Dear Sir/ Madam,

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)
Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) - Options and Preferred Options (2016)
Representation On Behalf of the 'Rector and Scholars of Exeter College', Oxford

I write on behalf of our client, the 'Rector and Scholars of Exeter College' to make formal representations on the 'Development and Site Allocations Local Plan' (DaSA) - 'Options and Preferred Options' (published in December 2016).

It is noted that public consultation of this document is from 12 December 2016 to 20 February 2017. It is understood that the DaSA is intended to sit alongside the adopted Core Strategy (2014) with the aim of setting out more detailed 'development policies' for certain topics to assist in determining proposals and to identify specific 'site allocations' for development. Once the DaSA is adopted (according to the 'Local Development Scheme' [Dec 2016] this is targeted to be
in June 2018), it will, together with the adopted Core Strategy (2014), provide the basis for determining planning applications; thereby superseding all policies from the 'saved' Rother District Local Plan (2006).

By way of background, our client is the landowner of the 0.9ha allocated housing site under Policy VL7 of the 'saved' Rother District Local Plan (2006) known as 'Land at Grove Farm, Robertsbridge'. The housing allocation is for at least 30 no. of residential dwellings on the site to include housing for the elderly and 40% of the dwellings to be affordable housing.

This site had previously been represented by Croudace Homes Limited, who had an Option on the land but have now surrendered it - thereby allowing Exeter College to lead on all matters. Croudace have recently withdrawn a full planning application for 34 no. of residential dwellings and associated development (LPA Ref. RR/2016/1722/P) on 16 January 2017 due to various unresolved planning concerns from the LPA and other statutory consultees. Turnberry has subsequently been appointed directly by the College to conduct a fundamental review and address all planning issues identified in RR/2016/1722/P. We are confident that the revised
submission will be a vastly improved and robust scheme compared to the proposals set out in recently withdrawn Croudace application.

However, we are concerned with the emerging 'Salehurst and Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan - Submission Version' (published under Regulation 16), which is currently undergoing the six-week consultation period (i.e. 10 February 2017 - 24 March 2017). By extension, we are concerned with the strategy set out in the emerging DaSA.

The emerging 'Salehurst and Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan' (SRNP) is proposing to exclude the allocated Grove Farm site from its defined 'Development Boundary'. It is noted that any site outside the Development Boundary in the SRNP is to be regarded as lying within the 'Countryside' designation of the adopted Core Strategy (2014) to which policy RA3 applies. Policy RA3 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development within the 'Countryside' should be for new agricultural buildings or the re-use of such buildings for employment and tourism uses
and that new residential dwellings are only to be permitted in 'extremely limited circumstances'.

It is clear that the emerging SRNP is proposing to de-allocate the Grove Farm site for residential and, instead, is proposing the allocation of three alternative sites for housing to meet the required 130 no. of new residential units up to year 2028 as stipulated in the adopted Core Strategy (2014). The three alternative sites proposed by the emerging SRNP are as follows:

* Mill Site (approx. 100 no. of residential units)
* Heathfield Gardens (approx. 40 no. of residential units)
* Vicarage Land (approx. 10 no. of residential units)

It is noted that the emerging SRNP has identified a total of 150 no. of residential units (to include a minimum 10% additional housing buffer as required by Government) via the above three allocated sites for the period up to 2028. We consider the estimated housing numbers on each of the three sites to be over-optimistic and thereby unrealistic as there is insufficient evidence to support the projected housing numbers.

In particular, the Mill Site, whereby a previous planning application in 2007 for 66 no. of residential units and other mixed-use developments (LPA Ref. RR/2007/2576/P) was refused by the LPA. It was subsequently subject of an appeal (Public Inquiry) and that the application was ultimately dismissed by the Inspector on 26 August 2008 (PINS Ref. APP/U1430/A/08/2064297). Since the appeal decision, the LPA has also designated the southern portion of the site to be
within the Northbridge Street Conservation Area. We therefore have doubts as to whether the Mill Site is able to deliver the approx. 100 no. of residential units as expected in the emerging SRNP.

The Vicarage Land site is also considered constrained as it is within the Robertsbridge Conservation Area. The Heathfield Gardens site is located on the southern edge of Robertsbridge and is not considered to be particularly sustainable compared to the more centrally located Grove Farm site, as well as opening that
end of the Village to more development due to the lack of containment.

It is noted that we will be making a formal and detailed representation to the emerging SRNP. However, given the perceived weakness in the SRNP's intention to de-allocate the Grove Farm site and to allocate housing sites that are considered to deliver unrealistic housing numbers that may ultimately not deliver the Robertsbridge housing target stipulated in the Core Strategy - it is considered that the strategy set out in the emerging DaSA will create more uncertainty and
instability until Neighbourhood Plans are tested and approved. In short, the suggested strategy is not effective as it cannot provide for an appropriate supply of housing in the relevant Neighbourhood Areas within a defined timescale.

Indeed, under Figure 1 of the emerging DaSA (extract below), it is noted that in November 2016, out of nine Neighbourhood Plans, only two had reached beyond 'Stage 2'.

It is only once a Neighbourhood Plan reaches adoption (i.e. Stage 7) will it then form part of the development plan and to be given equal weighting as the Local Plan. In the absence of Neighbourhood Plans undergoing examination by an Independent Examiner, there is uncertainty that allocated sites have been adequately assessed and are deliverable. In addition, there is no alternative mechanism if the Neighbourhood Plan sites are not delivered or deemed unachievable through the planning and pre-planning feasibility stage.

Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) states that the Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. In terms of soundness, the Local Plan should be:
* Positively prepared
* Justified
* Effective
* Consistent with national policy

Under the term 'effective', the NPPF states that the Local Plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities. However, it is considered that the emerging DaSA is not 'effective' as it is allowing currently un-adopted Neighbourhood Plans in un-allocating sites identified in the 'saved' District Local Plan (such as the Grove Farm site) as well as allocating new sites that have not been thoroughly tested at examination stage by Independent Examiners. The emerging DaSA is also not Positively Prepared as there is too much uncertainty as to how and when housing need will be met in the
Neighbourhood Areas.

We therefore strongly object to the emerging DaSA on the basis that it is unsound, thereby failing to meet the tests set out in the NPPF.

We trust this letter clearly sets out my client's position in relation to the consultation document. However, should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully,

Chris Pattison
Director of Planning


Additional supporting information was submitted with this representation and can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28075