As regards Policy BEX 9 the DaSA fails to be legal because:

* necessary investigations have not been undertaken prior to the inclusion of BEX 9 in the DaSA as required by the Habitats Regulations, the European Court of Justice decision in April 2018 in the matter of People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillite Teoranta (C-323/17),

* if the necessary detailed investigations had been undertaken then it would have been found that inclusion of BEX 9 and its subsequent development would result in damaging consequences for the protected and adjacent SSSI, SAC and Ramsar sites in the Pevensey Levels. It would not have been possible to prove beyond scientific doubt that such harm would not befall the Levels, and

* the consequence of inclusion of BEX 9 and its subsequent development would be in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework requirement to enhance the biodivereity of protected areas such as those neighbouring and 30m from the BEX 9 site.

As regards Policy BEX 9 the DaSA is unsound because:

* it cannot be justified on grounds of robustness or a credible evidence base. Because of the illegal failings noted above BEX 9 is not robust and such evidence as has been produced fails to meet the requirements of credibility. Evidence produced by the applicants of the as yet undecided outline Planning Application ref RR/2017/1705/P which constitutes that basis for inclusion of BEX 9 in the DaSA has been found to be grossly misleading, frequently inaccurate and fundamentally flawed in its depth and detail. The many (circa1500) formal objections to this planning application give credence to this, especially as regards environmental and ecological considerations and in respect of the proposed access arrangements to the BEX 9 site.

* Policy BEX 9 is ineffective because, for reasons outlined above development of that site cannot actually happen. Geographical, topographical, hydrographical and fluvial impacts and long term consequences have not been satisfactorily dealt with and the clear evidence from objectors, including Natural England and the Environment Agency together with engineering assessments by objector Mr. G Lawson demonstrate that Policy BEX 9 is not deliverable in terms of its subsequent development.

* delivery partners are not on board and signed up as regards BEX 9 in the DaSA. Quite the opposite - both Natural England and the Environment Agency with. also, East Sussex County Council as lead flood authority have expressed severe concerns about the development of the BEX 9 site because of the consequential risks of damage to the protected SSUI, SAC and Ramsar sites on the Pevensey Levels approx 30 m and downstream from the BEX 9 boundary.

For these and other related reasons Policy BEX 9 and the associated revision to the Bexhill Development Boundary (which has been redrawn in the DaSA to include the site of BEX 9) should be removed from the DaSA.