1. Introduction

1.1 This representation is prepared on behalf of Mr F. Forte in response to Rother District Council's 'Development and Site Allocations Local Plan' preferred options consultation document.

1.2 Mr F. Forte is promoting land at Rialto Hall, St Mary's Lane, Bexhill-on-Sea for residential development. The site plan for each site is contained within Appendix A.
1.3 The comments and objections within this representation relate directly to this site.
1.4 Following its review of this representation, we respectively request that the Council amend its proposed designations to include the whole of this site as a residential allocation.

2. Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill

2.1 In principle our client supports Policy BEX3, which relates to land at North Bexhill in so far that it allocates this area for mixed development incorporating approximately 450 dwellings.

2.2 However, our client strongly objects to the site boundary and the North Bexhill detailed maps in Figure 23, 24 and 25. Our Client also objects strongly to a number of the criteria policy elements of Policy BEX3. We will expand upon these objections below.

The North Bexhill Site Boundary

2.3 Our client's land is split across two sites in Figure 19 'Bexhill North Housing Options Map'. These sites have the reference BX124 and BX125. This categorisation is illogical as:

- The site is within single land ownership and forms part of a single
residential curtilage.

- The Council's evidence base assesses our client's land as part of a site to
the west of Ninfield Road. There is no evidence to justify the separation
of our client's land into two separate land parcels for policy purposes.

- The part of the site that falls within BX125 is separated from the
remainder of BX125 by Ninfield Road which acts as physical and visual
barrier to our client's land.

- The part of the site that falls within BX125 has very different visual
character to the remainder of BX125, with it having a residential
character as opposed to the open countryside of the remainder of the
site.

2.4 The North Bexhill Site Boundary, which constitutes BX124 and is shown in red line outline on figure 26, should therefore be amended to include the whole of our client's land, not part of it.

2.5 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF is very clear that each local planning authority should
ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence
about the economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area.

2.6 Paragraph 182 of the NPPF expands on this requirement stating that for a local plan to be sound it must be justified i.e. the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.

2.7 The exclusion of our client's land that falls under BX125 fails the test soundness as the Council has either not produced any evidence or published any evidence that justifies the exclusion of this land as a development area. In contrary to the position that the Council has taken under Figure 19, the Council's own evidence actually supports the inclusion of client's land, as a whole, as a development area.

2.8 The North Bexhill Landscape and Ecological study: Report 1, which was published in August 2015 considers our clients land in full under reference 'LDU F'. This land is considered alongside land to the south. There is no suggestion that part of this land forms part of the wider BX125 area. It actually reinforces our point that Ninfield Road acts as a barrier to the land to the east.

2.9 Paragraph 2.4.27 of this land scape report provides a description of the site stating that it comprises of a triangular land parcel that is relatively flat land, containing two properties (one of which is our clients). It is pointed out that there an established hedgerow/tree line along the route of Ninfield Road, separating it from the land to the east. Paragraph 2.4.28 points out that LDU F is well contained in views, although there are localised views from St. Mary's Lane. Paragraph 2.5.32 points out that this site has Moderate Low' sensitivity to change and that the site is separated from the wider rural area by a combination of the local road network and by the surrounding topography.

2.10 Like the majority of the land under LDU F, our client's land in full should be included within BX124 and the red line outline of the North Bexhill development area on figure 26, not BX125.

North Bexhill Detail Map, Options 1, 2 and 3

2.11 Our client strongly objects to the allocations set out in Figure 23, 24 and 25 where they relate to his land to the west of Ninfield Road. Each of these options has split our client's land with the southern part of the land being put forward as a residential area, whilst the northern part of land has been put forward as a new woodland buffer. The Council has not produced any evidence to justify this woodland buffer designation and it appears to have been marked on the plan
as a whim.

2.12 The whole of our client's site should be put forward for residential development.

2.13 The important characteristics concerning this land and the proposed allocation can be summarised as follows:

- The land comprises a residential curtilage in private ownership and our
client has no desire or intention to create a woodland on his garden land.
It is not realistic that the Council will force the loss of this private garden
land and create a woodland buffer in its place.

- The residential allocation on land assumes access is achieved from the
new North Bexhill Access Road roundabout on to our client's land and
yet the vast majority of the residential allocation is on the adjoining land
to the south. This would result in the loss of a large high valued
residential dwelling to serve another site. There is no financial incentive
to encourage our client to make this land available as the number of net
dwellings that can be accommodated on the development site and within
our client's ownership is not enough to make the scheme viable, bearing
in mind an estate road would also need to be provided across his land.
Clearly if access cannot be gained from our client's site due to viability
concerns, then the wider site to the south cannot be delivered.

2.14 As mentioned above, the NPPF requires each local planning authority to ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence (paragraph 158). The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence (paragraph 182). The Council's exclusion of the northern part of client's land has not been justified and indeed the Council's own evidence indicates that our client's land should be considered as a whole and would be appropriate in full as a development site.

2.15 Our client's land is assessed under the reference 'LDU F' in the North Bexhill Landscape and Ecological Study: Report 1. The site, along within the land to the south, was considered as a whole and at no point within this document was it suggested that LDU F needed to be split up between a development area and a new woodland buffer. The key conclusions concerning this land can be summarised as follows:

- Paragraph 2.4.28 - This LDU has few significant landscape features and
has relatively ordinary scenic value. It occupies an area of flat topography
in proximity to Ninfield Road and the northern approach to Bexhill. It is
well contained in views, although there are localised views from St. Mary's
Lane and from the public footpath which extends along the southern
boundary.

- Paragraph 2.4.29 - 'Potential mitigation/avoidance of effects' suggested
as being to retain and enhance the existing landscape framework and
respect the semi-rural setting of St. Mary's Lane.

- Paragraph 2.4.30 - It is stated that this area as a whole has a 'Moderate
High' capacity to accommodate change owing to its relatively ordinary landscape character and limited visual sensitivity.

- Paragraph 2.5.32 - landscape sensitivity was assessed as being 'Moderate Low'. Key features cited as: site shares few characteristics with the wider High Weald; it has few scenic qualities; it is predominantly residential; domestic landscaping acts a detracting element; the site is predominantly flat; it is relatively well related to the existing settlement pattern on the edge of town; the only landscape mitigation suggested as being the retention and management of existing landscape features.

- Paragraph 2.5.33 - Visual sensitivity was assessed as being 'Moderate Low' across the whole site, although only the southern part of the site beyond our client's ownership had high sensitivity due to views from the public footpath. The site is enclosed by the existing wooded embankment and vegetation along Ninfield Road. The only mitigation suggested was the reinforcement and management of existing
vegetation along St. Mary's Lane and Ninfield Road.

Paragraph 2.5.35 - Landscape value was assessed as being 'Moderate Low'. Key features cited as: no designations for landscape or ecological value and no heritage assets which would be directly affected; this area has little scenic value and comprises farmland on the edge of the settlement and the grounds of two dwellings. It was stated that this site as a whole 'Moderate High' capacity to accept change, concluding that This area comprises relatively ordinary farmland and the curtilage of two properties. It has potential to accommodate some development without giving rise to significant landscape and visual effects.

2.16 There is no mention within this document suggesting a need for a large woodland buffer on our client's land, only the reinforcement and management of existing vegetation.

2.17 It would not be unreasonable for a planning application to include a landscape strategy for this site that can address these mitigation measures, however it is excessive to include a large woodland designation on our client's land, particularly when it cannot be implemented and has not been justified through proportionate evidence. This woodland designation amounts to just a whim.

2.18 The 'North Bexhill Appraisal and Recommendation of Development Report 2' was published in August 2016. The plan on page 13 highlighted that our client's land as a whole has moderate high capacity to accommodate new development.

2.19 Paragraph 2.3.3 supported this assessment stating that:
"the Landscape Study concludes that some parts of the Study Area have a better
capacity to accept change than others. The areas to the east of St. Mary's Lane and
Ninfield Road and to the north west of Mayo Lane are found to have the highest
capacity to accommodate new development, with them possessing a moderate high
capacity to accept change, as it would not appear discordant with the existing
settlement pattern on the northern edge of Bexhill and be well related to the existing
edge of the town, with the area being separated from the wider landscape to the north as a result of the intervening topography".

2.20 A plan is introduced on page 33 of this document that shows the northern part of our client's land as being within an area of habitat enhancement. As explained above, neither this document or Report 1 has ever suggested a need for this designation.

Furthermore, this report does not explain or justify the designation, it is only shown on a plan and as such it cannot be used to justify a designation in the Development and Site Allocation DPD.

2.21 In considering development options, a plan on Page 24 shows the North Bexhill Access Road where the approved road will meet Ninfield Road. The new
roundabout adjoins our client's site.

2.22 Paragraph 3.6.2 states that the parcel of residential development to the west of Ninfield Road would be accessed from the new A269 roundabout. However, this access will not be deliverable or viable unless our client's land, in full, is included as a residential development area.

2.23 As set out in paragraph 173 of the NPPF:

173. Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and
costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the
sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened.

2.24 The Development and Site Allocations DPD expects the access to the land west of Ninfield Road to be from our client's land, yet the Council has sought to minimise
residential development on this land by drawing the development area tightly and
incorporating a spurious woodland buffer area over the garden land. Our client's
property constitutes a high value residential dwelling. It is unreasonable to expect our client to allow this property and land to be redeveloped with a woodland buffer and estate road that primarily serves another site, without giving consideration to the viability and deliverability of the allocation as a whole. Our client's land is required in its entirety to enable the access road to be achieved. Without this land being included, the preferred option allocation will be undeliverable and unviable.

2.25 Our client seeks to work with the Council to develop the whole of this site. Matters relating to landscape and ecology mitigation and be addressed at the planning application stage. They are inappropriate in this instance as specific designations as there is no justification for them and they would have the effect of sterilising the land, affecting viability and preventing the land west of Ninfield Road from being delivered as a whole and as such it would be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.

Part (xi) a restriction on the occupation of development until the NBAR is
constructed and open to traffic

2.26 Our client objects to the requirement that prevents the occupation of development until the North Bexhill Access Road is constructed and open to traffic. In the case of land to the west of Ninfield Road, this parcel of land could be delivered independently of the construction of the North Bexhill Access Road.

2.27 There are no site specific constraints that would prevent the development of the whole of our client's land and as such it could form part of the five-year land supply. Development of client's land would also enable access to the wider site to the south.

2.28 A suitable access could be achieved from Ninfield Road to facilitate the development that could in the future be incorporated into the North Bexhill Access Road.

2.29 The NPPF requires local planning authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing and ensure that there is a sufficient supply of housing to maintain a five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. By restricting development at this location, the Council is undermining its housing strategy and preventing some sites from being delivered in a timely manner.

3. Conclusion

3.1 Our client requests that the whole of the land within his ownership to the west of
Ninfield Road be allocated for residential development as:

- This land is required to facilitate access to the preferred residential
allocation at this location. Without a residential scheme the preferred
option would be would be unviable and undeliverable.

- This site could be delivered in advance of the North Bexhill Access Road
and would boost the Council's 5-year land supply.

- The Council's evidence base documents identify this land has having low
landscape qualities and a high capacity to accept development change.

- No evidence has been produced to justify a woodland buffer designation
at this location. This woodland designation would sterilise this existing
residential garden land and in any event, the designation cannot be
delivered and would make the residential allocation to the south
unviable.

- Landscape and ecological mitigation measures are more appropriately
addressed through the planning application process, not through a
spurious woodland buffer designation.

3.2 Our client seeks to work with the Council to develop the whole of this site. Matters relating to landscape and ecology mitigation and be addressed at the planning application stage and are inappropriate in this instance as specific designations as there is no justification for them and they would have the effect of sterilising the land, affecting viability and preventing the land west of Ninfield Road from being delivered as a whole and as such would be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.