We do not believe the DaSA local plan to be compliant because as regards Policy BEX9 the legally required confirmation has not been obtained to demonstrate beyond scientific doubt that a development on this site will have no harmful affect upon the protected and adjacent Pevensey Levels. Such a confirmation is a prerequisite of inclusion of BEX9 in the plan if BEX9 is to be considered deliverable as a development opportunity. There are significant doubts about whether the result of detailed investigations required for BEX9 could demonstrate that damage to the Levels would be avoided.

Policy BEX9 and the associated adjustment to the Local Plan development boundary should be removed from the DaSA. Our reasons for this are:

1. for the reasons specified under question 1 above (legalities) the correct and necessary pre-assessment processes have not been undertaken or where investigations have taken place they have incorrectly desktop based and not site specific.

2. Inclusion of BEX 9 is unsound because the DaSA forecast of future housing land supply does not require its inclusion if the supply target is to be met. The site BEX9 lies adjacent to internationally important protected areas under SSSI, SAC and RAMSAR designations. Development on BEX9 would put the integrity of these sites at risk.

3. The DaSA housing forecast exceeds the required target even though large windfall site developments are excluded from the figures. This is inconsistent with reality as exampled by the recent grant on appeal on a large windfall site development on land next to. Ash ridge Court, Bexhill where approximately 40 homes were granted approval under reference APP/U1430/W/17/3191063. Such windfall developments have typically occurred throughout the life of the current Local Plan and it makes no sense to ignore them from the future forecast. BEX9 is not required for the forecast to be achieved without inclusion of the windfalls but it is even less required when these are taken into account.

4. The legally required Appropriate Assessment has not been prepared prior to inclusion of BEX9 in the Plan. This renders the plan unsound and is in contravention with the European Court Decision April 2018 in the matter of People over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C - 323/17). This renders the inclusion of BEX9 as unsound.