Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25589
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs Rosalyn Day
Criteria vii should include pollution during the construction phase as often vegetation is removed that would stop mud etc entering a watercourse but SuDS etc would not yet have been provided.
Criteria vii should include pollution during the construction phase as often vegetation is removed that would stop mud etc entering a watercourse but SuDS etc would not yet have been provided.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25715
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
SWT supports this policy and particularly the extra requirements in the Pevensey Levels catchment and the requirement for SuDs to be multifunctional.
SWT supports this policy and particularly the extra requirements in the Pevensey Levels catchment and the requirement for SuDs to be multifunctional.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25942
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Southern Water
Southern Water is strongly supportive of sustainable urban drainage solutions (SuDS) as these will be essential to establishing community resilience to the impacts of climate change into the future. Whilst we appreciate there may be a need for some flexibility, Southern Water considers SuDS essential for all development and asks that the key elements of policy ENV2 are instead proposed within a strategic policy in the next draft of the plan. This is in line with paragraph 167(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023) that requires.
We consider the key strategic elements of Policy ENV2 to be the full content with the exception of point (viii) on which we provide further comments in our response to question 187 of the consultation. Preventing surface water from entering the foul and combined systems is the most sustainable and cost-effective way to reduce storm overflows.
Southern Water is strongly supportive of sustainable urban drainage solutions (SuDS) as these will be essential to establishing community resilience to the impacts of climate change into the future. Whilst we appreciate there may be a need for some flexibility, Southern Water considers SuDS essential for all development and asks that the key elements of policy ENV2 are instead proposed within a strategic policy in the next draft of the plan. This is in line with paragraph 167(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023) that requires:
167(c) using opportunities provided by new development and improvements in green and other infrastructure to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding, (making as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques as part of an integrated approach to flood risk management)
We consider the key strategic elements of Policy ENV2 to be the full content with the exception of point (viii) on which we provide further comments in our response to question 187 of the consultation.
Further explanation and justification:
Preventing surface water from entering the foul and combined systems during heavy rainfall is the most sustainable and cost-effective way to reduce storm overflows. Southern Water is investing heavily in work to reduce releases in part by removing existing connections of surface water to the combined and foul networks. However, even as we deliver this work, development continues to increase surface water run-off in those areas.
This is because, during heavy rain, local sewer networks’ drainage capability can be exceeded by the amount of rainwater that enters the network. Under these conditions, storm overflows can then release excess flows through outfalls into rivers and the sea to prevent flooding of homes and businesses. Storm overflows are part of the network’s original design and are regulated by the Environment Agency. Over time, the expansion of urban settlements as well as ‘urban creep’ (home extensions, conservatories and paving over front gardens for parking) have incrementally added to the amount of rainwater entering sewers, increasing reliance on network pressure release via storm overflows. As stated in Water UK’s 21st Century Drainage Programme;
“The country’s built environment is constantly changing and “urban creep” – home extensions, conservatories and paving over front gardens for parking – can all add to the amount of water going into our sewers and drains. Green spaces that would absorb rainwater are covered over by concrete and tarmac that will not. In fact, studies show that “urban creep” results in a larger increase in predicted flooding than new housing, because it adds more rainwater to these systems’.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26059
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Pett Parish Council
Items 11.27/28/29
The flooding at Pett Level has not only involved surface water. Because the drainage in Fairlight is combined (surface water and sewage), when there is a flood, the flood water contains sewage. Various initiatives are being undertaken to cope with the situation. In addition to the Pathfinder project (in which Pett Level is now participating), included in these is the new Marsham Valley Natural Flood Management Programme, funded by the Environment Agency, which it would be good to mention in the local plan.
Full submission attached
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26402
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Burwash Parish Council
Drainage and water displacement is a real concern. Local knowledge of areas for development and infrastructure for delivering suitable drainage should be carefully considered. Enforcement must be deliverable here against developers that don’t follow policy.
Please see attached comments from Burwash Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26535
Received: 18/07/2024
Respondent: Wealden District Council
Comments on sustainable surface water drainage and the Pevensey Levels SAC/Ramsar, including recognition that RDC have asked WDC to review the the area that is identified as the Pevensey
Levels hydrological catchment (in Figure 16) within the draft Wealden Local Plan, which differs from that which has been identified in Rother’s Habitats Regulations Assessment. Includes support for Porposed Policy ENV2: Sustainable Surface Water Drainage.
Please see full representation below.
Sustainable Surface Water Drainage and the Pevensey Levels SAC/Ramsar:
We strongly support RDC’s policy approach to sustainable drainage in the district in the
draft Rother Local Plan (Proposed Policy ENV2: Sustainable Surface Water Drainage)
which also reflects the joint working we have undertaken to date. Both authorities have
confirmed that within the hydrological catchment of the Pevensey Levels, a minimum of
three stages of treatment will be required. As part of RDC’s response to WDC’s Regulation
18 draft Local Plan, RDC had asked us to review the area that is identified as the Pevensey
Levels hydrological catchment (in Figure 16) within the draft Wealden Local Plan, which
differs from that which has been identified in Rother’s Habitats Regulations Assessment in
support of the draft Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18) Version (April 2024). We
note this comment, and we are committed to engaging constructively with RDC on this
strategic matter to ensure that the same approach in terms of the levels of treatment are
applied in the Pevensey Levels hydrological catchment area. We will work with our own
consultants for the HRA, and we will respond separately to you on this strategic matter.
We also support RDC’s commitment to joint working in relation to developing a Coastal
Change Management Area evidence paper for the adjoining coastlines around the
Pevensey/Normas Bay area and will explore with RDC whether a complementary policy
approach in relation to adjoining coastlines around Pevensey/ Normans Bay would be
beneficial.
Please see attached full representation.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26881
Received: 19/07/2024
Respondent: Fairlight Parish Council
Sustainable Drainage - Questions 186 and 187 Policy ENV
Any development within the proposed allocation site in the Draft Local Plan would cause additional sewage surcharge and flooding within the catchment. Any further development that occurs will also impact the entire sewer system hydraulically, which as mentioned is ultimately limited by the fixed constraints and capacities inherent within the network. Greater sewage input by further development would also add to more spills in all 4 of the CSO sites and along with longer durations of those spills this would make the flooding issues worse. This would undoubtedly contribute to greater pollution than already currently exists. During active discharge it equates to 85% of the sewage pipe at the CSO, the environmental impact would be considerable and contribute further to the impact on the RAMSAR site downstream. The CSO spills alone within Fairlight are excessive, and the additional contribution with ground and surface water flooding, should not be made worse by any proposed development. The dry weather flow spill from a CSO within the catchment last year; the discharge of which is meant solely for emergency hydraulic relief only, is another indicator of serious concern.
Southern Water‘s failure to take account of the creep, infill and development over the preceding decades by updating their Waste Water Treatment Works is not a quick or an easy issue to resolve, if indeed a remedy is possible.
Southern Water has written in correspondence, that the selection of Fairlight for any upgrades, particularly for upgrades to the works, 'has to be measured against the other assets within its regional catchment', so may not receive the necessary resolution at all. Southern Water also make it clear that, 'Their AMP's are to produce indicative costs and timescales; for planning purposes only, and are not a commitment to fund or delivery any option”
See attached
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 26965
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Brede Parish Council
Sustainable drainage model used, be good to have clarity on which guidelines
were used in obtaining the average rainfall calculation.
What consideration has global warming been utilised.
• Extreme wet weather and prolonged rainfall causing grounds to become
saturated and non-absorbent.
• Prolonged dry weather periods causing land to dry out, which can’t soak
away rainfall and water will just run off.
• Highways surface drainage systems, increase in flows and run offmeasures considered to understand volume and impact- are the drains
connected to combined sewage networks or land treatment like soak
aways, catchment ponds
Full submission attached.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27180
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Westfield Parish Council
See point 255 in the attached submission.
Please see attached document for the full submission from Westfield Parish Council.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27236
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Guestling Parish Council
The existing WWTWs in Guestling Parish have inadequate capacity. The WWTWs that outflow into the Rye Bay RAMSAR discharged raw sewage into the above ground drainage system that flows into the Pannel and Marsham sewers more frequently and for a greater number of hours than all the WWTWs between Rock a Nore and Bexhill discharged into the sea. Southern Water would have us believe that their expansion of the Guestling Green WWTW allows for a futher 84 connections to be made. It was following this expansion and modernisation that this WWTW remained the plant with the worst record. It has been stated categorically by the Marsham Future Landscapes Trust that annual rainfall in this area has fallen. This is evidentially untrue for the last 12 years.
Failure of Southern Water's infrastructure is not relevant to planning decisions.
The gap between RDC policy and reality is a major problem in the credibility of planning for the future. Good intentions will not change anything. Connections to the WWT system should only be allowed if the infrastructure is adequate. No housing scheme or house extension should be permitted unless it can be shown demonstrably by Southern Water that they are actually fulfilling their role in safeguarding our environment.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27684
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council
Proposed Policy ENV2: Sustainable Surface Water Drainage
Why is only flood risk and not contamination/pollution mentioned in criteria (vii)?
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?
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27691
Received: 25/07/2024
Respondent: Home Office
Agent: Avison Young
Draft Policy ENV2 relates to Sustainable Surface Water Drainage. It states that all developments should demonstrate all surface water will pass through at least two SuDS treatment stages. For development in the hydrological catchment of the Pevensey Levels, a minimum of three stages of treatment will be required. In relation to this requirement, we note that the current allocation for the site “Bex10” requires “in accordance with DEN5 ‘Sustainable Drainage’ at least two forms of appropriate SuDS are incorporated.” This proposal would therefore represent an increase in the requirement for the site in a redevelopment where SuDS are incorporated.
We would be keen to understand the justification for an increase in requirement for this site above and beyond the existing policy requirement and request that evidence to support this is provided with the Regulation 19 version of the plan. The policy should also have regard to the characteristics of individual sites, in particular in relation to existing and previous development.
See attached documents which comprise the full submission.
In summary, the Home Office:
• acknowledges the proposed removal of the residential allocation (Policy BEX10 of the adopted Local Plan) which relates to the site, given the current ownership of the site by the Home Office, but wishes to ensure that its removal does not hinder the future effective use of the site supporting a brownfield first approach;
• requests that the development boundary for Bexhill incorporates the former HMP Northeye site and consideration is given to the area of Built Form shown within the Settlement Study in this part of Bexhill as the appropriate development boundary for this part of Bexhill;
• requests that environmental targets in the draft plan are aligned with national planning policy and have a robust evidence base to justify any increased requirement, especially where additional policy requirements could make development unviable and potentially delay the ability of landowners to bring appropriate sites forward for development.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27839
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
P348 - ENV2 Q181 – 182
Rye strongly supports. Suggest obligatory sustainable drainage (SuDS) - that as a minimum requires no additional run off rates for any development. There should be the inclusion of permeable surfaces as standard in any development proposals.
Please see attachment
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28096
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Marsham Brook Residents’ Association
Assessment of Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the proposed SuDS policies should be evaluated based on their capacity to mitigate the specific flood risks in Pett Level. This includes their ability to handle both current water flow levels and anticipated increases due to climate change and urban development. So this means that RDC needs a data-based baseline for what current surface runoff rates and their impact on the flood risk in Pett Level. We believe this needs to go beyond a reliance on "greenfield rates."
Question: What standards are being used to assess the effectiveness of SuDS?
Comments: The current policy mentions the use of SuDS but does not specify the standards or performance metrics used to evaluate their effectiveness. We suggest adopting standards from recognized bodies such as the CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753) to ensure that the implemented systems are robust and effective in managing surface water runoff and reducing flood risk.
See attachments for supporting documentation to the representations that have been made
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28134
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
ENV2: Sustainable Surface Water Drainage, p371; The first paragraph of the policy wording should be altered to ensure it reflects Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
terminology with regards to drainage strategies:
“For planning permission to be granted, applicants must demonstrate that sustainable drainage is an integral part of the proposed development and its design *through the submission of a Drainage Strategy*.”
Please see attached submitted document for full comments.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 28263
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Environment Agency
We welcome this policy to promote water quality and water efficiency of any proposed developments.
We would recommend that comment be included to identify that any proposed SuDs features should not drain into land affected by contamination or Made Ground to further prevent the ingress of pollutants into the underlying soils and groundwater. In locations where Made Ground or land affected by contamination may be present (i.e. historic landfills), the Environment Agency should be consulted to ensure that no proposed drainage will cause pollution to controlled waters. This would also be advisable in proposed policy ENV7: Environmental Pollution to prevent the potential washing of contaminants into the underlying groundwater from Land affected by contamination.
We welcome the recommendation for three stages of treatment of surface water be required prior to discharge to the Pevensey Levels to mitigate the impact on water quality and quantity.
Please see full the Environment Agency's representations, please see attached submission document.