Catsfield site allocation CAT0001 (HELAA Identified) has recently had an outline planning application submitted and withdrawn before it was refused (Application RR/2019/257/P). Previous applications for much smaller developments on this site have also been rejected (Applications A/70/522 for one dwelling and A/70/526 for 3 dwellings). A FOI request made to RDC has revealed the planning officers final report recommending refusal for the most recent application of the proposed 35 dwellings (as identified and proposed by the HELAA) and other associated documentation, which showed some of the reasons for refusal. These should be reviewed and considered before finalising this future Local Plan and HELAA as they show that; - The site is actually not appropriate for development (it contravenes National and RDC's own policies). - Development of the site would cause a significant health, safety and wellbeing risks to local residents and the local community due to it being in a 'red zone' for flood risk, cause over population and cripple the already inadequate local infrastructure (highways, health provision, poor utility quality and provision, lack of education facilities in the village and surrounding area, etc). - 1.6 hectares is not adequate for a development of this size and does not meet planning guidance for density of development in a rural village location. - Development of the site would destroy the habitat of protected and endangered wildlife which currently resides there (as documented in the ecology report submitted to RDC planning dept). This site falls within the 'red zone' for Great Crested Newts and is home to a large number of protected and endangered species of wildlife, flora and fauna (inc bats, badgers, hazel dormice, etc). All of which are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, also making them European Protected Species. - The site falls within the High Weald AONB, which according to policy, can only be developed in 'exceptional circumstances'. This site and proposed number of dwellings does not fall within this caveat. The number of dwellings proposed for this site (35 dwellings) is classified in the planning documents as a 'Major development', which is not permitted within the HWAONB. - The site is subject to a blanket Tree Protection Order (TPO) and is adjacent to properties with listed status. These would all be severely impacted by any kind of development/construction on this site. - The northeastern boundary of the site falls within the Pevensey levels Hydrological Catchment and RAMSAR Area. - The Delegated Officer Report - Assessment of Case, should be referred to before finalising this draft Local Plan/HELAA and before any further consideration of the continued allocation of site CAT0001. The report's conclusion (and reasons for refusal of outline planning) states; - The proposal would cause significant harm to the local landscape character of the AONB and the rural settings of the nearby listed buildings. - The submitted information concerning the impact of the proposal on ecology and biodiversity and the proposed biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures are considered to be inadequate. - The proposed development of 35 dwellings by reason of its layout and scale and disregard to landscape features such as trees and road hedgerows would be out of character with the site and surrounding pattern of development and would materially harm the intrinsic character and appearance of the locality and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). As such, the proposal is contrary to policies OSS4, EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), policies DIM2, DEN1 and DEN2 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019), paragraphs 135, 136 and 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework and, Objectives S2, S3 and FH2 of the High Weald Management Plan. - It has not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with policy EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), policy DEN4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019) and, paragraphs 180 and 186 of the National Planning Policy Framework. - The proposed development (of 35 dwellings) due to inadequate drainage strategy and lack of flood risk management strategy for high groundwater could increase risk of flooding within site and elsewhere, contrary to policies EN6 and EN7 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and paragraphs 173 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The final paragraph states; - NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and looks for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Planning applications for other sites in Catsfield with the same features as this site (e.g. The Brooks) have been refused and the site deemed as unsuitable in the HELAA. This site should be assessed in the same way, deemed unsuitable for development for the same reasons and subsequently removed from the HELAA as an allocated site for development, as should site CAT0016 for the same reasons.

Why does Etchingham have good sustainability (in one of your earlier sections), but rate low here? This does not make sense and has not been fully explained. 5.100 above talks about including sustainability as a marker for growth.

Why does Etchingham top you list of good sustainability, but only register here as low growth opportunities? You mention the use of Etchingham railway station as being key, but this does not appear to follow through.