Comment

Representation ID: 26359

Received: 17/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

No

Comment

Representation ID: 26728

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

HOU 13 (iii) New dwellings in the countryside – add at the end of the sentence ‘and no greater square metreage than the existing dwelling’.

Comment

Representation ID: 26948

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Brede Parish Council

no

Comment

Representation ID: 27644

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.