Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26430

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

1.1 We support the twin overall priorities ‘Green to the Core’ and ‘Live Well Locally’. These are important and well-considered. However, we strongly recommend that ‘Celebrating our Heritage and Building our Community’ should be added as a third strategic priority. This third priority would relate to proposed policy HER1: Heritage Management.

We contend that encouraging a ‘sense of place’ is particularly important as the local population increases and communities evolve. Celebrating our heritage as a prerequisite for promoting community cohesion, building a sense of pride about living and working in the District, bringing people together, and encouraging citizens to contribute to their community’s overall health and prosperity.

1.2 We support the key planning issues identified in paragraph 2.13 of the draft plan but recommend the following be added:
• realising the potential of the district’s many 19th and early 20th century residential and non-residential buildings to provide affordable, good-quality, sustainable homes for local people while, at the same time, celebrating and enhancing the heritage value of such buildings.
• enhancing existing conservation areas and establishing new ones to protect and improve those parts of the District’s built environment with significant historical and heritage value such as Bexhill’s Town Centre and the ‘De La Warr’ Estate east of the town centre.
• encouraging the celebration and conservation of the District’s heritage buildings by working with parish councils, heritage societies and other local organisations to compile local lists of non-designated heritage assets.
• encouraging and supporting individuals, groups, businesses and voluntary organisations to contribute to the enhancement of the District’s natural and built environment in order to promote health, well-being and community cohesion.

1.3 We recommend that the fourth bullet point under ‘key planning issues’ be amended to include a clear statement of the importance of rail and road connectivity.

1.4 We recommend that the seventh bullet point be amended to replace ‘strong, safe and sustainable communities’ with ‘strong, safe, cohesive and sustainable communities’.

Comment

Representation ID: 26431

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

2.1. Bexhill Heritage broadly supports the section on heritage management, but we recommend a reordering of the paragraphs so as to reflect the importance of the role of ‘the ‘historic public realm’ and ‘historic buildings’ in helping to define ‘local character and sense of place’ (para 12.11) and promoting sustainability (para. 12.12). The paragraph that follows (12.13) consolidates this message by including a commitment to ‘adapt, upgrade, repair and maintain’ older buildings. Paragraph 12.13 also mentions the importance of the historic built environment for both a sense of place and cultural identity. This deserves greater emphasis.
We therefore recommend that paragraphs 12.11,12.12 and 12.13 be moved to follow existing paragraph 12.1 to become new paragraphs 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4.
2.2. We are concerned about the claim in paragraph 12.2 that ‘the historic built environment within the Rother District has a high level of statutory protection’. We do not agree as far as Bexhill is concerned. The Council’s guidelines regarding the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area are widely ignored and rarely enforced. So much so that there have even been calls for its abandonment. Meanwhile, the architecturally and historically significant De La Warr Estate to the east is both unrecognized and largely unprotected. We’re also disappointed that Bexhill currently has no ‘local list’ of non-designated heritage assets.
We therefore recommend that the following paragraph be inserted to follow the first sentence of paragraph 12.2.
“However, to be effective, the District’s existing Conservation Areas require further promotion, support and enforcement. The process of review and evaluation remains underdeveloped. Some architecturally and historically significant parts of the District are currently unrecognised and unprotected. These would benefit from designation as Conservation Areas. There is currently no local list of non-designated heritage assets in Bexhill and in several other parts of the District. This further exposes some of our heritage assets to risk.”

Comment

Representation ID: 26432

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

2.3. We strongly support the Council’s policies on shopfronts, signage and advertising but urge that further consideration is given to policy promotion, support for business owners and enforcement. We also suggest that the policy is made compatible with the Council’s policy on ‘dark skies’.

Comment

Representation ID: 26433

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

3.1 Proposed Policy GTC2: Net Zero Retrofit Standards
In view of the large number of older buildings in this area, it is good to see that in relation to statutorily and non-statutorily protected historic buildings, Policy HER1 will apply, guided by Historic England advice on climate change and historic building adaption. While adapting to the Climate Emergency is a priority and it is imperative to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings, this should not be at the expense of the character of local towns and villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 26434

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

3.2 Proposed Policy GTC3: Construction Materials and Waste
It is positive to note that this policy requires the reuse of land and buildings wherever feasible and consistent with maintaining and enhancing local character and distinctiveness.
However, we recommend the use of the word 'possible' in place of 'feasible' here to require greater efforts on the part of developers to reuse land and buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 26435

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

3.3 Proposed Policy GTC6: Reusable and Low Carbon Energy
Again, it is positive to note that proposals for renewable and low energy generation will be supported where they "will not result in significant adverse impacts on landscape character...and local heritage'.

Comment

Representation ID: 26436

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q27. There is a danger that ‘compact development’ heightens social misbehaviour and compromises resident’s quality of life and well-being. Care is needed to ensure that residents enjoy quiet and private accommodation.

Comment

Representation ID: 26437

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q29. The Council should consider that better transport or movement links may allow for a lower density.

Comment

Representation ID: 26438

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q30. We strongly support the Council’s policy on facilities and services.

Comment

Representation ID: 26439

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q31. We recommend that further thought is given to people’s capacity to move goods and purchases. Light carrying is possible by bicycle but not so easy when on foot.