Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26522

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

As indicated above, TWBC believes RDC
should be looking to meet their housing
needs in full.

Comment

Representation ID: 26525

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

See also response to Q51. TWBC
considers that in order to achieve the
proposed vision and deliver the potential
number of new dwellings and
employment floorspace over the plan
period, the Plan will require the
completion of the following evidence
base studies:
• Appropriate Landscape Impact
Assessment(s)/Setting Study
• Transport Modelling – both for the
strategic and local road networks
and a full assessment of the impacts
on Flimwell Junction.
• Flood risk modelling/assessments
The draft Rother Local Plan also
recognises that the residents within the
Northern Rother sub-area are likely to
use services and facilities outside of the
sub-area, including in Tunbridge Wells
Borough. TWBC would expect,
therefore, that the infrastructure
requirements to support the potential level of growth are fully investigated
through engagement with the relevant
infrastructure and other service providers
(as well as both East Sussex County
Council and Kent County Council) and
for this to be clearly evidenced in the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan and, as
appropriate, in Statements of Common
Ground. Appropriate mitigation should
be provided for any potential cross
boundary impacts on Tunbridge Wells
Borough following consideration and
discussion through Duty to Cooperate
meetings.
TWBC would welcome further discussion
with RDC on the proposals for the
Northern Rother sub-area and the
potential impact of this on Tunbridge
Wells Borough as the RLP is progressed.
TWBC would also welcome discussion
on the identified A21 growth corridor and
further details of what the aspirations are
for this area over the longer term. This
should include ongoing engagement with
Kent Council Council Highways in
particular, and with National Highways.

Comment

Representation ID: 26526

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC
considers that in order to achieve the proposed vision and deliver the potential
number of new dwellings and employment floorspace over the plan
period, the Plan will require the completion of the following evidence
base studies:
• Appropriate Landscape Impact
Assessment(s)/Setting Study
• Transport Modelling – both for the
strategic and local road networks
and a full assessment of the impacts
on Flimwell Junction.
• Flood risk modelling/assessments
The draft Rother Local Plan also
recognises that the residents within the
Northern Rother sub-area are likely to
use services and facilities outside of the
sub-area, including in Tunbridge Wells
Borough. TWBC would expect,
therefore, that the infrastructure
requirements to support the potential level of growth are fully investigated
through engagement with the relevant
infrastructure and other service providers
(as well as both East Sussex County
Council and Kent County Council) and
for this to be clearly evidenced in the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan and, as
appropriate, in Statements of Common
Ground. Appropriate mitigation should
be provided for any potential cross
boundary impacts on Tunbridge Wells
Borough following consideration and
discussion through Duty to Cooperate
meetings.
TWBC would welcome further discussion
with RDC on the proposals for the
Northern Rother sub-area and the
potential impact of this on Tunbridge
Wells Borough as the RLP is progressed.
TWBC would also welcome discussion
on the identified A21 growth corridor and
further details of what the aspirations are
for this area over the longer term. This
should include ongoing engagement with
Kent Council Council Highways in
particular, and with National Highways.

Comment

Representation ID: 26527

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

See response to Q68.
TWBC notes the sites identified in the
HELAA at Flimwell and Robertsbridge as
potential development sites. The
exceptional circumstances for allocating
sites within the High Weald National
Landscape should be clearly
demonstrated and justified. TWBC
would also expect that the cumulative
impact of the potential development
sites, including any in combination
impacts with sites already identified, are
fully considered. As referenced in Q68,
this should include a full assessment of
the impacts on Flimwell Junction.

Comment

Representation ID: 26528

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

See response to Q68.
There is very little detail provided within
this draft Local Plan as to what the 30-
year vision is and so further detail is
required before constructive comment
can be made.

Comment

Representation ID: 26529

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Relevant officer still reviewing the policy
approach but broadly note that the policy
is based on PPTS compliant definition
(as defined in December 2023) and seeks to meet need of 23 additional pitches through allocations within the
Local Plan which is supported

Comment

Representation ID: 26530

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

As reiterated in previous response – the
Council would be keen to understand
what the aspirations are for the A21
growth corridor.
It would also be useful to better
understand the constraints around the
limitation of growth at Bexhill and
whether these can be overcome during
or beyond the current plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 26531

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC agrees with the general thrust and
approach proposed within the policy in
terms of the timing and implementation of
relevant infrastructure (delivery upfront or
to an agreed timetable). The approach to
ensure the safeguarding of existing
infrastructure is also welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 26533

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

It should also be recognised in this
policy, that some locally accessible
infrastructure may lie outside of Rother
District and, therefore, the need for cross
boundary discussions and possible
financial contributions is paramount.

Comment

Representation ID: 26534

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

TWBC considers there will need to be
sufficient engagement with relevant
infrastructure and utility providers – transport, water/sewage, education,
medical services etc. through Duty to
Cooperate and producing Statements of
Common Ground along with the
requirement to produce evidence base
documents – such as transport modelling
and flood modelling to support the
Infrastructure Development Plan and the
Local Plan.