We are loosing too much of our beautiful green space. We do not need houses in this area. There are hundreds of houses for sale in this area. We also have no infrastructure to cope with them, roads can't cope with the traffic now. Pot holes cause by so many heavy cars, vans, lorries. Roads are also often gridlocked.Not enough Dr;s or nursing staff, hospitals, wait times are absurd.. Not enough hospital beds or capacity at A&E. Not enough Police, they can't cope with the hoodlums steeling etc Not enough water to go round etc, etc. Not enough jobs. We can't cope now. What's it going to Government is just about build, build as we have no industry in our country and it creates economy growth and jobs.short term solution. We need less people not more houses. They should be sorting out all the payments.

I do not think we need so many houses proposed in the Plan , We do not need to build on green belt , there surely must be enough brownfield sites, or empty houses to be renovated, etc etc , Who are all these houses being built for ???

We already don’t have enough dentists or doctors for the number of people currently living in Bexhill. The roads are constantly congested, and parking is becoming increasingly difficult to find. We also have ongoing issues with sewage overflowing into the sea, and hosepipe bans during the summer.
You simply can’t keep building more houses without the infrastructure to support them. It is always promised and never delivered.
Green spaces are essential — for wildlife, for people to walk, and for everyone to enjoy. Building over car parks when there is already nowhere to park makes absolutely no sense.

The scale of housing proposed within the draft Local Plan appears unjustified when considered in the context of the district’s demographic profile and existing housing availability.
Rother has a significantly aging population, with a growing proportion of residents in older age groups. As this demographic trend continues, it is reasonable to expect that a substantial number of existing larger homes will come onto the market as older residents choose to downsize to more suitable accommodation. This natural turnover will already contribute to housing supply within the district.
In addition, there are consistently more than 2,000 homes available on the open market within the district at any given time, typically at prevailing market rates. This level of existing availability raises serious questions about whether the scale of additional housing allocations proposed in the plan is genuinely required.
Rather than allocating significant areas of greenfield land for large-scale housing development, a more appropriate and sustainable approach would be to support and facilitate downsizing for older residents who wish to move to more suitable accommodation. This could include encouraging the development of appropriately designed smaller homes, accessible housing, and well-located retirement accommodation within existing settlements.
By enabling older residents to move into homes that better suit their needs, larger family homes would naturally become available on the market without the need to expand development into valuable countryside and green spaces. This approach would better align housing provision with the actual demographic needs of the district, while also protecting the rural character and environmental assets that are fundamental to the identity of the area.
For these reasons, the scale of housing proposed within the draft plan, and the resulting allocation of new development sites, appears excessive and insufficiently justified. A strategy focused on meeting genuine local housing needs, supporting downsizing, and making better use of existing housing stock would represent a more balanced and sustainable planning approach.

3(2) Standard measure, 2024 . How can a standard measure simply be altered to fit the needs of a demand (for housing)?
It seems to me that one can then make, for example, 100cms a bit shorter, say by 25cms to fiddle around with areas by the back door.. Possibly the definition of standard is lost to me as is the this whole section.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC) notes the emerging picture of housing supply and the constraints in Rother District. FHDC is currently evaluating sites that have been submitted as part of the council’s two “call for sites” exercises. The council is in the early states of producing a new local plan under the system introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and is not currently able to state whether there is the development capacity in the district to meet the district’s own objectively assessed housing needs, as generated by the national methodology. As a result, the council is unable to state whether the district can usefully contribute to meeting a portion of unmet need within the Rother district. FHDC will continue to update Rother DC as we progress with the assessment of sites and the next local plan.

Rother should be pushing back against central government on this. The argument that we need more homes is disingenuous – if that were true then government would limit overseas investors buying property (as most countries do) and speed up probate to release the quarter of a million homes snarled in that debacle. Furthermore, every year, Rother deny applications by homeowners to create annexes or subdivide their home – these are a better way to accommodate family members than sticking them on a new-build soulless development.

We do need affordable homes but that requirement is ALWAYS waived after planning is granted due to the formula that re-values the land after the permission is granted, which is obviously always higher than when it was applied for! The alternative being Housing Associations’ shared ownership scams but I don’t think anybody who owns a calculator would consider those to be affordable. Victims of that scheme pay more than they would on a mortgage; pay market rent yet have to cover all of the service charges and maintenance; have none of the protections of rental and are trapped as they’re unable to move or staircase due to the HA’s incompetence.

That's a huge leap in population. Basically, growth of about 25% in Battle - despite national projections over that period showing 12.7% population growth.

Last time I looked, the schools, doctors, dentists and roads didn't have any spare capacity, certainly not for 25% increases.

Will you be able to ensure that developers do build out sites with planning permission in order to reach this higher target, bearing in mind that the average has only been 215 dwellings annually. It seems that more and more sites are allocated (and vegetation/biodiversity reduced while planning is gained) but then are left unbuilt.

Development targets are dictated by central government and very little consideration is given to what residents in communities actually need. The council has a responsibility to mail shot all residents asking for their views in their communities. Councils work for the people to vice versus.

While we note the constraints set out within the supporting text (e.g. 90% of the District is located within the High Weald national Landscape designation, paragraph 3.21), we believe a more proactive approach to meeting housing need could be taken. We refer to our previous response to question 76 of the previous consultation (Rother Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation, July 2024). At the time we referred to research by the Consortium of Associations in the South East (CASE - of which Southern Housing is a member) which showed Rother could see a net undersupply of between 2,910 and 3,720 affordable homes over the next decade. This type of shortfall could deprive Rother of the development it needs and lead to further under-delivery for the next local plan period. We note that a number of sites put forward in response to the call for sites exercise have been rejected as part of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). As some of these remain deliverable, consideration should be given to re-assessing these sites to see whether additional housing can be delivered. Meeting the District’s housing need will require a flexible approach to site allocation, tenure mix, and infrastructure planning to ensure schemes remain viable and deliverable.

Notwithstanding the above, we welcome the fact that the commitment to engage with neighbouring authorities will continue (paragraph 3.23). We also welcome the fact that the Council has considered the various options (as set out at Section 5) for the development strategy. All options need to be explored to ensure every opportunity is taken to maximise development delivery and the District benefits from the homes, services, infrastructure and employment opportunities that it needs. Please also see our response to Question 6.

In terms of the approach to identifying sites the Plan could also explicitly mention the possibility of allocating sites for community-led development. This establishes the principle that anybody developing it should meet the definition of a community-led developer or be partnering with one. Community-led developers have been included in s106 agreements, taking on stewardship of important neighbourhood assets. We think that allocating sites with a presumption that they are community-led developments could strengthen local engagement and trust in the planning system, for example, where there are sites with local sensitivities, or where there is a well established community-led organisation in the neighbourhood - as there are several CLTs in Rother - that would be ideally placed to co-develop and steward assets. There is now a definition of community led development in the NPPF and a strong commitment to rural and community led housing in the new SAHP (Homes England programme),

Rother District Council Regulation 18 Local Plan 2025-2042 Consultation
Thank you for inviting Ashford Borough Council to comment on Rother District Council’s (RDC’s) Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation.

Housing Need
The latest version of Rother’s Local Plan states that the district’s housing need figure calculates to 15,504 new homes over the 17-year plan period, using the standard method calculation. The Council note that this figure has risen since the previous Regulation 18 consultation in 2024. The Regulation 18 draft of the Local Plan clarifies that RDC only proposes to deliver 8,427 new dwellings over the plan period, which is approximately 54% of the district’s overall housing need requirement.

Given that there is a shortfall and that it is significant, Ashford Borough Council considers that there needs to be a more detailed justification for why the draft Local Plan fails to meet the housing requirement in full. Although the Council acknowledge the challenges RDC face because of the extent of the district covered by National Landscape, in the Council’s opinion it is not enough to rely on this constraint alone to justify the extent to which there is an unmet need.

The Council considers that the justification for the shortfall should be addressed in greater depth. For example, it is currently unknown whether there is any local evidence to suggest that an alternative method should be used to establish the housing need figure and whether this might result in a reduced requirement. A more detailed explanation is needed to demonstrate that RDC have explored all options to seek to rectify the shortfall. Only then can the Council fully understand the real extent of the shortfall and the potential impact on Ashford borough as a neighbouring authority.

As RDC will be aware the Council also recently consulted on a Regulation 18 draft of a new Local Plan for Ashford covering the period up to 2042. The Regulation 18 version of the emerging Local Plan highlights the Council’s own challenging need (17,622 dwellings for the plan period 2024 and 2042).

Based on our emerging work and taking into account our own strategic environmental constraints (including the restrictions imposed on new residential development within the river Stour catchment due to the condition of the designated Stodmarsh lakes), it is clear that accommodating our own identified need will be extremely challenging.

Proposed Site Allocations
The Council notes the Regulation 18 Local Plan includes a number of proposed site allocations across five sub areas. Due to the location, size, and scale of the proposed sites closest to our joint boundary, the Council does not have any comments to make on any individual sites currently proposed within this latest version of the Plan.

Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople (GT&TS) Accommodation Needs
The Council support the efforts being made by RDC to seek to accommodate its GT&TS accommodation needs in full within their own administrative area.

Employment Needs
The Council support the efforts being made by RDC to seek to accommodate its employment needs in full within their own administrative area.

Maintaining Cooperation
Irrespective of the issues raised in this letter Ashford Borough Council would like to take the opportunity to express that it remains committed to working collaboratively with Rother District Council to discuss any strategic cross-boundary issues and look forward to continuing to engage to discuss respective emerging Local Plans.

The Council notes RDC’s formal request for assistance to meet its unmet housing need set out in its letter dated 4 March 2026. The Council are considering this request a will respond by separate letter.

I strongly object to the Council’s proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings over the 17-year plan period (495 dwellings annually), on the grounds that it is excessive, unjustified, and fundamentally incompatible with the environmental, infrastructural, and heritage constraints of the district.
Firstly, the proposed target fails to properly account for the exceptional constraints within the area, most notably that a significant proportion of the district lies within the High Weald National Landscape. National planning policy is clear that such protected landscapes represent a strong reason for restricting development. The scale of housing proposed risks causing irreversible harm to the character, natural beauty, and ecological integrity of this nationally protected landscape.
Secondly, the target is not aligned with the capacity of existing infrastructure. Local services, including GP surgeries, schools, drainage systems, and transport networks, are already under significant strain. The historic road network, particularly in and around Battle, is wholly unsuitable for accommodating the level of additional traffic that this scale of development would generate. The plan does not provide credible, deliverable solutions to address these constraints.
Thirdly, the reliance on a standardised housing calculation fails to reflect local realities. A purely formula-driven target does not take into account environmental limits, landscape sensitivity, or the cumulative impact of development on small historic settlements. A more appropriate approach would be to adopt a locally derived housing requirement that genuinely reflects the district’s constraints and capacity.
Furthermore, the proposed level of growth risks fundamentally altering the character of the district’s towns and villages. Incremental expansion at this scale will lead to the coalescence of settlements, loss of greenfield land, and erosion of the distinct identity of places such as Battle. This runs counter to the objective of sustainable development and the protection of heritage assets.
In conclusion, the proposed housing target represents an unsustainable and disproportionate level of growth. The Council should revisit and reduce the target to a level that is evidence-based, infrastructure-led, and consistent with the protection of the High Weald National Landscape and the district’s historic character.

I object to the huge allocation of houses Battle is having imposed. Battle, a small market town,will loose its identity. The town is constantly gridlocked with cars and lorries and that is before we see the impact of the new developments at Blackfriars and North Trade road. Martins Oak surgery is trying to find larger premises because it is ‘ no longer fit for purpose’ serving over 8000 patients.
House building should be in villages, towns and cities that have the infrastructure to support them and jobs to employ the residents. The Battle area also needs a new reservoir, a better road system and more spaces in the schools. The enforced hosepipe ban last summer only ended in February! Brownfield sites also should be utilised before our green spaces are destroyed.

I am writing to formally object to the housing proposals set out in the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042.

The plan states that 8,427 new properties will be built across the district over this period — approximately 500 homes a year. The vast majority of these appear to be concentrated in Bexhill, which has 38 proposed development sites. This is triple the number allocated to Battle and far more than any other settlement in the district. Such a lopsided approach places an intolerable strain on one town while largely sparing others.

Existing infrastructure and amenities are already struggling to cope. Other councils in the region have publicly stated they cannot supply water or manage sewerage for additional properties, and Rother is no different. We are seeing this pressure firsthand. On Turkey Road, 89 new houses are being built on the site of the old brickworks. These homes required triple-glazed windows purely because of the ongoing noise and dust from the adjacent Ibstock brickworks — a clear sign that the location was never suitable for residential development in the first place. There is also talk of another 500 homes off Ninfield Road. When do the feelings and quality of life of existing residents count? This area precisely was a small, quiet town surrounded by countryside. It is now being built upon beyond all recognition. We are incredibly fortunate in Rother to have so much outstanding natural beauty — much of it protected as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or High Weald National Landscape. Yet this very beauty seems to be used as an excuse to squeeze all the new development into the few remaining towns and villages, as if our communities and their character do not also deserve protection.

At a more fundamental level, what is happening to us as a society? People are born and people die. The natural balance of population does not justify forcing through thousands of extra homes that the local area simply cannot sustain. This scale of development feels driven by central government targets rather than genuine local need or environmental responsibility.

I urge the Council to listen to the residents who actually live here. Please reconsider the overall housing numbers, the disproportionate focus on Bexhill, and the specific sites that will destroy the character and infrastructure of our communities. Brownfield opportunities should be maximised, infrastructure (especially water and roads) must be fully in place before any more homes are approved, and the unique beauty and liveability of Rother must be given far greater weight than it currently is.

Our voices as existing residents matter. I ask that this objection is taken fully into account before the Plan proceeds any further.

Yours sincerely,

I am apposed to the 2024-2042 plans for Rother. The council web site says in this time span there will be 8427 properties built, this is approximately 500 a year. It seems the bulk of these houses are being built in
Bexhill. Bexhill has 38 proposed sites this is triple of Battle and everybody else is much less.
How can the existing amenities cope with all these extra people. Already other councils are saying they are having problems supplying water to and from properties and will not cope with more.
We have houses being built all around us in Turkey rd and there is talk of another 500 off Ninfield. When do the existing residents feelings count. This small town is now being built upon beyond recognition.
We are so lucky in Rother to have such a lot of “ Out standing beauty “ around us but this means all the building is being squeezed into areas that also deserve to be thought about as well.

On Turkey rd there are 89 houses being built on top of a brick works, this should have never been allowed. These houses have tripled glazed windows, this is because of the noise and dust.
What is happening to us as a society ? Babies are born and people die so WHY do all these houses need to be built?

Planning

I am apposed to the 2024-2042 plans for Rother. The council web site says in this time span there will be 8427 properties built, this is approximately 500 a year. It seems the bulk of these houses are being built in

Bexhill. Bexhill has 38 proposed sites this is triple of Battle and everybody else is much less.

How can the existing amenities cope with all these extra people. Already other councils are saying they are having problems supplying water to and from properties and will not cope with more.

We have houses being built all around us in Turkey rd and there is talk of another 500 off Ninfield. When do the existing residents feelings count this is a small town which is now being built upon beyond recognition.

We are so lucky in Rother to have such a lot of “ Out standing beauty “ around us but this means all the building is being squeezed into areas that also deserve to be thought about as well.



On Turkey rd there are 89 houses being built on top of a brick works, this should have never been allowed. These houses have tripled glazed windows, this is because of the noise and dust.

What is happening to us as a society ? Babies are born and people die so WHY do all these houses need to be built .

See attached.

I was involved in the last attempt at a neighbourhood plan in Burwash. We found it difficult then to find appropriate sites. Then as now started with a number that then had to be filled, rather than start by finding appropriate sites and then seeing how they could be used to meet local need.
I am aware that many families who work locally are finding it difficult to get appropriate accommodation. It is important that for any sites that are identified are designated for what is needed and that developers who apply for planning permission are committed to actually building what is needed.
There is a risk that we continually identify more and more sites while the huge number of sites which already have planning permission grows larger and larger, with no houses actually built.
There are a lot of high end properties for sale in Burwash currently not moving.

Given that records indicate that approximately 215 new homes on average have been built per year to date, the new annual target of 495 is ambitious and likely to create significant challenges in completing projects within set timescales and creating the necessary infrastructure to support new buildings and residents. We are concerned that housing quality may be compromised given these significant time pressures. Planning and Building control should be strengthened to promote high standards of design and sustainability.

Battle for Trees strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings over the plan period (495 annually) on the grounds that it is unsustainable, unjustified, and inconsistent with both national planning policy and the acknowledged constraints of the district.
The Council’s own evidence confirms that Rother is heavily constrained, with approximately 83% of the district within the High Weald National Landscape and around 90% affected by environmental or habitat protections. Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), these constraints represent a “strong reason for restricting development” (paragraph 11(b)(i)). The scale of housing proposed fails to properly reflect this fundamental limitation.
Furthermore, paragraph 180 of the NPPF requires planning policies to contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimising impacts on biodiversity such as the loss of our valued trees. The proposed level of development, which will inevitably result in significant greenfield loss, directly conflicts with this requirement.
In addition, paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection. The proposed housing target will drive development within the High Weald National Landscape at a scale that is incompatible with this requirement.
Paragraph 190 of the NPPF is also clear that major development within National Landscapes should only take place in exceptional circumstances and where it is in the public interest. Given that the proposed housing target will necessitate multiple large-scale developments within the National Landscape, it is not credible to suggest that all such development can meet this exceptional circumstances test.
The proposed target is also unrealistic when considered against past delivery. Paragraph 67 of the NPPF requires that strategic policy-making authorities establish a housing requirement figure that is deliverable and based on evidence. Historic delivery in Rother has averaged approximately 215 dwellings per year, significantly below both the previous target and the proposed figure of 495 dwellings per year. The plan does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this substantial increase is achievable.
While paragraph 60 of the NPPF supports the use of the standard method as a starting point, it does not require housing need to be met in full where constraints apply. Indeed, paragraph 11(b) explicitly recognises that environmental and policy constraints may justify a lower housing requirement. The Council’s own evidence acknowledges a significant shortfall, reinforcing the conclusion that the standard method figure cannot be sustainably achieved.
The proposed housing target will also result in increased reliance on greenfield development with a high level of tree destruction contrary to paragraph 125(c) of the NPPF, which encourages the effective use of land, including the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land.
In conclusion, the proposed housing target fails to comply with key provisions of the NPPF. It does not adequately account for environmental constraints, is not supported by evidence of deliverability, and will lead to unacceptable harm to the High Weald National Landscape and other protected assets. The Council should instead adopt a lower, locally derived housing requirement that aligns with national policy, reflects the district’s constraints, and prioritises sustainable development.

Too many houses are being built, the infrastructure cannot cope. The roads are appalling. Water demand would not cope. Where will children go to school? The schools are already at full capacity. Wildlife would suffer in a concrete jungle. Air quality would decline. Doctors & dentists are already struggling. The countryside is so beautiful, please, DO NOT remove it for the sake of bricks and mortar. Keep Battle's charm. 🙏

I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.

The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings over the 17-year plan period. While I recognise the pressures of the government's standard method, this volume of housing represents a disproportionate and unsustainable population growth for Rother, and specifically for Battle. The district's infrastructure is already under immense strain; residents currently face significant challenges accessing GP appointments, school places, and navigating congested local roads. The draft plan acknowledges public concern over infrastructure provision for community facilities, transport, and water/wastewater, yet the proposed targets fail to demonstrate how these critical services will realistically cope with such an influx of new dwellings.

The proposed Development Strategy is unsound as it fails to prioritize brownfield land, as required by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines for sustainable development. Instead, it targets extensive greenfield sites within the High Weald National Landscape (formerly AONB).

The housing targets for Battle are entirely disproportionate to the town's size and infrastructure capacity. Our local services—including GP surgeries, schools, and the road network—are already at a breaking point. Adding over 1,000 new homes across the district per year, with a significant burden placed on Battle, is an unjustified level of growth that will irreparably damage the character of our National Landscape.

The plan identifies a need for 838 dwellings across the Battle sub-area, a figure that appears to prioritise national "standard method" targets over the actual constraints of a town situated within a National Landscape.

Impact on National Landscape: The NPPF is clear that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing National Landscapes (formerly AONBs). This plan fails to justify why such significant development is being directed toward these protected areas rather than prioritising brownfield sites.

Infrastructure Deficit: Battle’s infrastructure is already at its limit. Our GP surgeries, schools, and road networks cannot accommodate the new homes mandated by the plan. The plan lacks a concrete, funded Infrastructure Delivery Plan to mitigate the cumulative impact of these allocations.

Climate and Biodiversity: The strategy contradicts the Council’s own climate emergency declarations by proposing large-scale greenfield development that will lead to a net loss of biodiversity and increased carbon emissions.

I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.

The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

I strongly object to the proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings. The move to a “standard method” calculation of 912 units per year — a threefold increase over previous targets — is fundamentally incompatible with a district where 83% of the land is protected within the High Weald National Landscape.

The plan fails to demonstrate how Battle’s infrastructure, which is already under significant pressure, can accommodate this increase. GP surgeries, schools, and our narrow historic road network are not equipped to support this level of growth. The Council should prioritise a lower, locally derived target that reflects the constraints of our protected landscape, in line with national planning policy.

Question 2 - Housing Target for the Local Plan
Position
HGPC has significant concerns about how the district-wide housing target of 8,427 dwellings is being
translated into settlement-level allocations. The target itself may or may not be justified at the district
level - but that is a separate question from whether specific villages have been allocated appropriate
shares of that growth based on local evidence.
The Parish Council's concern is not with the principle of planning for housing growth. It is with the
absence of any demonstrable link between the district-wide target and the scale of growth directed at
Hurst Green. A district-wide number is a starting point for spatial planning, not an end in itself. The
task is to distribute that growth based on the sustainability credentials and evidence of need for each
settlement. The community’s own Neighbourhood Plan Vision is explicit on what housing in Hurst
Green should achieve: the Parish will “support sustainable and sensitive housing development that
enables us to deliver on our vision and objectives, developing the facilities that are needed to address
the current and future needs of our community.” A proposal for 185 dwellings that is unsupported by
local evidence, directed at a location without the facilities to support it, and in conflict with the
community’s own planning framework is not sustainable and sensitive development. It is the opposite.
The Distribution Process
For Hurst Green, the distribution process has produced a result that cannot be reconciled with
evidence-based planning:
• The housing requirement increased by 487% in six months - from 38 dwellings in the Summer
2024 consultation to 185 dwellings in the January 2026 draft - with no published settlement
specific justification.
• The AECOM Housing Needs Assessment (2019) and parish-level survey work identify need at a
materially lower level, and that need has already been met by extant permissions.
• No settlement-level assessment has been published that explains why Hurst Green - a village
with no GP surgery, no secondary school, no supermarket, limited other facilities, over 90% car
dependency, and a documented highway safety crisis - has been identified as a location for
growth on this scale.
A district-wide housing target does not, of itself, provide the evidence base required to allocate a
specific quantum of development to a specific settlement. That requires local evidence. In the case of
Hurst Green, that evidence does not exist and has not been published. The proposed housing
requirement of 185 dwellings is therefore not justified regardless of the district-wide target, and the
allocation of Site HG4 is not justified regardless of the housing requirement.
Conclusion on Question 2
HGPC requests that the Council publishes the settlement-level evidence underpinning the allocation
of 185 dwellings to Hurst Green before the Regulation 19 stage. In the absence of such evidence, the
Local Plan cannot be considered sound in respect of its distribution of growth within the Northern
Rother sub-area.
Suggested Modifications
The following modifications are suggested to render this aspect of the plan sound:
Amendment 2 - Revision of Housing Requirement for Hurst Green
Suggested Modification
Delete the housing requirement of 185 dwellings for Hurst Green.
Replace with:
2
“Housing provision for Hurst Green will be proportionate to the settlement’s role, function, and
constraints, and will be based on robust, up-to-date, settlement-level evidence of local housing need.
Committed development (HG1 and HG2) will be credited against any revised requirement.”
Reason: The increase from 38 to 185 dwellings has no published evidential basis. The current figure
creates legal and examination risk.
Consequence if unmodified: The plan contains a housing requirement that is not evidence-based,
creating a clear point of failure at Examination and generating continued pressure for unsuitable
allocations.