Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24786
Received: 31/05/2024
Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council
No affordable requirement should be required on sites of .5 hectares or more where the development for very small schemes as already set out in the explanatory text in the current core strategy/DASA y which says:
‘There may be exceptional cases where affordable housing cannot be provided onsite, in which event a financial contribution11 equivalent to the increased value of the development without on-site provision will be required. Financial contributions11 will not be sought on very small schemes, below the 2019 NPPF’s thresholds’
This is not clear in the proposed policy and is underpinned in the NPPF and supported by two recent appeal decisions.
Please see attached comments on draft Local Plan, including Brede Valley Landscape Assessment and East Sussex Landscape Assessment.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25269
Received: 12/07/2024
Respondent: Richard Bailey
Agent: DHA Planning
Please see attached representation, existing and proposed sites plans.
Please see attached representation, existing and proposed sites plans.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25426
Received: 16/07/2024
Respondent: Denbigh Properties Ltd
Agent: DHA Planning
Please see attached:
- Draft Local Plan Representations
- Site Location Plan
- Existing Site Layout Plan
- Call for Sites Illustrative Layout Plan
Please see attached:
- Draft Local Plan Representations
- Site Location Plan
- Existing Site Layout Plan
- Call for Sites Illustrative Layout Plan
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25620
Received: 14/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Ian Roberts
Objection to the allocation of funding to a Community Land Trust for the development of HELAA site GUE0010 ‘Land at Fairview’
Please see submission text and the attached supporting document for full representation.
My immediate concern was not in relation to funding construction but the apparent waste of funds allocated to the CLT who appear toe spending substantial sums on ‘investigating the site’s suitability’ for development when this has already been assessed as unsuitable in the HELA Assessment and it does not appear to require professional evaluation of the site in relation to existing and proposed Council policies and requirements as outlined in the Development plan to determine that it does not comply with many of them.
I would like to make it clear that I am strongly in favour of construction of sustainable social and low cost housing in the right locations. i.e. those with active travel routes to local infrastructure and served by good public transport links.
I feel that this could be achieved through rejecting applications for exclusive ‘high end’ housing developments unless a mix of low cost and social housing is ensured on every site.. The consequence of allowing a pseudo social-conscience fund (AKA Rother’s Commuted Sum Fund) is clearly resulting in exclusive homes for the wealthy on prime sites and funding development on low cost, unsuitable sites such as the one at Fairview for people on low incomes.
I question whether money allocated to the CLT for proposals at Fairview could be better spent on bringing empty homes back into use, and tightening controls on second homes and holiday lets which remain empty for long periods of time.
If new homes are constructed on the Fairview site, future residents on low incomes in that location are likely to be ‘marooned on site’ due to lack of safe active travel routes and extremely poor public transport to any local services including schools, shops, meeting places, play parks, sports facilities and entertainment.
Since any construction will have a life expectancy of decades, the suggestion that these homes will be carbon neutral will be entirely negated over time by private vehicle movements by any residents who are lucky enough to be able to afford their own vehicles.
I continue to believe that the perception of ‘cheap’ land at Fairview is clouding the judgement of the CLT. The HELA Assessment has already concluded that the site would result in car dependency for future residents (who can afford private transport) and, by implication detriment to those who cannot. For this reason alone, the project is also environmentally unsustainable.
It is also clear that the site does not comply with numerous policies and requirements set out in Development Pan proposals.
Any future development will clearly provide homes for generations to come so it is utter folly to build in the wrong place because the land is ‘cheap’.
I strongly believe that funds being wasted on investigating this unsuitable site could be spent elsewhere on provision of low cost and social housing on sites which do fulfil requirements of the local plan in terms of genuine environmental sustainability where further residents can gain safe access to local infrastructure through active travel and public transport.
Please see attached supporting document for full representation.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25685
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr John Edmunds
Affordable housing within an area where there is an identified need is acceptable subject to the correct site being chosen (not just because it is cheap) and is considered safe both within the site and in the surrounding locality for the new and existing residents. This must also apply whilst a build is taking place. It has to comply fully with the NPPF and local planning. Nothing should be approved just to play a numbers game because if a wrong site is chosen (lack of transport, doctors, school, shop) then it is likely renters will not stay.
Affordable housing within an area where there is an identified need is acceptable subject to the correct site being chosen (not just because it is cheap) and is considered safe both within the site and in the surrounding locality for the new and existing residents. This must also apply whilst a build is taking place. It has to comply fully with the NPPF and local planning. Nothing should be approved just to play a numbers game because if a wrong site is chosen (lack of transport, doctors, school, shop) then it is likely renters will not stay.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25745
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers
How has this document reached this stage with the wording 'a minimum of x percent'? is this supposed to relate to the figures quoted below, if so, it needs to be tied in, if not what does it actually mean? Leaving Rother to negociate on our behalf is no a good idea and gives no confidence in this plan.
What happened to the requirement for homes in villages and the countryside to have a greater percentage of affordable homes? Not having this, and given that Rother has a high proportion of elderly residents, will mean that villages will not be able to sustain their lives as younger people who want to work locally i.e. on the land will not be able to live in them. Rural areas and villages should have almost 100% affordable housing to enable them to survive.
How has this document reached this stage with the wording 'a minimum of x percent'? is this supposed to relate to the figures quoted below, if so, it needs to be tied in, if not what does it actually mean? Leaving Rother to negociate on our behalf is no a good idea and gives no confidence in this plan.
What happened to the requirement for homes in villages and the countryside to have a greater percentage of affordable homes? Not having this, and given that Rother has a high proportion of elderly residents, will mean that villages will not be able to sustain their lives as younger people who want to work locally i.e. on the land will not be able to live in them. Rural areas and villages should have almost 100% affordable housing to enable them to survive.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26003
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Trustees of Steellands Farm
Agent: Mr Geoff Megarity
The key issue with the proposed policy is that there is no percentage of affordable housing provided as part of the policy. The client accepts the principle of such policy, subject to viability, but cannot adhere to the policy wording as it stands in the absence of a percentage. Only once a percentage is included in the policy can there be a proper assessment of the policy wording.
The key issue with the proposed policy is that there is no percentage of affordable housing provided as part of the policy. The client accepts the principle of such policy, subject to viability, but cannot adhere to the policy wording as it stands in the absence of a percentage. Only once a percentage is included in the policy can there be a proper assessment of the policy wording.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26335
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Parish Council
Emphasis on young people buying first homes not mentioned here. Does shared ownership form part of the policy of affordable housing in the plan?
Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26466
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: NHS Property Services
Draft Policy HOU2 Affordable Housing
In undertaking further work on local housing needs, we suggest the Council consider the need for
affordable housing for NHS staff and those employed by other health and care providers in the local
authority area. The sustainability of the NHS is largely dependent on the recruitment and retention
of its workforce. Most NHS staff need to be anchored at a specific workplace or within a specific
geography to carry out their role. When staff cannot afford to rent or purchase suitable
accommodation within reasonable proximity to their workplace, this has an impact on the ability of
the NHS to recruit and retain staff.
Housing affordability and availability can play a significant role in determining people’s choices about
where they work, and even the career paths they choose to follow. As the population grows in areas
of new housing development, additional health services are required, meaning the NHS must grow
its workforce to adequately serve population growth. Ensuring that NHS staff have access to suitable
housing at an affordable price within reasonable commuting distance of the communities they serve
is an important factor in supporting the delivery of high-quality local healthcare services. We
recommend that the Council:
• Engage with local NHS partners such as the local Integrated Care Board (ICB), NHS Trusts
and other relevant Integrated Care System (ICS) partners.
• Ensure that the local need for affordable housing for NHS staff is factored into housing needs
assessments, and any other relevant evidence base studies that inform the local plan (for
example employment or other economic policies).
• Consider site selection and site allocation policies in relation to any identified need for
affordable housing for NHS staff, particularly where sites are near large healthcare
employers.
Full representation attached.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26487
Received: 18/07/2024
Respondent: Battle Town Council
Q116. For planning applications where affordable housing is approved, following applications to change the conditions will be greatly deplicated.
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: 26700
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Devine Homes PLC
Agent: Nexus Planning
See attached submission (specifically pages 5 and 6) for comments on Policy HOU2.
Please see attached full submission from Nexus Planning on behalf of their client Devine Homes regarding the Local Plan and HELAA Site SAL0012: Land at Bishops Lane, Robertsbridge
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26777
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Rurban Estates Limited
Agent: DHA Planning
Please see "RDC Reg 18 Reps - Rurban Estates Ltd - Land east of Summerleas" attachment, specifically section 2.17.
See attachments for the submission to the Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation from DHA Planning on behalf of Rurban Estates Limited.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26827
Received: 31/07/2024
Respondent: Northern Parishes Group
70) This provision has been much misused in the past. Developers, who have no intention of offering affordable housing, obtain planning permission for homes with the promise of affordable housing and then produce a viability report saying that affordable homes are no longer possible. The policy should contain a statement that where affordable housing is offered the applicant must provide a viability statement with his or her application. If there is no such viability statement the application will rejected as an application without the required information.
71) The first full paragraph of the policy box is hard to understand. The group wonders whether the X is to be filled in later or is one that is left open because it varies from site to site. Either way the group considers that 40% is the appropriate figure which can be reduced when viability is challenged.
72) Looking at all the pages on affordable homes the group think this is a good example where what needs to be said should be said and everything else excluded. This would make this section (pages 229-248) 1/3 or ¼ of the size that it is now.
Full representation attached
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26935
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Brede Parish Council
Affordable housing must be just that, affordable, and delivered as planned
Full submission attached.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26999
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Northiam Parish Council
NPC supports the approach taken by RDC.
See attached.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27024
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Rurban Estates Limited
Agent: DHA Planning
See "RDC Reg 18 Reps - Rurban Estates Ltd - Watermill Lane" attachment, specifically section 2.17.
See attachments for the submission to the Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation from DHA Planning on behalf of Rurban Estates Limited.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27116
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Westfield Parish Council
See points 156-161 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: 27206
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land
Agent: Stantec UK Ltd
See attached representations regarding:
- Proposed Policy HOU2: Affordable Housing
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
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27251
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Guestling Parish Council
Proposed Policy HOU2 on Affordable Housing is correct. Insufficient information is given in the Reg 18 Commentary to be able the answer Q118 [affordable housing v CIL]
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27298
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Trustees of Steellands Farm
Agent: Mr Geoff Megarity
The key issue with the proposed policy is that there is no percentage of affordable housing provided as part of the policy. The client accepts the principle of such policy, subject to viability, but cannot adhere to the policy wording as it stands in the absence of a percentage. Only once a percentage is included in the policy can there be a proper assessment of the policy wording.
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.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27514
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Rurban Estates Limited
Agent: DHA Planning
See section 2.17 of the attached response.
See attached document for the representation.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27524
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mountfield Parish Council
Given that, because of high accommodation costs and poor public transport connectivity, younger parishioners are having to relocate to urban areas (notably Hastings/St Leonards), MPC has an interest in the provision of cheaper accommodation within neighbouring parishes/settlements.
The increasing tendency for developers to assert that 30% affordable housing is unachievable and, in fact, that even one unit of affordable accommodation would render a development unviable should be challenged regularly by Rother District Council (RDC) by way of commissioning independent viability assessments.
Mountfield Parish Council (MPC) is of the view that there is little of concern within the Draft Rother District Local Plan.
MPC notes that no potential development sites have been identified in the Draft Housing Economic and Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) within the Parish of Mountfield. However, MPC is keen to seen affordable accommodation provided for younger parishioners and households and, consequently, should any potential exception sites become available it would be keen to help facilitate the provision of lower cost and (at least) carbon neutral units of accommodation, subject to them meeting local requirements for tenure, size and housing mix – and designs that complement (rather than harm) the High Weald National Landscape.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is little prospect of new build residential development within Mountfield in the foreseeable future, MPC does have a concern about such development in surrounding parishes – particularly the larger settlements of Battle (our market town) and Robertsbridge. Any infrastructure deficiencies – for example, if health and medical services cannot meet the demands of rising local populations – are likely to impact Mountfield parishioners adversely.
Therefore, MPC would support a requirement that those applying for consent for developments above a certain number of units of accommodation should provide evidence of engagement with infrastructure providers. Adequate and accessible infrastructure should exist – or be put in place before, or shortly after, developments are completed.
Given that, because of high accommodation costs and poor public transport connectivity, younger parishioners are having to relocate to urban areas (notably Hastings/St Leonards), MPC has an interest in the provision of cheaper accommodation within neighbouring parishes/settlements.
The increasing tendency for developers to assert that 30% affordable housing is unachievable and, in fact, that even one unit of affordable accommodation would render a development unviable should be challenged regularly by Rother District Council (RDC) by way of commissioning independent viability assessments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27541
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Westcott Leach Ltd
Agent: DHA Planning
See section 2.17 of the attached representation.
See attachment for the full representation.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27624
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Southern Housing
The supporting text (paragraph 8.22) states that the HEDNA indicates there is a need for 325 affordable homes per annum, and that this figure is greater than the annual average of all homes delivered since 2011. This highlights the severe lack of housing delivery across Rother. As set out in our responses to Q77 and Q76, the Council should aim for the higher level of growth to try and meet as much housing need as possible (both market and affordable). Failure to meet identified need will ensure a large level of unmet need later in the plan period/start of the next local plan period. This will make it difficult to deliver the level of economic and other growth identified in the draft local plan. Subject to the review identified at (paragraph 7.9) of the HELAA, RDC should consider maximising the number of homes and ensuring the percentage of affordable homes is adjusted accordingly.
We welcome the fact the draft policy (footnote 52) acknowledges the approach for First Homes may change. RDC should consider allowing flexibility to deliver other affordable tenures in lieu of First Homes, particularly on 100% affordable schemes.
Please see also our response to Q77 and Q76 relating to the development strategy.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27658
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Dallington Parish Council
Given that, because of high accommodation costs and poor public transport connectivity, younger parishioners are having to relocate to urban areas (notably Hastings/St Leonards), DPC has an interest in the provision of cheaper accommodation within neighbouring parishes/settlements.
The increasing tendency for developers to assert that 30% affordable housing is unachievable and, in fact, that even one unit of affordable accommodation would render a development unviable should be challenged regularly by Rother District Council (RDC) by way of commissioning independent viability assessments.
Dallington Parish Council (DPC) is of the view that there is little of concern within the Draft Rother District Local Plan.
DPC notes that no potential development sites have been identified in the Draft Housing Economic and Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) within the Parish of Dallington. However, DPC is keen to seen affordable accommodation provided for younger parishioners and households and, consequently, should any potential exception sites become available it would be keen to help facilitate the provision of lower cost and (at least) carbon neutral units of accommodation, subject to them meeting local requirements for tenure, size and housing mix – and designs that complement (rather than harm) the High Weald National Landscape.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is little prospect of new build residential development within Dallington in the foreseeable future, DPC does have a concern about such development in surrounding parishes – particularly the larger settlements of Battle (our market town) and Robertsbridge. Any infrastructure deficiencies – for example, if health and medical services cannot meet the demands of rising local populations – are likely to impact Dallington parishioners adversely.
Therefore, DPC would support a requirement that those applying for consent for developments above a certain number of units of accommodation should provide evidence of engagement with infrastructure providers. Adequate and accessible infrastructure should exist – or be put in place before, or shortly after, developments are completed.
Given that, because of high accommodation costs and poor public transport connectivity, younger parishioners are having to relocate to urban areas (notably Hastings/St Leonards), DPC has an interest in the provision of cheaper accommodation within neighbouring parishes/settlements.
The increasing tendency for developers to assert that 30% affordable housing is unachievable and, in fact, that even one unit of affordable accommodation would render a development unviable should be challenged regularly by Rother District Council (RDC) by way of commissioning independent viability assessments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27712
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Bellway Homes
Agent: DHA Planning
See section 3.18 of the attached "DHA Response to RDC Reg 18 Draft Local Plan".
The full submission comprises of:
- DHA Response to RDC Reg 18 Draft Local Plan; and
- Site Location Plan
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27759
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
There are 5 affordable housing policies with some repetition between the policies.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27813
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
Rother retains control of numbers (mainly around assessment of viability) of “Affordable housing, the exact mix of housing sizes and types shall be identified through discussions with the District Council. The starting point for discussions is that the majority of dwellings for social or affordable rent and First Homes shall be of one and two bedrooms and the majority of intermediate affordable dwellings for sale shall be of two and three bedrooms, subject to identified local affordable housing needs;”
Please see attachment
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27866
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Graham Edenborough
Agent: Rubix Estates
Affordability and affordable housing delivery are significant issues that the Council need to address
through the new Local Plan. Increasing the delivery of affordable housing will need to be balanced
against infrastructure requirements/
Recognising previous affordable housing delivery issues, it is often medium sized greenfield
developments such as this site in Bexhill that are most capable of delivering affordable housing. The
landowner and other sites nearby have a proven track record of providing policy compliant levels of
affordable housing.
Overall, Rubix Estates and the landowners believe that Rother District Council has not yet reached a
point where it can credibly claim that an appropriate balance has been reached between meeting housing needs and respecting the district’s environmental characteristics and constraints. As such,
the proposed approach is not currently regarded as justified or positively prepared, nor does it
appropriately contribute to the achieving of sustainable development.
We look forward to onwards participation in the Local Plan consultation, and to working with officers at
the appropriate time in the preparation of a planning application.
See full representation as attachment
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27996
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Giles Cartwright
Number of people: 4
Agent: Rubix Estates
Affordability and affordable housing delivery are significant issues that the Council need to address
through the new Local Plan. Increasing the delivery of affordable housing will need to be balanced
against infrastructure requirements/
Recognising previous affordable housing delivery issues, it is often medium sized greenfield
developments such as this site in Battle that are most capable of delivering affordable housing. The
landowner and other sites nearby have a proven track record of providing policy compliant levels of
affordable housing.
Overall, Rubix Estates and the landowners believe that Rother District Council has not yet reached a
point where it can credibly claim that an appropriate balance has been reached between meeting
housing needs and respecting the district’s environmental characteristics and constraints. As such,
the proposed approach is not currently regarded as justified or positively prepared, nor does it
appropriately contribute to the achieving of sustainable development. We look forward to onwards participation in the Local Plan consultation, and to working with officers
at the appropriate time in the preparation of a planning application
Please refer to document attached