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

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Rother District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan. The following are officer comments from East Sussex County Council (ESCC). The response has been divided into sections -a separate section for each specialist area (see table of contents below). Some of the responses provide specific answers to the consultation questions, whilst some of the other responses have only provided advice and comments which do not directly relate to any particular question.

General

It is recommended that references to specific infrastructure measures being provided through development contributions under site Policies are removed. Such as in Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley. How infrastructure is to be funded should be left to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Reg. 123 list. Funding and specific requirements are subject to change therefore it is more appropriate for this issue to be dealt within those documents. There are also likely to be major changes to the development contributions regime indicated in the recent CIL Review Team report 'A new approach to development contributions'. The DaSA we would propose should therefore be silent on these matters as it cannot be comprehensive and current.

It is suggested that the Core Strategy section text should highlight that it contains the overarching policies on infrastructure particularly Policy IM2 Implementation and Infrastructure. It is also suggested that it should state that infrastructure requirements within the DaSA will not be exhaustive but that current information on infrastructure requirements will be contained within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in requirements and funding.

Transport Strategy & Economic Development
HASTINGS FRINGES page 197

Overall comment - The site allocations for the Hastings Fringes have the potential to be supported by a number of key transport infrastructure projects to relieve traffic congestion, enhance accessibility and provide greater transport choices on The Ridge corridor including:

* the Queensway Gateway Road,
* the delivery of the Hastings Cycling & Walking network and
* improvements to Public Transport Infrastructure, including the Ridge Bus Stops Package and the delivery of Real Time Passenger Information, across Bexhill and Hastings.

Waste Planning

Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps & Policy HAS5: Combe Valley Countryside Park
It is noted that Pebsham Household Waste Recycling Centre and Waste Transfer Station, which is a safeguarded waste site, and the Pebsham Waste Water Treatment Works are within the Bexhill and Hastings/St Leonards Strategic Gap (DEN3) but excluded from the Countryside Park (HAS5). Additionally, the link between waste management and the Countryside Park as set out in the Pebsham Countryside Park Project Development Strategy (January 2007) appears to have not been pursued. It is suggested that for consistency between these two policies that either the above waste management facilities are excluded from Policy DEN3 or the link between waste management and the Countryside Park is reflected in policy HAS5.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.

Flood Risk Management

Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317

We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.