Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Back to document

Search representations

Results for Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group search

New search

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

22. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy for Biodiversity Net Gain?

Representation ID: 27738

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

“Development will demonstrate through a Biodiversity Gain Plan that measurable and meaningful net gains for biodiversity will be achieved and will be secured and managed appropriately.”
Rye: important to counter any loss of salt marsh as per Eastern Rother Tidal Walls Scheme.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

What are your views on the Council's proposed policy for the High Weald National Landscape?

Representation ID: 27739

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

Rye - HWNL – should be preserved and development strongly resisted.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

27. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy on compact development?

Representation ID: 27740

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

Rye - “Compact form of Development....” likely to encourage cramped 'battery hen' environments? Better to describe in terms of housing density? “Development proposals must meet the minimum density in the ranges above....” and “Densities in excess of the maximum will be encouraged within these zones....” A Developer's Dream! Please remove “must” and “will”.
P61: Density needs discussion? 45 to 75 outer to 60 to 90+ inner.
P64 Q27: Compact Development is undefined, which could benefit the Developer. It conflicts with the concept of “Live Well Locally” if the density is too great.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

28. What are your views on the area types and densities proposed as a key driver to Live Well Locally?

Representation ID: 27741

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

P64 Q28: As per Q27, “Types and Densities” should be as spacious as possible. If developers cannot (or say that they cannot) profitably develop a site, then other schemes (as per Icklesham, to which we aspire to in Rye) must be investigated.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

29. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?

Representation ID: 27742

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

P64 Q29: Emphasis should be on requirements for local people, not on expensive gated developments.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

30. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy on facilities and services?

Representation ID: 27743

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

Rye: P67 Q30: Requirement for new facilities for developments over 150 dwellings unlikely to apply to Rye. Rail services are beyond the control of RDC.
All developments should be required to provide or contribute towards improved local services, not only those of 150 dwellings or over – in Rye just 20 dwellings can stretch the services!

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

31. Are there any alternatives or additional points the Council should be considering?

Representation ID: 27744

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

All developments should be required to provide or contribute towards improved local services, not only those of 150 dwellings or over – in Rye just 20 dwellings can stretch the services!

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

32. Specifically, what are your views on the proposed mix of local amenities and the requirement, within certain area types, for new development to be located within an 800m walk of these amenities?

Representation ID: 27745

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

P67 Q32: From a Rye and the Eastern Cluster of Villages point of view, the 800m maximum walk is not really applicable.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

33. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy on walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport (outside the site)?

Representation ID: 27746

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

Proposed Policy LWL3: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling & Public Transport (Off site). Rye:
P73 4.29: “wheeling” ?
P74 Q33: All very laudable, but likely to be one of the casualties of the developer's challenges of Planning Decisions

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

35. Specifically, what are your views on the requirements set regarding public transport, such as the 400m walking distance proximity requirement?

Representation ID: 27747

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Rye Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

P74 Q35: Very laudable, but unlikely to be possible or desirable in all cases.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.