BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm

The comments below are made in relation to Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley.

Land at Preston Hall Farm was allocated for residential development in the Rother Local Plan 2006 under Policy BX3 as part of the wider urban extension to North East Bexhill. The DaSA proposes to continue to allocate the land at Preston Hall for residential development under Policy BEX2. The new policy would supersede the allocation in the 2006 plan, once adopted.

Proposed Policy BEX2 allocates Preston Hall Farm for "a comprehensive scheme comprising residential development and amenity open space." The policy contains six conditions that development proposals are required to meet. Comments are made on each below:

i) Approximately 135 dwellings are provided, of which 30% are affordable

The number of dwellings the site can deliver is dependent on a number of different factors including changes in affordable housing tenure requirements and the potential introduction of the nationally described space standards and requirements for accessible and adaptable homes (as proposed in Policies DHG1 and DHG2 in the DaSA).

PHSE supports the policy requirement for the delivery of approximately 135 dwellings on site provided that, in practice, the policy provides sufficient flexibility to take into account potential changes in total dwelling numbers resulting from external influences. We request the supporting text to the policy is amended to recognise that whilst approximately 135 units is the target site capacity, a number of factors will influence the final number of dwellings delivered.

The adopted Rother Core Strategy establishes the requirement for 30% affordable housing on development sites within Bexhill. The respondent does not seek to challenge this policy. However, it is considered that the requirement in relation to Preston Hall Farm should allow some flexibility of approach.

The viability of residential development is a key component when determining the appropriate obligations required upon the grant of planning permission. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states "To ensure viability, the costs of any requirement likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for Affordable Housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking into account the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable" (Paragraph 173).

Planning Policy Guidance (Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 23b-006-20140306) further clarifies that "where local planning authorities are requiring affordable housing obligations or tariff style contributions to infrastructure, they should be flexible in their requirements." Furthermore, "policy should be clear that such planning obligations will take into account specific site circumstances."
This is taken through in Policy LHN2 (Affordable Housing) of Rother District Council's Core Strategy 2014 which states "Where it can be demonstrated that these requirements would either render otherwise suitable development unviable, or where the local need for affordable housing would no longer justify the above levels, the Council will respectively expect the proportion of affordable housing to be the most that does not undermine viability, or is needed locally."

Circumstances that impact development viability are subject to change, especially in times that are potentially more politically volatile. Policy BEX2 should therefore be amended to allow flexibility of affordable housing provision should evidence be demonstrated in support of an alternative approach. This amendment would be in accord with both national and local planning policy in respect of affordable housing.

The following policy text is recommended for part (i) so that it accords with Policy LHN2 of the Core Strategy:

* "Approximately 135 dwellings are provided, of which 30% are affordable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not viable to do so, in which case an appropriate affordable housing percentage will be agreed between the Council and applicant."

ii) The development provides an amenity open space centred on the existing pond. The layout of the site will be such that the green will be afforded passive surveillance from adjacent residential properties

The respondent supports this point. The existing trees and pond to the centre of the site are considered an important biodiversity and amenity asset and could feasibly be incorporated into the final scheme design. It should be noted, however, with reference to part (i) above on housing numbers, that the amenity open space represents a constraint to the total number of dwellings that can be delivered at the site.

iii) A new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access is achieved off Watergate, together with cycle and pedestrian access through the site to the adjacent employment allocation (Policy BEX1); upgrading of the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary; and cycle and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent urban extension (Policy BEX3)

Considering the two elements of this condition separately:

a) "A new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access is achieved off Watergate together with cycle and pedestrian access through the site to the adjacent employment allocation (Policy BEX1)":

The respondent supports the main pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access being taken off Watergate. A plan is provided in Appendix A illustrating the proposed alterations to Watergate that would facilitate the site access. It shows the road as it enters the site at 5.5 metres wide, which is considered an appropriate width to allow both cars and bicycles to safely enter and exit the site. Furthermore, Watergate is currently a quiet road and transport modelling undertaken to support an application illustrates the volume of traffic would not significantly increase. Cyclists would therefore be able to use the road safely to access the development.

Cyclists would also be able to safely use the internal site road to access the employment land (subject to Policy BEX1) through a pedestrian and cycle only connection on the eastern site boundary.

PHSE is aware of The Council's previous aspirations for a new dedicated cycle lane from the junction between Watermill Lane and Watergate and through the Preston Hall site to the employment allocation (Policy BEX1) as part of a wider cycling strategy for Bexhill.

PHSE's transport consultants do not consider it possible to safely install a dedicated cycle lane on Watergate as it is now. The changes to parking along Watergate (agreed with East Sussex County Council Highway Authority) required as part of any future development at Preston Hall Farm, would further reduce the width of the road and render it impossible to deliver a dedicated cycle path on Watergate. Furthermore, whilst it might be possible to provide a dedicated cycle path within the Preston Hall Site (which would necessitate the loss of some public open space at the site access to allow for a sufficiently wide road), it is not reasonable to impose this as part of Policy BEX2 given there is no guarantee the cycle path would be joined up at either Watergate or within the BEX1 employment allocation.

b) "Upgrading of the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary and cycle and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent urban extension (Policy BEX3)"

The requirement for an upgrade of the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary was not included as part of the 2006 local plan policy. The majority of the footpath in question is a Public Right of Way (PROW), partly located along a vehicular track, linking existing residential development to the south with Watermill Lane to the north. The footpath runs along the eastern boundary of the site before heading north after Preston Hall Farm.

Rother District Council's adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 123 list states that Rights of Way Improvements are funded by CIL. Planning Practice Guidance states that "Where the regulation 123 list includes a generic type of infrastructure", which would include Rights of Way improvements, "section 106 contributions should not be sought on any specific projects in that category"
(Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 25-097-20140612).

The supporting text to Policy BEX2 makes reference to linkages with Sidley and creating an "attractive pedestrian/cycle route from the proposed employment allocation in the east (Policy BEX1) and pedestrian cycle connection to the linear park and new housing of Policy BEX3 (North Bexhill)."

Upgrading cycle and pedestrian connectivity is also covered by CIL. The Regulation 123 List states "Improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure to ensure connectivity and accessibility of new development into existing networks, communities, town and secondary centres, employment & social infrastructure in accordance with Rother's Cycling and Walking Strategy" will be funded by CIL.

CIL contributions are considered appropriate for delivery of this infrastructure. It is clearly set out on the adopted Regulation 123 list and would ensure that the cost is fairly apportioned between all the development sites (including at BEX1 and BEX3) which would benefit from improved off-site infrastructure improvements.

The requirement for these upgrades to be provided by the developers of BEX2 alone is not supported. Paragraph 204 of the NPPF requires site-specific planning obligations to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Upgrades to the footpath would have a wider benefit to the employment allocation at BEX1 and the urban extension to the north at BEX3. Neither of these sites are currently proposed to be required to contribute to upgrading this footpath. The financial burden of upgrading the footpath and providing cycle and pedestrian connectivity should not fall on Preston Hall Farm alone (if at all) and seeking obligations in this way would not meet the tests of reasonableness set out in the NPPF.

The requirement to upgrade the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary should therefore be removed from the policy text.

Taking the above into account, PHSE suggests part (iii) of BEX2 be reworded to:

* "A vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access is achieved off Watergate, together with
cycle and pedestrian connections between the site and the adjacent employment allocation (Policy BEX1)"

iv) Existing landscaped boundaries around the site are maintained and reinforced;

The existing landscape boundaries are a mix of Ancient Woodland (to the northern and southern boundaries) and trees and hedgerow to the eastern and western boundaries. The respondent supports the maintenance of these boundaries and would seek to reinforce them where appropriate. This would include provision of buffers to the Ancient Woodland in accordance with Natural England guidelines.

v) Care is taken to respect the amenity value and setting of adjoining properties on the eastern boundary

The amenity and setting of the properties on the eastern boundary, including the Grade II listed Preston Hall and cottage to the east of Preston Hall, would be respected by the proposed development.

vi) Development contributions towards improvements to the A269/Holliers Hill /A2036 Wrestwood Road/ London Road junctions and towards primary and nursery school education provision at NE Bexhill.

The development contributions contained in part (vi) above are not covered by the Council's CIL Regulation 123 list and therefore could be sought via S106 contributions, if supported by the County Council. As noted above, the respondent would consider S106 planning obligations when they meet the tests set out in the Paragraph 204 of the NPPF.

In relation to the general policy text, the respondents are pleased to note the separation of the housing allocation from the proposed employment land north east of Preston Hall Farm (Policy BEX1). This reflects changed local circumstances in the area compared to 2006 now that Sea Change is independently bringing forward both employment and supporting infrastructure in the surrounding area, including the local access roads which connect to Coombe Valley Way (Bexhill Hastings Link Road).

It is also noted that "Pebsham Hall and cottage "is referred to in the main Policy text. This should be amended to 'Preston Hall and the cottage to the east'.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28092