Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 27687

Received: 25/07/2024

Respondent: Home Office

Agent: Avison Young

We acknowledge that the Council wishes to produce a plan that sets out ambitious and bold objectives in relation to the environment including climate change and biodiversity and support this approach. However we would encourage the Council to robustly test these targets and objectives to ensure that the proposed plan is deliverable and enables viable development to come forward. The Plan acknowledges at para 8.34 that “development viability remains a key consideration throughout the district and has worsened in recent years… policies need to be realistic and deliverable.”

Proposed Policy GTC1 “Net Zero Building Standards” sets out various targets in relation to total energy use, BREEAM ratings and maximum space heating demands. It also sets standards that new development should meet in respect of embodied carbon and whole life carbon. Again the Home Office is supportive of the Council’s ambitions to increase the environmental sustainability of new development but would encourage the Council to consider these in the context of other proposed policy requirements, including affordable housing, to ensure they can be delivered, particularly on brownfield sites, where viability may be marginal. It is critical for local plan deliverability to ensure that the policies do not threaten the viability of new development, or include an appropriate mechanism for viability to be taken into account, where viability is an issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 27688

Received: 25/07/2024

Respondent: Home Office

Agent: Avison Young

Proposed Policy GTC8 “Biodiversity Net Gain” would require “all qualifying developments to deliver at least a 20% measurable BNG attributable to the development.”

The Home Office requests that evidence is provided to support this approach alongside the Regulation 19 consultation stage of the plan and the measurable target is directly linked to that evidence (ie adjusted if deemed necessary). It is important that the evidence fully considers viability implications especially in relation to brownfield sites and whether certain developments such as those on brownfield sites should be provided with a lower or flexible target.

Comment

Representation ID: 27689

Received: 25/07/2024

Respondent: Home Office

Agent: Avison Young

In order for the proposed Biodiversity Net Gain policy approach to be deliverable, we would encourage the District to implement a robust strategy and mechanism by which any additional Biodiveristy Net Gain units can be delivered off site within the district without delaying development. This will ensure there is in place, a robust and workable scheme, including identified sites in the District, with which all forthcoming developments can easily engage and contribute towards. If this is not achievable, this may undermine the ability of all developers to comply with this policy and could act as a restraint on some new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 27690

Received: 25/07/2024

Respondent: Home Office

Agent: Avison Young

Proposed Policy DEV3: Development Boundaries states that “priority shall be given to reuse of brownfield site, in order to make efficient use of previously developed land in sustainable settlements…. In the countryside development shall be limited… Brownfield development will be prioritised, in order to make efficient and sustainable use of previously developed land.”

The Home Office supports the principle of establishing a development boundary around Bexhill on Sea. We set out our comments on this matter above and in line with these comments, agree that priority should be given to brownfield sites within or close to development boundaries. If the Council is minded not to include the Northeye site within the development boundary of Bexhill, then we request that the council further add to the policy a priority to brownfield sites and previously developed land in close proximity to development boundaries and closest to the largest settlements of the District before considering other locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 27691

Received: 25/07/2024

Respondent: Home Office

Agent: Avison Young

Draft Policy ENV2 relates to Sustainable Surface Water Drainage. It states that all developments should demonstrate all surface water will pass through at least two SuDS treatment stages. For development in the hydrological catchment of the Pevensey Levels, a minimum of three stages of treatment will be required. In relation to this requirement, we note that the current allocation for the site “Bex10” requires “in accordance with DEN5 ‘Sustainable Drainage’ at least two forms of appropriate SuDS are incorporated.” This proposal would therefore represent an increase in the requirement for the site in a redevelopment where SuDS are incorporated.

We would be keen to understand the justification for an increase in requirement for this site above and beyond the existing policy requirement and request that evidence to support this is provided with the Regulation 19 version of the plan. The policy should also have regard to the characteristics of individual sites, in particular in relation to existing and previous development.