Comment

Representation ID: 24791

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Positive with focus on children in villages being able to remain in adult life.

Comment

Representation ID: 25043

Received: 06/07/2024

Respondent: Miss Sarah Talbot

It's a disgrace. We do not need anymore building in Battle.

Comment

Representation ID: 25270

Received: 12/07/2024

Respondent: Richard Bailey

Agent: DHA Planning

https://rother.oc2.uk/admin/

Comment

Representation ID: 25326

Received: 12/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Murphy

The goal of building new houses as in BAT0014 and BAT0026 is purely a drive to add profits to development companies. The national standard requirement for adding new houses should be pushed back on as it does not and has not met the local needs for affordable homes. The Green to the Core approach would be to adapt our exising housing stock for the needs of the current generation. Rother council have not only omited this key source of brown field but many planning permits have been declined that could provide the affordable housing need. A complete assessment of aged housing needs to be conducted so we can have a measured approach to using brownfield using local labour not imported cheap labour as used by the major developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 25583

Received: 18/07/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rosalyn Day

Disagree with allowing 1 or 2 dwellings to infill a gap in a built up frontage. These gaps are often what makes the rural nature of a community and filling them up will bring a more urban setting.
The policy should also be careful about multiple applications for one to one replacement of buildings in the countryside. For example, a small barn can be changed into a dwelling which meets the policy but then another application can come forward for a large garage (with a room in the roofspace) which is also allowed but makes the setting much more domestic, rather than countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 25726

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ms Kathryn Trochimiuk

To maintain countryside, areas outside of the defined boundaries should not be developed. Amenities need to be considered - walkability to services should be a priority - not random plots in middle of nowhere or on edges of rural villages/settlements where there is no infrastructure.
Green gaps should be maintained to ensure countryside and wildlife is protected and sense of rural living maintained.

Comment

Representation ID: 25824

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers

Why on earth would you be putting sites specifically for the elderly in the countryside with next to no public transport or local amenities?

Comment

Representation ID: 25850

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Mr SARAH Whiteman

New dwellings should have a good proportion of 1 and 2 bedroomed properties for first time buyers and those downsizing. Many smaller bungalows which have previously served this need have been redeveloped into two storey large properties which are beyond the means of the local population.
Green spaces between villages should be maintained so that we do not lose the character of our communities and become Hastings urban sprawl. Each village has a unique identity and this should be clearly marked by green boundaries.
Food production should remain a priority on green belt, agricultural land and no land should be taken away from active food production for development to ensure our future food security.

Comment

Representation ID: 26145

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Downes

TIC0008 is unsuitable for development. It is unsafe, not in keeping with the scattered rural developments, would be detrimental to the visual aesthetics and character of the grade two listed properties and has no local amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 26155

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Downes

TIC0008 is unsuitable for development.
Land around slip roads onto major roads should not be
developed as it would prevent road improvements in the future.
The sites would be an intrusion into the AONB east of the A21
Contrary to Core Strategies.
Must preserve veteran oak trees adjacent to the furniture barn.
Safe access to the land to the rear of Sunny Bank cottages would
be impossible to achieve on this fast and dangerous road.
Traffic congestion for the A21 lights often reaches back to the Flimwell Park making access on to the road difficult and at the discretion of those already
queuing.
No walkability to local amenities (doctors, schools, dentist etc). Poor public transport links, which would have to be accessed by walking next to extremely fast & dangerous road. Narrow & in some areas impassable pavements on the roadside.
Wildlife haven and abuts bedgebury which is unique.

Comment

Representation ID: 26358

Received: 17/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

Removed rural areas portion of the policy in previous local plan. Why would accommodation for farms be on a temporary basis? Concern over the statement regarding development boundaries in para 8.118. Does point 5 of the policy open up the ability to build care homes in the High Weald, concern. Development boundary already outlines where development is allowed, so many policies are giving a clause to allow development outside of the defined boundary putting the AONB at risk. Second homes and enforcement of the primary and secondary residence is very difficult to uphold and prove.

Comment

Representation ID: 26605

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

30. Paragraphs 8.118 and 119 undermine the principles of resisting development in the protected AONB. This should be removed.
31. The policy appears to be encouraging care homes to be provided in countryside areas and outside development areas which would be very isolating.
32. Clarity on ‘small gap (vi) is needed. It will encourage people to sell off part of their garden and allows for small incremental planning creep.

Comment

Representation ID: 26830

Received: 31/07/2024

Respondent: Northern Parishes Group

76) With respect, this policy needs some verbal tidying up. It needs to be a prohibitive policy and not a permissive policy. This policy is in significant conflict with the NPPF 2023 para 84 policy. May the group suggest the following?
1 ‘Applications for new dwellings in the countryside will be refused unless one of the following applies.
a) One of the exceptions listed in the NPPF 2023 para 84 policy applies (the essential need of rural workers, appropriate use of heritage assets, redundant farm buildings, the subdivision of an existing residential unit and designs of exceptional quality).
b) The dwelling is a rural exception site as determined by Policy HOU5.
c) The housing is for old people in line with Policy HOU9.
d) The housing is for a single or a pair of dwellings within a settlement outside the development boundary. Sustainability, landscape character, impact on the neighbouring properties and the scenic beauty of the area will be critical in determining its suitability.
2 A settlement in this policy is a distinct group of houses within the landscape.
3 Normally, where permission is granted there will be a condition that the unit must be for primary residency.’
77) The authors will note the following changes in the policy.
a) The word ‘including’ has been removed. This is because there have been attempts for applicants to write in exceptions because it is claimed the list is not closed. This is not good policy. There is however need for some flexibility in the policy and Tesco Stores Ltd. v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 paras 19-22 provides the necessary flexibility.
b) The provision about holiday lets has been removed. This is because the policy causes real injustice in the countryside. With the cost of housing in rural areas higher than in urban areas, the need for affordable accommodation is acute. There have been many instances where young people would like to be able to rent a holiday let but are prohibited from doing so because the accommodation is hoped to be long term. Rother District Council should not have policies which prevent the homeless being housed.

Comment

Representation ID: 26947

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Brede Parish Council

Generally sensible, but the criterion for rural exceptions should be tightened
from ‘meaningful community engagement’ to ‘supported by a clear majority of
the community’

Comment

Representation ID: 27141

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Westfield Parish Council

See points 195-198 in the attached submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 27311

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Wadhurst Parish Council

30. Paragraphs 8.118 and 119 undermine the principles of resisting development in the protected AONB. This should be removed.
31. The policy appears to be encouraging care homes to be provided in countryside areas and outside development areas which would be very isolating.
32. Clarity on ‘small gap (vi) is needed. It will encourage people to sell off part of their garden and allows for small incremental planning creep.

Comment

Representation ID: 27360

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: High Weald AONB Unit

Proposed Policy HOU13: New Dwellings in the Countryside
We are concerned about proposed part vi) to this policy – whilst we support the intention of allowing
very small-scale growth to small settlements and hamlets within the AONB to support thriving rural
communities, we are concerned that the policy could lead to ribbon development or the construction
of large single dwellings in edge-of-settlement locations that could erode the distinctive landscape
settings of settlements and settlement pattern and character in the AONB. Furthermore we are
concerned about the wording that promotes development where the site is either a small gap in an
otherwise built-up frontage – frequent green spaces within settlements, offering glimpse views to the
countryside beyond, are identified in the AONB Management Plan as a key characteristic of the
‘Settlement’ character component of the High Weald’s natural beauty, and Objectives S1 and PQ2 of
the AONB Management Plan are also particularly relevant in this regard. The wording of such a policy
therefore needs careful consideration; we suggest amended wording to part vi) as follows: (though
we would be happy to continue discussing this with you further in more detail)
vi) Very small-scale development; pairs of dwellings or small terraces of 3 or 4 units,
either within a settlement without a development boundary or adjacent to an
existing development boundary, to support thriving rural communities, where:
a) the site is adjacent to the edge of an otherwise built-up frontage; and
b) where the site accords with policies within the Live Well Locally chapter and is
close to local services including public transport connections and accessible to
them by wheeling, walking or cycling; and
c) where the siting, scale and design of the development would support and not
detract from the historic settlement pattern and character of the locality; and
d) where the location of the development would not extend beyond any highly
legible visual and landscape termination to the existing settlement; and
The High Weald Joint Advisory Committee is a partnership between: East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent and Surrey County Councils; Horsham, Mid Sussex,
Tandridge, Sevenoaks, Wealden and Rother District Councils; Tunbridge Wells, Hastings, Ashford, Crawley and Tonbridge & Malling Borough Councils;
Defra; and organisations representing farming, forestry, community, business and recreation interests.
e) where the location of the development would not result in the coalescence of
distinct settlements/dwellings; and
f) where the development would not infill important green gaps through which the
High Weald National Landscape is glimpsed and appreciated.
g) In all cases the proposal must accord with policies in the Landscape Character
and Heritage chapters, safeguarding intrinsic and distinctive landscape character
and scenic beauty and paying particular regard to the conservation of the High
Weald National Landscape and historic environment.
h) To prevent the inappropriate extension of settlements, proposals adjacent to a
site which has previously been developed under this provision will not usually be
permitted.
We are also concerned that at present the draft Local Plan sets out no policy for the retention of
housing for land-based workers through the resistance of removal of Agricultural Occupancy
conditions (or similar) – this is set out as a specific ‘Action’ within the Land-based economy & Rural
Living character component of the High Weald AONB Management Plan, in order to help meet rural
housing needs of land-based workers.
An example of such a condition is:
To support the housing needs of the rural land-based sector, land-based workers’ dwellings
will be restricted to remain available for meeting the accommodation needs of a land-based
worker or any resident dependants living withing the property. The removal of an
occupancy condition will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Council that:
a) There is unlikely to be any need for such rural worker dwellings at the site or within the
local area as demonstrated by an up-to-date assessment of the demand for land-based
worker dwellings;
b) It can be demonstrated that the agriculture, forestry or land based rural business is no
longer financially viable; and
c) Robust and comprehensive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the property
has been subject to continuous marketing for an 18-month period at either a rental or sale
price that reflects the occupancy condition in place.
We advise that a similar condition, with appropriate explanatory text, be included either within
Proposed Policy HOU13 or in a dedicated Land-based Workers Housing policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 27643

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the aims of this policy in principle.

With regard to criteria (vi), we consider the draft wording to be complicated and that it may be difficult to apply when determining planning applications. As drafted, it appears the policy would allow for two houses on the edge of a settlement but then no further additions. While we note the intention, it has the potential to lead to ribbon development along main routes into villages and coalescence of settlements. Once the new houses have been built, it may be difficult to resist further developments, particularly at the end of the plan period as policies become weaker and/or if the exact same approach isn’t continued in future local plans.

The definition of frontages is also open to interpretation and may make it difficult to resist back land schemes within the rural settlements. We note paragraph 5.118 states that: “While development boundaries will normally follow physical boundaries, on occasion, the full depth of property curtilages may be excluded to make clear a policy statement that back land or in-depth development is unacceptable, often because of its additional visual or amenity impact.” There may therefore be situations where the curtilage of a property is excluded from the development boundary, but the dwelling itself is within the settlement boundary. Depending on the layout and pattern of the surrounding settlement, draft Policy HOU13 may make provision for developing the curtilage of this property. This is therefore in conflict with the approach set out at paragraph 5.118 (please see also our response to Q82). We suggest amending the wording to refer to “in-fill” developments on sites which front the public highway and follow the pattern of development found in the locality.

Comment

Representation ID: 28380

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Laurence Keeley

Every village should take a few new homes as enclosed, if each one had say,10 long
two high, or even two sites, each village would benefit, but for the people who
understand village life, not for city retirees To include a village shop or extending the
present shop. May be a supermarket to supply the goods, it must be better
environmental to have one vehicles coming to a collection point than several families
travelling to a town to shop.
Old barns could become holiday lets, not for wealthy retired senior officers.