Policy EC2 in the Deposit Plan clearly sets out in paragraph its objective of (iii) "Improving the supply and range of small-medium sized sites, in towns and villages which act as local service centres, particular those that have good strategic accessibility(i.e. to the A21 road and rail corridor)"This objective should remain. This paragraph gives clear guidance on the strategic sustainable criteria over where employment sites should be directed. Indeed, settlements should be rightly identified where appropriate employment targets can be meet. The proposed amendment provides no strategic guidance for employment especially in the Rural Area i.e. Robertsbridge. This is inconsistent with NPPF paragraph 19 which state "Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system" The NPPF (para 28) state that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development.

The Employment Strategy and Land Review suggested a provision of 10,000sq m for Battle(a settlement
in the AONB)yet no employment provision is set for the largest sustainable rural settlement-Robertsbridge. An overall target of 10,000sq m is set for the Rural Areas but this does not set out any proper strategic guidance or sequential approach based on individual settlement sustainability i.e. priority to sustainable towns and villages.

The Council appear to have deleted its previous paragraph (iii) purely because it did offer strategic guidance "in towns and villages which act as local service centres, particularly those that have good strategic accessibility(i.e. to the A21 and rail corridor)". This does appear to point towards Robertsbridge as a suitable sustainable settlement for further employment provision.