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

We support the adoption of the optional water efficiency standard and urge that Rother does three further things:
1 extend Policy DRM1, to apply to all extensions to dwellings;
2 adopt the equivalent BREEAM standard as compulsory to all new commercial buildings and extensions thereto;
3 lobby the Government to improve the optional and base standards.

We believe that large scale wind turbines should be sited offshore along the Rother coastline and in areas bearing no environmental designation. Small scale turbines would acceptable throughout Rother.

1 Rother should work with the High Weald AONB Unit to educate people regarding the use of biomass and wood fuel from natural sources.
2 In planning new dwellings, RDC should impose a condition that all are provided with proper, not false chimneys.
3 In relation to any application which involves a large scale boiler using biomass or wood fuel, Rother must insist on a transport plan for the fuel to reduce any damage to the environment to an absolute minimum.

Rather than trying to require an energy statement from developers, why not set criteria for all buildings to reduce the energy consumption from the outset? eg:
locate all building (domestic and commercial) to maximise their passive solar gain;
require all buildings (domestic and commercial) to minimise their heat loss by construction methods and by their physical orientation;
require all commercial buildings with a roof space in excess of 100m2 to install solar panels.
require minimum levels of insulation.

It is not clear how Policies DCO1 and DEC3 will operate together, as there appears to be an overlap. The criteria should be the same for both if the two are monitored as separate policies and should as a minimum require:
a) lack of existing use for at least 24 months;
b) evidence of positive professional marketing for at least 18 months; and
c) clear evidence of a lack of viability, which must be subjected to independent and publicly available scrutiny.

Equestrian development should be encouraged provided it complies with all the criteria set out in Policy DCO2.

Any policy in this area should recognise the reality of the problems of affordability of the housing market in Rother, that particularly in the AONB area, there is pressure caused because of the simple lack of availability as well as pricing. We would wish to see as many affordable dwellings as possible. Zone 1 of your own CIL charging map would seem to be the appropriate proxy for the highest level of contribution of affordable homes, which should all be actual provision of housing, not a financial contribution which may then be used to build affordable homes elsewhere.

Also we would urge for consideration a different threshold; instead of 40% of dwellings, it could be 30% of bedrooms. The reason for this is that in too many examples of developments with a requirement of 40% dwellings as affordable, they are provided by one bedroom flats which is not the type of housing provision required in rural communities, which is in fact two bed-roomed houses.

The minimum standards are appallingly low by any decent yardstick for living. If any house has a garage, that garage is usually the largest room in the house.

We would urge Rother to lobby for higher standards.

For accessibility, we would prefer Option C.

For older persons, we see merit in all options indicated. Specifically, given the ageing population:
Option A - should be set at 80 dwellings;
Option B - care homes should be spread, not all concentrated, say in Bexhill. Targets for other accommodation for the elderly should reflect as near as can be, census figures, on the basis that older people would wish to stay local to their communities, as well as indeed people with caring responsibilities ;
Options D and E - unless specified, developers will not build bungalows , so a target must be set, in line with census information;
Option F - possibly near to the hospital facilities.

No need to set a target.

Option A.