Core Strategy Issues & Options

Comment

Representation ID: 18838

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Although the concept of 'sustainable development' is explained, inadequate emphasis is given to substantiating how this will be achieved and in this sense, the word 'sustainable' is used too lightly and loosely within the document. At the present time, virtually none of the existing development within the Rother area can be said to be sustainable, given its heavy dependence on fossil fuels - which are inherently unsustainable- for heating, lighting, power, transport, manufacturing, pumping and cleaning water and other functions. This should be clearly stated.

Comment

Representation ID: 18839

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Theme 1: the discrepancy between supply and demand for housing is noted. It is accepted that there is an urgent need to increase the stock of smaller and rented accommodation, as well as accommodation for low-income families and sheltered/extra care housing for the elderly. We want to see a lowering of the threshold (in unit and area terms) at which affordable housing is mandatory in any residential development. The document should be strongly promoting higher density development within existing development boundaries, rather than encroaching on greenfield sites

Comment

Representation ID: 18840

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Theme 2: a much stronger emphasis should be put on encouraging mixed use, in existing and proposed developments. Only by combining living, working, shopping, leisure and other day-to-day activities within walking distance of one another, can the reliance on the motorcar be obviated.

Comment

Representation ID: 18841

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Theme 3: the document is flawed by over-relying on the realisation of the Bexhill- Hastings Link Road. This desire is contrary to the' over-arching aim to create truly sustainable development, which can and should be achieved within existing development boundaries.

Very little mention is made of encouraging walking and cycling as the main means of transport (passing reference in 7.29) and too little emphasis is put on encouraging a reliable and frequent service public transport system.

Comment

Representation ID: 18842

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Theme 4: Emphasis put on preserving the existing built environment which, is not sustainable, irrespective of its aesthetic merits. Methods stated to combat climate change are vague and unambitious. No mention is made of BREEAM {British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method): need a requirement for all new development, including commercial, industrial and community, to achieve ratings 'very good' or 'excellent'. Building forms that are perceived to be 'out of keeping' should be supported if it can be demonstrated it is necessary in order to achieve zero carbon emissions. The document needs to encourage communal heat and power systems for larger developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 18843

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Theme 5: not enough weight is given to promoting grey water systems and strategies to reduce water consumption.

The document makes little mention of the facilitating of reducing, re-using and recycling of waste'- both" household and commercial. In particular, the location of a household waste and recycling site needs to be-identified in Eastern Rother, which is the only area within all of East Sussex not covered by such a facility, as stated in the Waste Local Plan.

Sites need to be identified for Material Reclamation Facilities and community composting. This aim needs to be clearly stated.