Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 26440

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q32. We strongly support the proposal that new development should be located within an 800m walk of local amenities.

Comment

Representation ID: 26441

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

We note that train travel is absent from the document and suggest the inclusion of the following paragraph and similar paragraphs for Battle, Robertsbridge and Rye.

With a direct train service to Gatwick Airport/London Victoria, and good connecting services for Charing Cross, Cannon Street and St. Pancras International (HS1), it is generally acknowledged that Bexhill is quite well served by rail, with four main-line railway stations (Bexhill, Normans Bay, Cooden Beach and Collington), Bexhill is overcoming the perception that it is “the end of the line” as a consequence of working closely with the organisations responsible for Bexhill’s rail services. Stagecoach bus company provides the popular, frequent, 99 service linking Bexhill with Eastbourne, Hastings and beyond, as well as other services, including to Conquest Hospital. There is also a town Community Bus, and the Demand Responsive Transport (DRT).
As a matter of policy, the Council should underline its commitment to good public transport links both within and beyond the District.
We also strongly recommend that the following points be included in the Council’s policy:
• evening bus services should be enhanced to facilitate journeys to and from evening meetings or events in Bexhill, including those provided by the De La Warr Pavilion
• cycling routes, to and from, and within Bexhill, should be reviewed and improved as a priority
• an additional rail station stop at Glyne Gap should be provided to serve the beach, swimming pool and Ravenside Retail and Leisure Park.
All the above have the potential to contribute to decarbonisation and to the Council’s Climate Emergency strategy and policies.
The Local Plan should be bold in supporting and addressing these transport issues. Neighbouring West St. Leonards, in preparing its Neighbourhood Plan, is considering the inclusion of a proposed new West St. Leonards station, to straddle the Hastings and East Coastway railway lines, to improve its accessibility and connectivity.

Comment

Representation ID: 26442

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q35. While the 400m walking distance referred to in the draft policy is welcome, we are concerned about the lack of additional detail. For example, there is no specified availability and/or frequency of DRT or shuttle bus services. There is a danger that lack of detail at this stage might make the policy conditions possible to dilute or circumvent, unless more specifics are provided in a future policy document.

Comment

Representation ID: 26443

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q36. We support the policy on walking and cycling but note that footpaths and cycle paths are often badly neglected and difficult to use safely. Provision must be made for regular maintenance.

Comment

Representation ID: 26444

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q38. We strongly agree that demand-responsive local transport is important and will be increasingly important in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 26445

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q39. We support the emphasis on heritage in the Council’s proposed policy on distinctive places. We suggest that the Council should recommend the use of lime mortar as an alternative to cement. The former is carbon neutral and can be recycled at the end of a building’s life.

Comment

Representation ID: 26446

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q40. Our additional points are as follows:
• involve the local community in the upkeep and protection of the environment and dispel the myth that it is the ‘Council’s job’.
• Involving the community should be central to the Council’s ambition to build healthy lives and environments as this will promote a sense of both ‘ownership’ and responsibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 26447

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q42. We support the Council’s proposed policy on built form but are concerned that, if it is not realistic, it may stifle the development and conversion of properties. Solar orientation is a very welcome requirement as it enhances sustainability and well-being.

Comment

Representation ID: 26448

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

Q50. We have some concerns about communal ‘remote’ car parking. Cars don’t just carry people but food, goods and supplies for homes. Shopping is an activity that requires transport for the purchase of goods. Placing a car in a remote area away from acquisition centres will cause people to shop elsewhere or online.

Comment

Representation ID: 26449

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Bexhill Heritage

5.1 HWB1: Supporting health and wellbeing
Section ii) ‘Avoid or mitigate unacceptable harmful impacts and health risks from all forms of pollution.’
This statement needs to be more forceful. We recommend the word ‘unacceptable’ is removed from this statement. As mentioned within DEFRA’s ‘Wastewater treatment in England: data for 2020’ document, urban wastewater includes water from domestic and industrial premises and urban pollution from surface water run-off. Without treatment, urban wastewater has significant adverse impacts on our water environment. This is because it:
• contains nutrients which, when in excess, can speed up the growth of certain plants, disrupting natural processes and harming wildlife
• can be contaminated with harmful chemicals and bacteria which present risks to human health and the wider ecology of our water bodies
The same report confirms that approximately 0.06% of wastewater was reused. This means more than 99% of wastewater is discharged to inland waters, estuaries and the sea.
We urge the Council to press Southern Water to provide tertiary treatment processes for all wastewater discharges to help prevent eutrophication and/or removal of specific toxic substances. This should occur prior to the approval of planning applications for any new development. What will RDC do to enforce this?