Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Search representations
Results for Sussex Wildlife Trust search
New search New searchSupport
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
Representation ID: 24386
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Developments
Representation ID: 24552
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
Representation ID: 24553
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks.
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy seeks to 'maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
Representation ID: 24554
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion (ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'.
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
Representation ID: 24555
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF): delete the word "or" after "conserve" and replace with the word "and".
'(ii) conserve and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
Representation ID: 24556
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
Representation ID: 24557
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to policy requirements set out in paragraphs 171 and 174 of the 2018NPPF and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, additions should be made to the policy.
It is unclear what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. This should be clarified.
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DEN4: Biodiveristy and Green Space
Representation ID: 24558
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats. However it is not consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
While paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The policy wording needs to be strengthened.
The requirement in paragraph 6.43 should be included in the policy and relate to all planning decisions.
The caveat "seek to" should be deleted from part (ii).
A requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland should be a policy requirement.
Part (iv) of the policy should be extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network.
Part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. All developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective.
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
Representation ID: 24559
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion (vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature; and...'
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
Support
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
Representation ID: 24560
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018
The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.
Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.
Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198
It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.
PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.
Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development
We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).
Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas
SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).
Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:
'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'
Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments
We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion
(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:
'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'
Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites
SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).
'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'
Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:
'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'
Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps
We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).
RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).
The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.
In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:
'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:
(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area
(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital
(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'
SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.
Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.
We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.
SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.
Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.
SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.
As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:
'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:
(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;
(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.
(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.
(iv) larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.
(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'
Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:
(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'
(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'
Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution
SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.
PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments
As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.
We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:
'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'
SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill
SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.
We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley
We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure
Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.
Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land
We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'
Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:
(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'
Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area
We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.
Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak
SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.
Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.
We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.
Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.
Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.
Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam
We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.
Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour
It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.
Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield
SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.
We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.
