Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26614

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

33. Need to read with car parking policy.
34. There is too much emphasis on cycling when this is not a realistic mode of transport for work and commuting. Cycling is primarily a sport and leisure pastime.
35. Waste and Recycling areas should be applicable to all developments.
36. Mobility scooter planning on housing for older residents should take priority not cycling.

Comment

Representation ID: 26615

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

37. Clarity is needed on what is considered to be ‘modest’ - percentage increase on original would be a better scale.

Comment

Representation ID: 26618

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

38. Further clarity is needed as in HOU15 above.
39. Air b n b ‘extensions should be avoided or provision of holiday accommodation.

Comment

Representation ID: 26619

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

40. Personal justification for an annexe should be provided and remain tied to the main dwelling with a 106 agreement.
41. Utilities and services should be linked to the main dwelling to prevent the sale of ‘annexes’ for profit.

Comment

Representation ID: 26620

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

42. The loss of boundary hedges should be resisted.

Comment

Representation ID: 26621

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

43. Agreed.

Comment

Representation ID: 26626

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. All residential development should be of a density appropriate to its context, having due regard to key design principles. – This requirement appears to have been removed without explanation.
2. These changes do not give clarity on development strategy and could be interpreted in conjunction with viability assessments to the detriment of the locality and AONB.

Comment

Representation ID: 26627

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. This is considered to be much improved and encourages master planning rather than piece-meal creep.
2. However, clarity is needed about which conditions would be legal and enforceable to useable to ensure that the masterplan is adhered to, especially when outline planning is granted. Bewl Water developments are an example of this.
3. The terminology regarding Biodiversity nett gain is not tight enough. On-site delivery should be the expectation.

Comment

Representation ID: 26628

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Rather than being new, this is a re-vamp of policy OSS2 in the Core Strategy without many of the protections for developments without justification nd has now been completed reworded and removed many of the protections for development boundaries.
2. “5.117 While land outside development boundaries is regarded as ‘countryside’ for planning policy purposes, it does include some villages, hamlets and farmsteads. A countryside location does not prevent appropriate development. The potential for development outside development boundaries to support vital rural communities and also conserve or enhance its intrinsic qualities is recognised. There are specific policies to promote a sustainable rural economy, including farming, tourism and to meet recognised local needs for facilities or affordable housing both in other policies of the Local Plan.” – This statement exhibits the intention to allow building in the countryside.
Development would no longer be contained so anywhere in the countryside – especially for affordable housing, would become permittable. This undermines and endangers the AONB.
3. Affordable housing within the countryside is already available via exception sites and development within development boundaries.
4. There has been a eradication of the current clear guidelines about where development is allowed within the countryside.
5. “A countryside location does not prevent appropriate development” – this does not recognise that the majority of countryside within Rother is within the AONB. The lack of clarity leaves the policy wide open to interpretation.
6. The removable of the clarity on development boundaries, together with the non-inclusion in the 2020-2040 draft plan for the whole of chapter 12 from the 2019 DaSA ‘Rural Areas’ undermines the current protections of our countryside (i.e. AONB).

Comment

Representation ID: 26630

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Very little alteration to the original.
2. Paragraph (ii) is stronger which is welcomed.
3. Valuations (3) should be provided and declarations of any offers received must be disclosed to prove serious consideration has been given to the offers and not just dismissed for planning gain..
4. Site with permissions but not being built out should be included here of potential penalties
5. There is an omission about Parish Councils’ powers under the localism act 2011 of being able to identify properties/land as being valuable to the community.