Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 24777

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Sedlescombe potential site SED0020. This site was rejected in the previous Dasa . The site was assessed in the previous East Sussex Landscape assessment done for RDC. The document was : Rother District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy: Market Towns and Villages Landscape Assessment August 2009 Volume 1 Its comment on this site is attached and clearly shows it is not recommended for development. Please see attached appendixes.

Comment

Representation ID: 24778

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

It is interesting that the importance of Battle to Sedlescombe is noted and other villages locally (section 5.56 p144). However, this importance is not reflected in transport plans elsewhere in the document and this needs to be highlighted much more strongly. For example, the map of the whole district on p. 144 shows only north-south links such as the A21 and the railway line which therefore implies that movement across the district is primarily north-south.

Comment

Representation ID: 24779

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Sedlescombe already suffers from poor pedestrian access to village facilities (shop, pub, playground) and therefore are the areas mentioned on p144 are suitable for the kind of developments that are going to match the objectives listed by the Plan. There should be provision in the plan to identify an appropriate land use density (see point under 27-29) for each site.

Comment

Representation ID: 24780

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

There needs to be a good roadway to encourage access to Hastings and area not to be confused with cycling & walking this must be safely provided alongside.

Comment

Representation ID: 24781

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Sedlescombe & Westfield is high and must have supporting services. Green spaces are very important. It appears unrealistic with the categorisation and being less sustainable areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 24782

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

It would be nearly impossible for a comprehensive plan to be developed when a developer does not own the whole site. The policy is aspirational but would simply put developers off as it would be unachievable.

Comment

Representation ID: 24783

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Small sites come forward far quicker than larger sites and the policy should include incentives to promote this further.

Comment

Representation ID: 24784

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

Meritable but what is the expected outcome. Developers are very good at justifying developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 24785

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

How does the local plan support the voluntary sector with regards to providing community groups/hubs?

Comment

Representation ID: 24786

Received: 31/05/2024

Respondent: Sedlescombe Parish Council

No affordable requirement should be required on sites of .5 hectares or more where the development for very small schemes as already set out in the explanatory text in the current core strategy/DASA y which says:

‘There may be exceptional cases where affordable housing cannot be provided onsite, in which event a financial contribution11 equivalent to the increased value of the development without on-site provision will be required. Financial contributions11 will not be sought on very small schemes, below the 2019 NPPF’s thresholds’

This is not clear in the proposed policy and is underpinned in the NPPF and supported by two recent appeal decisions.