Summary

1. The Council's strategy for Bexhill as set out in Policy BX3 and Policy OSS2 in
respect of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road are intertwined in the Core Strategy.
These submissions therefore consider both issues together.

2. Our objections to OSS2 are as follows:

(1) That in principle policy OSS2 is an inappropriate policy to include in the
Core Strategy, because it effectively provides for two very different Core
Strategies to be followed, depending upon the eventual decision of the
Bexhill-Hastings Link Road;

(2) That parts (ii) and (iii) of OSS2 in respect of the alternative Core Strategy
that arises in the absence of the Link Road have not been subject to
Sustainability Appraisal;

(3) That Part (iii) of the Policy in any event provides an inappropriate and
essentially unworkable contingency scenario for the Bexhill area which is
not Justified, and nor will it be Effective in delivering the housing strategy
that the area needs. Strategic growth at West Bexhill is not dependent
upon the provision of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road.
3. Our objections to BX3 are as follows:

(1) That the overall scale of housing growth for Bexhill should be increased in
line with our objections to OSS1 in respect of the District -wide housing
strategy (criteria ii of BX3);

(2) That the timing of construction of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road should
not dictate the precise number of houses to be provided, in accordance
with our related submissions regarding OSS2 (criteria ii of BX3);

(3) That the policy (and strategy generally) places over-reliance upon the
availability of development opportunities within the existing urban area of
Bexhill which are unlikely to be delivered (criteria iii of BX3);

(4) That the policy should not be referring to an inappropriate and
undeliverable growth location at North Bexhill (criteria iii of BX3);

(5) That the scale, timing and location of development west of Bexhill should
be established as part of this Core Strategy as a strategic allocation, and
not through a subsequent Site Allocation (criteria iii of BX3).

At the outset, it would be appropriate to make clear that the premise in the Core Strategy that all strategic scale development in Bexhill is dependent upon the delivery of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road is simply not accepted, and nor does the Council's evidence base contain any information to support its position.

It is this unsubstantiated premise that underlines the substance of Part (iii) of Policy OSS2, which basically says that in the absence of the Link Road no strategic sites can come forward at Bexhill, and it is this unsubstantiated premise that underpins the phasing provisions at paragraph 8.54 and criteria (ii) of Policy BX3.

At earlier stages of the Core Strategy process, we have submitted provisional transportation strategy work that shows the potential of a strategic site at West Bexhill to be delivered irrespective of the construction of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road. As part of the preparation of a planning application for West Bexhill, our clients' Transport Consultants, Peter Brett Associates, are updating their highway impact assessments based upon the trip assignments being used by East Sussex County Council in their own modelling work for the Link Road. Even using the County Council's own baseline information, the assessment work for West Bexhill is continuing to show that a strategic development of some 450 new homes (and commercial uses) can be accommodated without detriment to the local highway network, and, significantly, that flows on the network on the eastern side of Bexhill are not materially affected by the construction of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road.

The findings (based on zero modal shift, and therefore representing worst-case scenarios) show both that the impact of the development in terms of east-bound trips towards Hastings is minimal, and the lack of significant difference between the 'with the Link Road' and 'without the Link Road' scenarios.

This work is still being refined, but will be presented to the Council as part of the forthcoming West Bexhill planning application, and through that mechanism the evidence will be available to inform debate at the Core Strategy Examination. We would also wish to reserve the right to submit representations on the Council's transportation evidence base, which we understand is not finished and has not been made available alongside the Pre-Submission consultation.

Within that context, we turn to consider firstly Policy OSS2, followed by paragraph 8.54 and then Policy BX3.

Policy OSS2
Policy OSS1 sets out a clear spatial development strategy which establishes that by 2028, provision will be made for up to 4,100 new homes and 100,000 sq m of new business floorspace. Although we object to the number of new homes, as per our representations to OSS1, the policy itself (coupled with the distribution of development in Figure 8) is relatively clear and unambiguous as to what the Core Strategy is going to achieve.

Policy OSS2, however, states that if the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road is delayed, or otherwise does not come forward as expected, then a completely different Core Strategy might be pursued, but no details are given as to what that different Core Strategy might actually contain, nor what its practical implications might be.

Even leaving aside the very unhelpful lack of clarity that OSS2 creates, the inclusion of OSS2 raises two fundamental concerns:

(a) Firstly, that it is inappropriate to have a policy in a Plan, the implementation of which, would critically undermine other aspects of the Plan and the Spatial Vision; and

(b) That it is not possible to undertake any sort of credible Sustainability Assessment of the effects of Policy OSS2, because the Policy does not actually set out what the effects of its implementation would be.

In relation to the first point, we understand that Core Strategies are supposed to contain an element of flexibility to cater for changing circumstances, but the inclusion of OSS2 is essentially to put forward two completely different Core Strategies. If the Link Road is built to the timetable currently envisaged, then the Core Strategy will proceed in accordance with OSS1. If the Link Road is not built at all, or is significantly delayed, then the strategy set out in OSS1 will not be pursued, but the policy does not explain clearly what alternative Core Strategy is to be pursued, largely because decisions as to the scale and location of growth are then to be delegated to a separate highway modelling exercise to be undertaken in conjunction with the County Council and Hastings (criterion d of part iii of OSS2) .

Whilst there is no certainty as to what this second 'fallback' Core Strategy might be, the wording of the policy makes clear that the development strategy would be very different to OSS1, and therefore in effect, this Core Strategy contains two development strategies, one set out in OSS1, and one as yet to be disclosed that could arise as a result of OSS2.

This leads on to the second concern above, that in the absence of any confirmation as to what the alternative strategy would be, it is impossible to submit OSS2 to any form of sensible Sustainability Appraisal.

It is evident when reading the published Sustainability Appraisal that the SA has simply ignored the consequences of parts (ii) and (iii) of the Policy, and all of the analysis relates solely to the impact of the Link Road itself. Thus, for example, on page 143 of the SA, in response to Objective 1 (opportunity to live in a decent home), the assessment for OSS1 records a positive result, and on page 144, the assessment for OSS2 records the same positive result, on the basis that the Link Road is associated with delivering new housing. However, the converse position presented by OSS2, that without the Link Road housing provision at Bexhill will be substantially reduced, is not assessed.

Similar discrepancies occur throughout the assessment process, with OSS2 only being considered against the first part of the policy which presumes the Link Road comes forward, not the remainder of the Policy which presumes that it does not.

Of course, by the time that this Core Strategy comes to be examined, a decision on whether or not the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road is to receive funding, and a broad timetable for delivery, will be known. Depending upon the outcome of that decision, Policy OSS2 (or potentially Policy OSS1) is likely to become redundant anyway.

For the above reasons, we consider that the inclusion of OSS2 is inappropriate, and the policy should be deleted.

If, notwithstanding the above, Policy OSS2 were to be retained in the Plan, then we have concerns as to whether or not the methodology set out in criterion (iii) actually provides a workable contingency scenario anyway. For example:

* In relation to part (iii)(a), if all growth in Bexhill is dependent on the Link Road, what elements of the strategy in Chapter 8 can still be implemented? The sum of a number of smaller developments in the town could still be substantial whilst growth in the town centre would still attract traffic movements in to the town, so are these elements that can go ahead or not? There is no clarity or rationale as to what in Chapter 8 is 'saved' under the OSS2 contingency and what is not;

* In relation to part (iii)(b), what scale of development can be accommodated at North-East Bexhill in advance or in the absence of the Link Road? Surely that is a decision that should be made as part of this Core Strategy, since that strategic allocation is a critical part of the overall development strategy;

* In relation to part (iii)(c), why is it appropriate under part (b) for there to be a site specific review of the potential for growth at North-East Bexhill in the absence/delay of the Link Road, but for all other strategic locations to be subject to a blanket 'ban' under parts (c) and (d)?

* In relation to part (iii) (d), the Policy does not specify the methodology to be used in determining the "actual scale of development allowable", but since the philosophy of the Link Road relates to highway capacity, and the Policy refers to this work being done in conjunction with the County Council and Hastings, then the Policy is envisaging that some form of strategic highway model will demonstrate the scale of growth that can be accommodated without the Link Road.

* The problem is that this is simply an unrealistic expectation - Bexhill is a major urban area, and as such, it is not unusual and indeed not inappropriate for different parts of the network to experience different levels of stress and capacity usage at different time, but fundamentally, there is no specific point at which a highway network works acceptably and when it performs unacceptably. A highway modelling exercise cannot provide an answer as to how much growth is acceptable.

We would also wish to reserve the right to submit representations on the Council's transportation evidence base, which we understand is not finished and has not been made available alongside the Pre-Submission consultation.

* In relation to part (iii) (e), it is not clear what a 'pre-Link Road development rate' actually is, nor that there is any substantive evidence which underpins the figures given in Chapter 8. So for example, the rate given at paragraph 8.54 for 2011-2015 is 75 dwellings per annum, but this period straddles the Link Road opening, and there is no technical basis that supports it. Paragraph 8.53 refers to a 'lower rate' of house building before construction of the Link Road rising to 150 dwellings per annum thereafter, but does not actually state what the 'lower rate' is, or where it comes from.

In the light of all of the above, we consider that the second and third criteria of Policy OSS2 are unsound because they are neither Justified nor Effective nor are they consistent with PPS12.

In addition, the inclusion of the policy raises a procedural/legal issue of unsoundness because parts (ii) and (iii) have not been subject to SA.

Paragraph 8.54
Following on from the discussion of build rates and pre/post Link Road scenarios above, there is no evidence that we have seen which supports the projected phasing provisions at paragraph 8.54.

Moreover, we can see no rationale for wanting to artificially restrain housing growth in the early years of the Plan period via this means. The starting point, as per the draft NPPF and 'Planning for Growth' is that sustainable growth should be encouraged to happen at the earliest opportunity, since that growth will encourage investment and jobs, and help to stimulate economic recovery. Aside from the inclusion of employment uses in mixed-use schemes, the construction of new housing creates employment for the workforce involved, stimulates demand in terms of the use of raw materials and resources, and helps to stimulate economic activity in surrounding areas. Moreover, in this case, there is a substantial need for new housing and a backlog of affordable housing need.

In that context, there is no merit whatsoever in this Core Strategy seeking to establish an arbitrary phasing of housebuilding. Although the phasing is purported to be associated with the construction of the Link Road, any planning application (particularly for a major scheme) will need to undertake its own assessment of the transportation effects, and if there is a need for any phasing, or for a cap on the number of units built on any site in advance of the Link Road opening, then that will be a matter for detailed consideration based on hard technical evidence at that stage, and it should not be pre-determined through this Core Strategy.

Paragraph 8.54 should be deleted, since it is unjustified, inappropriate, and inconsistent with national policy.

Policy BX3
Turning to Policy BX3, we have noted elsewhere in our submissions to OSS1 that at the current time, the RSS remains, and the RSS sets a level of housing provision for both the District and the coastal area which is in excess of that now being proposed in the Core Strategy.

Although the Council has produced a Housing Background Paper, we have explained in our submissions to OSS1 that this in fact fails to present any form of robust argument for reducing the scale of growth below the South East Plan level, and indeed conversely in actually provides evidence in respect of the constraining effect that even the South East Plan figures has on meeting housing need.

At this stage, it is not known when the South-East Plan will be formally revoked, but in any event, the scale of housing growth at Bexhill should achieve at least the minimum set out through that process which would equate to around 3,410-3,630 in total (i.e. 3,100-3,300 as set out in the Core Strategy Directions of 2008, plus an allowance for an additional two years for the extended plan period to 2028 at the same rate i.e. 310-330).

Criterion (ii) of BX3 should be amended accordingly.

Criterion (ii) should also be amended to delete the specific reference to the timing of delivery of all units in Bexhill being linked to the phasing of the Link Road and the provisions of paragraph 8.54. As far as we are aware, there is no limit on the speed with which housing within the existing urban area might be developed, and any restrictions in respect of specific strategic development sites should be examined and justified in relation to those individual sites, not applied to Bexhill as a whole. This part of Policy BX3 is therefore not Justified.

In respect of Criterion (iii) of BX3, we are concerned that the Core Strategy is premised upon an unrealistic expectation of the rate of delivery and quantum of new housing that may be delivered within the Bexhill urban area. Our examination of the Council's 5 year housing land supply assessment (current base date April 2011) shows a reliance both on historic allocations and sites without planning permission where there is no evidence that development will occur, and a reliance on sites with planning permission for C2 rather than C3 use.

More specifically, criterion (iii) refers to the possibility of an urban extension to the north of Bexhill. This refers to an area of land shown on the key diagram which has not at any time during the Core Strategy process been promoted by the landowners or a developer as a strategic housing site, and there are therefore serious questions over whether or not this land is 'available' (the Council's SHLAA provides no evidence that it is).

Moreover, the proposed northern growth area occupies a peripheral location that relates poorly to the existing built settlement, offers few opportunities for walking and cycling, it is remote from existing services (and where the principle means of access seems to be premised upon access to the Link Road, thereby further undermining the sustainability of the location), and it utilises an area of land of relatively high landscape value. For all of these reasons, it does not represent a sustainable or appropriate site for strategic housing development.

Accordingly, reference to North Bexhill should be removed from criterion (iii), because the location is fundamentally inappropriate.

We have already noted in respect of our comments on paragraph 8.54 that there is no rationale for seeking to phase strategic housing delivery, and that the need for affordable housing, and the positive framework set by "Planning for Growth" and the NPPF suggests a strong rationale for bringing strategic development at Bexhill forward as soon as practically possible.

We have also touched on the fact that we have concerns over the robustness of the Council's 5 year land supply. According to the Council's 5 year land supply assessment, there is a 5 year requirement of 1,415 dwellings and a supply of 1,510 dwellings, but as our emerging planning application will demonstrate, the true availability of land is less than 1,510, whilst the 5 year requirement (calculated on the 'Sedgefield' basis) is greater than 1,415. Irrespective of our arguments on these matters, however, even on the Council's own figures, the surplus of supply at 7% is less than the 20% required under the emerging NPPF, and therefore there is still a demonstrable shortfall in the short-term land supply position, which the Council is seeking to exacerbate by restricting the speed with which strategic sites can come forward.

We understand that the North-East strategic allocation may be constrained by a lack of road capacity, and that the Council consider that delivery of this development is inextricably allied to delivery of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road. The same however is not true of West Bexhill, which is suitable and available for delivery now.

Within the policy context outlined above, and in the light of the deficit in the short-term land supply, this Core Strategy should not be relying upon a further Site Allocations process to bring forward a strategic allocation at West Bexhill. Rather, the allocation should be made as part of this Core Strategy. The boundary of the proposed strategic allocation is shown at Appendix 1 to these submissions.