Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Please refer to our full representations and our response to Q22

Please refer to our full representations and our response to Q22

We note that under policy GTC8, all qualifying development proposals must deliver at least a 20% measurable biodiversity net gain. Whilst we support the principle of achieving net gain, there is no apparent evidence of the Council understanding the implications of what a 20% uplift would require, nor any justification as to why provision above the mandatory 10% requirement is sought.

In February 2024, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was updated to advise plan-makers that they should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies, they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration is also needed to be given as to how the policy will be implemented (Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214).
1.18 Comparatively, the Draft Plan states that a higher level is justified because “opportunities to deliver this off-site, if necessary, are available locally” and because “the viability of development is unlikely to be unduly impacted in most cases”. The Plan is accompanied by an Environmental Management Background Paper (2024), which refers to a justification for a 20% net gain (dated September 2020) and a viability assessment (dated June 2022) prepared by the Kent Nature Partnership. Neither of these documents relate to Rother District, nor meet the requirements of the PPG.

If implemented this policy is likely to particularly impact the viability and deliverability of smaller sites where the opportunity to deliver the necessary BNG onsite is more limited resulting in the need to pay for offsite credits.

Consequently, at this stage we are concerned that policy GTC8 is not underpinned by appropriate evidence, including that the approach taken will be viable, and is therefore not “justified” (NPPF, paragraph 35).

Please refer to our full representations and our response to Q6