Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

The further increase in proposed new housing for Catsfield from a span of 0 - 30 to 47 is not legally compliant or sound with National or Rother DC's Policies:

Referring to NPPF - Paragraph 54.
In rural areas, exercising the duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities, local planning authorities should be responsive to local circumstances and plan housing development to reflect local needs, particularly for affordable housing, including through rural exception sites were appropriate. Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs.

Rother Core Strategy 7.41, 7.43(c), 12
7.41 Rural communities in particular are keen to ensure that development in villages contributes to their character and sustainability of services, as well as meets local needs (such as for affordable housing, play areas, community halls, etc). Hence, development in rural areas should be set at a level which allows for limited growth, reflecting individual settlement's needs, opportunities and service provision.
7.43 The overall impact of the distribution of new development proposed set out below (and in chapter 12 for individual villages) is to maintain the existing settlement pattern. It both supports the role of the main service centres in ways compatible with their context and provides for the sensitive evolution of smaller settlements, with a focus on enabling them to meet local needs locally.
7.43(c) facilitate the limited growth of villages that contain a range of services and which contributes to supporting vibrant, mixed rural communities, notably in relation to service provision and local housing needs, and is compatible with the character and setting of the village;

MOD 12.6 p81 [Insert]
Potential new sites' in Figure 12 refers to sites expected to be formally allocated via the Development and Site Allocations DPD or Neighbourhood Plans. These will normally comprise development sites accommodating 6 or more dwellings.
Previously unidentified large sites (6 dwellings and over) in a village gaining planning permission before adoption of the relevant DPD/Plan may be deducted from the total 'Potential new sites' that an individual village is expected to achieve, depending on the stage reached and the suitability of other potential sites.
Developments of less than 6 dwellings, on currently unidentified sites, will count towards the overall rural housing numbers total as 'small-site windfalls'; an estimated allowance for them has been included for years 5-15. Therefore, to avoid double counting, they are in addition to the 'Potential new sites' for individual villages.
Affordable housing 'Exception sites' are typically between 6 and14 dwellings. In common with small site windfalls, they are dealt with in a separate row on Figure 12. Hence, they cannot be deducted from the 'potential new sites' totals for villages, since to do would entail double counting. The estimated number of 65 dwellings on 'Exception sites' across the rural areas for the plan period is based upon figures derived from the Council's Housing Strategy.

The number of additional dwellings is disproportionate to the size of the Village (the development boundary has 133 dwellings against the total of 64 additional houses proposed) and does not correspond to 'limited' growth. Rother DC has not undertaken a local needs consultation prior to this publication so cannot be aware of what reflects the local needs. Our Catsfield Local Action Plan 2009 - 14, which does reflect the local needs, has been disregarded. To quote from page 21:-
'The majority of residents in Catsfield did not want to see any major housing developments and overall it was felt that there was no real need for more property to be developed. Some residents were happy to see some "affordable housing" developed but in this respect the schemes available are not full proof in offering housing only to Catsfield residents or relatives of and so we propose to limit future large scale development as much as possible.

We have already been earmarked to provide a further 40 dwellings by 2026 according to the Rother Local Development plans and to this end we have already seen a significant number of "in fill" properties and the Parish Council will make sure that these "count" towards our final total'

The scale of the developments, which will be dictated by the caveat to be inserted after figure 12 in the Core Strategy - 'Potential new sites in figure 12 refers to sites expected to be formally allocated via the Development and Site Allocations DPD or Neighbourhood Plans. These will normally comprise development sites accommodating 6 or more dwellings', will not be in character with the Village. Developments of more than 6 dwellings are not characteristic of the village and are in danger of creating an enclave. The impact on our current services will be overwhelming as opposed to sustainable

MOD 12.6 p81 [Insert]
Potential new sites' in Figure 12 refers to sites expected to be formally allocated via the Development and Site Allocations DPD or Neighbourhood Plans. These will normally comprise development sites accommodating 6 or more dwellings.
Previously unidentified large sites (6 dwellings and over) in a village gaining planning permission before adoption of the relevant DPD/Plan may be deducted from the total 'Potential new sites' that an individual village is expected to achieve, depending on the stage reached and the suitability of other potential sites.
Developments of less than 6 dwellings, on currently unidentified sites, will count towards the overall rural housing numbers total as 'small-site windfalls'; an estimated allowance for them has been included for years 5-15. Therefore, to avoid double counting, they are in addition to the 'Potential new sites' for individual villages.
Affordable housing 'Exception sites' are typically between 6 and14 dwellings. In common with small site windfalls, they are dealt with in a separate row on Figure 12. Hence, they cannot be deducted from the 'potential new sites' totals for villages, since to do would entail double counting. The estimated number of 65 dwellings on 'Exception sites' across the rural areas for the plan period is based upon figures derived from the Council's Housing Strategy.

The number of additional dwellings is disproportionate to the size of the Village (the development boundary has 133 dwellings against the total of 64 additional houses proposed) and does not correspond to 'limited' growth. Rother DC has not undertaken a local needs consultation prior to this publication so cannot be aware of what reflects the local needs. Our Catsfield Local Action Plan 2009 - 14, which does reflect the local needs, has been disregarded. To quote from page 21:-
'The majority of residents in Catsfield did not want to see any major housing developments and overall it was felt that there was no real need for more property to be developed. Some residents were happy to see some "affordable housing" developed but in this respect the schemes available are not full proof in offering housing only to Catsfield residents or relatives of and so we propose to limit future large scale development as much as possible.

We have already been earmarked to provide a further 40 dwellings by 2026 according to the Rother Local Development plans and to this end we have already seen a significant number of "in fill" properties and the Parish Council will make sure that these "count" towards our final total'

The scale of the developments, which will be dictated by the caveat to be inserted after figure 12 in the Core Strategy - 'Potential new sites in figure 12 refers to sites expected to be formally allocated via the Development and Site Allocations DPD or Neighbourhood Plans. These will normally comprise development sites accommodating 6 or more dwellings', will not be in character with the Village. Developments of more than 6 dwellings are not characteristic of the village and are in danger of creating an enclave. The impact on our current services will be overwhelming as opposed to sustainable