Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 27564

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the approach and welcome the range of densities and the fact the policy is based on evidence set out in the Rother Density Study. While this is the case, we believe “compact development”, as described in the supporting text (paragraphs 4.12-4.13), is only likely to be achievable in Bexhill, Rye and some of the other larger settlements. The reason being that some parts of Rother are very low density. RDC should, therefore, consider amending the term “Compact Development”. A more appropriate term could be “Making effective and efficient use of land”.

Comment

Representation ID: 27565

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We support the approach and welcome the range of densities and the fact the policy is based on evidence set out in the Rother Density Study. While this is the case, we believe “compact development”, as described in the supporting text (paragraphs 4.12-4.13), is only likely to be achievable in Bexhill, Rye and some of the other larger settlements. The reason being that some parts of Rother are very low density. RDC should, therefore, consider amending the term “Compact Development”. A more appropriate term could be “Making effective and efficient use of land”.

Comment

Representation ID: 27566

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

The broad principles of the policy all seem to be appropriate. However, the supporting text doesn’t include any references to the evidence to support the approach. Evidence should be provided to ensure the approach is the correct one for Rother. For example, point (A)i) refers to the need for new homes to be within an 800m distance of local services. This is broadly the distance required to be a “20-minute neighbourhood”, yet paragraph 4.16 states the concept has been adapted to Rother’s local context. Although some flexibility has been included for Village and Countryside Area types, the Plan should demonstrate whether the 800m distance is achievable in Rother whilst meeting local housing and other development needs. The supporting text should be updated to include references to the relevant evidence base documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 27567

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

The broad principles of the policy all seem to be appropriate. However, the supporting text doesn’t include any references to the evidence to support the approach. Evidence should be provided to ensure the approach is the correct one for Rother. For example, point (A)i) refers to the need for new homes to be within an 800m distance of local services. This is broadly the distance required to be a “20-minute neighbourhood”, yet paragraph 4.16 states the concept has been adapted to Rother’s local context. Although some flexibility has been included for Village and Countryside Area types, the Plan should demonstrate whether the 800m distance is achievable in Rother whilst meeting local housing and other development needs. The supporting text should be updated to include references to the relevant evidence base documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 27568

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

As per our response to Q30, the types of facilities etc.. seem reasonable, but should be supported by evidence.

Comment

Representation ID: 27569

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We believe the broad approach is appropriate and it’s positive to see the local plan Transport Assessment and Infrastructure Delivery Statement will be used to evolve the policy further (paragraph 4.25). This will ensure the policy is appropriate for the local context. As per our response to Q11, it may be beneficial to link this policy to GTC3 and the need for CEMPs to be submitted as part of larger schemes. CEMPs are useful for carbon reduction and waste reduction, whilst avoiding impacts on the transport network and the amenity of neighbouring residents during the construction phase. There are also links here to Policy LWL5, which makes reference to “Material Banks”.

Comment

Representation ID: 27570

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We believe the broad approach is appropriate and it’s positive to see the local plan Transport Assessment and Infrastructure Delivery Statement will be used to evolve the policy further (paragraph 4.25). This will ensure the policy is appropriate for the local context. As per our response to Q11, it may be beneficial to link this policy to GTC3 and the need for CEMPs to be submitted as part of larger schemes. CEMPs are useful for carbon reduction and waste reduction, whilst avoiding impacts on the transport network and the amenity of neighbouring residents during the construction phase. There are also links here to Policy LWL5, which makes reference to “Material Banks”.

Comment

Representation ID: 27571

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

We believe the broad approach is appropriate and it’s positive to see the local plan Transport Assessment and Infrastructure Delivery Statement will be used to evolve the policy further (paragraph 4.25). This will ensure the policy is appropriate for the local context. As per our response to Q11, it may be beneficial to link this policy to GTC3 and the need for CEMPs to be submitted as part of larger schemes. CEMPs are useful for carbon reduction and waste reduction, whilst avoiding impacts on the transport network and the amenity of neighbouring residents during the construction phase. There are also links here to Policy LWL5, which makes reference to “Material Banks”.

Comment

Representation ID: 27572

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

The same principles apply as outlined in our response to Q30. The proximity of a site to public transport should be a consideration. But we think it’s necessary to verify the 400m distance stated in the draft policy is appropriate for the local context and doesn’t stop the delivery of appropriate new development. Our point made above relating to CEMPs and the links to policies GTC3 and LWL3 are also relevant.

Comment

Representation ID: 27573

Received: 23/07/2024

Respondent: Southern Housing

The same principles apply as outlined in our response to Q30. The proximity of a site to public transport should be a consideration. But we think it’s necessary to verify the 400m distance stated in the draft policy is appropriate for the local context and doesn’t stop the delivery of appropriate new development. Our point made above relating to CEMPs and the links to policies GTC3 and LWL3 are also relevant.