow) this draft Plan does not provide any specific allocations but presents sites that have been assessed as part of the Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) process. The draft Plan’s preferred development strategy policy includes development around the Hastings Fringe (as referenced in option SD05 set out in the Development Strategy Background Paper) and identifies small-scale sensitive development around the fringe.

From the HELAA document it can be identified that there are only three sites identified in the Hastings Fringe that would be considered as potentially suitable sites that have not been rejected as part of the HELAA process. Hastings will be keen to discuss these potential sites on the Hastings Fringe and surrounding area as the Rother Plan progresses and further details of specific site allocations come forward. However, in principle, the Council is broadly supportive of the residential development within the Hastings Fringe, subject to the details of specific sites and their constraints.

Furthermore, the council is supportive of the assessment within the HELAA of land at the Breadsell (HAF0007), which indicates that the site is not currently suitable for allocation.

- Strategic Gap:

The Council is broadly supportive of the strategic gaps between Bexhill, Crowhurst and Battle in relation to Hastings, given the importance of the Combe Valley Countryside Park, environmental constraints and the lack of suitability in sustainability terms of these locations to accommodate significant levels of development. The supporting land supply evidence documents should clearly set out how these broad locations have been assessed and discounted for significant development.

- Employment Land:

The draft Plan indicates that it will be possible to meet overall employment needs in terms of having a sufficient supply of land suitable for employment-related development. However, there is an identified undersupply of land suitable for meeting storage and distribution needs. Given the undersupply of land suitable for storage & distribution within Hastings Borough, this could result in a significant under-delivery across the district and borough functional market area combined. The Council would therefore welcome more discussion on meeting employment needs across the two authorities’ areas.

- Flood Risk:

We recognise that flood risks may cross our respective district and borough boundaries. Some watercourses have interactions with, or originate from, watercourses beyond the Hastings borough. In some cases, surface water can enter these watercourses over quite a wide area (the Combe Haven is an example of this). The Council would welcome at this stage in the development of Rother’s Plan, the opportunity to explore whether the Rother Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) is able to consider how surface water discharge may impact on flood risk in Hastings, either through runoff or interaction with watercourses.

- Whole Plan Viability:

As already stated, the Council is generally supportive of the policies that have been proposed in the Draft Local plan and their alignment with Draft Plan objectives. However, the Council notes that there is no whole plan viability assessment underpinning the policy proposals at this time. The Council is therefore keen to understand the viability of Regulation 18 policy proposals set out, as the plan progresses.

We also look forward to the continuing dialogue between the two councils as part of the duty to cooperate process.

The original reponse has been saved as an attachment, titled: 'Regulation 18 Representation - Hastings Borough Council'

See attachments for the submission to the Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation from DHA Planning on behalf of Rurban Estates Limited.

See attachments for the submission to the Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation from DHA Planning on behalf of Catesby Strategic Land Ltd and Rurban Estates Limited.

See attached documents containing from Wates Developments containing:
1) The Consultation Response;
2) A Vision Document for HELAA Site BAT0014: Land at
Almonry Farm, North Trade Road, Battle; and
3) A Transport Note for HELAA Site BAT0014.

See attached.

See attachments for the submission to the Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation from DHA Planning on behalf of Rurban Estates Limited.

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

See attachments for full submission comprising:
- Homes England - Draft Reps R18 plan and Hodson's Mill Robertsbridge (which also contains Appendices A and B);
- Appendix C - Landscape Statement; and
- Appendix D - Site Boundary

The submission contains general comments on the Local Plan and HELAA sites SAL0003 and SAL0024, as well as answers to specific questions as set out in the Local Plan.

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.

See attached documents which comprise the submission:
- Reps- Oak Tree Homes Trust final 2207 (which includes appendices 1-3); and
- 4019_Technical Note_Pond Cottage Main Street Peasmarsh_May24 (Appendix 4).

See attached full representation

Please see attached full representation

Please see the attached full submission from the Home Builders Federation.

On behalf of my client, I write to make submissions to the Rother District Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation. My client has control over land west of Netherfield Court, Netherfield Road, Netherfield, TN33 9PX
These representations relate in particular to the following parts of the Regulation 18 document, titled Rother Local Plan 2020-2040:
•
Housing Need
• Preferred Spatial Development Options
• Relevant Draft Local Policies
A site plan outlining the land promoted for development is included at Appendix 1 and has been considered under the HELAA under reference BAT0065.
Housing Need
The key objective to significantly boost the supply of housing remains a focus of planning policy at all levels. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that to support this aim it is important to ensure a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed.
In addition, paragraph 11b of the NPPF states:
‘Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:
i.
the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area;
or
ii.
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.’
The Regulation 18 consultation identifies the housing need in the district as 14,660 homes for over the twenty-year plan period 2020 to 2040. This figure was identified in the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA, 2024), and was derived using the Standard Method, as required by the NPPF and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This amounts to 733 dwellings per annum. It is not clear from the Regulation 18 consultation whether this figure includes a 20% buffer to be applied as a result of under delivery as set out at paragraph 77 of the NPPF. If the 20% buffer has yet to be applied, housing requirement would increase to 879 dwellings per annum -17,580 dwellings over the plan period.
In any event, the Council have confirmed they do not in fact intend to meet their full housing need (as calculated by the standard method) for a number of reasons most notably the significant landscape and flooding constraints which exist across the district. We accept that footnote 7 of paragraph 11 of the 2023 NPPF allows for a reduction in housing delivery in areas restricted by certain designations, including National Landscape, of which a significant part of the Rother District falls within. However, we do not consider the lower housing figures offered in the Regulation 18 Consultation have been justified or that sufficient reason has been given for not meeting the higher housing need figure identified within the ‘range’ put forward by the LPA, as discussed below. It is acknowledged that the Council have stated that the final figures to be put forward for adoption will be ‘minimum’ figures. However, the history of under delivery of housing since the adoption of the Core Strategy is well documented (as set out paragraph 5.3 of the Regulation 18 Plan) which makes all the more pressing case for the Council to be taking a more radical approach to positively plan for a higher level of housing.
The Council have made a passing reference in the Regulation 18 plan to a number of reasons as to why the housing need figure calculated using the standard methodology cannot be met including:
•
Landscape constraints
•
Constraints resulting from areas lying within flood zones
Beyond a passing reference to environmental constraint, the Council has not set out in detail why they cannot meet their full identified housing need, yet seem to acknowledge the need to plan for higher levels of growth by running an additional call for sites alongside the Regulation 18 consultation. The land west of Netherfield Court would not be constrained by any of the landscape or flooding constraints cited by the Council as reason to not meet full identified housing need.
Whilst it is located within in the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB), the land to the west of Netherfield Court is considered to be capable of accommodating some development without adverse effect on the natural beauty of the High Weald which underpins the designation of this area. The land is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 meaning it is not in an area of the district which is at risk of adverse flooding.
Netherfield has a range of day-to-day facilities that can be accessed from the site, including a primary school and post office. There are also bus stops within Netherfield which provide a number of services to Battle and Heathfield where a wider range of day-to-day facilities can be found.
Paragraph 70 of the NPPF recognises that small scale developments can deliver housing at a faster rate. The land is owned outright by Mr Longbottom and so there are no third-party ownership issues which might prevent or delay development. It is anticipated that a small-scale development here could be delivered at a relatively quick rate.
In accordance with the Government’s objective of significantly boosting housing supply we contend the Council should pursue a higher growth strategy to fully meet the full identified housing need for the plan period. Adopting this approach will allow the Council to develop a long-term sustainable growth strategy which provides flexibility to adapt to changes in demand and allow for the inevitable cases where development does not come forward for some reason or under delivers. This is particularly the case given the history of under delivery in the district. It would also allow for a more consistent delivery rate, allowing for a wider range of smaller sites to be delivered while the infrastructure is put in place to serve larger developments.
Proposed Strategy: Overall Spatial Development Strategy
The Regulation 18 draft local plan identifies a number of spatial strategies across the district to respond to different circumstances, including small-scale development 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 National Landscape.
We support the principle of employing a number of spatial strategies to provide the flexibility to respond to differing circumstances. As a village on the outskirts of Battle, Netherfield is well-placed to take some additional growth. Figure 21 of the Regulation 18 plan identifies housing growth of 33 dwellings based on existing allocations in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan. The Regulation 18 plan does not seek to add any additional development to Netherfield beyond the Neighbourhood Plan allocations. The existence of allocations for housing growth in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan is an indication of the fact that Netherfield is considered to be a suitable location for housing growth and we would contend that moving forward additional allocations for small-scale development should be made in Netherfield.
This is particularly the case as the Neighbourhood Plan allocations for Netherfield have existed since 2021 yet no development has been brought forward on any and there is no guarantee that these allocations will be delivered. One allocation site (White House Farm) has been the subject of a planning application which was submitted in January 2023 and remains undecided due to a number of unresolved objections from statutory consultees. The other allocation site (Swallow Barn) has been the subject of two planning applications which have been refused on a number of grounds including concerns over the proposed access arrangements. It is worth noting that the applications at Swallow Barn have been for 5no dwellings and 4no dwellings respectively as opposed to the 10no dwellings identified in the adopted allocation policy. This factor alone provides justification for making additional allocations within the Netherfield area to ensure that at the minimum the quantum of growth identified under the Neighbourhood Plan is still delivered.
Vision for Battle and Surrounding Settlements
The vision for Battle indicates allowance for ‘small-scale development 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 National Landscape’. The submitted land is situated in a settlement in the area surrounding Battle so in principle is in line with this aspect of the proposed policy. The land has the potential to deliver small-scale development which is respectful of the character of the High Weald National Landscape it lies within.
Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries
Proposed Policy DEV3 states that ‘Development boundaries define the area within sustainable settlements where development will be permitted, provided it is consistent with this Local Plan’.
The explanatory text for this policy explains that settlements identified within Figure 38 (which includes Netherfield) will have their development boundary reviewed as part of the next stage of the Local Plan process.
The development boundary of Netherfield is currently set out in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, as included in Appendix 2. The boundary on the eastern side of Netherfield is on the eastern boundary of Netherfield Primary School and the properties immediately to the south of the primary school. The development boundary as identified excludes significant amounts of existing built form within Netherfield including facilities such as the village hall and Netherfield Arms. We would contend the development boundary for Netherfield requires a comprehensive review so that it is extended to take account of existing built form and facilities. As part of such a review the development boundary should also be extended to take into account any proposed allocations which could include our clients land.
Proposed Policy DEV5: Development on Small Sites and Windfall Development
This policy recognises that historically, small sites and windfall development have played a role in the delivery of housing growth in the District and seeks to continue this reliance. We support the inclusion of this policy.
Site Specific Considerations
The submitted land identified at Appendix 1, lies on the outskirts of Netherfield.
It is noted that Netherfield has been identified within the supporting ‘Settlement Study’ as a settlement of low sustainability despite having three ‘Essential Services’. The reason for this is cited as being low scoring in terms of public transport options. We would contend that given the presence of a relatively high level of essential services (for a settlement of its scale) and the fact that it has been allocated for growth under the Battle Neighbourhood Plan the categorisation of the settlement as a settlement of ‘low sustainability’ should be reconsidered.
Notwithstanding the categorisations of Netherfield as a ‘low sustainability’ settlement it is noted that paragraph 7.25 of the Settlement Study states: ‘Some exceptions are Catsfield, Dallington, Netherfield and Woods Corner, which have each scored 3 out of 5 for access to essential services and could benefit from the provision of additional essential services and/or better public transport accessibility. They could potentially be considered sustainable locations for limited amounts of development, depending on the recommendations of the Development Strategy.’
Coupled with the identified strategy for small-scale development in villages surrounding Battle it is considered that additional growth beyond the Neighbourhood Plan allocations should be considered for Netherfield.
Our client has control over land to the west of Netherfield Court amounting to 2.42 hectares. The land benefits from an existing field access in the south-eastern corner directly onto Netherfield Road although alternative options for a new access along the site frontage could also be explored. It is understood that previous discussions with the Highway Authority secured in-principle agreement to a new access point further west along the site frontage. If this was pursued as an alternative arrangement it would enable existing trees in the south-eastern corner of the site which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order to be preserved and an appropriate buffer from any forthcoming development maintained.
The land is largely vacant agricultural grassland which is not covered by any ecological designations. The boundaries are secured by trees and hedgerows. The retention of the existing tree cover would enable development on the site to be well-screened from adjoining residential properties.
There are no public rights of way within the vicinity of the site and the sites lies within Flood Zone 1.
On the basis of a capacity of 25-45 dph dwellings per hectare (in accordance with proposed policy LWL1) the site would be capable of accommodating up to 60 dwellings as a minimum. However, taking account of the plot sizes surrounding the site and the need to set aside areas for biodiversity net gain it is considered that a lower level of dwellings would be more appropriate likely to be in the region of 6 dwellings focused on the front (southern) portion of the site. It is noted that the HELAA assessment of the site raised concerns about the landscape impacts of development on this site. We would contend that by pursuing a lower level of development focused on the front portion of the site landscape impacts could be minimised. Any forthcoming application would be supported by detailed examination of baseline and future landscape features. Through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the impact of development on the character of the High Weald NL would be assessed and the layout of any forthcoming scheme guided by this.
There are no listed buildings within the vicinity of the site which might be impacted by development of the submitted land.
Netherfield benefits from a number of day-to-day facilities including a primary school, village shop, post office & café and 2no Public Houses. These are all within walking distance of the site although it is acknowledged that a proportion of this distance there is no dedicated footpath. Netherfield lies within relatively close proximity to Battle which has a full range of day-to-day facilities. I trust that the enclosed information is clear and I look forward to receiving confirmation of receipt of this submission.
In the meantime, should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

On behalf of my client, I write to make submissions to the Rother District Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation. My client has control over land west of Netherfield Court, Netherfield Road, Netherfield, TN33 9PX
These representations relate in particular to the following parts of the Regulation 18 document, titled Rother Local Plan 2020-2040:
•
Housing Need
• Preferred Spatial Development Options
• Relevant Draft Local Policies
A site plan outlining the land promoted for development is included at Appendix 1 and has been considered under the HELAA under reference BAT0065.
Housing Need
The key objective to significantly boost the supply of housing remains a focus of planning policy at all levels. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that to support this aim it is important to ensure a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed.
In addition, paragraph 11b of the NPPF states:
‘Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:
i.
the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area;
or
ii.
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.’
The Regulation 18 consultation identifies the housing need in the district as 14,660 homes for over the twenty-year plan period 2020 to 2040. This figure was identified in the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA, 2024), and was derived using the Standard Method, as required by the NPPF and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This amounts to 733 dwellings per annum. It is not clear from the Regulation 18 consultation whether this figure includes a 20% buffer to be applied as a result of under delivery as set out at paragraph 77 of the NPPF. If the 20% buffer has yet to be applied, housing requirement would increase to 879 dwellings per annum -17,580 dwellings over the plan period.
In any event, the Council have confirmed they do not in fact intend to meet their full housing need (as calculated by the standard method) for a number of reasons most notably the significant landscape and flooding constraints which exist across the district. We accept that footnote 7 of paragraph 11 of the 2023 NPPF allows for a reduction in housing delivery in areas restricted by certain designations, including National Landscape, of which a significant part of the Rother District falls within. However, we do not consider the lower housing figures offered in the Regulation 18 Consultation have been justified or that sufficient reason has been given for not meeting the higher housing need figure identified within the ‘range’ put forward by the LPA, as discussed below. It is acknowledged that the Council have stated that the final figures to be put forward for adoption will be ‘minimum’ figures. However, the history of under delivery of housing since the adoption of the Core Strategy is well documented (as set out paragraph 5.3 of the Regulation 18 Plan) which makes all the more pressing case for the Council to be taking a more radical approach to positively plan for a higher level of housing.
The Council have made a passing reference in the Regulation 18 plan to a number of reasons as to why the housing need figure calculated using the standard methodology cannot be met including:
•
Landscape constraints
•
Constraints resulting from areas lying within flood zones
Beyond a passing reference to environmental constraint, the Council has not set out in detail why they cannot meet their full identified housing need, yet seem to acknowledge the need to plan for higher levels of growth by running an additional call for sites alongside the Regulation 18 consultation. The land west of Netherfield Court would not be constrained by any of the landscape or flooding constraints cited by the Council as reason to not meet full identified housing need.
Whilst it is located within in the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB), the land to the west of Netherfield Court is considered to be capable of accommodating some development without adverse effect on the natural beauty of the High Weald which underpins the designation of this area. The land is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 meaning it is not in an area of the district which is at risk of adverse flooding.
Netherfield has a range of day-to-day facilities that can be accessed from the site, including a primary school and post office. There are also bus stops within Netherfield which provide a number of services to Battle and Heathfield where a wider range of day-to-day facilities can be found.
Paragraph 70 of the NPPF recognises that small scale developments can deliver housing at a faster rate. The land is owned outright by Mr Longbottom and so there are no third-party ownership issues which might prevent or delay development. It is anticipated that a small-scale development here could be delivered at a relatively quick rate.
In accordance with the Government’s objective of significantly boosting housing supply we contend the Council should pursue a higher growth strategy to fully meet the full identified housing need for the plan period. Adopting this approach will allow the Council to develop a long-term sustainable growth strategy which provides flexibility to adapt to changes in demand and allow for the inevitable cases where development does not come forward for some reason or under delivers. This is particularly the case given the history of under delivery in the district. It would also allow for a more consistent delivery rate, allowing for a wider range of smaller sites to be delivered while the infrastructure is put in place to serve larger developments.
Proposed Strategy: Overall Spatial Development Strategy
The Regulation 18 draft local plan identifies a number of spatial strategies across the district to respond to different circumstances, including small-scale development 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 National Landscape.
We support the principle of employing a number of spatial strategies to provide the flexibility to respond to differing circumstances. As a village on the outskirts of Battle, Netherfield is well-placed to take some additional growth. Figure 21 of the Regulation 18 plan identifies housing growth of 33 dwellings based on existing allocations in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan. The Regulation 18 plan does not seek to add any additional development to Netherfield beyond the Neighbourhood Plan allocations. The existence of allocations for housing growth in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan is an indication of the fact that Netherfield is considered to be a suitable location for housing growth and we would contend that moving forward additional allocations for small-scale development should be made in Netherfield.
This is particularly the case as the Neighbourhood Plan allocations for Netherfield have existed since 2021 yet no development has been brought forward on any and there is no guarantee that these allocations will be delivered. One allocation site (White House Farm) has been the subject of a planning application which was submitted in January 2023 and remains undecided due to a number of unresolved objections from statutory consultees. The other allocation site (Swallow Barn) has been the subject of two planning applications which have been refused on a number of grounds including concerns over the proposed access arrangements. It is worth noting that the applications at Swallow Barn have been for 5no dwellings and 4no dwellings respectively as opposed to the 10no dwellings identified in the adopted allocation policy. This factor alone provides justification for making additional allocations within the Netherfield area to ensure that at the minimum the quantum of growth identified under the Neighbourhood Plan is still delivered.
Vision for Battle and Surrounding Settlements
The vision for Battle indicates allowance for ‘small-scale development 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 National Landscape’. The submitted land is situated in a settlement in the area surrounding Battle so in principle is in line with this aspect of the proposed policy. The land has the potential to deliver small-scale development which is respectful of the character of the High Weald National Landscape it lies within.
Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries
Proposed Policy DEV3 states that ‘Development boundaries define the area within sustainable settlements where development will be permitted, provided it is consistent with this Local Plan’.
The explanatory text for this policy explains that settlements identified within Figure 38 (which includes Netherfield) will have their development boundary reviewed as part of the next stage of the Local Plan process.
The development boundary of Netherfield is currently set out in the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, as included in Appendix 2. The boundary on the eastern side of Netherfield is on the eastern boundary of Netherfield Primary School and the properties immediately to the south of the primary school. The development boundary as identified excludes significant amounts of existing built form within Netherfield including facilities such as the village hall and Netherfield Arms. We would contend the development boundary for Netherfield requires a comprehensive review so that it is extended to take account of existing built form and facilities. As part of such a review the development boundary should also be extended to take into account any proposed allocations which could include our clients land.
Proposed Policy DEV5: Development on Small Sites and Windfall Development
This policy recognises that historically, small sites and windfall development have played a role in the delivery of housing growth in the District and seeks to continue this reliance. We support the inclusion of this policy.
Site Specific Considerations
The submitted land identified at Appendix 1, lies on the outskirts of Netherfield.
It is noted that Netherfield has been identified within the supporting ‘Settlement Study’ as a settlement of low sustainability despite having three ‘Essential Services’. The reason for this is cited as being low scoring in terms of public transport options. We would contend that given the presence of a relatively high level of essential services (for a settlement of its scale) and the fact that it has been allocated for growth under the Battle Neighbourhood Plan the categorisation of the settlement as a settlement of ‘low sustainability’ should be reconsidered.
Notwithstanding the categorisations of Netherfield as a ‘low sustainability’ settlement it is noted that paragraph 7.25 of the Settlement Study states: ‘Some exceptions are Catsfield, Dallington, Netherfield and Woods Corner, which have each scored 3 out of 5 for access to essential services and could benefit from the provision of additional essential services and/or better public transport accessibility. They could potentially be considered sustainable locations for limited amounts of development, depending on the recommendations of the Development Strategy.’
Coupled with the identified strategy for small-scale development in villages surrounding Battle it is considered that additional growth beyond the Neighbourhood Plan allocations should be considered for Netherfield.
Our client has control over land to the west of Netherfield Court amounting to 2.42 hectares. The land benefits from an existing field access in the south-eastern corner directly onto Netherfield Road although alternative options for a new access along the site frontage could also be explored. It is understood that previous discussions with the Highway Authority secured in-principle agreement to a new access point further west along the site frontage. If this was pursued as an alternative arrangement it would enable existing trees in the south-eastern corner of the site which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order to be preserved and an appropriate buffer from any forthcoming development maintained.
The land is largely vacant agricultural grassland which is not covered by any ecological designations. The boundaries are secured by trees and hedgerows. The retention of the existing tree cover would enable development on the site to be well-screened from adjoining residential properties.
There are no public rights of way within the vicinity of the site and the sites lies within Flood Zone 1.
On the basis of a capacity of 25-45 dph dwellings per hectare (in accordance with proposed policy LWL1) the site would be capable of accommodating up to 60 dwellings as a minimum. However, taking account of the plot sizes surrounding the site and the need to set aside areas for biodiversity net gain it is considered that a lower level of dwellings would be more appropriate likely to be in the region of 6 dwellings focused on the front (southern) portion of the site. It is noted that the HELAA assessment of the site raised concerns about the landscape impacts of development on this site. We would contend that by pursuing a lower level of development focused on the front portion of the site landscape impacts could be minimised. Any forthcoming application would be supported by detailed examination of baseline and future landscape features. Through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the impact of development on the character of the High Weald NL would be assessed and the layout of any forthcoming scheme guided by this.
There are no listed buildings within the vicinity of the site which might be impacted by development of the submitted land.
Netherfield benefits from a number of day-to-day facilities including a primary school, village shop, post office & café and 2no Public Houses. These are all within walking distance of the site although it is acknowledged that a proportion of this distance there is no dedicated footpath. Netherfield lies within relatively close proximity to Battle which has a full range of day-to-day facilities. I trust that the enclosed information is clear and I look forward to receiving confirmation of receipt of this submission.
In the meantime, should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.