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

Please add additional standards to be added to the the policy wording, so that artificial lighting proposals must also:
a) follow the International Dark Sky Community Program Guidelines to ensure lighting is warranted and justified, has appropriate light shielding, warm yellow lighting, only as bright as needed, only where needed and only when needed.
b) Comply with the High Weald Management Plan 2024 and Lighting Guide
c) To prevent increasing light pollution and spillover from already over-lit areas, follow Dark Sky Community Program Guidelines guidelines in all new developments across the district, not just in rural areas.

If possible controlling new domestic outside lighting - perhaps by removing permitted development rights when planning for new dwellings is granted.

The policy wording ‘Large areas of glazing in new building designs, especially wrap-around glazing and floor to ceiling windows, are discouraged, especially in rural areas with intrinsically dark skies’ should include skylights as these are also a major source of light pollution if not covered by curtains or blinds at night.

I would also like to see a policy of getting residents to understand the importance of closing their curtains at night.

Please additionally require that artificial lighting proposals should confirm with Dark Sky UK standards where parishes within Rother are seeking to be, or have become, designated as Dark Sky Communities.

Can we also apply these standards to existing developments as well as new proposals?

Is Rother able to ensure that all local councils in Rother have a Dark Skies policy so when they are looking at planning applications they always consider the lighting impact on the surrounding area of any build?

Restrictions should be put on properties installing floodlights with or without sensors. These light disturb the species of the natural world.

Please find attached Terms of Reference for the Dark Skies Initiative previously mentioned

There is a Dark Skies initiative that over 8 parishes in Rother have joined working towards Dark Skies Community certification. Their terms of reference is attached - could Rother take this groups aims into account in the Local Plan.

Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.

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.

Please see attached document for the full submission from Westfield Parish Council.