Comment

Representation ID: 24792

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

This could be broadened slightly to include small gaps in linear developments on main roads which have access to DRT and also live work units. In addition, consider housing which supports a live in rural training facility.

Comment

Representation ID: 25599

Received: 19/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Mike Rampling

With a housing land supply shortage this is a useful option, particularly if used in conjunction with an S106 to make sure the properties are for local families, enabling people to stay in the place they were brought up if they wish

Comment

Representation ID: 25727

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ms Kathryn Trochimiuk

Disagree with allowing in fill dwellings - this will loose the countryside, damage the remaining habitats for wildlife, visually erode the rural feel to areas. Will disproportionately urbanise areas. Outside of development boundaries usually have little access or walkability to important amenities and Infastructure. Development in these areas should be withheld to keep our green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 26193

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Edwards

Rural settlements and villages have multiple edges along lanes in different directions and multiple gaps. Could have major impact on rural settlement character and reads like an afterthought tagged onto end of HOU13. If continued to next stage would need its own policy with full explanation and planned criteria. Historic village boundaries may be important, especially in High Weald National Landscape AONB and its setting and historic edges and gaps probably continue to exist for a good reason. Edges and gaps often impact on an important view or the setting of a heritage asset. There would be inevitable loss of hedgerows. Erosion of edge character at village entrances. Any policy should be well defined and strict. Why "usually" if this policy is strictly for 1 house or 1 pair of houses? Is a "pair" definitely semi-detached? How will all these dwellings be kept small? Why is overall residential plot size not restricted to minimize impact on rural setting and keep affordable? Public transport has no relevance to 1 dwelling or a pair of dwellings as not required by all home owners and will not distribute the impact of new policy across the countryside. Policy should not apply to add more development to villages with planned extensions to their settlement development boundary through allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 26360

Received: 17/07/2024

Respondent: Burwash Parish Council

Does depend on the individual sites. Open to abuse and interpretation. Boundaries are set for a reason, if flouted then you run the risk of presenting an urbanised frontage. Green gaps and spaces allow for keeping existing rural nature. Urban creep is a concern in rural areas. Specific criteria should be given before allowing ‘in-fill’ sites. Residential curtilage issues and what happens to agricultural land, mostly green gaps made up of agricultural land in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 26949

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Brede Parish Council

support

Comment

Representation ID: 27142

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Westfield Parish Council

See points 199-200 in the attached submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 27257

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Guestling Parish Council

HOU13, Criteria vi 'in-fill' development whether inside or outside development boundaries should not be allowed as it leads to the urbanization or suburbanization in rural villages and settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 27428

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Yes, broadly agree with this policy

Comment

Representation ID: 27645

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.