Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26634

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Clarity should be provided on rural and urban numbers. Windfall sites built out should contribute to the housing target figures as they have an impact in rural areas.
2. Windfall sites should be 3+ houses and should be allocated within Neighbourhood Plans were applicable. This would make sites more likely to come forward.
3. Target of 10% to support smaller development in rural communities would be more realistic..
4. Analysis of 5.131 where the 24% of housing delivery was achieved as that could determine policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 26647

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Ticehurst identified strategic green gaps in the Neighbourhood Plan and would not want these areas undermined by DEV6. The identity of the three wards and hamlets of our parishes needs to be protected.
2. The lack of clarity on Development boundaries makes strategic gaps for rural communities essential.

Comment

Representation ID: 26648

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Location of development OSS3 has been removed which is regrettable as it outlined the key principles for ‘Location of Development’. It provided with the 2014 plan a good, solid understanding about the core principles which have been omitted in the 2020-2040 plan. Whilst some of the themes appear across other policies the 2020-2040 plan is not as tight and user friendly as the 2014 Plan and 2019 DaSA. With so much cross referencing across the entire 2020-2040 Plan and removal of clear core policies the idea of what makes suitable ‘locations for development’ is evasive.
2. The removal of policy OSS1 is also regrettable as it provided clear and coherent strategies about where development should and should not happen. Across the new draft Local Plan 2020-2040 this has disappeared and there appears to be little distinction between Bexhill, Battle and Rye, villages and small in-fills.
3. The policies appear to be written with large scale urban master-planning in mind as opposed to catering to a district which is predominantly rural, most of which is within the AONB.

Comment

Representation ID: 26649

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Excellent principles but unsure how this would be deliverable in rural areas but new sporting pavilions in Ticehurst and Stonegate would improve sporting facilities.
2. Many of the proposals entail walking to facilities but many of our walkways are unsuitable for many residents and access to healthcare facilities is challenging in the villages.
3. Placing residents in affordable housing in areas that they would not choose to live creates social issues.
4. Lack of consultation with rural GPs on service delivery and clinical spaces is very concerning as this is one of the main issues for our residents in the villages.
5. Little consideration seems to have been given on the size of gardens and reducing pollution via tree planting around developments rather than just tree lined streets.
6. Policy paragraph vi) density of development will affect the ability for gardens big enough to grow vegetables or provide areas for allotment plots.

Comment

Representation ID: 26650

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. Health Impact Assessments should be provided for all development as rural health services are impacted by more development.
2. Ticehurst has a high level of fuel-poverty.

Comment

Representation ID: 26654

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

Excellent policy

Comment

Representation ID: 26655

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

Excellent policy

Comment

Representation ID: 26656

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

Excellent policy

Comment

Representation ID: 26658

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

1. CiL monies enable the parish council to provide better services.
2. There is little or no infrastructure in Flimwell with an allocation of 108 properties.
3. There dos not appear to be a cohesive plan for the wider rural need. This should be done across the rural areas in partnership with the Parishes.
4. Viability of infrastructure is routinely ignored. We find it astonishing that the GP’s have not been consulted during the drafting of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 26660

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

5. All developments – not just major – should expect fibre connection.