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

All habitats are irreplaceable. This policy massively conflicts with the proposed development sites that are almost entirely on greenfield.

This policy should either be priority over and above all others or removed entirely as patent greenwashing.

A house or two in a bio-diverse area can have a negative impact but the habitat at least has a chance of being regained with appropriate measures. A large housing development with a few saplings, some bird bricks and bat-boxes will decimate the habitat and is a waste of time.

On the other hand, the big butterfly count will be a lot easier in future, as we'll be able to count them on one hand!

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy, however it should be more explicit that development leading to loss or harm to designated sites, including Local Wildlife Sites, will be refused. Paragraph 185 of the NPPF is clear that local plans should ‘identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including… locally designated sites.’ Further to this, Planning Practice Guidance (Ref ID: 8-013-20190721) makes clear that ‘National planning policy expects plans to identify and map these sites, and to include policies that not only secure their protection from harm or loss but also help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks.’ As it stands, draft policy ENV5 is not strong enough.

The policy should also be explicit that developments leading to the loss or harm of ancient woodland, veteran trees or other irreplaceable habitats will be refused. We do support the inclusion of the requirement for a buffer to ancient woodland, but would like to see this extended as it has been in the draft policy NE4 of the emerging Wealden Local Plan:

‘In the absence of site surveys and detailed assessments that demonstrate a 25m buffer is not required, the Council will assume a minimum buffer of 25m from the edge of the woodland, which allows for the presence of veteran trees and the fall height of mature trees.’

It is gratifying to see specific policies on the protection of habitats and species, and in particular, the protection of ancient and veteran trees.

Southern Water understands the desire to protect habitats and species. However, we are concerned that the current wording of the above policy may also create a barrier to statutory utility providers, such as Southern Water, from delivering essential infrastructure required to serve existing and planned development. At times, these factors might also make this policy difficult for decision makers to implement.

We request the following points of (vi) and (vii) be clarified, explaining our reasoning further below.
• Could ‘exceptional circumstances’ wording be appropriately incorporated within this policy? When laying cross country pipelines it can be necessary for utility providers to skirt areas of ancient woodland. Many existing utility sites can also be surrounded by ancient woodland.
• An impact assessment would typically show what the likely impact is, and what mitigations might exist for the identified impacts. These findings could then be used as one factor to judge the application (rather than as a check that the pre-determined buffer zone is sufficient).
Further explanation and justification:
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023) sets out the intention to protect the countryside, for which it establishes:

• The intention in paragraph 152 of ruling out inappropriate development ‘except in very special circumstances’.
• In paragraph 153 that special circumstances exist if the potential harm of a development proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
• In paragraph 155 that 'certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate' including 'engineering operations'.

Southern Water considers that should the need arise, special circumstances exist in relation to the provision of essential wastewater infrastructure required to serve new and existing customers. This is because there can be limited options available with regard to location, as the infrastructure would need to connect into existing networks. The National Planning Practice Guidance (ref: 34-002-20140306) recognises this scenario and states that ‘it will be important to recognise that water and wastewater infrastructure sometimes has particular locational needs (and often consists of engineering works rather than new buildings) which mean otherwise protected areas may exceptionally have to be considered'.

Planning policies should therefore support proposals that come forward to deliver necessary water supply and wastewater infrastructure.

We strongly welcome the specific reference to ancient woodland and ancient & veteran trees.
We welcome the recognition given to the importance of ancient woodland and the role that local planning policy plays in safeguarding this irreplaceable natural asset. Ancient woodland is a precious habitat that should be protected and managed in a sustainable way to maximise its wildlife, landscape and historical value.

Ancient woods are irreplaceable. They are our richest terrestrial wildlife habitats, with complex ecological communities that have developed over centuries, and contain a high proportion of rare and threatened species, many of which are dependent on this habitat. Ancient woods are reservoirs of biodiversity, but because the resource is limited and highly fragmented, they and their associated wildlife are particularly vulnerable.

The High Weald has more ancient woodland than the rest of England. It is vital that local plans in this sub region take especial care to include and uphold policies to protect ancient woodland.

BEX0050 has not established a minimum of 15 meters from the ancient woodland it backs onto.

I also believe the council needs to establish a person of knowledge regarding the national and internationally protected sites and species and laws and regulations protecting such sites.

‘The Conservation of habitats and Species Regulations 2017’ which is national law. Also, in contravention of , ‘The Habitats Regulations 1994’ and ‘ODPM- Biodiversity and Geological Conversation - Statutory Obligations and their Impact Within the Planning System’.

Regulation 54(4) of the Habitats Regulations prohibits the grant of outline planning permission unless the planning authority is satisfied, whether by reason of the conditions or limitations imposed on the permission, or otherwise, that no development likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European site could be carried out under the permission.

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 comments from Burwash Parish Council.

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

See attached full representation

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

Full submission as attached.

Please see attached for representations on the following elements of the draft Local Plan:

Policy ECO1: Supporting New Employment Development

Policy ECO2: Protecting Existing Employment Sites and Premises

Policy ECO5: Tourism Activities, Facilities and Accommodation

Policy ECO6: Holiday Sites

Policy INF1: Strategic Infrastructure Improvements

Policy INF2: Digital Connectivity

Policy LAN2: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

Policy ENV5: Habitats and Species