Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 28407

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

The NPPF requires the standard method to be used unless exceptional circumstances justify
an alternative approach. We agree that there are no exceptional circumstances which
would warrant a different approach than the standard method being used as the starting
point for considering the housing requirement for Rother.

Recognising that the housing targets of the district significantly increase when using the
standard methodology as opposed to the adopted approach using an objective assessment,
every effort should be made to deliver the minimum housing requirement as determined by
the standard methodology.

Gladman strongly support the need for more housing in Rother for a variety of reasons
including addressing the current housing crisis, meeting housing need, providing affordable
housing and to support employment growth. Gladman would request that the Councils
fully considers all of the issues when determining the housing requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 28408

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman support the vision for Bexhill which identifies that the settlement will be a key
focus for growth however we consider that the development quantum proposed for the
town could be increased.

It will also be vital that the council seeks to maximise development on each site it does
allocate give the significant shortfall between housing needs and supply. The Council should
look to ensure that all land within submitted sites that are considered suitable for
development are allocated for development. For the same reason, sites that are ‘rejected’
must have robust or compelling reasons for the non allocation of the sites, in the context of
the proposed shortfall of housing delivery.

We are promoting a number of sites around the town that have been identified as suitable
and these sites should be allocated for residential development but we are also promoting
a series of that have currently been ‘rejected’. Gladman have provided commentary on each
of these assessments below:

 Land east of Watermill Lane (BEX 0003);
 Land north of A2691 NBAR (east), Bexhill (BEX 0163);
 Land north of Rosewood Park, Gotham Farm, Bexhill (BEX 0159);
 Land at Gotham Farm (west), Sandhurst Lane, Bexhill (BEX 0206);
 Land south of Whydown Road (BEX 0177); and
 Land at Chestnut Meadows Site B, Bexhill (BEX 0209)

Comment

Representation ID: 28409

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Land east of Watermill Lane (BEX 0003)

This site is allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Gladman are engaged in the promotion of
this site on behalf of the landowners and are currently in the process of entering into to a
Planning Performance Agreement with the Council with the intention of submitting a
planning application in the near future.

This site is deliverable and should be retained as an allocation within the emerging Local
Plan.

Please also see StoryMap detailing Gladman's portfolio of using the following address: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/315747d6c3ef40069b1b886958aaedaf

Comment

Representation ID: 28410

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Land north of A2691 NBAR (east), Bexhill (BEX 0163)

Please see pages 12-13 of attached document for representation.

Please also see StoryMap detailing Gladman's portfolio of using the following address: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/315747d6c3ef40069b1b886958aaedaf

Comment

Representation ID: 28411

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Land north of Rosewood Park, Gotham Farm, Bexhill (BEX 0159)

Please see pages 13-15 of attached document for representation.

Please also see StoryMap detailing Gladman's portfolio of using the following address: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/315747d6c3ef40069b1b886958aaedaf

Comment

Representation ID: 28412

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Land at Gotham Farm (west), Sandhurst Lane, Bexhill (BEX 0206)

Please see pages 15 & 16 of attached submission document.

Please also see StoryMap detailing Gladman's portfolio of using the following address: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/315747d6c3ef40069b1b886958aaedaf

Comment

Representation ID: 28413

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Land south of Whydown Road (BEX 0177)

Please see 16 & 17 of attached submission document for representation.

Please also see StoryMap detailing Gladman's portfolio of using the following address: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/315747d6c3ef40069b1b886958aaedaf

Comment

Representation ID: 28414

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Land at Chestnut Meadows Site B, Bexhill (BEX 0209)

Please see pages 17-19 of attached submission document for representation.

Please also see StoryMap detailing Gladman's portfolio of using the following address: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/315747d6c3ef40069b1b886958aaedaf

Comment

Representation ID: 28415

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

In relation to Figures 34 and 36, Gladman question the identified potential of sites assessed
within the HELAA. We have provided commentary above in relation to the a number of
assessed sites that we contend should be considered as suitable. This would increase the
overall development potential district wide.

We observe that as currently assessed, even on the higher figure of those considered the
Council would be significantly short in terms of housing delivery within the plan period.

We would agree with Bexhill being identified as one of the most sustainable areas of the
district where there are higher opportunities for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 28416

Received: 23/04/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman would urge caution when considering the use of a stepped trajectory. Whilst
recognising that the minimum housing target has increased significantly within the district
from the adopted Local Plan, with increasing housing permissions housing delivery is
increasing across the district.
By providing greater certainty with the allocation of a number of additional sites Gladman
would suggest that this could be achieved without the need for a stepped trajectory. If
continuing t0 consider the use of a stepped trajectory must be considered in the context of meeting housing needs in full in the plan period. This also shouldn’t be used to artificially
supress the needs of much needed housing.