Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Ecology

OTHER POLICIES Page 337

Rother Valley Railway

The policy should be amended to state that appropriate mitigation, compensation and enhancement for ecological impacts will be provided.

Traveller Liaison Team

OTHER POLICIES

We agree with the plans for both preferred sites and think that the location of these meets the needs of the community and does not have a detrimental effect on the landscape.

Traveller Liaison Team

OTHER POLICIES

Yes agree with the requirements including the boundary as defined on the policy map

Traveller Liaison Team

OTHER POLICIES

Page 346 17.17: "a nine pitch transit site with a resident site manager". This point is not correct. There is not a resident site manager. There is a site manager that attends regularly to that site during Monday-Friday. He also attends East Sussex County Councils four other permanent sites during this period too.

We agree that it does meet current transit provision, but we are not always able to move large encampments to this transit site as there are only nine pitches. This does limit the use of Section 62A which gives the police power to move an encampment onto the site.

The team are currently looking in to the possibility of extending the current site making it a 10 pitch site. In order to do this the current large static van (old site manager's residence) will need to be removed

For Information - we currently have 23 applications on our waiting list for a permanent site at our four permanent sites of Maresfield, Polegate, Robertsbridge and Hailsham.

Older Peoples Housing (Adult Social Care)

HOUSING Page 35

We agree with the District Council's preferred option of C. This option will prioritise the delivery of affordable homes but with the understanding that schemes under 6 units will struggle to be viable if a contribution of affordable homes is required.

Older Peoples Housing (Adult Social Care)

HOUSING Page 35

(a) adoption of the national internal space standard?
Yes.

Culture and Tourism

It is agreed that cultural uses should be promoted in Sackville Road. It should be a cultural gateway from seafront to town centre, extending up to London Road as the encouragement of artist workspaces will help to rejuvenate this area of the town. We also note that Devonshire Road is a key route between the railway station and the De La Warr Pavilion and it is unclear therefore as to whether the retail designation is sufficient in expressing the important role this route has for the town.

Furthermore we note that currently the cultural designation definition includes tourism. Arguably the visitor economy designation is a separate (although related) planning priority and there are other areas of the town which might benefit from a Visitor Economy designation? Given the District Council's ambitions to attract some higher end/boutique style hotel bed space to complement the cultural offer of the town, consideration needs to be given to how this can be satisfactorily achieved?

Culture and Tourism

It is agreed that cultural uses should be promoted in Sackville Road. It should be a cultural gateway from seafront to town centre, extending up to London Road as the encouragement of artist workspaces will help to rejuvenate this area of the town. We also note that Devonshire Road is a key route between the railway station and the De La Warr Pavilion and it is unclear therefore as to whether the retail designation is sufficient in expressing the important role this route has for the town.

Furthermore we note that currently the cultural designation definition includes tourism. Arguably the visitor economy designation is a separate (although related) planning priority and there are other areas of the town which might benefit from a Visitor Economy designation? Given the District Council's ambitions to attract some higher end/boutique style hotel bed space to complement the cultural offer of the town, consideration needs to be given to how this can be satisfactorily achieved?

Older Peoples Housing (Adult Social Care)

HOUSING Page 35

(b) adoption of the optional Building Regulations standards for accessible and adaptable housing?

Yes. Option C - developments of 11 or more requiring 25% M4 (2) housing and developments of 50 or more requiring 5% M4 (3). The research and evidence to support this policy is significant both at a local and national level.

It is not clear whether the adoption of optional Building Regulations standards is specific to affordable housing development or a blanket policy for all developments. It may be that different Building Regulations standards could be adopted specifically for affordable development on the basis of accessibility needs of those on the Councils housing register.

Older Peoples Housing (Adult Social Care)

HOUSING Page 35

(c) housing for older persons, and the specific policy options highlighted? If not, what changes would you wish to see?
We support Rother's planning approach to meeting the needs of older people.
Additional comments:

* Should Rother adopt the building regulation standards as proposed above it should not need a policy to specify older persons housing in developments of 100 or more as the needs of older persons would have already been met by providing accessible, adaptable homes.

* As well as new developments of residential, nursing, sheltered, Extra Care etc housing Rother needs to factor in losses. Many of the providers' premises in the District are Victorian homes which are difficult to maintain and adapt. Is there the possibility of having a more flexible policy to incentivise care home owners to change use of existing premises and facilitate extensions of small scale units that may be unsustainable?

* The County Council would promote the development of Extra Care housing as an alternative to residential care homes. Although there is a need in rural areas of Rother it is difficult to sustain the design principles of Extra Care in these locations as they are usually not close to facilities etc.

* The County Council would support the development of short term care ready older persons housing that can be used for respite care and to prevent admissions to acute care. This requirement could be factored in to new developments for older persons housing with a requirement to consult with the County Council on requirements for short term placements in the locality.

* It is thought that a policy specifying bungalows for older people would not have much of an impact as that is already the target audience for that style of development. What could be policy led is the requirement to have the infrastructure in place within the vicinity to meet the care/ health needs of the residents in the locality i.e. space provided on the development for mini health hubs etc.