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

Four comments:

1.Item 3.2.17 of the SA main document, relating to Deprivation, states: 'Almost 9% of Rother households are classed as being in fuel poverty, which is low compared to
England & Wales, but high compared to the wider county and region'. Could RDC
provide more information, with specific numbers relating to England & Wales, the county and the region. This would better help in understanding to what extent this may be a RDC area issue, why this is and what solutions are being proposed. We have looked for the answer in the background information but it is not clear.

2.SA Objective 11, page 65 of SA Appendices 1 & 2, shows the mean average annual gas and electricity consumption in the industrial and commercial sector. The figure for Rother in 2014 was 824,053 kWh, which is almost double the East Sussex figure of 418,633 kWh and the South East figure of 443,867 kWh. Is there an explanation as to why Rother's figure is so much higher and is it an issue that RDC should seek to address?

3.It is noted generally that many of the data sets date back to 2010 or before and are therefore in need of updating. The 'concentration of air pollutants' (SA Objective 10) for instance is based on 2005 data, now more than 11 years ago. With the increase in diesel cars air pollution in many cities has been getting worse, which is contrary to previous assumptions that air pollution will improve as cars got cleaner.

4. We have looked at the matrix to see how it rates the various policies against
biodiversity and the environment and we do not agree with a number of the ratings given and these would need further investigation.

a. The following site allocations could potentially have a negative impact on biodiversity due to the possible presence of protected species (scrub and rough grassland habitats) but there does not appear to be provision for them on site (they are mainly shown as neutral):
HAS2
BRO1 - showing as positive but probably negative
BRO2
CAT1
HUR1
IDE1
NOR1
RHA1
WES2
WES3
b. CAM1 and 2 are showing as positive but are more likely to be neutral unless there
are positive enhancements proposed which we could not see.

c. BEC2 - showing as negative but with the large amenity area it could have a positive impact if well designed and multi-functional.

d. RHA2 - showing as positive but no indication why. More likely to be neutral or even negative given that increased commercial use will mean more traffic and a deterioration in local air quality and the designated site habitats are sensitive to air pollution.

e. WES1 - as with BEC2 this could be positive if the recreation area is designed with
biodiversity and is multi-functional.

The optional water efficiency standard of 110 units is strongly supported given that
Rother is identified as an area of 'serious water stress'. However, it could go further by incorporating grey water and / or rainwater harvesting, including appropriate placement of downpipes to facilitate rainwater harvesting where practical, within all new buildings (including commercial and industrial buildings) to further reduce demand from the mains and help to manage flows to surface water and sewerage systems. This would tie in with the policy DEN5 on SUDs.

Additionally paragraph 6.10 & the proposed implementation, as described in the
Suggested Notes on page 14 of the Water Efficiency background paper, is too weak. The Validation checklist should include for a mandatory requirement to include the proposed 'letter of intent', rather than a mere 'expectation', otherwise it is too easy for the applicant to either ignore or even be unaware of the requirement. As it is applicant's responsibility to inform the BCB (Building Control Body) about the reduced standard, and there is no process for the BCB to check back with the planning authority, the requirement is difficult to enforce as it relies on the goodwill of the applicant to inform the BCB.
Reference: Water Efficiency Background Paper RDC June 2016

The policy should be expanded to include a standard for commercial and industrial
buildings. The BREEAM standard linked to the efficient use of water is appropriate.
We would refer you to the following that provide more guidance on this subject:
https://www.selfbuild-central.co.uk/green-design-overview/water-conservation
plus paper published by the Environmental Agency

'Evidence Energy and carbon implications of rainwater harvesting and greywater
recycling Report SC090018 August 2010

Renewable and low carbon energy - Pages 26 -28 6.11 to 6.23

Question 3: Where, if anywhere, do you think could be an appropriate location for
wind turbine(s) to be sited in the District?

It is difficult to identify areas within Rother that would be suitable for large wind turbines given the many constraints, both human and biodiversity (especially birds and bats). Natural England advice is to avoid areas within 50m of field boundaries and woodlands that may be used by bats. Given the extent of woodland and the generally small field sizes within the district it would mean that only small scale turbine developments would be possible. We strongly support RDC carrying out a mapping exercise for the district in order to ascertain appropriate areas.

To conclude, we support small developments of wind turbines where appropriate, but outside AONB and other listed areas and with no loss of Grade 1 or 2 land.

There is no mention of offshore wind turbines, which may provide the most appropriate solution.

Rother is one of the most wooded areas within England and therefore has a large
resource of biomass that could be exploited for wood-burners and small scale biomass boilers and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants. We would support any policies that encourage the use of this sustainable resource. Bringing back large areas of woodland into active management has the potential to be very positive to biodiversity as evidenced by the work of the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England, The Forestry Commission and the Butterfly Conservation Trust, all of which are actively working with landowners to this effect.

Planning policies should be put in place that not only encourage the householder e.g.
chimneys/flues on all new properties for wood burners; but also to make it easier for
landowners to set up wood fuel businesses e.g. buildings, storage facilities etc.

The current system of asking for all new developments over a certain size to explore the use of biomass / CHP does not seem to be working as developers tend to show that they are not viable. Often it is the public sector that has to lead the way and therefore it is suggested that all new public buildings of a minimum size should have a system installed. This would kick start a local market for fuel. Consideration should also be given to retro-fitting existing public assets. Swimming pools would be a prime target as they have a year round need for heat.

The policy wording for larger developments to 'consider' biomass is not strong enough. There is a need for a proper viability analysis to be undertaken and for RDC to employ their own consultants to review rather than accepting the results.

In conclusion, there is a need to strengthen use of biomass as suitable for smaller
developments and public buildings so that this form of energy is given more serious
consideration.

It should also be borne in mind that adequate insulation saves more energy than can be generated by householders. It is essential therefore that the highest standards are sought.



6.20 Comments on solar paragraph as no question for response

There needs to be a DRM2- to encourage where appropriate wind and solar, and to
make solar mandatory on all commercial and industrial buildings; and any application to alter/extend industrial building needs to carry an obligation to fit rooftop solar.

Encourage:
* Solar thermal panels for "family" properties.
* Community solar schemes.

The National Grid needs updating so that the above average generation rates achieved within Rother can be utilised fully. In the meantime, where there are grid problems, smart meters should allow neighbours to share.

Could RDC council monies be used to improve the grid?

The document from Maidstone BC which in turn was borrowed from Cornwall CC and
Ashford BC gives detailed guidance and it would be helpful for RDC to provide similar
guidance:

Reference; Maidstone Borough Council: Planning Policy Advice Note:
Domestic and Medium scale solar PV arrays (up to 50kw) and solar thermals
Jan 2014

Items 6.21 & 6.22 of the DaSA are deeply flawed. The 'unduly onerous' (para 6.22) is dubious to whom? Any developer will always say such is 'unduly onerous'. CS SRM(i) does not contain a target for energy reduction proposals. Without, such it is not effective. Target should be to cut predicted C02 emissions by the equivalent of 20% over and above what current building regulations require.

The validation checklist referred to in paragraph 2.21 of the Renewable Energy
background paper is inadequate and in urgent need of updating. Other local authorities, such as Maidstone Borough Council, include the following condition for ALL new build houses (threshold 1 dwelling): 'Prior to any development above damp proof course level, details of proposed renewable energy sources shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.' This clearly demonstrates that RDC can, if it so chooses, impose much tighter and binding rules, for ALL new build development. The difficulty in applying the current policy is due to a lack of will by RDC. As it is, rather than relaxing Core Strategy Policy SRM1, it should be tightened.

Reference: RDC Development and Site Allocation Local Plan, Renewable and Low
Carbon Energy - Background Paper. November 2016
Examples of criteria RDC should be setting:

* Are as many as possible of the sloping roofs oriented as much as possible to the
South and West in order to be fitted with solar panels?

* Are locations for solar panels included in the design of the roofs - even if not
fitted?
* Where solar panels can be fitted have you considered providing space in the
dwelling for batteries?
* Are heat pumps being considered?
* If so have you included in the design suitable locations for them?
* Have you considered installing under floor heating?
* Are electric charging points being included for electric vehicles?
* All new commercial and industrial roofs over (100) sq. m. must install solar panels
on south or south west facing roofs.
* All new developments should consider specific on-site positioning to maximise the
possibility of installing solar roof panels and for increasing passive solar gain.

6.23 Praise to RDC for this clause as this applies to every development/dwelling.

Yes, but we would like the definition widened to include allotments and community gardens. Also, there is a need to encourage developments to provide multi use buildings, which will avoid under use of buildings.

We support Option C.

However, we encourage a higher percentage of affordable homes than the legal
requirement.

We note with approval the following clause in the 2015 RDC HECA Report:
Measures we are taking to improve energy efficiency in new affordable homes.

Rother District Council remains committed to increasing the energy efficiency of all new affordable homes. This is currently achieved by imposing Developers and Registered Providers, a minimum planning policy requirement - that requires all new affordable homes to achieve a minimum sustainable code level three or above.

Good point on visual effect of waste/recycling provisions.

Large sites need areas where people can walk to take recyclable items that are not collected at the kerbside.

We acknowledge that large gardens are actually a feature of Rother's countryside.
Additionally, gardens can have greater biodiversity than the surrounding farmed
countryside. However, the character of most applications for extension would have a
negative effect on the appearance of the High Weald especially. We do not wish to see the working countryside i.e. agricultural and forestry environment gently eroded by these extensions of domesticity into our countryside.

Therefore, we favour Option B with a clear restriction on garden extensions into the
countryside unless:

* The extension adds substantially to the biodiversity of the area.
* If a garden extension is agreed, then the following restrictions should apply.
* No extensions in to areas of ancient woodland - to prevent the deterioration of
* this important habitat.
* That any gardens created cannot subsequently be split; and
* There is a limit on the area of hard-landscaping and buildings that are allowed.
* If an extension to a residential garden is granted, in that permission, all permitted
development rights are removed, so that if the owner wanted to install anything in
that new area later, they would have to apply for planning.

Policy DEN1: Agreed.
It is good that RDC has a policy on lighting but it needs to have a specific policy fleshed out to preserve dark night skies. Such policy needs to restrict lighting to its intended purpose and avoid any light spill.

Consider solar street lighting and shields to stop lighting dwellings

Policy DEN2
The proposals 10.1 - 10.11 should take account of (a) the HWAONB advice note
published October 2016, 'Legislation and Planning Policy in the HWAONB', and (b)Policy EN3 of the Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan.

All development will be considered with regard to any negative impact it may have on the landscape character of any adjacent countryside. Proposals which preserve the open character of any gap between settlements and, as a minimum, is not detrimental to the Green Infrastructure Network (as identified by RDC) will be supported. Development will only be permitted where it conserves or enhances the natural beauty of the immediate area in which the development sits.

In particular all opportunities must be taken to:

* restore the natural function of rivers, streams and other watercourses to improve
water quality, to prevent flooding and enhance wetland habitats;
* respect the settlement pattern of parishes or towns, use local materials and wood
fuel systems that enhance the appearance of development;
* relate well to historic route ways and not divert them from their original course or
damage their rural character by loss of banks, hedgerows, verges or other
important features;
* not result in the loss or degradation of Ancient Woodland or historic features
within it and, where appropriate, will contribute to its on-going management;
* conserve and enhance the ecology and productivity of fields, trees and
hedgerows, retain and reinstate historic field boundaries, and direct development
away from medieval or earlier fields, especially where these form coherent field
systems with other medieval features.

Could strategic gaps or wedges be identified in single communities as well - Battle for example?

Point 10.23: We want to query the reduction of the gap South of Battle, west of Forewood Lane, as this is not strongly argued by RDC.

Reference: https://www.rother.gov.uk/dasa