Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 24757

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

More qualitatively stronger BNG requirements rather than a simple uplift from 10%. The formula is easy to manipulate so more specific requirements will be better at achieving actual BNG gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 24758

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

This is simply repeating the NPPF and Crow act so is largely not needed. The new HWNL management plan should be used to guide the district approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 24759

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

The terms small and large should be defined. Is small 5 or 15? Is large 10? Less subjective wording should be used.

Comment

Representation ID: 24760

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

The policy on compact land use is too simplistic. The policy sets minimum densities and encourages higher densities which seems to be in conflict with ‘healthy living ‘

Comment

Representation ID: 24761

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Building density should reflect the local area. There will therefore be sites in rural areas, including Sedlescombe, where high density land use is highly inappropriate, but others where denser land use could be considered. The density of development should above all be in keeping with the local area and provide for a range of housing needs – a “one size fits all” approach is unlikely to achieve this. The land density figures quoted could mean that only detached houses with gardens can be considered in rural areas. This could lead to identikit development, even if on a relatively small scale. Each road will have a density that is appropriate to it – above all, developments should fit in with what is already there.
Compact development makes good use of space for the whole community but it must have supporting infrastructure for family daily needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 24762

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

This policy seems to be ignoring that it is quite possible and normal to live happily away from these services and amenities due to home delivery/ the internet and demand led transport. Demand led transport stops outside a person’s door which inherently makes all locations acceptable. The policy is trying to be too prescriptive. In addition, making specific developer contribution requirements as policy may be counterproductive as a community may want or need different planning gains to those set out in the policy on community meeting places.
Access to services via safe walking routes is not realistic in rural areas. People may choose to live on the outskirts of a village and given the way we shop has changed in terms of home deliveries, how important is it to be close to these amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 24763

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

The walking 800m (on average a 10min walk) requirement is too prescriptive and ignores truly sustainable development. Not everyone wants or needs to live in or next to a village.

Comment

Representation ID: 24764

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

DRT operates everywhere so this policy allows for development in places which may be unsuitable for large developments. However, DRT makes small or single property developments completely accessible (and in fact more accessible) to regular transports than exists on main bus routes or in villages. This opens up development to locations previously not well serviced by public transport. This policy does not take into account rural areas that could not provide walking and wheeling routes.

Comment

Representation ID: 24765

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Access to public transport is important and within a safe walking distance. It may impact on development if too difficult to include and does not consider the very rural nature of Rother.

Comment

Representation ID: 24766

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

All meritable aims but do they conflict with Highways regulations and therefore make them unenforceable particularly in relation to point vi ‘Through Traffic’ ?
There needs to be different approaches for rural areas, particularly in materials used to ensure that the rural character is kept.