Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

We note that on page 80 the DaSA states that "The policies in this Plan have been assessed to determine that they will not adversely affect the integrity of any of the international sites". The footnote refers to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).
The HRA concludes in respect of each of the 10 site allocations that were subjected to an Appropriate Assessment in the HRA that there is no adverse effects on the integrity of internationally designated sites (i.e. Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar Sites). The HRA reaches this conclusion because it concludes that in each case an adequate protective framework exists. For the five site allocations in the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area (PLHCA) this is because there is a Sustainable Drainage Policy (Policy DEN5) set out in the DaSA. However, the HRA also states that impact of BEX9 on the SAC can only be assessed at the project-specific stage (page 39). We assume that the same applies to the other four site allocations. Also, the HRA concludes by stating that;

For the Pevensey Levels, monitoring of water quality and associated pollution is principally undertaken by Natural England and the Environment Agency. In terms of proposed developments in the Council's local plan, it is not possible at this stage to be certain of the effectiveness of SuDS proposals for individual developments to maintain water quality. Hence, site-specific Appropriate Assessments may be necessary. This would be advised by Natural England (page 47).

It therefore appears to us that the opinion that a conclusion of no adverse effect on the Pevensey Levels cannot be reached at this stage.

For the five sites (including the Rye Neighbourhood Plan) that are situated close to the Dungeness SPA, SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI the HRA concludes that in each case an adequate protective framework exists in large part because of the presence of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS). Whilst we welcome the development of a robust strategy for mitigating issues of recreational disturbance to EU designated sites, the SARMS has not yet been finalised or adopted and there is currently no plan for its implementation. In our view it is also premature to conclude that there are no adverse effects on the integrity of the Dungeness sites.

On the limited information available at this stage, it seems possible that applications for development in these allocated sites could adversely impact the integrity of internationally designated sites. Therefore, the DaSA should contain wording that confirms that proposals for development will not be permitted if they would adversely affect the integrity of an internationally designated site.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

We note that for four of the five allocations that are within the PLHCA the DaSA state that proposals will be permitted where "at least two forms of appropriate 'Sustainable Drainage' are incorporated in accordance with Policy DEN5 'Sustainable Drainage'". For one of the five allocations (CAT1) there is no mention in the DaSA of the PLHCA or sustainable drainage. For consistency the reference to sustainable drainage should be incorporated within Policy CAT1 also.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

The two sites allocations closest to Pevensey Levels (BEX9 and BEX10) state that proposals will be permitted where "an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the Habitats Regulations demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels Special Area of Conservation/RAMSAR site". For consistency and protection of the integrity of the Pevensey Levels, the requirement to carry out an AA, that demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels should be applied to the other three site allocations including; Policies BEX6, BEX7 and CAT1.

As landholders within the Rother district, we would like the opportunity to be present for discussions where there could be possible impacts to the Dungeness Complex.

Four of the allocated sites are very close to the boundary of the Dungeness Complex. Of the two in Camber both adjoin the SSSI-designated sand dunes that are part of the Complex. Policy CAM1 states that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI". Policy CAM2 states that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA or Ramsar site, including the sand dunes". Given that CAM1 is situated 130m from the SPA and Ramsar Site it seems to us that the reference to the SPA and Ramsar Site should also be incorporated in the Policy CAM1.

There are two allocated sites in Rye Harbour (RHA1 and RHA2) that adjoin the Dungeness Complex. We note that Policies RHA1 and RHA2 do not state that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA or Ramsar site", unlike in Policy CAM2 (and in respect of the SSSI, CAM1). We are not sure why there is this inconsistency and would recommend that this requirement is incorporated within Policies RHA1 and RHA2. We were also unsure why this requirement is not applied to all the site allocations that have been subjected to an Appropriate Assessment in the HRA.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

We welcome the wording within policy DEN5 (IV), to include 'multi-functional' delivery of objectives. In order to strengthen this and reduce failure of delivery we would recommend including examples/prompts within the wording such as;

Revised wording:
'.......... The provision of habitats and support for biodiversity including flower rich grassland in each treatment and conveyance stage; reinforcing local landscape character with appropriate choices of planting; enhancing the design of the development with the appropriate use of soft and hard landscape SuDS treatments. Where these form part of the street scape and frontage any formal planting of eg. bioretention and rain gardens are of high wildlife value to pollinators; provision of open space/recreation by making appropriate multi-functional use of treatment stages; ...........'

We note that within policy DEN5 (IV) it requires that "applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in place for ongoing maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development". This requirement does not however provide sufficient long-term protection to the SAC.

We urge the policy to include that a specialist management company is in place before the first occupation on the site and that there are step-in rights that the Local Authority should have secured to ensure SuDS are managed in perpetuity, (in the event of the failings of the management company in place).

Revised wording:
'Applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in place for ongoing maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. This should including a specialist management company to be in place before the first occupation and the step-in rights for the Local Authority which will need to be secured to ensure SuDS are managed in perpetuity in the event of failure of the management company.'

It's encouraging that reference is made to 'incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment' (IV) however we would encourage you to emphasis 'source control' as one of those treatments.

Revised wording:
'Within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, with particular emphasis on source control features being one of those stages; and'

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

The two sites allocations closest to Pevensey Levels (BEX9 and BEX10) state that proposals will be permitted where "an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the Habitats Regulations demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels Special Area of Conservation/RAMSAR site". For consistency and protection of the integrity of the Pevensey Levels, the requirement to carry out an AA, that demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels should be applied to the other three site allocations including; Policies BEX6, BEX7 and CAT1.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

The two sites allocations closest to Pevensey Levels (BEX9 and BEX10) state that proposals will be permitted where "an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the Habitats Regulations demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels Special Area of Conservation/RAMSAR site". For consistency and protection of the integrity of the Pevensey Levels, the requirement to carry out an AA, that demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels should be applied to the other three site allocations including; Policies BEX6, BEX7 and CAT1.

As landholders within the Rother district, we would like the opportunity to be present for discussions where there could be possible impacts to the Dungeness Complex.

Four of the allocated sites are very close to the boundary of the Dungeness Complex. Of the two in Camber both adjoin the SSSI-designated sand dunes that are part of the Complex. Policy CAM1 states that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI". Policy CAM2 states that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA or Ramsar site, including the sand dunes". Given that CAM1 is situated 130m from the SPA and Ramsar Site it seems to us that the reference to the SPA and Ramsar Site should also be incorporated in the Policy CAM1.

There are two allocated sites in Rye Harbour (RHA1 and RHA2) that adjoin the Dungeness Complex. We note that Policies RHA1 and RHA2 do not state that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA or Ramsar site", unlike in Policy CAM2 (and in respect of the SSSI, CAM1). We are not sure why there is this inconsistency and would recommend that this requirement is incorporated within Policies RHA1 and RHA2. We were also unsure why this requirement is not applied to all the site allocations that have been subjected to an Appropriate Assessment in the HRA.

As landholders within the Rother district, we would like the opportunity to be present for discussions where there could be possible impacts to the Dungeness Complex.

Four of the allocated sites are very close to the boundary of the Dungeness Complex. Of the two in Camber both adjoin the SSSI-designated sand dunes that are part of the Complex. Policy CAM1 states that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI". Policy CAM2 states that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA or Ramsar site, including the sand dunes". Given that CAM1 is situated 130m from the SPA and Ramsar Site it seems to us that the reference to the SPA and Ramsar Site should also be incorporated in the Policy CAM1.

There are two allocated sites in Rye Harbour (RHA1 and RHA2) that adjoin the Dungeness Complex. We note that Policies RHA1 and RHA2 do not state that proposals will be permitted where "there is no adverse impact on the adjacent Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, SPA or Ramsar site", unlike in Policy CAM2 (and in respect of the SSSI, CAM1). We are not sure why there is this inconsistency and would recommend that this requirement is incorporated within Policies RHA1 and RHA2. We were also unsure why this requirement is not applied to all the site allocations that have been subjected to an Appropriate Assessment in the HRA.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

We note that on page 80 the DaSA states that "The policies in this Plan have been assessed to determine that they will not adversely affect the integrity of any of the international sites". The footnote refers to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).
The HRA concludes in respect of each of the 10 site allocations that were subjected to an Appropriate Assessment in the HRA that there is no adverse effects on the integrity of internationally designated sites (i.e. Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar Sites). The HRA reaches this conclusion because it concludes that in each case an adequate protective framework exists. For the five site allocations in the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area (PLHCA) this is because there is a Sustainable Drainage Policy (Policy DEN5) set out in the DaSA. However, the HRA also states that impact of BEX9 on the SAC can only be assessed at the project-specific stage (page 39). We assume that the same applies to the other four site allocations. Also, the HRA concludes by stating that;

For the Pevensey Levels, monitoring of water quality and associated pollution is principally undertaken by Natural England and the Environment Agency. In terms of proposed developments in the Council's local plan, it is not possible at this stage to be certain of the effectiveness of SuDS proposals for individual developments to maintain water quality. Hence, site-specific Appropriate Assessments may be necessary. This would be advised by Natural England (page 47).

It therefore appears to us that the opinion that a conclusion of no adverse effect on the Pevensey Levels cannot be reached at this stage.

For the five sites (including the Rye Neighbourhood Plan) that are situated close to the Dungeness SPA, SAC, Ramsar Site and SSSI the HRA concludes that in each case an adequate protective framework exists in large part because of the presence of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS). Whilst we welcome the development of a robust strategy for mitigating issues of recreational disturbance to EU designated sites, the SARMS has not yet been finalised or adopted and there is currently no plan for its implementation. In our view it is also premature to conclude that there are no adverse effects on the integrity of the Dungeness sites.

On the limited information available at this stage, it seems possible that applications for development in these allocated sites could adversely impact the integrity of internationally designated sites. Therefore, the DaSA should contain wording that confirms that proposals for development will not be permitted if they would adversely affect the integrity of an internationally designated site.