Proposed Submission Core Strategy

We suggest that for RSCs in particular you replace Policy RA1 (iii) with a far more positive proposal to support and sustain businesses within the RSCs. You have failed to be specific on what support would actually mean; we believe it should be positive in the sense of business rate support and should provide a protective planning framework to ensure that the high street areas are not diminished by allowing change of use applications to other than business use, unless very strict economic tests are passed.

Our suggestion would be that for RSCs at least there should be a policy which protects premises whose uses are currently employment and service generating, by resisting proposals to change the use unless the change of use or redevelopment provides suitable replacement or service generating employment opportunities. The only exception would be if there are demonstrably overwhelming economic reasons which indicate the current use is unsustainable.

We also suggest that encouragement should be given to any new build permission for live/work units, which recognise the fact that within Robertsbridge for example, there are at least forty businesses that operate out of people's houses and there needs to be a recognition in the strategy that provision of such accommodation is needed to create sustainable and vibrant RSCs.

We note that the proposed Core Strategy differs from the current Local Plan in identifying different strands of rural settlements. In para 12.12, it refers to two as Rural Service Centres (RSCs), Robertsbridge and Ticehurst, and a number of other villages of sizeable populations as Local Service Villages (LSVs). Having created the distinction between RSCs and LSVs, it does not then go on to articulate why such a distinction should have been made, or what the consequences of such a distinction should be in terms of the strategy for Rother and in particular for those designated villages. This is apart from their definition within the Rural Settlements Study.

Common sense should dictate that, having identified a distinction and honouring Robertsbridge and Ticehurst with the title of RSC, some help and support should additionally come to those two villages in order for them to maintain and enhance such a rôle into the future, especially since such action should be designed to achieve sustainability in the wider community by ensuring that the RSCs are, and continue to be vibrant hubs, adequately equipped to maintain their designated rôles.

In particular that means there should be special consideration afforded to the retention of existing businesses and the creation and support of new ones to ensure the continued sustainability of the RSCs against threats posed by neighbouring towns or those further afield, such as Tunbridge Wells and Hastings.

1 Therefore there should be a separate policy for RSCs recognising their important rôle over and above the LSVs. The Policy RA1 is adequate for LSVs but not sufficiently robust for RSCs if they are to achieve what one assumes Rother planners would wish - that they retain and indeed expand their already vital employment base, that they continue to provide an adequate range of retail facilities including public houses and restaurants, and support a growing emphasis on rural tourism. This is quite apart from any desire on the strategy's part to place additional housing in the RSCs. Policy RA1 (v) rather bizarrely suggests that in order "to ensure the continued vitality of villages" (which include RSCs) there should be provision for additional dwellings. This could only happen if the sustainable infrastructure is maintained and enhanced, particularly in RSCs, so that "vitality" can be "continued" in villages.

Given the references to the growth in local tourism stated above, we would wish to support the proposals set out in EC6, and in particular would put forward the proposal to support the Rother Valley Railway which would add considerably to the existing tourism attractions in the area.

We would wish to support Policy EN4 to ensure strong support for the maintenance and improvement of such public facilities as the clay pavement on the High Street in Robertsbridge and other distinctive features such as original signage, with also the removal of items which do not enhance the heritage appearance of the streetscape, like unco-ordinated street lighting and modern road signage.

We support entirely the laudable objectives for rural areas listed in para 12.6 especially (iv) "thriving rural committees", (vi) "(reducing) the need to travel .... and supporting viable and accessible services and facilities within villages" and (xii) "(supporting) sustainable tourism and recreation including improved access to the countryside".

These objectives are entirely consonant with the aims and objectives of Robertsbridge Enterprise Group and therefore command support. However, we believe that the policies and proposals contained with the Rural Areas chapter do not match up to these objectives and would wish to see them strengthened in order to achieve the objectives.