Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26592

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. The tabulated housing mix – fig 39 on page 230 would indicate a requirement of 25% affordable social housing which is lower than the existing 40%. Development should be delivered to meet the specific housing need of that area. Moving those that need social housing from their existing areas to rural areas causes friction within communities and a lack of cohesion. Emphasis should be placed on local letting plans and any properties vacated by people moving into new properties should also be subject to a local letting plan - Ticehurst’s experience for Banky Field and other vacated properties in Springfields was significant.
2. There is a lack of sheltered accommodation for older residents. This is needed in our parish.
3. Local letting policy should be the norm rather than communities needing to fight for it.
4. CIL monies are significant for rural areas to improve community infrastructure and 100% affordable site do not allow for such improvements.

Comment

Representation ID: 26593

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

5. Parish Councils are not mentioned in this policy?
6. Clarity on areas with Neighbourhood Plans is needed.
7. There is no distinction between rural and urban areas.
8. There appears to be more consideration for 100% affordable sites in rural areas as opposed to urban areas.
9. Read 8.44 – ‘local need’ is not defined as the local area i.e. the Parish. Most need for affordable housing is in the existing urban areas. Vital services for social issues are provided in the south coast towns which are hard and expensive to reach by Ticehurst residents.
10. There no mention of 100% affordable in relation to Bexhill on Sea.

Comment

Representation ID: 26594

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

11. This is the same as exception sites? HOU5
12. The requirement for proposed developments to be ‘adjacent to settlement boundaries contained in the policy LHN4 has been removed. This would therefore allow the opportunity for large scale development within the countryside. The terminology has been altered to ‘close to local services including public transport connections’. This undermines the protection of the AONB.
13. This policy removes the need to consider rural/parish needs and allows development within the AONB.
14. The policy is repetitive and unclear.
15. This policy would have a detrimental effect on development boundaries and undermine the sense of ‘place’ in rural areas.
16. How can a ‘mixed’ community be achieved if those highest on the housing list are allocated housing first?.
17. This policy undermines the protection of the AONB?

Comment

Representation ID: 26595

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

18. The principles of this policy are negated by the content of HOU4 above and would result in no exception sites coming forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 26596

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

19. Supportive of the principles of the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 26597

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

20. This policy allows for development for older person accommodation to be outside development boundaries which undermines the principle of mixed communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 26599

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

21. There is no clarification about what ‘good access’ is - is it the 800 m or 20 minute walk to facilities or further in rural areas?
22. Unless there is specific land allocations for care homes it is unlikely that they will be provided as open market housing is more profitable.
23. The open support for change of use of care homes to residential is of concern.

Comment

Representation ID: 26600

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

24. More clarity should be provided about any adverse impact on the landscape and character of the area. Inspectors appeal decision on land on the Pashley Road sets a good measure of considerations.
25. Provision needs to be made to ensure the requirements for the ‘safe access’ doesn’t undermine the AONB or necessitate the removal of rural hedging.
26. Small scale should be 5 and under not 10. Clarity should be provided on measures to ensure that sites cannot be expanded.
27. Rother have failed to follow their own policy/intention of providing (via compulsory purchase) a large site to negate the need for smaller sites within the AONB. This policy should be included in the plan to ensure compliance by the authors of this document.

Comment

Representation ID: 26603

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

28. Lack of clarification on how modular houses fit into this policy. However if the one housing plot on every site of 20 dwellings does not get built out, the development will not have the benefit of being completed.
29. Much better clarity in the final paragraph and very welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 26605

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

30. Paragraphs 8.118 and 119 undermine the principles of resisting development in the protected AONB. This should be removed.
31. The policy appears to be encouraging care homes to be provided in countryside areas and outside development areas which would be very isolating.
32. Clarity on ‘small gap (vi) is needed. It will encourage people to sell off part of their garden and allows for small incremental planning creep.