Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25099
Received: 09/07/2024
Respondent: Brightling Parish Council
We oppose this change. "Meaningful community engagement" is classic weasel wording. The community might be bitterly opposed to the proposed development but as long as the developers have had a few presentations etc explaining the proposals, they would be deemed to have "engaged".
This is dangerous. The groups and individuals can be lobbyists for the developers, whereas the Parish Council is an elected body whose views have democratic credentials.
Former policy DHG2 should be retained. The only possible change would be that if a village / parish does not have a Parish Council, then local support could be demonstrated by other means (but this should refer to support, not just "engagement".
"Viability evidence" has been widely abused by developers and the council does not have the resources to challenge and check viability claims. Rural exception sites should be 100% affordable without exception.
We oppose this change. "Meaningful community engagement" is classic weasel wording. The community might be bitterly opposed to the proposed development but as long as the developers have had a few presentations etc explaining the proposals, they would be deemed to have "engaged".
This is dangerous. The groups and individuals can be lobbyists for the developers, whereas the Parish Council is an elected body whose views have democratic credentials.
Former policy DHG2 should be retained. The only possible change would be that if a village / parish does not have a Parish Council, then local support could be demonstrated by other means (but this should refer to support, not just "engagement".
"Viability evidence" has been widely abused by developers and the council does not have the resources to challenge and check viability claims. Rural exception sites should be 100% affordable without exception.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25547
Received: 17/07/2024
Respondent: Ms Isabel Lloyd
I cannot see any benefit to cutting out Parish Councils from the planning process. What is the definition of "meaningful" community engagement? A few leaflets and a meeting at the village hall? A poll of parishioners? How about a referendum? And then how do you "clearly define" the benefits to a parish if the parish has no formal way to dispute or support those proposed benefits? The existing policy, DHG2, is far preferable. As for rural exception sites, these shouldn't be delivering "more" affordable homes, they should consist of a majority of affordable homes, particularly those suitable for young couples and starter families. Our villages lack the kind of homes the young can afford or want to live in, so they lean heavily towards an elderly demographic; as a result, communities are stale and withering.
I cannot see any benefit to cutting out Parish Councils from the planning process. What is the definition of "meaningful" community engagement? A few leaflets and a meeting at the village hall? A poll of parishioners? How about a referendum? And then how do you "clearly define" the benefits to a parish if the parish has no formal way to dispute or support those proposed benefits? The existing policy, DHG2, is far preferable. As for rural exception sites, these shouldn't be delivering "more" affordable homes, they should consist of a majority of affordable homes, particularly those suitable for young couples and starter families. Our villages lack the kind of homes the young can afford or want to live in, so they lean heavily towards an elderly demographic; as a result, communities are stale and withering.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25812
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr P Brown
The update of DaSA policy DHG2 to HOU5 takes decision make away from local communities by removing the clause requiring Parish Council initiation or support. This clause does have drawbacks as local community development boundaries can cross Parish Council (PC) boundaries and PC boundaries can include several local communities. However local democracy could be enhanced by adding a requirement that the final proposal is supported by a majority of the households within the development boundary adjacent or nearest to the proposed development.
The update of DaSA policy DHG2 to HOU5 takes decision make away from local communities by removing the clause requiring Parish Council initiation or support. This clause does have drawbacks as local community development boundaries can cross Parish Council (PC) boundaries and PC boundaries can include several local communities. However local democracy could be enhanced by adding a requirement that the final proposal is supported by a majority of the households within the development boundary adjacent or nearest to the proposed development.