Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

SWT supports this policy.

We support this policy, particularly point iii.

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy.

SWT supports this policy and particularly the requirement to deliver BNG within the park. The park is a valuable recreational resource to local communities and holds some very important places for wildlife that need to be protected and enhanced. In particular, the Countryside Park contains the Combe Haven SSSI which includes Sussex Wildlife Trust’s reserve Filsham Reedbed, the park also connects down through Glyne Gap LWS to the Bulverhythe Shingle Beach and Cliffs LWS.

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy. However, we would like to see explicit requirements related to ancient woodland and veteran trees rather than just mention in the supporting text. The policy must make it clear that development leading to loss or harm to ancient woodland and/or veteran trees will be refused. It should also be made clear that adequate buffers are required and that these must be clear of any development or ancillary infrastructure.

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy. We would like to see encouragement of the use of nature-based solutions when it comes to flood risk and coastal management. We also recommend that applicants within the Pevensey Levels catchment are encouraged to undertake early discussions with the Pevensey and Cuckmere Water Level Management Board.

SWT supports this policy and particularly the extra requirements in the Pevensey Levels catchment and the requirement for SuDs to be multifunctional.

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy. We hope that any consideration of coastal erosion data includes the most up to date climate change assessments.

SWT supports the inclusion of this policy, however it should be more explicit that development leading to loss or harm to designated sites, including Local Wildlife Sites, will be refused. Paragraph 185 of the NPPF is clear that local plans should ‘identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including… locally designated sites.’ Further to this, Planning Practice Guidance (Ref ID: 8-013-20190721) makes clear that ‘National planning policy expects plans to identify and map these sites, and to include policies that not only secure their protection from harm or loss but also help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks.’ As it stands, draft policy ENV5 is not strong enough.

The policy should also be explicit that developments leading to the loss or harm of ancient woodland, veteran trees or other irreplaceable habitats will be refused. We do support the inclusion of the requirement for a buffer to ancient woodland, but would like to see this extended as it has been in the draft policy NE4 of the emerging Wealden Local Plan:

‘In the absence of site surveys and detailed assessments that demonstrate a 25m buffer is not required, the Council will assume a minimum buffer of 25m from the edge of the woodland, which allows for the presence of veteran trees and the fall height of mature trees.’

We support this requirement.