Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 28049

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL7: Streets for All, (B), p96; Revise to read ‘criterion’ rather than ‘criteria’

Comment

Representation ID: 28050

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL7: Streets for All, p94-96; Consideration should be made to include cycle parking facilities and e-cargo parking facilities in streets which are sensitively designed to integrate into the surrounding environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 28051

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Two comments made regarding Policy LWL8: Multimodal Parking in paragraph 1.59 of the attached submission document.

Comment

Representation ID: 28053

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, iii) On Street Parking, p101; We suggest that the criterion should be consistent to keep it clear and understandable. For example, criteria c/ d/ e would need to follow an introductory sentence, for example ‘Proposals that include new on street parking should......’ Criteria a) and b) take a different approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 28054

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, iv) In Curtilage Garages, p101; The first sentence (‘Use limited on multi home developments’) is unclear and there appears to be words missing (...should be...) in the second sentence. In line with ESCC guidance (and assuming that weight is given to the Calculation Tool for residential development) suggest this text is revised to say;

"Given the use of garages and the negative impact that they can have on the street scene, parking on new developments is best provided on driveways, car ports or allocated parking bays. Where garages are proposed, they will need to meet the minimum dimensions set out in relevant guidance. However, due to their limited use, even when these standards are met the garage spaces will only count as 1/3rd space. This means for every 3 garages to be provided, they will only count as 1 parking space towards the overall parking requirement."

Comment

Representation ID: 28055

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, v) In Curtilage Parking a., p101; This type of arrangement, when accessed at the front of a dwelling, is basically an opportunity to support tandem parking. To protect the visual aesthetic in this way, the drive would need to be at the rear.

Comment

Representation ID: 28056

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, ix) Communal ‘Remote’ Car Parking c., p103; It is unclear whether this would fall into the category of visitor or shared parking area. Ideally these designations should not be exclusive to small sections of a larger development.

Comment

Representation ID: 28057

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, xii) Other Parking, p103; The second sentence currently reads ‘Facilities, with an electricity supply, must be suitable for a range of types including mopeds, scooters and motorbikes’. The policy aims here are not clear and it appears to be conflating two issues (two wheeler parking and EV charging). Therefore, it is suggested that this sentence is revised or deleted. It is suggested that, as an alternative, in line with the ESCC ‘Guidance for Parking at New Development’, this criterion is split to cover, firstly, ‘Powered Two-wheeler Parking’ and secondly, ‘Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure’. The wording should then be revised so it is consistent with the ESCC guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 28058

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, xii) Other Parking, p103; The second sentence currently reads ‘Facilities, with an electricity supply, must be suitable for a range of types including mopeds, scooters and motorbikes’. The policy aims here are not clear and it appears to be conflating two issues (two wheeler parking and EV charging). Therefore, it is suggested that this sentence is revised or deleted. It is suggested that, as an alternative, in line with the ESCC ‘Guidance for Parking at New Development’, this criterion is split to cover, firstly, ‘Powered Two-wheeler Parking’ and secondly, ‘Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure’. The wording should then be revised so it is consistent with the ESCC guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 28059

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

LWL8: Multimodal Parking, Para 4.71, p105; The ESCC guidance refers to national research indicating that, depending on location, only 19% - 45% of garages are used for parking vehicles.