Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 27634

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

The Council needs to ensure a variety of dwelling types are provided across Rother. The subdivision of properties can assist in achieving this provided schemes are of a sufficient quality. We therefore welcome the inclusion of the policy criteria, which appear to be aimed at ensuring quality accommodation for the lifetime of a conversion scheme.

Comment

Representation ID: 27635

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the adoption of the Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) as it helps to ensure the delivery of good quality homes and provides certainty for all developers. While we note the intention behind the second point regarding other rooms, there may be circumstances where an applicant has a genuine need for a home office. It may also be appropriate to provide smaller home offices in large dwellings with multiple bedrooms. We therefore suggest adding some flexibility to the policy wording to cater for multiple types of schemes.

Comment

Representation ID: 27636

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the adoption of the Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) as it helps to ensure the delivery of good quality homes and provides certainty for all developers. While we note the intention behind the second point regarding other rooms, there may be circumstances where an applicant has a genuine need for a home office. It may also be appropriate to provide smaller home offices in large dwellings with multiple bedrooms. We therefore suggest adding some flexibility to the policy wording to cater for multiple types of schemes.

Comment

Representation ID: 27637

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the principle of this policy and welcome the fact some flexibility has been included.

Comment

Representation ID: 27638

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the principle of this policy. With regard to the second paragraph regarding schemes of 100 units or more, we suggest adding flexibility where schemes are delivering more than a policy-compliant level of affordable housing. There is also a potential disparity between the requirements of paragraph three, which makes provision for schemes outside of settlements, and the final paragraph, which refers to “walkability”. Whilst the third paragraph refers to the relationship of sites and services, we suggest including either a specific reference to walkability or a cross reference to the final paragraph and/or reorganising the paragraphs so that walkability features earlier in the policy text.

Comment

Representation ID: 27639

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the principle of this policy. With regard to the second paragraph regarding schemes of 100 units or more, we suggest adding flexibility where schemes are delivering more than a policy-compliant level of affordable housing. There is also a potential disparity between the requirements of paragraph three, which makes provision for schemes outside of settlements, and the final paragraph, which refers to “walkability”. Whilst the third paragraph refers to the relationship of sites and services, we suggest including either a specific reference to walkability or a cross reference to the final paragraph and/or reorganising the paragraphs so that walkability features earlier in the policy text.

Comment

Representation ID: 27640

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support this policy in principle and welcome the exclusion at point c. relating to affordable housing. However, we suggest broadening this to include all schemes delivering more than a policy-compliant level of affordable housing (not just 100% affordable schemes).

Comment

Representation ID: 27641

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support this policy in principle and welcome the exclusion at point c. relating to affordable housing. However, we suggest broadening this to include all schemes delivering more than a policy-compliant level of affordable housing (not just 100% affordable schemes).

Comment

Representation ID: 27642

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support this policy in principle and welcome the exclusion at point c. relating to affordable housing. However, we suggest broadening this to include all schemes delivering more than a policy-compliant level of affordable housing (not just 100% affordable schemes).

Comment

Representation ID: 27643

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the aims of this policy in principle.

With regard to criteria (vi), we consider the draft wording to be complicated and that it may be difficult to apply when determining planning applications. As drafted, it appears the policy would allow for two houses on the edge of a settlement but then no further additions. While we note the intention, it has the potential to lead to ribbon development along main routes into villages and coalescence of settlements. Once the new houses have been built, it may be difficult to resist further developments, particularly at the end of the plan period as policies become weaker and/or if the exact same approach isn’t continued in future local plans.

The definition of frontages is also open to interpretation and may make it difficult to resist back land schemes within the rural settlements. We note paragraph 5.118 states that: “While development boundaries will normally follow physical boundaries, on occasion, the full depth of property curtilages may be excluded to make clear a policy statement that back land or in-depth development is unacceptable, often because of its additional visual or amenity impact.” There may therefore be situations where the curtilage of a property is excluded from the development boundary, but the dwelling itself is within the settlement boundary. Depending on the layout and pattern of the surrounding settlement, draft Policy HOU13 may make provision for developing the curtilage of this property. This is therefore in conflict with the approach set out at paragraph 5.118 (please see also our response to Q82). We suggest amending the wording to refer to “in-fill” developments on sites which front the public highway and follow the pattern of development found in the locality.