Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26713

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Priority 1 bullet point 1:
Meaning of ‘Green to the Core’ – add ‘contributing to the greatest degree possible to the radical reduction in carbon emissions

Comment

Representation ID: 26714

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Priority 2 4th para:
Meaning of ‘Live Well Locally’ – add at end ‘ and contributing to the Live Well Locally concept’

Comment

Representation ID: 26715

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Additional policy:
Policy GTC1 Is the first of several policies which refer to achieving or matching certain current environmental standards or criteria. Given the life of the Plan to 2040, we suggest a general policy regarding any non-statutory standards/criteria referred to, that if any such standards/criteria are increased at any time during the lifetime of this Local Plan, then the Local Plan shall automatically adopt such higher standards/criteria

Comment

Representation ID: 26716

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

New residential development -It is not helpful in this Policy to introduce the concept of ‘Live well locally areas’ where a higher density of residential development would be permitted, unless the Plan sets out which these areas are. It would also be helpful and sensible to take on board here the design guidelines contained within the High Weald Design Guidelines.

Comment

Representation ID: 26717

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

New residential development The concept of Accessible Centres here really does have to be re-assessed in the context of the definition of ‘Live well locally areas’, which is regrettably absent in this draft.

Comment

Representation ID: 26719

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Walking, cycling and public transport – Add All major development proposals should be required to contain positive proposals to improve direct access to public transport, e.g. providing new footpaths to access as quickly as possible existing train stations and/or bus stops.

Comment

Representation ID: 26720

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Part (iv):
Parking proposals for residential developments in curtilage garages– Garages should not be considered as the first option for such parking, because as East Sussex County Council accepts, the majority of garages are not used for parking cars but for storage and other purposes, leaving cars to be parked randomly elsewhere: rather the general rule in such circumstances should be to provide car ports with appropriate landscaping

Comment

Representation ID: 26721

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Part (v):
Parking proposals for residential developments – in curtilage parking – There should be a prohibition if such parking is conditioned in any approval, that such condition cannot be overturned by a future application for alternative development.

Comment

Representation ID: 26722

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Housing figures for communities – No village should have an absolute zero allocation for additional housing growth, otherwise that community will over time atrophy.

Comment

Representation ID: 26724

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rother Environmental Group

Housing figures for communities – No village should have an absolute zero allocation for additional housing growth, otherwise that community will over time atrophy.