Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 24747

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Does this conflict with building regulations – the review due to start spring 2024 could now be delayed?
Water efficiency is important in this water stressed area. Given the recent water disruption, the local plan needs to influence the water companies to act more responsibly. “Encouraging” rainwater recycling is not sufficient: new planning applications should, as with energy efficiency, be required to incorporate rainwater capture and other efficiency measures or otherwise demonstrate why they would not be suitable for any given development.

Comment

Representation ID: 24748

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Details of trialling litres/day would help social understanding.

Comment

Representation ID: 24749

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Ensuring grey water storage at new builds or refurbishments would encourage good practice.

Comment

Representation ID: 24750

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

If developers are making contributions to District Heat Networks what is the plan for setting those networks up. Surely they should be part of a development?

Comment

Representation ID: 24751

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

The local plan should show actions and outcomes for clearer understanding

Comment

Representation ID: 24752

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

These policies appear to all be ‘subject to other policies’ which may make them effectively neutral policies. In favour and the subject to policies should be strongly tested before these policies are rejected.

Comment

Representation ID: 24753

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

A wind farm off the coast may be feasible and have less impact than on land in Rother?
To ensure facts and linked actions are shared with local society it would be good to understand [possible sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 24754

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Aspirations are sound, there should be support for local councils to help fulfil this initiative. Work should start now through the local plan and neighbourhood plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 24755

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

The BNG formula is a blunt instrument which fails to measure true BNG increases as it focuses on grass hedgerows and tress and fails to include other more effective true habitat creation. The BNG formula treats concrete with the same score as improved grass which is nonsense. A BNG of 20% can only be supported by a strong needs evidence base otherwise the statutory 10% is the default. It is unlikely in Rother given the high level of trees, grassland and hedges that there will be a need greater than 10%. It would be better to have the 10% gain and then supplement that policy with specific qualitatively better biodiversity improvements (some examples are hibernacula, insect hotels, simple log piles to promote invertebrates)
The desire to include improvements in the natural environment is supported but there is work required in its delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 24756

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

May only be achievable at examination if you can demonstrate a need which (see above) may be difficult in Rother. Every opportunity should be supported.