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

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy. We would like to see encouragement of the use of nature-based solutions when it comes to flood risk and coastal management. We also recommend that applicants within the Pevensey Levels catchment are encouraged to undertake early discussions with the Pevensey and Cuckmere Water Level Management Board.

Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker for the Rother district. We support the intention of Policy ENV1, in particular sections (i) and (ii). However, we must also request wording changes to parts of the policy, as explained further below. We also provide additional comments on this policy in our response to question 185.

Requested changes:
iv)a. agreement by the wastewater provider that checks indicate there is sufficient network capacity to serve the proposed development.

Further explanation and justification:
Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker for the Rother district, and supplies water to parts of the district. Statutory water companies must undertake a series of checks and then plan investment in line with water industry funding routes and cycles. Upgrades are planned, delivered and funded through two main mechanisms – one relates to ‘network’ capacity, the other to wastewater treatment process (quality and capacity).
Southern Water supports early engagement from developers. However, we do not see how the current wording of this policy would allow developers to follow it or, therefore, decision makers to react to development proposals. Water utilities must plan and deliver enhancements in the most appropriate way, as determined by our experts in line with; water industry methodologies, Environment Agency consideration of impacts to the receiving environment, and Ofwat approval and funding mechanisms.
In the development of planning policy, it is important to understand that wastewater treatment process (and capacity) is separate to sewage network capacity. We offer the following points of explanation where this helps to support your further development of this policy:
• Wastewater Treatment Works (WTWs) treat wastewater collected from homes and businesses within their ‘catchment’ via a network of connecting pipes and pumping stations. WTWs are significant assets, upgrades to which are funded through the water industry’s 5 yearly investment plan which sets out spending requirements over the next 5 year period (AMP) using customer generated income. Funding is sought by the statutory wastewater undertaker in line with:
o Enhanced quality criteria in environmental permits issued by the Environment Agency, and as part of the Water Industry National Environmental Programme (WINEP) agreed by the Environment Agency.
Once final, the WINEP will also confirm the programme to enhance treatment processes to reach Technically Achievable Limits (in consideration of nutrient loading across catchments).
o Southern Water’s monitoring of published housing land supply data and adopted local plans that feeds our investment planning process.
Once funding is approved, water company investment plans can then be incorporated within the infrastructure delivery plan that supports the Local Plan.
• A growing population and an increase in development can add pressure to existing systems. However, the current design of many wastewater systems may also be sufficient to serve the wastewater from total populations indicated.
• When considering planning policy, we must also ensure that storm overflow releases are not confused with the discharge of final treated effluent. In terms of storm overflows, better rainwater management through provision of SuDS is the preferred approach to avoid placing added pressure on drainage networks during heavy rainfall. As set out in Defra’s Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan “Water companies must remove rainwater from the combined sewer system as part of effectually draining their areas. This should include limiting any new connections of surface water to the combined sewer network, and any new connections should be offset by disconnecting a greater volume of surface water elsewhere within the network".
• Any upgrades (reinforcements) that are needed on the sewage network, specifically to accommodate new development, are funded through the new infrastructure charge to developers - https://www.southernwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/our-services/water-services/connecting-charging-arrangements/
Such upgrades are the responsibility of the statutory wastewater undertaker to plan and deliver once a planning application is granted as it is normally to serve that one development.
Whilst we agree that the planning system has a role in seeking to ensure the combined impacts of urban creep and climate change protect the quality of the water environment, Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker for Rother. There is a separate statutory regime governing the provision of sewerage and wastewater treatment under the Water Industry Act 1991. Through well evidenced policy making, there is an opportunity to work in partnership with local planning authorities to ensure that new connections to the sewer are sensibly managed, although local planning authorities should not seek to duplicate the roles and responsibilities of the statutory undertaker whose responsibility it is to identify and deliver the enhancement needed. Southern Water is the competent authority when it comes to wastewater treatment and the network connecting homes to this.
It is therefore not clear how the current wording of draft policy ENV1 could be implemented when the statutory wastewater undertaker is responsible. We therefore request changes to the policy, in line with paragraph 16(d) of the NPPF (2023) that also requires Local Plans:
(d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;

I will start off by commenting that it is a very detailed ambitious plan covering many aspects of life in Rother. I am not sure whether many parts of it will come to fruition due to the cost and I understand that Rother is putting aside a huge sum of money to repair our dreadful roads. The roads suffer from the amount of lorries and industrial vehicles which thunder through our towns and villages.

Due to the incompetence of the Council the Plan which should have been out on 2024 is now due in 2026.

Our local plan which was worked on for 3 years and is very detailed was supposed to take us to 2039. That has now been changed without consultation to 2028. Why?

My comments of course mainly relate to Peasmarsh where I live but I have made comments on other parts of the Plan

In section 1.9 Peasmarsh has been missed out as one of the Villages which have a Local Adopted Plan so it should state 8 Villages – not 7.

In Fig. 35 on Page 173 it does state that Peasmarsh has a Local Adopted Plan.

Our Village, Peasmarsh suffers from flooding, sewerage problems and electricity failures.

The warden assisted development in the Maltings was closed – people were relocated away and a large new development built on the site ( the only 3 storey development in Peasmarsh). The grassed area was built on and now properties in Farm Gardens below this development have flooding problems as no measure was put in place to cope with the problems caused by concreting this entire area. Also the roads were left in a poor state from all the heavy equipment and vehicles used to erect this development.

I agree with high standards for building (though no mention was made of fire safety).

The very old listed Church, at the highest point of the Village, suffered from flooding last year and this year so half of the Graves and the path were under water. Not much hope for the Village which is lower down!

No mention is made of the specific needs of children and the facilities required to enable them to do well in this area.

Farmland should be protected which will help food security and fits well with your Green to the Core and Live Well Locally emphasis in the Plan

Our farmers need all the help they can get and their produce and livestock means we can buy locally (less food and transport miles)

8.94 I agree that it is not appropriate to make provision for higher levels of care beds.

Mention was made in the Plan of Roads and Streets but none about Lanes – which you find in most Villages.

Public Rights of Way should be upheld though a proviso should be added regarding dogs being kept on leads on fields containing livestock. Again a sheep owned by our local farmer was savaged by a dog allowed to run loose.

I agree that Ancient Woodlands, SSSI’s should be protected and Dungeness which is a unique site in itself.

I agree that Habitats and Dark Skies should be protected. I hope we never have street lighting in Peasmarsh.

Brownfield sites and disused buildings should be identified and used for any new development NOT Greenfield sites

In principle I agree with ENVI – Coastal Water and Flood Risk Management and EC07.

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

Chapter 3 – Green to the Core
Proposed Policy GTC1: Net Zero Building Standards
Operational Energy (A)(i)(c) - A maximum space heating demand for new buildings (small scale housing) of 15 kWh/m2 per year.
What is small scale housing? 15KWh/m2 per year is passivhaus standard – do you think this is possible for the majority of housing? If small scale housing is only a subset of most of the houses to be built, what is their target for space heating demand?

Proposed Policy GTC2: Net Zero Retrofit Standards
What proportion of dwellings to be retrofitted do you think this will impact? Surely most do not need planning permission?
It has been stated that the current level of demolition and subsequent replacement through new build contributes five times more greenhouse gases than air travel. While unsure of the evidence for this statement, is RDC satisfied that their policy promotes retrofit strongly enough?

Proposed Policy GTC3: Construction Materials and Waste
Do you know if developers currently have designs that use a Design for Disassembly approach or is that something that needs to be promoted to architects?

Proposed Policy GTC4: Water Efficiency
Will this policy be able to keep up with potential future reductions in water usage? The RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) 2030 Climate Challenge promotes 75l/p/day potable water usage.
Would the policy benefit from an “update” statement as GTC1 (A, i, d) does?

Proposed Policy GTC6: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy
Why does this policy not include criteria about improving biodiversity e.g. making areas into small nature reserves and that any biodiversity improvements should be retained at the end of life of the site?

Proposed Policy GTC7: Local Nature Recovery Areas
Will planners use local Biodiversity Audits (such as Crowhurst has) to help identify areas as important?
Could iii) “it directs Biodiversity Net Gain to where it can be of most benefit” be used by developers to increase BNG offsite from developments, even to non-local areas?

Proposed Policy GTC8: Biodiversity Net Gain
How confident are you that the 20% min BNG will be allowed?

Proposed Policy GTC9: High Weald National Landscape (AONB)
Should there be more to the sentence “To support the integrity and importance of the High Weald NL and conserve and enhance its important landscape and scenic beauty the following policy approaches have been explored:” at the end of para 3.64 on p60?

Chapter 4 – Live Well Locally
Proposed Policy LWL2: Facilities and Services

This policy states that developments in village areas should be within safe walking or cycling distance of a range of seven specified local amenities. The Crowhurst developments are within range of three of the listed facilities. The policy then states that where a development does not comply, it should be within walking distance of a suitable bus stop, with transport to an area containing these facilities. In our case these facilities (food shop, GP surgery etc) are accessible in Battle or Hastings via the station or the flex bus. We suggest amending the policy to include these transport hubs.

Chapter 5 – Development Strategy and Principles
Proposed Policy DEV2: Comprehensive Development and Master planning

If a developer subsequently reneges on specified aspects of an approved planning application, e.g. by reducing the affordable housing element, will the Council consider voiding the approval?

Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries

With reference to paragraph 5.119, can you confirm how, when and in what circumstances village development boundaries may be reviewed?

Proposed Policy DEV5: Development on Small Sites and Windfall Development

Parishes are currently not able to control identification of sites of less than five dwellings through the neighbourhood planning process. Paragraph 5.132 states that it is likely that future neighbourhood plans will be able to identify smaller sites, with no site size threshold. Does this equally mean that small sites considered unacceptable through the neighbourhood plan process would have a presumption for planning permission to be refused?

Proposed Policy DEV6: Strategic Green Gaps

Policy DEV6 refers repeatedly to the vulnerability of the various strategic gaps including between Crowhurst and Hastings/Saint Leonards. How firm is your intention to maintain the strategic gap?

Chapter 11 – Environmental Management
Proposed Policy ENV1: Coastal, Water and Flood Risk Management
Does criteria ii) include during construction of new developments when vegetation that would normally slow water run-off may have been removed but any required flood alleviation has not yet been put in place? (even though this is mentioned in ENV2 (vii))?

Proposed Policy ENV2: Sustainable Surface Water Drainage
Why is only flood risk and not contamination/pollution mentioned in criteria (vii)?

Proposed Policy ENV5: Habitats and Species
Should ancient and veteran trees also be protected by TPO’s if development is taking place near them?
Will developers also be encouraged to use local Biodiversity Audits as information?

Chapter 12 - Heritage
Proposed Policy HER2: Traditional Historic Farm Buildings
Although you mention nesting birds in para 12.29, should it be specifically mentioned in the policy as conversion of farm buildings often ends up blocking access to birds’ nesting sites inside?
Will conversion to residential proposals also have to meet sustainable location criteria as farm buildings are often at a distance from other buildings?

Please see attachment

See attachments for supporting documentation to the representations that have been made

See attachments for supporting documentation to the representations that have been made

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.

Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.