Rother District Council

Showing comments and forms 1 to 29 of 29

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 28802

Received: 22/02/2026

Respondent: Ms Isabel Lloyd

Representation Summary:

Re all sites RB1 to RB6B: Lighting should be designed in accordance with Policy LAN3 and in reference to the High Weald National Landscape Unit’s Technical Advice Note on Dark Skies in the High Weald, to protect the High Weald's intrinsically dark skies

Full text:

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29000

Received: 02/03/2026

Representation ID: 29613

Received: 18/03/2026

Respondent: High Weald AONB Unit

Representation Summary:

Please see attached documents including HWNL response letter and Appendix 1.

Full text:

Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations: Public Consultation under Regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended)

Thank you for your consultation on the above draft Local Plan.

We have a number of significant concerns with the quantum and scale of site allocations proposed in the draft Local Plan, in terms of impacts on the nationally designated High Weald National Landscape, such that we would consider the plan to conflict with paragraphs 189 and 190 of the NPPF, and thereby unsound in its present form. We would make the following comments:

Development Strategy

Notwithstanding the references in paras 3.9 and 3.21 of the draft plan regarding the protection of National Landscapes, and the ability to reduce housing requirements accordingly, we are extremely concerned by the proposed Development Strategy set out in section 5 of the draft plan, and the quantum of development proposed within the High Weald National Landscape.

Paragraph 189 of the NPPF sets out that ‘great weight’ should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which (along with National Parks & the Broads) ‘have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues’. It also sets out that ‘the scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited’ and that ‘development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.’

The proposed 2,055 number of new dwellings on sites within the High Weald National Landscape (over and above existing allocations in the 2019 DaSA) could in no way be described as ‘limited in extent’, nor could the fact that 23 of the site allocations are proposed for 30+ dwellings, (and 11 of those sites proposed for 60+ dwellings) be descried as ‘limited in scale’. At the broadest level, and notwithstanding the large area of Rother District that lies within the High Weald National Landscape, we therefore consider the allocations strategy at the broadest level would fail to comply with para 189 of the NPPF.

You will see from the Site Allocations comments later in this response, and our site-specific comments appended in table form to this response, that we consider a large number of the proposed site allocations would be harmful to the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape, and would fail to comply with para 189 of the NPPF, and, in a number of instances, para 190 too. We therefore consider that a number of the proposed site allocations should be deleted from the draft Local Plan, and the proposed number of dwellings in the housing requirement reduced accordingly.

We appreciate that the 2024 changes to the standard method for calculating objectively assed need has resulted in a larger OAN for Rother DC (described in paras 3.1-3.4 of the draft plan). However, importantly, the NPPF allows for strategic policies in Local Plans to provide for less than the housing need in certain circumstances, while the NPPG clarifies that Local housing need (calculated using the standard method as amended in December 2024) is not necessarily the same as the housing requirement that goes forward in a Local Plan.
This was confirmed by the Government in their published Government response to the proposed reforms to the NPPF (Government response for Questions 1 and 2) published 20th July 2024, which states:

“The standard method identifies the minimum number of homes needed and local planning authorities are expected to plan to meet their housing needs in full. However it is recognised that there may be local constraints on land and delivery that could justify a lower housing requirement figure.” (N.B. Underlining added for emphasis).

Accordingly, para 69 of the NPPF sets out that strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need can be met over the plan period. (N.B. bold added for emphasis)
That Government response also clarified that the NPPG had been updated accordingly. The NPPG (Housing and Economic Needs Assessment) confirms that:

“The standard method set out below identifies a minimum annual housing need figure, … It does not produce a housing requirement figure.” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 2a-002-20241212)

and explains the difference between local housing need and housing requirement, and clarifying that:

“The housing requirement is the minimum number of homes that a plan seeks to provide during the plan period. Once local housing need has been assessed, as set out in this guidance, authorities should then make an assessment of the amount of new homes that can be provided in their area. This should be justified by evidence on land availability, constraints on development and any other relevant matters.” (Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 2a-040-20241212)

Paragraph 11 (b) (i) of the NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any unmet needs from neighbouring areas, unless “the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area”. The assets referred to are listed in footnote 7 and include National Landscapes, the relevant policies for which in the Framework being 189 and 190.

Accordingly, the NPPG (natural Environment) clarifies that, with regard to National Landscapes:

“The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the scale and extent of development in these areas should be limited, in view of the importance of conserving and enhancing their landscapes and scenic beauty. Its policies for protecting these areas may mean that it is not possible to meet objectively assessed needs for development in full through the plan-making process, and they are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas…” (Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 8-041-20190721.) (bold text added for emphasis)

Whilst we acknowledge the intention to seek to meet as far as possible the OAN, this must be carried out in the context of the limited scale and extent of development in National Landscapes required by the NPPF, and within the context of the ‘great weight’ to be given to conserving and enhancing their landscape and scenic beauty.
Further, this must be carried out in a way which is compliant with the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024-2029 This statutory document is adopted by all the relevant local authorities with land in the High Weald National Landscape, including Rother District Council, as their policy for the management of the area and for the carrying out of their functions in relation to it, and is a material consideration for planning applications affecting the HWNL.

With particular regard to the High Weald National Landscape, Management Plan Settlement Action ‘h’ sets out that partners will “Pursue landscape-led positive planning approaches to settlement planning and housing delivery in the AONB, seeking to prioritise the delivery of new housing primarily through small-scale development consistent with AONB character, recognising the potential for harm through the cumulative effects of separate developments on the designated landscape”

Rother District Council has had considerable success over the last couple of years, including since the publishing of the new standard methodology for OAN, in defending housing development appeals in the HWNL, with Inspectors agreeing with the Council’s assessment of harms of specific proposals on the landscape character and natural beauty of the HWNL, and that such harms meant that policies of the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The same logic can and should therefore confidently be applied to the consideration of proposed sites under NPPF para 11(d)(i).

Major Development

With regard to the subject of major development in the HWNL in site allocations, we are particularly concerned by para 6.6. of the ‘Draft Development Stategy for Rother’, which, while recognising that the NPPF confirms that major development in National Landscapes should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, states ”The need for housing, including affordable housing, in sustainable locations within the district could potentially be an exceptional circumstance that could allow for a major development within the HWNL.”.

To justify major development on the basis of meeting objectively assessed housing needs for the local planning authority area is a circular argument at plan-making stage, because the impact of the scale and distribution of development on the National Landscape should be taken into account in deciding the level of housing provision (NPPF paras 69 and 11(d)(i)). If such housing levels can only be achieved by allocating major development in the NL, which by definition will have “a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated” then this is a good indicator that the impact on the National Landscape provides “a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area” as provided for in NPPF paragraph 11.

Paragraph 190 of the NPPF sets out that within National Landscapes, planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Whilst paragraph 190 specifically refers to planning permissions, it has also been considered relevant by Local Plan Inspectors to allocations within Local Plans.1 Legal advice provided to the South Downs National Park Authority by Landmark Chambers also concluded that “it would arguably amount to an error of law to fail to consider paragraph 116 (now 190) at the site allocations stage of plan making for the National Park. The consequence of doing so would be to risk allocating land for major development that was undeliverable because it was incapable of meeting the major development test in the NPPF”2.

We would consider a large number (some 16) of the site allocations proposed in the draft plan to constitute major development under the NPPF definition in footnote 64 of paragraph 190. As such, there would be a presumption against the allocation of these sites for development, and they are considered in more detail in the individual site comments below and appended table. In summary it is considered that the inclusion of the majority of these major sites would render the current plan unsound, as it would conflict with the NPPF.

Proposed draft Site Allocations

We are extremely concerned that sites with the HWNL have been proposed in this draft local plan prior to the carrying out of any detailed Landscape Capacity Studies, Landscape Sensitivity Studies or Landscape Visual Assessments, as part of the evidence base. We consider any proposed site allocations to be premature in the absence of such work.

We note that some sites have been considered in the HELAA Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (September 2022), however, this work is very brief, just one or two paragraphs per site plus a table, and we do not consider this is a sufficiently robust or detailed assessment of the impacts of the sites; the Site Assessment Table doesn’t assess the sensitivity of the sites in the HWNL against the AONB Management Plan key character components of natural beauty, and includes no map or photographic based assessment. Also, along with sensitivity assessments, those sheets also assign a range of ‘value’ to each site, including those within the HWNL (high, high/medium/medium etc) – whereas as designated NLs they have already been assigned the highest level of value by government (see Landscape Institute’s GLVIA3 Notes & Clarifications 5(7). Furthermore, in some instances the cautionary conclusions of the HELAA LSA do not seem to have informed the proposed allocations.

For any sites within, or affecting the setting of the National Landscapes, site assessment work needs to take into account the impact of those potential sites on the purposes of the designation, taking into account the HWNL (AONB) Management Plan. Planning Principle 1 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024-2029 gives advice on the type of assessments that should inform local plans.

Decisions on allocating sites within or affecting the setting of National Landscapes requires a robust understanding of landscape including the history and settlement patterns of the wider landscape. Site-specific landscape sensitivity studies and landscape and visual assessments and are an important part of this, to inform the principle of allocation, the appropriate quantum and location of development, the extent of site coverage, any mitigation strategies, e.g. landscape buffers and their appropriate location and size, and to consider any other site-specific issues.

A key concern is that we note that for a number of the proposed site allocations, the ‘site specific development requirements’ in the draft local plan mention the need for development to be informed by a landscape sensitivity assessment. However, this is too late in the process, the Landscape Sensitivity Study needs to be completed first, to inform the allocation process, not post-allocation. Moreover, the LSS needs to be prepared objectively by the LPA.

No allocation should be being proposed until the above work is completed -it is wholly insufficient to simply include a reference in the policy supporting text (as in the current draft) that ‘”It is within the High Weald National Landscape and therefore a sensitive form of development is required in line with Local Plan policies”– in order to align with the requirements of NPPF para 189, impacts on the setting of the HWNL need to be robustly considered prior to allocating a site; firstly regarding the principle of the allocation; the location and scale of development in relation to the HWNL, and secondly to inform/test the quantum of development that might be appropriate in such a location.

Additionally, any site allocations proposed for grassland sites in the HWNL should also be subject to grassland surveys, and if found to be unimproved grassland these should not continue to be allocated for development in the Reg 19 version, since this is an important habitat type within the HWNL, and an important part of its landscape character and natural beauty.

We consider there therefore needs to be considerable further site-specific work undertaken to inform the next iteration of the draft local plan. We understand that the next iteration is intended to be a Reg 19 version with consultation scheduled for the autumn, for submission in December under the current Local Plans regime. However, in view of the additional work needed in relation to the proposed sites, and our comments on the site allocations below, we consider this would be premature, and the timescale to be unrealistic, and instead we consider a further Reg 18 consultation would be more appropriate.

Densities

We note that para 5.16-5.26 of the draft Local Plan deal with the matter of densities in residential development. Whilst in principle we have no issue with higher densities – High Weald settlements are typically fairly high density in village cores- it is important to recognise that this is through their being populated with tight-knit streetscapes of smaller dwellings. In order to meet Settlement Objectives S1 and S2 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan, we consider that guidance, either in a general density policy and/or the site-specific policies, will need to clarify this, so as to manage developer expectations and avoid scenarios where schemes are submitted consisting of high numbers of detached/semi-detached buildings packed in close proximity to each other, as that would constitute an approach and grain that would be discordant with High Weald settlement pattern and streetscape character.

Site Specific Policies

Further to the site specific assessment work, and to ensure that clear and realistic expectations for each site are set, with regard to the High Weald AONB Management Plan, and the Council’s duty under section 85 of the CRoW Act, we advise that the site-specific policies for all those sites proposed within the HWNL (and those affecting its setting) included in the next iteration of the draft Local Plan should:

• include maps/plans setting guiding principles/parameters for development (including extent of site coverage, building heights, and the retention of any existing wooded boundaries, and enhancement of these where appropriate for mitigation measures), and
• refer to the HWNL in the ‘Site specific development requirements’, and include in those requirements that proposals need to reference the principles in the HW Housing Design Guide, and that lighting proposals (including highways lighting) to be based on the HWNL Dark Skies Planning Advice Note.

Individual proposed sites comments

In the light of the absence of a detailed landscape evidence base, the appended table represents our initial comments on the draft proposed sites; however, with some we are able to recognise significant harms to the HWNL even without the further work, and these are highlighted red in the table as sites that, at this stage, we object to being allocated for development.

Overall, you will see that we consider a number of sites would cause significant harm to the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape, would conflict with objectives of the HW AONB Management Plan 2024-2029, and would conflict with policy 189 of the NPPF, resulting in the plan being unsound, and therefore should not be allocated for development in the next iteration of the draft plan. These are: BT1 (in part), BT8, BT10, BC1, BR3, BW3, BW4, BWC1, EC2, EC3, FW2, GU6, HG4, IK1, IK2, NR2, PE1, PL1, SD11, SC2, and TC1. A summary of our reasons for arriving at these conclusions is included in the appended table. This list includes a number of sites that we consider should be considered ‘major development’ in the HWNL under the provisions of NPPF para 190, and for which there do not appear to be exceptional circumstances (see our earlier general comments in this response). However, the absence of red highlight on other sites in the table (or that they are not included in the above list) does not mean that we support the allocation, rather that at this stage we are unable to provide a definitive view on either the principle of development or the quantum proposed, without the further landscape assessment work being carried out (and we set this out for those sites).

Legislative Requirements

Lastly I would also draw to your attention Section 85 of the CRoW Act (as amended by the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act in December 2023) sets out that ‘relevant authorities’, in exercising or performing any function that affect National Landscapes in England, “must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”3

Within the planning context, ‘relevant authorities’ are the Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, along with Parish Councils producing Neighbourhood Plans, and the duty applies to all aspects of the planning process, including decisions relating to site allocations in Local Plans etc. More information for LPAs on complying with the new duty in the planning policy plan-making process is available at CRoW-s.85-duty-guidance-for-LPAs_NLA-Briefing-Nov-24.pdf

Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) will normally mean avoiding harm, and conserving and enhancing the character components identified in the AONB Management Plan; supporting the Management Plan Objectives as set out for each of these; and following any Management Plan Actions set out for each.

It is therefore important that this new duty is reflected in the language and content of the Local Plan throughout, including in the commitment to any particular housing requirement figure, the spatial strategy, policy direction and ambition, and the evaluation of any proposed site allocations.

The above comments are advisory and are the professional views of the HWNL Unit’s Planning & Design Advisor on the potential impacts on the High Weald landscape. They are not necessarily the views of the HWNL Joint Advisory Committee.

Please see attached documents including HWNL response letter and Appendix 1.

Attachments:

Final HWNL response RDC Local Plan Site Allocations Reg 18 consultation.pdf (697.13 KB)
Appendix 1 - individual site comments (226.61 KB)

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29646

Received: 18/03/2026

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Full text:

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Attachments:

East Sussex County Council Representations (3.76 MB)

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 29647

Received: 18/03/2026

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Representation Summary:

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Full text:

Please see attached: East Sussex County Council Representations on the Rother Local Plan ‘Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version’ consultation

Attachments:

East Sussex County Council Representations (3.76 MB)

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 31004

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Exeter College

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Please see our full responses above under Section 3 of our accompanying written Submission. In summary, while we support the proposed residential site allocation of land at Grove Farm Phase 2, we object specifically to Site Requirement 3 in respect of the approach to site access.
The site requirements should not preclude the option of a dedicated primary access point off George Hill to ensure that the proposed allocation is deliverable without the need for third party land. Our engagement with statutory consultees including the highways authority confirm that this stipulation is not necessary and should therefore be removed from the list of site requirements.

Full text:

2. Exeter College acknowledges the Council’s proposed housing target of 8,427 dwellings (495 dwellings annually). While we recognise the significant environmental constraints facing the district - with roughly 90% of the district designated as National Landscape or protected habitat-we believe the Council should strive to meet its objectively assessed housing needs in full.
The current target of 495 dpa is a significant shortfall from the standard method figure of 912 net new homes per year. To narrow this gap, the Council must prioritize sustainable locations like Grove Farm, Robertsbridge which benefit from existing rail infrastructure and local services.
5. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is a vital tool for coordinating investment and achieving the goal of "Live Well Locally," however we emphasize that it must facilitate, rather than hinder, the deliverability of sustainable development including proposed allocations in the emerging Local Plan. We therefore support the IDP in principle subject to technical clarification.
While not mentioned explicitly in the IDP, it is important to ensure that the updated surface water management policies of utility providers are implemented pragmatically in Local Plan preparation and decision making. We encourage the Council to ensure these policies do not create undue barriers to development through rigid restrictions related to the consideration of drainage hierarchies, particularly as measures for drainage of surface water through measures such as infiltration are often technically unfeasible in locations like Robertsbridge due to site-specific ground conditions, and not all sites identified for allocation in the emerging plan are proximate to watercourses. Such an approach should not be used to stymie schemes at the Development Management stage on sites that have already been tested at Examination through the Site Allocations Process.
A more pragmatic approach, allowing for low, strictly managed discharge rates where it has been demonstrated that other hierarchy options have been fully exhausted, is essential to maintaining the deliverability of sustainable housing. It would not be appropriate or legally sound in our view to propose a development management policy which seeks to apply a blanket restriction to state that any surface water discharge into the foul-only network should be refused. Where appropriate, emerging allocations can provide proportionate contributions to help to mitigate infrastructure quality / capacity issues.
6. Exeter College supports the Council’s assessment of Option SDO13 (A21 corridor growth focused within and around existing larger settlements). This option provides a positive strategy for directing growth to sustainable locations like Robertsbridge/Salehurst, which already possess a reasonable level of local services. Conversely, we agree with the rejection of Option SDO14 (Development within strategic gaps), as it would likely undermine the separate identity of settlements and have an adverse impact on the National Landscape.
7. We strongly support the "Higher Density" standard (Option B) as the preferred approach. This standard is essential for ensuring the optimal use of land, especially given the district's housing shortfall. Applying Option B allows for a step-change in housing delivery while remaining sensitive to rural character. The allocation of 70 dwellings at Grove Farm Phase 2 (approx. 35 dph) is a reasonable density assumption in our view and is compatible with this approach.
8. Exeter College supports the Proposed Overall Development Strategy, which combines several sustainable spatial options including SDO4 (Sustainable settlement extensions) and SDO11 (Growth in settlements with railway stations).
Further to the above, to ensure the soundness of the Plan we strongly encourage the Council to confirm through its evidence base that sites such as Grove Farm that are well located and do not give to significant impacts on landscape, do not constitute ‘major development’ (as per paragraphs 189 and 190 of the NPPF). NPPF 190 says that applications for major development in the National Landscape should be refused unless exceptions apply. Footnote 67 says “major” in this context is a matter for the decision maker.
9. The target of 729 proposed new dwellings for Northern Rother settlements is considered appropriate and sustainable; therefore, we support this strategy in principle. This level of growth reflects the presence of high-quality service centres like Robertsbridge, which benefit from mainline rail connections and a range of local facilities. By directing a reasonable proportion of the district’s growth to this sub-area, the Council is effectively implementing its "Live Well Locally" priority, ensuring new residents have access to sustainable transport and social opportunities.
The proposed allocation of Grove Farm Phase 2 under Policy RB3 (approximately 70 units) makes a significant and deliverable contribution to meeting housing needs - representing roughly 10% of the total new housing target for the entire Northern Rother sub-area. Our technical studies and pre-application engagement with both Rother District Council and ESCC Highways confirm that this site is a logical extension to Robertsbridge and is capable of supporting this sub-area’s growth objectives within the plan period.
14. Exeter College expresses support for the proposed Vision for Northern Rother. We particularly endorse the focus on directing growth toward the district’s most sustainable rural settlements, such as Robertsbridge, which benefit from existing provision of essential village services and the railway station.
Exeter College supports the indicative housing figures identified for Northern Rother. The target for new allocations in this sub-area reflects a balanced approach that recognizes the capacity of sustainable settlements to accommodate growth while fulfilling the statutory duty to conserve and enhance the High Weald National Landscape.
Our technical work on land within this sub-area confirms that Northern Rother settlements have the capacity to deliver high-quality, higher-density residential schemes that optimise the use of land without causing landscape harm.
57. Please see our full responses above under Section 3 of our accompanying written Submission. In summary, while we support the proposed residential site allocation of land at Grove Farm Phase 2, we object specifically to Site Requirement 3 in respect of the approach to site access.
The site requirements should not preclude the option of a dedicated primary access point off George Hill to ensure that the proposed allocation is deliverable without the need for third party land. Our engagement with statutory consultees including the highways authority confirm that this stipulation is not necessary and should therefore be removed from the list of site requirements.
66. Exeter College supports the principles of Policy LWL7 (Streets for All) where they facilitate safe, inclusive, and sustainable transport patterns. For Policy RB3 (Grove Farm Phase 2), the implementation of this policy involves providing high-quality pedestrian and cycle infrastructure to link effectively with George Hill and Fair Lane.
Exeter College maintains that its preferred strategy for a dedicated, standalone vehicular access point off George Hill is the most effective way to deliver the "Streets for All" objectives for this site. Technical engagement with ESCC Highways has confirmed that such a standalone access is feasible in principle.
68. We support the findings of the Interim Sustainability Appraisal (January 2026), specifically the preferred spatial development strategy. We strongly endorse the Council’s decision to pursue options which support development coming forward at Robertsbridge, such as SDO4 (Sustainable settlement extensions) and SDO11 (Growth in settlements with railway stations or sustainable transport alternatives).
Robertsbridge is a highly sustainable location, and Land at Grove Farm (Phase 2) is a logical extension that sits within easy walking distance of essential village services and the mainline railway station. This approach aligns with the Local Plan’s "Live Well Locally" priority by directing growth to areas where sustainable transport links and accessibility to social opportunities are already established.
In conclusion, Exeter College expresses overarching support for the proposed allocation of Land
at Grove Farm (Phase 2) under Policy RB3. The site is a deliverable and sustainable extension
to Robertsbridge, capable of providing approximately 70 new homes alongside generous open
space, enhanced walking and cycling links and biodiversity improvements.
This support is subject to the technical clarifications provided in Section 3, most notably the
request to amend the access strategy to allow for a dedicated primary access point off George
Hill to ensure the site's independent deliverability.
We look forward to engaging with the Council on the Proposed Submission version of the Local
Plan and participating in the 'Regulation 19' stage of consultation, which we understand is
expected to take place in Summer 2026.

Attachments:

Representations (25.16 MB)

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 31158

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Homes England

Agent: WSP

Representation Summary:

Please refer to the attached written representations for the full response.

Homes England welcome the latest review of the HELAA (January 2026), are broadly in agreement with the assessment outcomes and support the inclusion of both sites. In future iterations, the site should be taken forward as a single allocation reflecting the ownership and scope of the forthcoming application.

The requirement to provide 1,200sqm of commercial floorspace at the Hodson’s Mill site (RB6a) is unfeasible. The emerging planning application proposes the provision of circa 150 sqm of commercial floorspace on the ground floor of the converted Mill Building.

It must be noted that there are a number of viability considerations associated with the redevelopment of the site. It is unlikely that a policy compliant level of affordable housing will be possible.

Additional flood modelling shows there is no longer a requirement to provide an additional access to accommodate emergency vehicles.

Full text:

See attached representations from Homes England regarding sites RB6a and RB6b and questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 57 and 68.

Attachments:

Hodson's Mill Regulation 18 Representations Rother Draft Local Plan (14.94 MB)

Object

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 31391

Received: 19/03/2026

Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Please see below representation regarding proposed site allocations in Robertsbridge:

RBI Heathfield Gardens site
RB2 Grove Farm site phase 1
RB3 Grove Farm site phase 2
RB4 Vicarage site
RB5 Culverwells site
RB6a Hodson’s Mill site
RB6b Open Field site

The Parish council confirm that it does not support the development of the Bishops Lane site, and are pleased that it has not been included as a draft allocation.

Please see representations below.

Full text:

Consultation – Draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 Consultation

Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council (S&RPC) submits the comments below regarding the
consultation on Rother Draft Local Plan.

The Parish Council supports the vision of Rother Draft Local Plan (RDLP) to develop within the
unique environmental constraints of Rother district. We are however very concerned at the
numbers of houses proposed not just in Robertsbridge but in villages across the district, which
do not have the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed housing expansion.

With respect to sites in Salehurst Parish, we are broadly speaking in agreement with the
proposed sites. All these sites are included within our Salehurst & Robertsbridge
Neighbourhood Development Plan (SRNDP), with the exception of the Open Field
site. However, the size of the sites has increased and we believe the 344 homes proposed
cannot be supported by our village infrastructure; this is a very substantial increase of 164 on
the 180 homes included in SRNDP.

We wish to make the following specific comments:

RBI Heathfield Gardens site - 35-40 homes in SRNDP, 65 are proposed in RDLP. The Parish
Council has no objection, subject to the usual planning rules.

RB2 Grove Farm site phase 1 - 30 homes in SRNDP. 32 have been approved and 32 are in RDLP.

RB3 Grove Farm site phase 2 - this area of the site was not included in SRNDP. 70 homes
included in RDLP. This is the site which most concerns the Parish Council. 70 homes on this
raised green field location will have an overwhelming impact on the village; this size of
development, added to the already approved area, will be out of proportion, and there are
concerns regarding the potential effect on infrastructure. For example, there is no current
capacity for drainage and potentially high impact on traffic flow in the village. George Hill is a
busy entrance / exit to the village, particularly at the start and end of the school day.

RB4 Vicarage site - 6-10 homes in SRNDP, 10 in RDLP. We already submitted our concerns about
the nature of the development proposed for this site.

RB5 Culverwells site (off Station Road) - 17 homes approved prior to SRNDP, 21 homes in RDLP
for which approval has been given.

RB6a Hodson’s Mill site - 85-100 in SRNDP, 96 in RDLP. We strongly support development on this
brown field site. This has widespread support amongst village residents, although developers
must minimise impact on traffic flow within the village.

RB6b Open Field site - Site not included in SRNP. 50 homes included in RDLP, which is at odds
with the 25 homes proposed by Homes England who own the site. The Parish Council does not
object to this site but is very concerned that the proposal for 50 dwellings is too many, given
potential impact on the High Weald National Landscape; development on this raised location
needs to be low rise.

Bishops Lane site - The Parish Council does not support development on this site which was not
included in SRDNP. We are pleased to see that it has not been included in the draft local plan.

In addition, there is a proposal in RDLP policy GYP5 to extend the existing Gypsy and Traveller
Site on Redlands Lane from 6 to 10 units. This in part regularises the fact that there are already
8 units on site, 10 units is the maximum we would support. It would be practical to offer the
additional units to members of the family who already live on site, and to provide access to the
site through the existing site entrance. We do not support a new second access point onto the
narrow country lane, as the wording in the RDLP seems to suggest.

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 31438

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Comments on RB5 & RB6a - please see pages 14 & 15 of attached document: Development Strategy and Site Allocations EA response

Full text:

Please see attached:
- Development Strategy and Site Allocations EA response (Part 1)
- Interim SA and IDP EA response (Part 2)
- Rother Draft Local Plan IDP Part B - EA amendments (Part2)

Part 1 - Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Consultation on the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Thank you for consulting us on the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

We have provided advice and guidance
to strengthen policies and evidence to ensure the new Local plan aligns with
national, regional and local requirements.

Environment Agency Position

Our aim is to assist you prepare and implement a sound, robust, and effective plan
that is reflective of national policy and your local evidence base. We hope that this
collaborative process leads to a plan that delivers sustainable development,
contributes to a stronger economy, and safeguards the environment for future
generations.

Delivering the Local Plan will require a strong environmental evidence base and
close partnership working to ensure development protects and enhances the
environment. It is essential that growth is supported by the right environmental
infrastructure, including flood defences, quality waste management infrastructure,
blue and green infrastructure, water supply and disposal, and pollution prevention.

Further details are provided in:
• Section 1 – General recommendations
• Section 2 – Specific comments on proposed policies and sites

Environmental evidence and data to inform Local Plan policies and planning
decisions; data – including the latest Flood Zones and Groundwater
source protection Zones (SPZs) is available at Defra Data Services Platform.

Our planning advice service

As allocated or windfall sites with relevant environmental constraints or
opportunities progress towards development, we would encourage applicants to
engage with our planning advice service as early as possible.

We can provide detailed guidance on and/or review technical information for
development proposals, prior to submission of planning applications, as part of our
cost recoverable planning advice service.

Engagement with us prior to formal submission can provide applicants with greater
certainty regarding our position and can speed up our formal response to planning
applications. It should also result in better quality and more environmentally sensitive development.

We hope that you find our comments useful, and we would be pleased to meet with
you to discuss in more detail any issues or queries you may have. Should you have
any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Part 2 - Interim SA and IDP

Consultation on the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Interim Sustainability
Appraisal (SA) and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Part A and Part B (the
Schedule)
Thank you for consulting us on the Draft Rother Local Plan 2025–2042 – Interim
Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Part A and
Part B (the Schedule). We have provided advice and guidance to strengthen policies
and evidence to ensure the new Local plan aligns with national, regional and local
requirements.
Environment Agency Position
Our aim is to assist you prepare and implement a sound, robust, and effective plan
that is reflective of national policy and your local evidence base. We hope that this
collaborative process leads to a plan that delivers sustainable development,
contributes to a stronger economy, and safeguards the environment for future
generations.
Delivering the Local Plan will require a strong environmental evidence base and
close partnership working to ensure development protects and enhances the
environment. It is essential that growth is supported by the right environmental
infrastructure, including flood defences, quality waste management infrastructure,
blue and green infrastructure, water supply and disposal, and pollution prevention.
Further details are provided in:
•
Section 1 – Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) comments
•
Section 2 – Interim Sustainability Appraisals (SA) comments
We also attach the following document to our response:
•
Rother Draft Local Plan IDP Part B - EA amendments
Environmental evidence and data to inform Local Plan policies and planning
decisions; data – including the latest Flood Zones and Groundwater
source protection Zones (SPZs) is available at Defra Data Services Platform.
Our planning advice service
As allocated or windfall sites with relevant environmental constraints or
opportunities progress towards development, we would encourage applicants to
engage with our planning advice service as early as possible.
We can provide detailed guidance on and/or review technical information for
development proposals, prior to submission of planning applications, as part of our cost recoverable planning advice service.
Engagement with us prior to formal submission can provide applicants with greater
certainty regarding our position and can speed up our formal response to planning
applications. It should also result in better quality and more environmentally
sensitive development.
We hope that you find our comments useful, and we would be pleased to meet with
you to discuss in more detail any issues or queries you may have. Should you have
any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Attachments:

Development Strategy and Site Allocations EA response (319.67 KB)
Interim SA and IDP EA response (249.84 KB)
Rother Draft Local Plan IDP Part B - EA amendments (126.79 KB)

Support

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 – Development Strategy and Site Allocations

Representation ID: 31473

Received: 23/03/2026

Respondent: National Highways

Representation Summary:

Our review has sought to identify immediately apparent site-specific matters of interest to us, which are:
• Sites which would require a new access onto the SRN (this includes sites that do not abut the SRN but would require a new access onto the SRN as part of their wider transport strategy)
• Sites which propose to use an existing SRN access
• Sites which abut the SRN but would take access onto the Local Road Network.
• Sites located near the SRN.
Please see our detailed advice provided on the requirements and expectations for each of these matters.

Full text:

Draft Rother Local Plan (Regulation 18) - National Highways' response

Thank you for your email of 26 January 2026 consulting National Highways on the draft Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 - Development Strategy and Site Allocations (the draft Plan).

We are concerned about the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). In the case of Rother district, the SRN comprises the A259 and the A21.

We have read the consultation document and understand that the focus is on the proposed site allocations. We have also read the Local Development Scheme (LDS) (March 2025) which maps out the timetable for the production of the Local Plan.

We have set out below our comments.

SRN policy context - vision-led approach:
We would like to draw your attention to the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022: Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development (December 2022) which represents the government's policy for the SRN.

Plan-making needs to respond to the expectations of this policy including a vision-led approach to development. The objective of vision-led development is to manage down traffic impacts by maximising opportunities for sustainable travel and by internalising movements as far as possible through layout and design. There is also a specific section in the Circular on 'Engagement with plan-making'.

The vision-led approach to development now features in the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (December 2024) - please see section 9. The updated NPPF also includes a requirement for Local Plans to look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from adoption. It is important to highlight this at this early stage because the time horizon for the Local Plan is relevant to the evidence that needs to be prepared to inform plan-making.

A key part of the vision-led approach, where appropriate, is monitor and manage. This is an important strategy for overseeing the appropriateness and phasing of identified highway mitigation to support the delivery of large developments. This would need to be informed by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that should be kept live by regular monitoring during the implementation of the development strategy for the Local Plan.

We are happy to work with you on the development of appropriate policies that address the vision-led approach and monitor and manage.

Rother Local Plan 2025-2042 - Development Strategy and Site Allocations Draft (Regulation 18) Version, January 2026:
The draft Local Plan sets out proposed site allocations across the district along with some area specific policies.

We understand that 'Additional technical evidence will be prepared to ensure the potential impacts (including cumulative impacts) of the level of growth planned in Rother is appropriately considered, as well as to ensure new development is suitably located and can be adequately supported by infrastructure, and is viable, in line with national policy and guidance.'

We would encourage Rother District Council (RDC) to continue to engage with us in respect of the transport modelling and assessments in order to ensure that the approach is consistent with the guidance set out in DfT Circular 01/2022.

Furthermore, we suggest that the Local Plan considers cumulative impacts of development in neighbouring authorities. This is in line with DfT Circular 01/2022 paragraph 29 and the NPPF on strategic cross-boundary matters.

Infrastructure Needs:
We note that an updated Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been prepared in support of this Regulation 18 consultation and our comments on this document are detailed within a later section of this letter.

However, it is also important to note that we understand the draft IDP will require further revisions once the updated strategic transport modelling using the countywide model is complete. As such, the infrastructure needed to support the delivery of the Local Plan cannot be fully identified until this work is complete.

Development Strategy:
We note that following the first Regulation 18 consultation, several additional options for the development strategy have been identified, these included the 'A21 Corridor Option'.

We note that this option would have the most direct implications for the SRN. This option provides for development along the A21 trunk road within an identified corridor of settlements, together with a sustainable transport corridor (including improved sustainable travel options such as bus routes, cycling and walking infrastructure).

We would highlight that any proposed changes/improvements to any part of the SRN will require consultation with and approval from us.

Furthermore, the full impact of this option is required to be assessed as part of the updated modelling, to be undertaken in compliance with the guidance set out in DfT Circular 01/2022.

We strongly advise that RDC continue to engage with us regarding the updated modelling and preparation of the associated transport evidence base documents to ensure that any potential impacts on the SRN are appropriately assessed.

Development Strategy for Rother:
It is noted that Bexhill will be the key focus for sustainable residential and commercial growth with potential to deliver circa 4,764 dwellings and 54,672 sqm. of employment.

It is evident that the proposed development strategy will place additional strain on the SRN in this area and this will need to be fully assessed through the updated modelling work being undertaken to support the draft Local Plan.

RDC must consider Circular 01/2022 paragraph 29:
"there cannot be any presumption that such infrastructure will be funded through a future RIS [Road Investment Strategy]. The company will therefore work with local authorities in their strategic policy-making functions in identifying realistic alternative funding mechanisms, to include other public funding programmes and developer contribution strategies to be secured by a policy in a local plan or spatial development strategy."

The draft Local Plan notes there are 'opportunities for sensitive development in the sub-area during the timeframe of the Local Plan, where sustainable and related to an existing settlement, including those alongside the A21. Longer term (beyond the timeframe of the new Local Plan), the delivery of significant improvements to create a sustainable transport corridor could open up opportunities for future development along the A21 corridor, which could be addressed in a plan review.'

RDC states that there is potential to deliver 996 dwellings and 4,350 sqm of employment floorspace across the Northern Rother sub-area.

Paragraph 6.85 of the draft Local Plan states:

'The A21 provides road connections between the villages north and south. In the long- term, the A21 could become a sustainable travel corridor with buses given priority, linked to walking, cycling and wheeling routes. The Transport for the South-East (TfSE) Strategic Investment Plan identifies bypasses on the A21 at Flimwell and Hurst Green as necessary transport interventions to decarbonise transport in the south-east by 2050. However, these are not currently funded and there is a lack of evidence they will come forward at any point, including during the timescale of the Local Plan.'

Introducing a sustainable travel corridor along the A21 aligns with DfT Circular 01/2022 policy by encouraging walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport use as the natural first choice. However, we would again reiterate that the need for any SRN mitigation must be considered after all options have been assessed to maximise the accessibility by sustainable transport modes. There cannot be any presumption that SRN-related infrastructure to mitigate Local Plan impacts will be funded through a future government's Road Investment Strategy (RIS). Funding and delivery of necessary SRN infrastructure to support planned growth is a matter for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to lead on through the Local Plan process.

Furthermore, it is also important to note that while RIS3 has yet to be published, the interim statement (2025/2026) highlights that RIS3 will be focused on maintenance and renewal (para.4.3):

'While RIS3 has yet to be agreed, it is likely that investment will be increasingly focussed on maintaining and renewing the existing Strategic Road Network, including replacing and renewing major bridges, viaducts and other structures.'

Site Allocations:
We note that there are circa 162 site allocation policies (some are area specific and can also encompass more than one site).

Our review has sought to identify immediately apparent site-specific matters of interest to us, which are:
- Sites which would require a new access onto the SRN (this includes sites that do not abut the SRN but would require a new access onto the SRN as part of their wider transport strategy)
- Sites which propose to use an existing SRN access Sites which abut the SRN but would take access onto the Local Road Network
- Sites located near the SRN.

Sites requiring a new access onto SRN All sites seeking a new access onto the SRN must demonstrate evidence of: Policy compliance regarding new accesses on the SRN as per DfT Circular 01/2022, in particular paragraphs 18 to 25 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) compliance and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA), Walking, Cycling and Horse-riding Assessment and Review (WCHAR) etc.

In relation to policy compliance, we would highlight paragraph 19 of the Circular (our emphasis):

"19. On this basis the principle of creating new connections on the SRN should be identified at the plan-making stage in circumstances where an assessment of the potential impacts on the SRN can be considered alongside whether such new infrastructure is essential for the delivery of strategic growth. Moreover, the company will need to be satisfied that all reasonable options to deliver modal shift, promote walking, wheeling and cycling, public transport and shared travel to assist in reducing car dependency, and locate development in areas of high accessibility by sustainable transport modes (or areas that can be made more accessible) have been exhausted before considering options for new connections to the SRN. There may also be limited opportunity for new connections to be considered as part of public funding programmes to support new development, although necessary infrastructure in up- to-date plans and strategies should be favoured in such instances."

We would therefore expect an appropriate assessment to be undertaken and included - either within the Local Plan transport evidence or as part of the explanation of the development strategy - demonstrating how this has been addressed through plan-making by RDC. It may be the case that it can be drawn from other existing sources that form part of the Local Plan evidence base.

It is important that RDC demonstrates that they have followed this process as any new connections on the SRN can create additional risk to safety and reduce the reliability and efficiency of journeys.

In respect of these sites, it is also strongly advised that individual site-specific advice be sought from us as soon as possible.

Sites proposing to utilise an existing SRN access:
All sites which propose to utilise an existing SRN access will need to fully assess any impacts arising from the proposed development traffic.

It is important to note that we would not support the intensification of use of an existing SRN access where there would be a detrimental impact on safety.

Any proposed upgrade/improvement of an existing SRN access would need to be fully assessed in line with the relevant guidance set out in DfT Circular 01/2022 and DMRB.

For all sites where SRN access is critical to the deliverability of the development, the required assessments should be undertaken as soon as possible, in advance of the Regulation 19 submission.

Sites which abut the SRN:
All sites which abut the SRN will need to consider any boundary issues, eg drainage, lighting, geotechnical, boundary treatments, in consultation with us.

Sites near the SRN:
For sites located near to the SRN, it will be particularly important that they are supported by an appropriate Transport Assessment at the planning application stage and are advised to seek early engagement with us at the pre-application stage. However, this does not preclude the need for Transport Assessments for sites which are located further away which are of a development quantum which could have a material traffic impact on the SRN.

We note that the cumulative traffic impact of all proposed site allocations is to be assessed as part of the updated modelling based on the East Sussex Countywide model.

Evidence-base: Strategic transport modelling It is important that plan-making is informed by proportionate up-to-date evidence.

In respect of transport, we expect the beginning stages of plan-making to be supported by baseline evidence for the highway networks across Rother District, with our focus being on the SRN. We note that the transport evidence which has been published as part of the
current consultation dates from 2023 and therefore is not able to specifically consider the impacts of the specific sites identified in the main Regulation 18 consultation document.

We understand that the intention is to utilise the East Sussex Countywide Transport Model (ESCWTM/ 'countywide model') in advance of subsequent consultation stages to 'underpin and develop a detailed Shared Transport Evidence Base'.

This needs to set out current and future baseline (end of plan period + extant permissions) information on the performance of junctions across the highway networks. We understand that this will be informed by updated transport modelling using the Countywide strategic model.

Baseline information on the current and expected performance of junctions across the highway networks (without the emerging Local Plan) is relevant to the site selection process and needs to be produced in advance of the detailed Regulation 19 Local Plan to inform its preparation.

We are happy to be engaged with the scoping, calibration, and validation of this work, along with colleagues at East Sussex County Council who are responsible for the Local Road Network (LRN).

Once established, the strategic transport model can then be used to test development strategy options being considered by the council for the Local Plan.

Evidence base: Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) January 2026. The IDP is a useful piece of evidence to identify what, where and when in terms of the infrastructure needed to support the development strategy in the Local Plan. It can identify schemes, estimated costs, and when the mitigation will be phased alongside the build-out of the development strategy.

We have reviewed the IDP Part A and Part B (The Schedule) and would note the following points:

Strategic Corridor Improvements The A21 and A259 corridors have been identified as requiring capacity management and selective enhancements to accommodate forecast growth. The IDP confirms that any improvements along this corridor should be aligned with National Highways' RIS3 (2026 - 2031), and the LTP4 Investment Plan priorities. We would note that RIS3 is yet to be published, however, the outlined approach would be acceptable in principle. It is important to appreciate that the focus of RIS3 will be on maintenance and renewal; there is uncertainty about the future of RIS3 pipeline projects identified in RIS2. The current position on the A21 Safety Package scheme is available from our website: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-east/a21-safety-package/

Integration with multi-modal travel: We welcome the statement in Paragraph 3.40 of the IDP which outlines that road interventions must support sustainable travel choices, with new and upgraded infrastructure planning alongside priority measures, cycle lanes, and pedestrian infrastructure. Such improvements should be designed in accordance with appropriate DMRB standards with any proposals submitted to us for approval.

Phased delivery and prioritisation: We agree that road network improvements should be phased in line with housing and employment delivery to ensure new capacity and infrastructure is in place at the right time as development comes forward.

Financial & delivery requirements: It should be noted that any improvement schemes on the SRN would be expected to be delivered via a s.278 (Highways Act 1980) agreement between the developer and National Highways. We do not accept developer contributions, with priorities for the SRN set in the government's RIS.

It is also important to note that RIS3 has yet to be published and as such there should be no reliance on any schemes that may be included within it. As highlighted above, there is uncertainty about RIS3 pipeline projects identified in RIS2.

We would also highlight paragraph 29 of DfT Circular 01/2022 (our emphasis):

'New connections and capacity enhancements to the SRN which are necessary to deliver strategic growth should be identified as part of the plan-making process, as this provides the best opportunity to consider the cumulative impacts of development (including planned growth in adjoining authorities) and to identify appropriate mechanisms for the delivery of strategic highway infrastructure. However, there cannot be any presumption that such infrastructure will be funded through a future RIS. The company will therefore work with local authorities in their strategic policy- making functions in identifying realistic alternative funding mechanisms, to include other public funding programmes and developer contribution strategies to be secured by a policy in a local plan or spatial development strategy.'

We welcome the reference to the 'vision and validate' approach (also known as 'monitor and manage') in Paragraph 10.9 of the IDP.

We consider that it could be beneficial to discuss the suitability of a 'Monitor and Manage' approach for individual proposed developments on a case-by-case basis at the appropriate time during the planning process, as part of a collaborative approach involving us, the LPA, developers and ESCC.

The IDP Part B (the Schedule) lists a number of schemes which directly impact the SRN.

We note that we have been identified as a 'Delivery Partner' for some of these schemes. As previously noted, Paragraph 10.21 of the IDP states that a 'Delivery Partner' is defined as: 'any strategic stakeholder (public or private) involved in the planning, design, technical approval, or funding of infrastructure; they are not necessarily the body that directly delivers the infrastructure itself.'

Based on RDC's definition, we would be a 'Delivery Partner' for all schemes on the SRN as technical approval from us would be required. Any proposed changes to the layout or operation of the SRN will need to be approved by us, with the changes designed in accordance with appropriate DMRB standards and assessed in compliance with DfT Circular 01/2022.

For the avoidance of doubt, unless otherwise specified by us, any identified SRN schemes necessary to support planned growth will not be funded or delivered by National Highways.

With regard to the Schedule itself, it would be useful to have additional information presented in relation to the presented schemes, where applicable, particularly for those classified as critical or essential:

Scheme drawing number reference LPA planning application reference(s) if scheme is linked/conditioned to development(s) Any identified trigger points (development thresholds) at which scheme is required.

We have not undertaken a detailed review of all SRN schemes included within the Schedule as we understand that the transport modelling evidence for the draft Local Plan, based on the latest site allocations, may result in changes to infrastructure requirements. As such, we anticipate that there will need to be a further update to the IDP once the modelling is completed. We have no further comments at this stage.

National Highways will need to participate in discussions involving East Sussex County Council (ESCC) and RDC, to ensure that the agreed modelling scope, specifications, and assumptions are appropriate and proportionate to the needs of the emerging Local Plan.

The IDP is a useful piece of evidence for documenting the outputs from the monitor and manage strategy which needs to form part of the implementation of the Plan. It would benefit from a chart plotting the phasing of essential transport infrastructure alongside the build-out of the development strategy to ensure identified mitigation is delivered at the right time in the development cycle. We are happy to be engaged with the development of further updates to the IDP and the monitor and manage strategy.

Expectation management: We must be clear that the funding and delivery of mitigation to the SRN that is necessary to support the development strategy in the Local Plan are matters for the LPA to decide and manage through the Local Plan process, including during its implementation.

Priorities for investment in the SRN are set in the government's Road Investment Strategy (RIS). There cannot be a presumption that improvements to the SRN necessary to support planned growth in the Local Plan will be funded and supported through a future RIS. RIS3 (2026-2031) will be focused on maintenance and renewal.

We are happy to be engaged in the process of assessing proposed mitigation, e.g. safety and design standards, but will not be responsible for funding or delivery.

Keep informed: We hope these comments are clear and helpful. We are happy to work with Rother District Council on an on-going basis as the Local Plan, including the evidence base, progresses.

Please keep us informed about the development of transport related evidence and the next stage of the Draft Rother Local Plan.

We would also like to share with you our 'Planning for the future - A guide to working with National Highways on planning matters' (October 2023), which is available from our website. This planning guide describes the approach we take to engaging with the planning system and the issues we look at when considering draft planning documents such as Local Plans.

We have also prepared a short explainer video outlining how we engage with planning. This video is available from our website under the heading 'Our support for plan-making and decision-taking': https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/planning-and-the-strategic-road- network-in-england/. In addition, we have prepared a Local Plan brochure outlining how we engage with plan-making which is available from the same section of our website.

Should you or any others have any queries regarding our response, please contact us.

Attachments:

National Highways representations (240.26 KB)