Policy OSS1 - Overall Spatial Development Strategy

Showing comments and forms 1 to 25 of 25

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20524

Received: 23/08/2011

Respondent: Devine Homes

Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Provide appropriate housing provision at sustainable rural settlements that can deliver the housing numbers needed in the district to meet its broad housing needs over the plan period

Full text:

Provide appropriate housing provision at sustainable rural settlements that can deliver the housing numbers needed in the district to meet its broad housing needs over the plan period

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20552

Received: 21/09/2011

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Portchester Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Re-word Item (iii) (c) of the Policy to more fully reflect the important role of the Rural Service Centres, in particular Robertsbridge, in meeting the development needs of the rural areas.

Full text:

Item (iii) (c) of the Policy should be re-worded to more fully reflect the important role of the Rural Service Centres (i.e. Robertsbridge and Ticehurst (Figure 9) as a 'focus' for additional development in the rural areas.

The role of local service centres is acknowledged in Policy EC6.2 of PPS4 and in paragraphs 3 and 6 of PPS7.

In particular the contribution Robertsbridge could make to providing additional housing and employment opportunities in the northern part of the District is considered to be being under utilised in the draft Core Strategy, in addition to the contribution such development could make to supporting local services and facilities making the village more internally sustainable and viable as a focus for its rural hinterland.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20578

Received: 08/09/2011

Respondent: Hastings Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Support the level of development proposed by OSS1 as it is essential to the regeneration of Hastings and Bexhill. We suggest that further clarification is made in terms of how the reduced housing numbers (and further potential for this if the Link Road does not go ahead) might affect development in Hastings and Bexhill and how Rother will approach the duty to cooperate in terms of accommodating new development outside the district boundary, once this requirement comes in force through the enactment of the Localism Bill

Full text:

. Policy OSS1 plans for 3700 - 4100 new dwellings over 2011 - 2028, 100,000 square metres of gross additional business floorspace and a focus on Bexhill for new development promoting economic regeneration and growth of the Hastings/Bexhill area (2050 - 2250 dwellings and 6000 square metres business floorspace). This is supported as it is essential to the regeneration of both Bexhill and Hastings. We suggest that further clarification is made in terms of how the reduced housing numbers (and further potential for this if the Link Road does not go ahead) might affect development in Hastings and Bexhill and how Rother will approach the duty to cooperate in terms of accommodating new development outside the district boundary, once this requirement comes in force through the enactment of the Localism Bill

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20628

Received: 10/11/2011

Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers

Representation Summary:

item e, whilst I support this in general and it is good for RDC to actually support the countryside and agriculture (something completely missing from the last local plan), their definition of countryside does not go far enough. There are agricultural areas close to/in some villages which should be given the same protection for their intrinsic value.

Full text:

item e, whilst I support this in general and it is good for RDC to actually support the countryside and agriculture (something completely missing from the last local plan), their definition of countryside does not go far enough. There are agricultural areas close to/in some villages which should be given the same protection for their intrinsic value.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20632

Received: 27/09/2011

Respondent: Hillreed Developments Limited

Agent: Mr Alister Hume

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

LDF's should be putting in place a long term spatial strategy for the future to provide a firm framework for investment decisions. It is not appropriate to justify a reduction in the housing target because of delays/deletion of the planned road infrastructure and the current economic conditions which should see improvement over the plan period.

Full text:

LDF's should be putting in place a long term spatial strategy for the future to provide a firm framework for investment decisions. It is not appropriate to justify a reduction in the housing target because of delays/deletion of the planned road infrastructure and the current economic conditions which should see improvement over the plan period.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20638

Received: 30/09/2011

Respondent: J J BANISTER

Agent: Mr NICK IDE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited. The housing target for rural areas should be increased.

Full text:

* OSS1 is not in general conformity with the regional plan.

* A substantial part of OSS1(i) (Additional Dwellings) and (iii)(a) (Bexhill) is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

* OSS1 should refer to OSS2 in the event the Link Road does not proceed as envisaged.

* If the Link Road is further delayed/cancelled, this requires a re-evaluation, not just of the capacity of Bexhill, but of the role of other Rother settlements, in meeting the District's needs. It is unacceptable to ring fence the Bexhill urban extension, ie to say:

a) That without Link Road funding, the extension will not proceed and nor will housing and employment lost from the urban extension be provided for elsewhere in the District; or

b) That 'some' of these needs will be met elsewhere, but subject to further studies / later DPDs.

* The housing target for rural areas should be increased to enable the overall target for the District to be in general conformity with the South East Plan. Specifically, allocations for those settlements identified in the key diagram should be raised where sustainable development can be achieved, for example at Catsfield.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20651

Received: 30/09/2011

Respondent: Mr. R.T. Caine

Agent: Mr NICK IDE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited. The housing target for Battle should be increased.

Full text:

* OSS1 is not in general conformity with the regional plan.

* A substantial part of OSS1(i) (Additional Dwellings) and (iii)(a) (Bexhill) is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

* OSS1 should refer to OSS2 in the event the Link Road does not proceed as envisaged.

* If the Link Road is further delayed/cancelled, this requires a re-evaluation, not just of the capacity of Bexhill, but of the role of other Rother settlements, in meeting the District's needs. It is unacceptable to ring fence the Bexhill urban extension, ie to say:

a) That without Link Road funding, the extension will not proceed and nor will housing and employment lost from the urban extension be provided for elsewhere in the District (OSS2 ii); or

b) That 'some' of these needs will be met elsewhere, but subject to further studies / later DPDs (OSS2 iii d)

* The housing target for Battle should be increased to enable the overall target for the District to be in general conformity with the South East Plan. Battle and Rye should be separated out under OSS1(iii)(b). Neither are 'small' market towns. The description of Battle under Para 7.38 could usefully distinguish between the historic, compact core and outer lying areas where capacity exists for growth. There is an all pervading sense in the Plan that it is too difficult to build anywhere other than upon the urban extensions at Bexhill. Battle presents a significant development opportunity over and above the quantity set out in Fig 8.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20664

Received: 30/09/2011

Respondent: J BLOCK

Agent: Mr NICK IDE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited. The housing target for Battle should be increased.

Full text:

* OSS1 is not in general conformity with the regional plan.

* A substantial part of OSS1(i) (Additional Dwellings) and (iii)(a) (Bexhill) is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

* OSS1 should refer to OSS2 in the event the Link Road does not proceed as envisaged.

* If the Link Road is further delayed/cancelled, this requires a re-evaluation, not just of the capacity of Bexhill, but of the role of other Rother settlements, in meeting the District's needs. It is unacceptable to ring fence the Bexhill urban extension, ie to say:

a) That without Link Road funding, the extension will not proceed and nor will housing and employment lost from the urban extension be provided for elsewhere in the District (OSS2 ii); or

b) That 'some' of these needs will be met elsewhere, but subject to further studies / later DPDs (OSS2 iii d)

* The housing target for Battle should be increased to enable the overall target for the District to be in general conformity with the South East Plan. Battle and Rye should be separated out under OSS1(iii)(b). Neither are 'small' market towns. The description of Battle under Para 7.38 could usefully distinguish between the historic, compact core and outer lying areas where capacity exists for growth. There is an all pervading sense in the Plan that it is too difficult to build anywhere other than upon the urban extensions at Bexhill. Battle presents a significant development opportunity over and above the quantity set out in Fig 8.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20677

Received: 30/09/2011

Respondent: J MITCHELL

Agent: Mr NICK IDE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited. The housing target for Battle should be increased.

Full text:

* OSS1 is not in general conformity with the regional plan.

* A substantial part of OSS1(i) (Additional Dwellings) and (iii)(a) (Bexhill) is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

* OSS1 should refer to OSS2 in the event the Link Road does not proceed as envisaged.

* If the Link Road is further delayed/cancelled, this requires a re-evaluation, not just of the capacity of Bexhill, but of the role of other Rother settlements, in meeting the District's needs. It is unacceptable to ring fence the Bexhill urban extension, ie to say:

a) That without Link Road funding, the extension will not proceed and nor will housing and employment lost from the urban extension be provided for elsewhere in the District (OSS2 ii); or

b) That 'some' of these needs will be met elsewhere, but subject to further studies / later DPDs (OSS2 iii d)

* The housing target for Battle should be increased to enable the overall target for the District to be in general conformity with the South East Plan. Battle and Rye should be separated out under OSS1(iii)(b). Neither are 'small' market towns. The description of Battle under Para 7.38 could usefully distinguish between the historic, compact core and outer lying areas where capacity exists for growth. There is an all pervading sense in the Plan that it is too difficult to build anywhere other than upon the urban extensions at Bexhill. Battle presents a significant development opportunity over and above the quantity set out in Fig 8.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20690

Received: 30/09/2011

Respondent: A AINSLIE

Agent: Mr NICK IDE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

Full text:

* OSS1 is not in general conformity with the regional plan.

* A substantial part of OSS1(i) (Additional Dwellings) and (iii)(a) (Bexhill) is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

* OSS1 should refer to OSS2 in the event the Link Road does not proceed as envisaged.

* If the Link Road is further delayed/cancelled, this requires a re-evaluation, not just of the capacity of Bexhill, but of the role of other Rother settlements, in meeting the District's needs. It is unacceptable to ring fence the Bexhill urban extension, ie to say:

a) That without Link Road funding, the extension will not proceed and nor will housing and employment lost from the urban extension be provided for elsewhere in the District (OSS2 ii); or

b) That 'some' of these needs will be met elsewhere, but subject to further studies / later DPDs (OSS2 iii d)

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20705

Received: 30/09/2011

Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE

Agent: Mr NICK IDE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

Full text:

* OSS1 is not in general conformity with the regional plan.

* A substantial part of OSS1(i) (Additional Dwellings) and (iii)(a) (Bexhill) is unachievable, since a decision on the Link Road is awaited.

* OSS1 should refer to OSS2 in the event the Link Road does not proceed as envisaged.

* If the Link Road is further delayed/cancelled, this requires a re-evaluation, not just of the capacity of Bexhill, but of the role of other Rother settlements, in meeting the District's needs. It is unacceptable to ring fence the Bexhill urban extension, ie to say:

a) That without Link Road funding, the extension will not proceed and nor will housing and employment lost from the urban extension be provided for elsewhere in the District (OSS2 ii); or

b) That 'some' of these needs will be met elsewhere, but subject to further studies / later DPDs (OSS2 iii d)

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20773

Received: 27/09/2011

Respondent: Trinity College

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Trinity College supports the Core Strategy's overall Spatial Development Strategy (Policy ESS1), in particular, the approach of focussing new mixed use development at Bexhill.

Trinity College own a large part of the land already allocated at North East Bexhill, which is anticipated to deliver a large proportion of the District's growth over the period 2011-2028 and can confirm that it is committed to releasing the land for development at the appropriate time.

The College looks forward to working with the Council and its partners to ensure the timely release of the land for development.

Full text:

Trinity College supports the Core Strategy's overall Spatial Development Strategy (Policy ESS1), in particular, the approach of focussing new mixed use development at Bexhill.

Trinity College own a large part of the land already allocated at North East Bexhill, which is anticipated to deliver a large proportion of the District's growth over the period 2011-2028 and can confirm that it is committed to releasing the land for development at the appropriate time.

The College looks forward to working with the Council and its partners to ensure the timely release of the land for development.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20910

Received: 08/11/2011

Respondent: Glyndebourne 1991 L & P Trust

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Representation Summary:

Section (c) states that the Policy should facilitate the limited growth of villages which contain a range of services and which contribute to supporting vibrant, mixed rural communities. Section (d) states that small scale infill and development will be permitted to enable local needs to be met, in other villages. Whilst this policy is generally supported it is suggested that the wording could be amended to ensure that the focus is on existing villages. c) could be amended to remove reference to limited growth and focus on growth, as supported by the Draft NPPF.

Full text:

Section (c ) states that the Policy should facilitate the limited growth of villages which contain a range of services and which contribute to supporting vibrant, mixed rural communities. Section (d) states that small scale infill and development will be permitted to enable local needs to be met, in other villages. Whilst this policy is generally supported it is suggested that the wording could be amended to ensure that the focus is on existing villages. It is considered that (c ) could be amended to remove the reference to limited growth and focus on growth, as supported by the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.
i.e. Facilitate the growth of villages which contain a range of services....

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20941

Received: 10/11/2011

Respondent: Hillreed Developments Limited

Agent: Mr Alister Hume

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The justification for the reduction in the district housing requirement is not sound for the reasons explained in other representations to the CS.

Full text:

The justification for the reduction in the district housing requirement is not sound for the reasons explained in other representations to the CS.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20948

Received: 10/11/2011

Respondent: Hillreed Developments Limited

Agent: Mr Alister Hume

Representation Summary:

Support the focus of growth at Bexhill which is the most sustainable location available to the district and will deliver the most economic benefits.

Full text:

Support the focus of growth at Bexhill which is the most sustainable location available to the district and will deliver the most economic benefits.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20962

Received: 09/11/2011

Respondent: Strategic Land Kent Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposed policy OSS1 does not reflect the planning advice set out in the Government's Draft National Policy Framework in that there is too much of a brake on future land release for housing. Rother District should have a minimum release of at least 5,600 dwellings as previously agreed in the South East Plan. Policy OSS1 should relate to this figure to enable more housing to come forward, especially in the key rural villages such as Ticehurst.

Full text:

The proposed policy OSS1 does not reflect the planning advice set out in the Government's Draft National Policy Framework in that there is too much of a brake on future land release for housing. Rother District should have a minimum release of at least 5,600 dwellings as previously agreed in the South East Plan. Policy OSS1 should relate to this figure to enable more housing to come forward, especially in the key rural villages such as Ticehurst.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20982

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Mr Richard Thomas

Agent: Montagu Evans

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy OSS1 fails to meet the three tests of soundness set out in PPS12 in respect of housing delivery.

The policy fails to reflect either the level of housing need required by the SEP or that the Council's own evidence base determines required for both market and affordable housing. The proposed level of housing is substantially lower than that delivered in the district annually since 1991.

The Council has not provided credible justification for reducing its housing requirement by over 30% the level that is judged necessary by the South East Plan, the SHMA and evidence of past completions

Full text:

Policy OSS1 Overall Spatial Development Strategy

This policy is considered to be unsound.

National planning policy

Paragraph 53 of Planning Policy Statement 3 'Housing' states that:

'At a local level local planning authorities should set out in Local Development Documents their policies and strategies for delivering the level of housing provision including identifying broad locations and specific sites that will enable a continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption, taking into account of the level of housing provision set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy'

Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 107 states:

'The Government's key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes. Everyone should have the opportunity to live in high quality, well designed homes, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live.'

Paragraph 109 states that:

'To boost the supply of housing, local planning authorities should use an evidence base to ensure that their local plan meets the full requirements of market and affordable housing in the housing market area'

Paragraph 110 states that:

'The presumption in favour of sustainable development means that Local Plans should be prepared on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework'

The South East Plan

Policy H1 'Regional Housing Provision' of the South East Plan requires Rother to deliver an annual average of 280 dwellings per annum, 5,600 dwellings over the plan period 2006-2026.

Table 1 South East Plan Housing Requirement

Sub-Regional Housing Requirement (Sussex coast) Housing Requirement outside sub-requirement (the rest of Rother) Total District Wide Housing Requirement
dpa Total dpa Total dpa Total
Rother 200 4,000 80 1,600 280 5,600

Proposed abolition of the South East Plan

Until the Localism Bill is enacted the South East Plan provides the most up to date and independent review of housing need in the district. Therefore, and in accordance with DCLG advice of 6 July 2010 (Dear Chief Planning Officer Letter), this should be the starting point for preparing the Core Strategy.

Soundness of this Policy

Planning Policy Statement 12 'Local Spatial Planning' (PPS12) which require a Core Strategy to be 'justified, effective and consistent with national policy' regard should therefore be had to how the policies of the Core Strategy meet these tests.

Justified

Paragraph 4.36 of PPS 12 states that justification of a Core Strategy must be founded on a robust and credible evidence base.

Evidence of housing need in Rother District

Policy OSS1 seeks to reduce the Council's housing requirement by 1,900-1,500 dwellings over the plan period from the level of housing required by the South East Plan. Whilst it is important to retain the SEP target as a minimum to be met up to 2026, the evidence base, including the Council's own Strategic Market Housing Assessment (SHMA) identifies household projections to increase to 5,220 by 2026. Further, the Council's Housing Market Assessment 2005 identifies that there is a need for 593 affordable dwellings per annum in Rother. Table 2 summarises the various assessments of Rother's housing need.

Table 2: Housing requirements

SEP Housing Requirement 2006-2026 SHMA Requirement
2006-2026 Housing Market Assessment affordable housing assessment
2006-2026 Rother Draft Submission Core Strategy
2011-2028
dpa Total dpa Total dpa Total dpa total
Rother 280 5,600 261 5,220 593 11,860 137-151 3,700-4,100

In determining the level of housing provision the Council is required to take into account evidence of current and future levels of housing need as well as demand for affordable housing. Arguably given the local need for housing in Rother could justify a higher annualised requirement over and above that set out in the South East Plan.

Paragraph 7.23 of the Draft Submission Core Strategy sets out the Council's justification for planning for a substantially lower housing requirement than identified by the its own evidence base. The following reasons are cited:

* the uncertainty of the delivery of the Bexhill Link Road which will unlock potential for strategic housing allocations and the recent recession;
* the requirement for 280 dwellings per annum is unrealistic given the average rate of delivery of 245 dwellings per annum since 1991;
* the national economic climate and the resulting impact of increasing upon past build rates as unlikely and unduly optimistic; and
* the SEP target will not be met by requisite employment growth.

The reasons that the Council gives for requiring a significantly reduced level of housing is contrary to the findings of its own evidence base. This points to the need to accommodate an additional 5,220 households up to 2026 and its affordable housing need is twice the South East Plan requirement of 5,600 dwellings to 2026. Further, the Council's own evidence of annual completion rates since 1991 (245 dwellings on average) demonstrates that the demand for housing in the district to be significantly greater than for which the Council intends to require.

Whilst there remains uncertainty regarding the delivery of the Bexhill Link Road which is acknowledged, the Council's suggestion that the economic climate should have a bearing on housing provision to 2028 cannot be justified nor can the correlation between housing growth and employment. These matters are considered turn.

The Core Strategy seeks to plan for strategic housing requirement over a 17 year plan period. Over the past 20 years significantly higher completions have been achieved than the Council now proposes, a period which encompasses several economic cycles including a recession. The acute need for affordable housing (referred to in Paragraph 15.10 of the Draft Submission Core Strategy) points to prolonged constrained supply of housing particularly in the northern part of the district.

Section 3 of the Draft Submission Core Strategy identifies two key challenges for the Council, the low economic activity rate, and comparatively low earnings in the district when compared to the South East as a region (paragraph 3.12) and the high house prices across much of the district (paragraph 3.14).

The Council is seeking to address the low economic activity rate by planning for an additional 100,000sqm of employment floorspace up to 2028. Applying the Employment Densities Guide (2nd edition 2010) this could yield c.2,800 new jobs. Yet it simultaneously seeks to reduce housing supply by over 30% the level considered appropriate by both the South East Plan and its own SHMA, this will fail comprehensively to increase supply both in line with its own job creation aspirations or address the acknowledged affordability problems within the district.

The failure of Policy OSS1 to reflect the South East Plan or its own evidence base in respect of housing delivery is not justified. The Council's past 20 years of completion rates, an average of 245 dwellings per annum, the SHMA household projection figure of 5,220 dwellings up to 2026, the acute affordability problems in the district and the Council's economic aspiration to create c.2800 demonstrates that there is greater demand for housing than it proposes to plan for. Therefore in respect of housing provision Policy OSS1 is not justified.

Effective

The proposal to reduce the housing requirement for the district fails to represent the most appropriate strategy when considered against the alternatives namely a higher annualised rate of growth in order to meet demand.

The Council cites the slow down in the economy as a determining factor in the significant reduction in housing requirement. Yet this plan seeks to set the Council's planning strategy for the next 20 years. The Council's own evidence of past completion rates shows peaks and troughs in housing delivery reflecting a natural economic fluctuation, but its annualised average over the past 20 years is significantly higher than the housing requirement proposed. This strategy is therefore insufficiently flexible to accommodate changing circumstances, specifically resurgence in the economy and therefore fails this test of soundness.

Consistency with National Planning Policy

Policy OSS1 fails to comply with either adopted or emerging national planning policy in respect of housing provision. It is acknowledged that there is an expectation that the South East Plan will cease to set the housing provision requirements for Rother. However both adopted and emerging housing policies require a continuous supply of housing to meet identified need.

The Council has undertaken an assessment of its own market and affordable housing need in accordance with emerging and adopted housing policy. Policy OSS1 comprehensively fails to propose a level of housing that will deliver a continuous supply of housing that will meet the Council's own identified need. Further the policy actively seeks to reduce housing delivery based on past completions over a 20 year period. This approach is entirely contrary to emerging national planning policy which sets out to increase housing supply, and in this case no credible evidence has been provided that shows that its own assessment of need cannot be delivered.

Conclusions

Policy OSS1 fails to meet the three tests of soundness set out in PPS12 in respect of housing delivery.

The housing requirement policy fails to reflect either the level of housing need required by the South East Plan or that the Council's own evidence base determines required for both market and affordable housing. Further the proposed level of housing is substantially lower than the level of housing that has been delivered in the district annually since 1991.

The Council has not provided credible justification for reducing its housing requirement by over 30% the level that is judged necessary by the South East Plan, the SHMA and evidence of past completions. The Council cites the recession as a reason for substantially reducing its housing requirement however the Core Strategy seeks to plan for the next 20 years and the housing requirement proposed is not sufficiently flexible to accommodate resurgence in the economy.








Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21006

Received: 29/09/2011

Respondent: Messrs. R. & J.C. Stapylton-Smith

Agent: DHA Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy OSS1 seeks overall housing provision of 3,700-4,100 net dwellings. This is lower than the South East Plan.

The intention to support rural service centres such as Ticehurst through the proposed development distribution is supported.

However, the draft National Planning Policy Framework requires the identification and maintenence a rolling 5-year housing supply, including an additional 20% allowance. Whilst it is recognised the NPPF is draft, it is a material consideration. The Core Strategy does not indicate whether reduced housing targets have an allowance.

Policy OSS1 is not justified as it fails to consider current Central Government approaches to delivering housing.

Full text:

Policy OSS1 seeks an overall housing provision of between 3,700 and 4,100 net dwellings during the plan period. This is much lower than the 5,600 dwellings required by the South East Plan and it is explained in detail at paragraphs 7.23 - 7.25 that the main reasons for setting a lower housing target are:
*
The South East Plan housing targets for Rother assumed the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road would be built by this point but it now transpires that the link road can not even start being built until the end of 2014. The plan targets are therefore not sustainable in light of delays in this major infrastructure route.
*
Lower national economic growth forecasts mean that the increases in build rates advocated by the South East Plan are unlikely to be fulfilled when comparing them with actual housbuilding rates over the period 1991-2011.
*
The existence of significant Environmental designations over large parts of the district which act to constrain the level of development successfully achievable.
2.1.2
The Policy also provides a commitment to allow development to facilitate the limited growth of villages that contain a range of services, which contributes to supporting vibrant, mixed rural communities and is compatible with the character and setting of the village.
2.1.3
The clear intention to support the role of rural service centres such as Ticehurst through the proposed development distribution strategy as confirmed at paragraph 7.43 is supported.
2.1.4
However, the recently published draft National Planning Policy Framework Requires Local Authorities to identify and maintain a rolling supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing requirements. That supply should also include an additional allowance of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Whilst it is recognised that the NPPF is only in draft form at present, it is a material consideration and indicates the way in which Central Government intends Local Planning Authorities to approach housing delivery. The Core Strategy Document does not indicate whether the reduced housing targets already have a built in allowance, but it is considered that the policy should demonstrate clearly that an allowance has been built in, which assuming this is not the case in the submission document, would result in a higher overall housing provision for the district.
2.1.5
It is therefore considered that Policy OSS1 is not justified as it fails to take into account current Central Government approach to providing a deliverable housing supply. The policy should be amended to clearly demonstrate a built in allowance and if necessary raise projected housing provision across the district accordingly.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21028

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Rother and Hastings CPRE

Representation Summary:

CPRE Sussex welcomes and supports Policy OSS1 on the Overall Spatial Development Strategy particularly the references in (c) to 'supporting vibrant, mixed rural communities' and compatibility with 'the character and setting of the village'; in (d) to enabling 'local needs for housing and community facilities to be met'; and in (e) to giving 'particular attention to the ecological, agricultural, public enjoyment and intrinsic value of the countryside'.

Full text:

CPRE Sussex welcomes and supports Policy OSS1 on the Overall Spatial Development Strategy particularly the references in (c) to 'supporting vibrant, mixed rural communities' and compatibility with 'the character and setting of the village'; in (d) to enabling 'local needs for housing and community facilities to be met'; and in (e) to giving 'particular attention to the ecological, agricultural, public enjoyment and intrinsic value of the countryside'.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21066

Received: 09/11/2011

Respondent: Crowhurst Park

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OSS1 is considered to be unsound because of the following:

OSS1 will deliver an under-supply of housing in the district,

The strategy is too dependent on the delivery of the Link Road,

The spatial distribution impacts on the 5 year housing supply and is not considered to be compliant with +20% advocated in the draft NPPF

Further consideration should be given to support a strategic allocation on NW Hastings at Breadsell Lane. Constraints on this location can be mitigated and it is considered this approach should be taken in conjunction with HBC.

Full text:

The Policy will result in an under-supply of allocated housing land in the District over the Core Strategy period and has too much reliance on the delivery of the Bexhill-Hastings bypass which was exactly the same position facing the District Council during their Local Plan process. The policy does not meet regional guidance and is unsound on that basis.

The spatial distribution policy does not appear to meet the need for providing a 5 year land supply + 20% as defined in the emerging NPPF.

The spatial policy places too much emphasis on the 'traditional' centres for development where there are long-standing development constraints.

Whilst not entirely ruled out, the Core Strategy has not taken the clear opportunity to support a strategic allocation on the north-western side of Hastings. Although Hastings Borough Council favoured this strategic approach in its earlier Core Strategy, they have not pursued this in their submission CS. The constraints raised against this can be mitigated and therefore it is considered that the District Council have been too readily dismissive of this clear opportunity.

The spatial strategy policy should include a strategic housing allocation on land at Breadsell Lane certainly encompassing the northern part of that area of land. The approach should be carried out in conjunction with Hastings Borough Council because of the mutual authority interests by way of an area action plan. Such an approach would be likely to ensure the provision of sustainable and properly planned short, medium and long development including homes, jobs, community provision and infrastructure in a location that has a strong need for improvement in these areas. A positive allocation on this basis will add further weight to support the need for the Bexhill-Hastings bypass to be delivered.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21100

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There is no adequate justification for the overall level of housing provision proposed, and the Core Strategy is both unjustified and inconsistent with emerging national policy in this respect;
There is no adequate justification for the level of housing proposed for the Villages/Rural Area, irrespective of the level of growth directed towards Bexhill and the urban areas; and
The Policy does not set out a sufficiently robust framework in terms of the spatial distribution of growth within the rural areas, in the absence of any
definitive position in respect of the rural settlement hierarchy.

Full text:

Our representations in respect of Policy OSS1 cover the following principal
issues:
(1) There is no adequate justification for the overall level of housing provision
proposed, and the Core Strategy is both unjustified and inconsistent with
emerging national policy in this respect;
(2) There is no adequate justification for the level of housing proposed for the
Villages/Rural Area, irrespective of the level of growth directed towards
Bexhill and the urban areas; and
(3) The Policy does not set out a sufficiently robust framework in terms of the
spatial distribution of growth within the rural areas, in the absence of any
definitive position in respect of the rural settlement hierarchy.
Representations
Overall Housing Quantum and the Quantum of Housing in the Villages
2. Paragraphs 7.9-7.10 of the Core Strategy note that the South-East Plan
established a target for Rother District of 5,600 new homes 2006-2026, a figure
that took account of a broad assessment of local, sub-regional and regional
housing needs, weighed against the suitability of the district to accommodate that
level of growth. The level of growth equated to 280 units per annum.
3. Having regard to the Council's technical evidence, we seek below to examine the factors that have led to the proposed reduction in provision below the RSS target in the current draft Core Strategy. It should however also be borne in mind that at the current time, and until the RSS is revoked, it remains the case that there is a legal requirement for general conformity with the RSS, and the provisions of the Core Strategy in respect of housing fail that legal requirement. At this stage, it is not known when the RSS will be revoked.
4. In its Background Paper on Housing Provision, the District Council seeks to
explain at some length the reservations that it had regarding the level of housing
provision set out in the South East Plan (Section 2 of that document, pages 6-13),
and in the expectation that the South East Plan will now be revoked, it is evident
that this history of reservation is now finding expression in the lower housing
figure now being proposed. The fact remains however that whatever reservations
the District may have had, it did support the South East Plan's housing provisions
(subject to the provision of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road), as the final paragraph
in Section 2 (para 2.33) makes clear.
5. Section 2 of the Background Paper goes on to explain the evolution of the Core
Strategy and summarises the responses to consultation at previous stages. We
would highlight the fact that, as explained in paragraph 2.41 of that paper, the
previous iteration of the Core Strategy (the "Strategy Directions" consultation of
November 2008) proposed 1,300 dwellings for the Villages. The broad summary of consultation responses to the November 2008 draft is set out in the Table on
pages 17 and 18 of that document, and in respect of the scale of development in
the Villages, the summary of the consultation states "...the scale of development
previously proposed is considered appropriate and deliverable ...". It should also
be noted at this point that the figure of 1300 units for the rural areas was itself less than the 1600 endorsed for the 'rest of Rother' area (i.e. outside the coastal zone) in the South East Plan over the period 2026-2026 (see for example paragraphs 8.9-8.10 of the Background Paper).
6. It is also important to note that in order to accord with emerging guidance in the Draft NPPF, the Core Strategy should clearly recognise the need to a)
significantly increase the supply of housing and b)1 the Council are now required
to identify and maintain a "rolling supply of specific deliverable sites to provide 5
years supply of housing (against their housing requirements) and a further 20% to
help improve choice and competition.
7. Sections 4 and 5 of the Background Document, sets out an account of the
demographic factors influencing housing need, the supply of market and
affordable housing. There are a number of important conclusions that we would
draw from the analysis presented (coupled with the findings of the SHMA), which
include:
(1) That even the South East Plan housing provision figures would act as a
constraint on the 'natural' population growth of the area - paragraph 4.7 of
the Background Paper makes clear that based purely on births, deaths
and migration, forecasts suggest that the population of the district would
rise to 104,600 by 2026 (not limited by housing growth), compared to
92,174 by 2026 (limited by housing growth). It should also be noted that
although the 92,174 population figure is quoted in the text the graph at
Figure 3 on page 23 actually shows a population growth of over 95,000
people by 2026, and it is not clear which figure is correct. These increases
are from a base of around 90,000 people in 2010.
It is evident therefore from these projections that the South East Plan
housing figure of 5,600 is actually only catering for only a small proportion
of the population growth that would otherwise be occurring if housing
provision were not constrained, and clearly the lesser provision figure set
out in the draft Core Strategy will act as an even greater constraint against
an evidently high level of housing demand (which in turn will effect
affordability).
(2) The aging population profile means that the causes of housing need
primarily result from in-migration to the District. As the Government has
made clear, however (see "Planning for Growth" March 2011, and the draft
NPPF), accommodating migration pressures is part and parcel of planning
for new housing. There is a tendency amongst Local Planning Authorities
to view migration as somehow being an externality that it is within their
power to control, and that by adjusting housing provision to suit locally arising needs (i.e. excluding migration) that this is somehow to the benefit
of local communities. The fact is that Local Planning Authorities have no
control over the occupation of property within their areas, and people are
free to move around the country as they wish. In areas where there is
pressure on housing from in-migrants, restricting supply simply means that
in-migrants and locally arising households have to compete for a stock of
housing that is of insufficient size to cater for both groups, with the
inevitable result that house prices rise, and many local people will be
forced to move out of an area due to the lack of accommodation. Ironically,
planning to only meet locally arising housing needs in areas of high
demand for in-migrants actually acts against the stated objective of
housing local people. Migration is therefore part of the 'natural' change of
population within any given area, and is no more subject to local authority
control than births, deaths, or falling household size.
On that basis, the graph at Figure 10 on page 27 is of interest in terms of
showing the significance of migration as a factor in housing need, but is
wholly irrelevant as a tool for policy formation, since zero net migration is
simply not a real-world scenario.
(3) It is relevant to note from Figures 5 and 6 that under the policy based
projection in Figure 5 (i.e. with the constraint of the South East Plan
housing figures), Rother District loses a higher proportion of the 35-49 age
group, and retains less of the 20-34 age group, than it would do under the
Trend-based projections (i.e. with no housing restriction) shown in Figure
6. In other words, restricting the supply of new homes appears to have a
negative effect on the Council's stated objective to maintain a balanced
population, because restricting housing supply doesn't affect the
proportion of older people, but does restrict the proportion of people of
working age.
(4) The SHMA confirms that based on household projections of 5,220 new
households between 2006-2026, the South East Plan proposed growth of
5,600 new homes over the same period is in fact appropriate (taking in to
account also that as a result of standard vacancy rates, the number of new
homes always exceeds the number of new households).
(5) The need for affordable housing significantly exceeds the supply of
affordable housing (paragraphs 5.9-5.10 of the Background Paper in
particular refer). Bexhill and the rural areas are the main areas of
affordable housing need.
(6) A significant proportion of need arises from the growth in single person
households, but as the Background Paper correctly points out at
paragraph 5.23, the size of home occupied is determined primarily by
income and wealth rather than need per se, and therefore single person
households do not necessarily occupy single person housing units.
(7) House prices in Rother are not significantly different to East Sussex as a
whole (Figure 14 of the Background Paper), albeit lower than the averageof the district to London compared to some of the home counties. As in all
parts of the country, house building rates fluctuate on a year by year bases
(Figure 17), but the report notes that the housing market is somewhat
stronger in the inland rural areas (paragraph 5.6).
8. Section 6 of the Background Paper explains the relationship between new
housing and economic performance, and notes that economic performance
appears to be being constrained by a lack of suitable housing, in particular a lack
of affordable housing to help the economically active young stay in the area, and
a lack of housing generally which results in labour being drawn in from outside the
District (para 6.6 of the Background Paper).
9. Section 8 of the Background Paper sets out the various environmental
designations that apply to the District. The salient point to note here is that none
of these have changed since the South East Plan was adopted, and indeed in
setting a level of 1600 units for the rural area in the South East Plan, the
Background Paper acknowledges that the Panel endorsed this level of growth
having specifically considered the environmental constraints referred to.
Paragraph 11.11 in the conclusion similarly confirms that the South East Plan's
proposals for 280 units per annum took account of strategic environmental
constraints.
10. Section 9 consider Infrastructure Constraints, and concludes that, aside from the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, there are no other "showstoppers" to housing
provision. The relevance of the Link Road is essentially limited to growth in Bexhill
and the Hastings Fringes, according to the explanation given in paragraphs 9.2-
9.14, and indeed the document states explicitly at paragraph 9.11 that delay in the
Link Road will not affect Rye or the Parishes.
11. Section 10 considers housing delivery. It notes in the first instance that the scale
of potentially suitable housing land equates to some 6,800 units according to the
SHLAA, some 20% more than the South East Plan figure. Significantly, paragraph
10.9 states:
"The SHLAA largely confirmed the earlier Rural Settlement Study in that,
overall, villages are expected to have sufficient capacity to meet the
original requirement. Supply is dispersed over many sites, and village sites
are generally more attractive to developers."
12. We turn then finally to the conclusions of the Background Paper in respect of the matter of the scale of housing growth, which are set out in paragraphs 11.16-
11.19.
13. At paragraph 11.17, the Background Paper says that the "further appraisals set out in the preceding sections in relation to sustainability and deliverability" of
development at Bexhill, Rye and the Hastings fringes lead to the view that the
scale of development "for those areas" should be reduced. The problem here
though is twofold:
(1) As per our summary above, in fact there is nothing in the Background
Paper (or the Sustainability Appraisal) to lead to that conclusion, even for
the specific areas mentioned.
Housing need and demand remain high, there are identified shortfalls in
affordable housing provision, there are sufficient suitable sites to deliver a
higher housing requirement from the SHLAA, and the document itself
admits that economic performance is being hampered by a lack of suitable
housing.
Reliance on lower house-building rates as a result of the recession as an
excuse for a lower housing target is a policy of the tail wagging the dog,
and also runs the risk of becoming a 'self fulfilling prophesy' - once targets
are lowered, house building will itself be constrained by a lack of allocated
land;
(2) Even if the conclusion in paragraph 11.17 is accepted, it is only applicable
to the urban areas, and the Background Paper offers no explanation
whatsoever as to why the original proposal for 1600 homes in the 'rest of
Rother' in the South East Plan, changed to 1300 homes in the previous
draft, should now become 950-1000 homes.
There appear in fact to be only two main reasons underlying the drop in the
proposed number of news homes, and these are set out at paragraph 7.23 of the
Core Strategy itself. Here the Core Strategy seeks to justify the reduced rate
firstly on the delay of a few years in the projected opening of the Link Road, and
secondly on the fact that housing completions between 1991 and 2011 have run
at 241 units per annum, which is less than the 280 per annum proposed in the
South East Plan.
15. Both arguments are effectively covered by our Point 1 above, and neither should be accorded any significant weight. Over the lifetime of the Plan to 2028, the delay in the opening of the Link Road is not a significant factor, and whilst it might affect the delivery of the Council's Masterplan for North-East Bexhill in the shortterm, it should not materially affect delivery overall. Furthermore, in relation to average build rates from 1991, it was of course fairly common across the South
East region (which is generally a constrained area for new building) that meeting
the higher rates of growth set out in the South East Plan meant increasing
housing delivery over historic rates, by bringing more land forward for
development. Historic rates should not therefore be a guide to future rates, and
(as the PINS guidance states), nor should long-term Core Strategies be prepared
on the basis of the current recession, but on 'normal market conditions'.
16. From the latest Annual Monitoring on the Council's website, we understand that
completions between 2006 and 2010 (i.e. the first four years of the Plan period)
equated to 1135 units at a rate of around 283 per annum, including individual
years at over 400 per annum. The 2011 Housing Land Supply paper includes a
figure of 222 units for 2010/11, making the total five year supply 2006-2011 to be
1,357 units, at a rate of 271 units per annum. Notwithstanding the current
recession, there is nothing to suggest that, with suitable and deliverable land
available, house building rates could not meet or indeed exceed 280 per annum.
For all of the above reasons, we consider that the reduced scale of housing
provision compared to the South East Plan renders the Core Strategy:
(a) Legally deficient, whilst the South East Plan remains;
(b) Unjustified, since there is no substantive evidence to support a reduced
housing figure, against substantive evidence to the contrary; and
(c) Not consistent with national policy (particularly PPS3, Planning for Growth,
and the emerging NPPF).
18. In respect of the rural areas and Villages, we consider that the above points apply with equal or indeed greater force (and apply irrespective of any decision about the future scale of growth in the urban areas), on the basis that neither the Core Strategy nor the Background Document provides any argument at all as to why the rural areas/villages allocation has been reduced, and indeed the Background Document provides convincing evidence that housing delivery in the rural areas at the rates set out in the previous iteration of the Core Strategy can and should be delivered.
Settlement Hierarchy
19. Paragraph 7.43 of the Core Strategy states that the overall impact of the
development distribution set out in OSS1 is to maintain the existing settlement
pattern, but other than identifying Bexhill, Battle and Rye as the main settlements,
Policy OOS1 does not actually define what the settlement pattern actually is for
the remainder of the district, and nor is this issue fully resolved in Chapter 12
which deals with the Villages and rural areas (see separate representations to
RA1 in Chapter 12).
20. Figure 9 on page 74 sets out a table which defines Robertsbridge and Ticehurst
as Rural Service Centres, and then 7 other villages (Burwash, Hurst Green,
Seddlescombe, Northiam, Westfield, Peasmarsh and Catsfield) as Local Service
Villages).
21. The Core Strategy makes clear (e.g. paragraph 12.15) that the approach of the Core Strategy is to concentrate development in the rural areas at these villages, since these offer the greatest services and are the most sustainable locations, but the Core Strategy also includes a substantial element of ambiguity in the strategy for the rural areas by:
(a) Not including the hierarchy set out in Figure 9 in any policy; and
(b) The fact that paragraph 12.15 goes on to explain that the distribution of
development might not in fact reflect that hierarchy; and
(c) The fact that the actual housing distribution in the rural areas set out in
Figure 12 bears only passing resemblance to the hierarchy in Figure 9.
22. In respect of (a), the concern is that the hierarchy established by Figure 9 has no
effective interpretation in Policy. Part (v) of Policy RA1 does not refer to Figure 9,
but instead refers to the detailed list of possible village allocations in Figure 12.
Parts (iii) (c) and (iii) (d) of OSS1 make no reference to Figure 9. Figure 9
therefore exists essentially in isolation within the supporting text of the document,
when in fact it should form an integral part of OSS1 (and RA1) as the basic
starting point for the distribution of development in the rural areas.
23. In respect of (b) above, whilst recognising the desire for flexibility, the Core
Strategy does not provide a sufficiently robust framework to ensure that either
individual planning applications or a subsequent site allocations DPD will in fact
follow the broad settlement hierarchy established by Figure 9.
24. In respect of (c) above, Table 12 provides what appears to be both an unjustified level of specificity for the Core Strategy, and a distribution of development that fails to reflect the settlement hierarchy established by Figure 9. Whilst Table 12 suggests that the two Rural Service Centres would take the largest scale of new growth, it then goes on to identify some 17 villages that could all make a not insignificant contribution to housing growth, whereas only 7 villages are identified in Table 9 as Local Service Villages. So the outcome of the Core Strategy through Table 12 could be that the scale of development across a number of smaller villages, either individually or cumulatively, exceeds the scale of growth in larger Local Service Villages.
25. For all of the above reasons, we do not consider that the provisions within the
Core Strategy for guiding future development in the Rural Areas are sufficiently
clear as to be effective, and nor is there any explanation as to why less
sustainable villages are being identified for potentially greater growth that the
Local Service Villages, and hence this aspect of the Core Strategy is not justified.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21102

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Millwood Designer Homes Ltd.

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy unsound because it focuses too much development on Bexhill.

Flawed assumption that Link Road will be built within the plan period when it is clear from Infrastructure Delivery Plan that there is no certainty. Based on an uncertain eventuality, CS must be unsound.

Bexhill housing market is not strong so doubt that the housing numbers proposed are deliverable.

There is more scope for development at Rye, Battle and Hastings Fringes than the Council has allowed for. Focussing too much development on Bexhill is an unbalanced approach, which will not deliver the amount of housing that the District needs.

Full text:

1. It is considered that the proposed Overall Spatial Development Strategy is unsound because it seeks to focus too much development on Bexhill.

2. A key presumption that underlies the Core Strategy is that the Hastings-Bexhill Relief Road will be built within the plan period. This will facilitate significant development at Bexhill that will help to provide the amount of housing land needed to meet the need for housing in the District. It is clear from the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan that while there is a desire for the road to go forward, there is no certainty that it will.

3. The implementation of the road is dependent on the provision public funding, and there is no certainty that the necessary funds will come forward. Further submissions are being made to the Government by East Sussex County Council at the end of 2011 and a decision will be made some time in 2012. Given that a key element of the Core Strategy is based on an eventuality that is, as yet, unknown and uncertain, it must be unsound.

4. It is also the case that the market for housing in Bexhill is not particularly strong and there is considerable doubt that the numbers of houses proposed to be built at the town will actually be delivered.

5. There are other locations in the district that are fully capable of delivering more housing than the Council has identified. There is more scope for development at Rye, Battle and on the fringes of Hastings than the Council has allowed for. Focussing too much development on Bexhill is an unbalanced approach, which will not deliver the amount of housing that the District needs.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21111

Received: 09/11/2011

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Part (i)-Annual housing requirements would be better stated as a single figure, rather than a range. It is unclear why a specific figure is not stated.

Insufficient justification is provided for departing from SE-Plan requirements. Assuming the Link Road is constructed, there is no justification for a reduction in housing numbers.

Other East Sussex Authorities are putting forward similar reasons for reduced housing numbers. Unless SE Plan targets are met, there will be an increasing shortfall of regional housing supply.

Part (iii)-The policy contains no cross-reference to Policy OSS2, therefore provides no contingency arrangement should the Link road be delayed/shelved.

Full text:

Part (i)

In terms of calculating the annual housing requirements and 5 year housing land supply, the housing figure would be better stated as a single figure, rather than as a range. In paragraph 7.29 of the Proposed Submission Core Strategy (PSCS), the mid-point of 3,900 dwellings (average 229 dwellings per year - dpy) is referred to for "monitoring purposes", but it is unclear why a specific figure should not be referred to in the policy itself rather than the 3,700 - 4,100 range put forward. Indeed, in policy terms it is unclear why the higher level of additional housing (4,100 dwellings) should not be stated as the target figure in the policy rather than any notional mid-point in the range currently put forward by the Council. If this objection were to be accepted, then other parts of the Plan would also need to be amended.

As regards the housing numbers put forward, insufficient justification has been provided for departing on the South East (SE) Plan housing requirement of 280 dpy, i.e. the equivalent of 4,260 dwellings during the 17 year plan period between April 2011 - March 2008. The South East Plan remains part of the Statutory Development Plan.

By comparison, the PSCS puts forward the provision of 3,700 - 4,100 dwellings during the 17 year period between April 2011 and March 2028 (equal to 218 - 241 dpy) with a 3,900 dwelling mid-point (equal to 229 dph - paragraph 7.29). At the lower end of the range (218 dph), this would be a 22% reduction in housing supply compared with the SE Plan target and the mid range (229 dph) would represent a 19% reduction. Even if the top end of the range were to be achieved (241 dph), this would represent a 14% reduction in the SE Plan target.

Assuming (as the PSCS does) that the Bexhill - Hastings Link Road Scheme will be constructed within the Plan period, there appears to be no sound justification for a 14% - 22% reduction in future housing land supply in the District. The SE Plan provides a robust and tested housing requirement for the District and the PSCS should therefore, be amended to take account of this.

Other neighbouring East Sussex Authorities in producing their PSCS DPD's are also putting forward similar reasons for a reduction in the housing requirement compared to the housing targets set out in the SE Plan. Environmental, infrastructure and other reasons are also claimed in neighbouring districts for reducing the housing requirements, but unless SE Plan targets are met, there will be an increasing shortfall of future housing supply in the region as a whole.

Part (iii)

The policy contains no cross-reference to Policy OSS2 (Bexhill to Hastings Link Road and Development) and therefore, in terms of spatial distribution, Policy OSS1 provides no contingency arrangement should the Bexhill to Hastings link road scheme be delayed or shelved as a consequence of the Government's spending review. If the road scheme does not take place, then either the housing requirements figure would need to be amended or alternatively, the suggested distribution of housing in Figure 8 on page 35 of the PSCS would need to be amended to provide for potentially increased housing allocations in other areas of the District outside Bexhill.

Object

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21124

Received: 11/11/2011

Respondent: Marchfield Strategic Land Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There is no adequate justification for the overall level of housing provision proposed, and the Core Strategy is both unjustified and inconsistent with emerging national policy in this respect. In addition, this Core Strategy has been prepared on the premise that RSS does not apply, and the process of production is therefore procedurally flawed in the context of the Cala 2 decision.
There remains the case that there is a legal requirement for general conformity with the RSS, and the Core Strategy fails that legal requirement.
The preparation of this Core Strategy on the presumption of future revocation is unlawful.


Full text:

Summary
1. Our representations in respect of Policy OSS1 are that there is no adequate
justification for the overall level of housing provision proposed, and the Core
Strategy is both unjustified and inconsistent with emerging national policy in this
respect. In addition, this Core Strategy has been prepared on the premise that
RSS does not apply, and the process of production is therefore procedurally
flawed in the context of the Cala 2 decision.

Representations
2. Paragraphs 7.9-7.10 of the Core Strategy notes that the South-East Plan
established a target for Rother District of 5,600 new homes 2006-2026, a figure
that took account of a broad assessment of local, sub-regional and regional
housing needs, weighed against the suitability of the district to accommodate that
level of growth. The level of growth equated to 280 units per annum.

3. The South East Plan also provides that the majority of this growth should be
within the coastal zone (i.e. Bexhill), and the previous iteration of the Core
Strategy sought the provision of 3,100-3,300 units at Bexhill accordingly.

4. Having regard to the Council's technical evidence, we seek below to examine the factors that have led to the proposed reduction in provision below the RSS target in the current draft Core Strategy (the shortfall being manifest both in terms of the absolute level of housing provision being less than the RSS, and the fact that the plan period has been extended by 2 years compared to the RSS, but with no consequent increase in the number of homes).

5. It should however also be borne in mind that at the current time, and until the RSS is revoked, it remains the case that there is a legal requirement for general
conformity with the RSS, and the provisions of the Core Strategy in respect of
housing fail that legal requirement. At this stage, it is not known when the RSS will
be revoked.

6. Moreover, the fact that the Council openly acknowledges that in preparing this
submission Core Strategy it has taken account of the likely future revocation of
RSS means that it has fallen foul of one of the key findings of the Court of Appeal
R (Cala Homes South Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government [2011] wherein Sullivan LJ stated:

"It would be unlawful for a local planning authority preparing, or a Planning
Inspector examining, development plan documents to have regard to the
proposal to abolish regional strategies" (para 24).

7. The preparation of this Core Strategy on the presumption of future revocation is unlawful.

8. Leaving aside the issue of legality and turning to the issue of evidence, Section 2 of the Background Paper explains the evolution of the Core Strategy and
summarises the responses to consultation at previous stages. This section simply
provides a discussion on the content of previous documents, but it does not in any
way provide evidence to support the current change in direction.

9. Section 2 also explains at some length the reservations that it had regarding the level of housing provision set out in the South East Plan (Section 2 of that
document, pages 6-13), and in the expectation that the South East Plan will now
be revoked, it is evident that this history of reservation is now finding expression
in the lower housing figure now being proposed. The fact remains however that
whatever reservations the District may have had, it did support the South East
Plan's housing provisions (subject to the provision of the Bexhill Hastings Link
Road), as the final paragraph in Section 2 (para 2.33) makes clear.

10. Sections 4 and 5 of the Background Document sets out an account of the
demographic factors influencing housing need and the supply of market and
affordable housing. There are a number of important conclusions that we would
draw from the analysis presented (coupled with the findings of the SHMA), which
include:
(1) That even the South East Plan housing provision figures would act as a
constraint on the 'natural' population growth of the area - paragraph 4.7 of
the Background Paper makes clear that based purely on births, deaths
and migration, forecasts suggest that the population of the district would
rise to 104,600 by 2026, compared to a projected 92,174 by 2026 based
on the proposed level of new housing (although the graph at Figure 3 on
page 23 shows over 95,000 people by 2026, and it is not clear which figure
is correct). These increases are from a base of around 90,000 people in
2010.
It is evident therefore from these projections that the South East Plan
housing figure of 5,600 is actually only catering for a small proportion of
the population growth that would otherwise be occurring if housing
provision were not constrained, and clearly the lesser provision figure set
out in the draft Core Strategy will act as an even greater constraint against
an evidently high level of housing demand (which in turn will effect
affordability).

(2) The aging population profile means that the causes of housing need
primarily result from in-migration to the District. As the Government has
made clear, however (see "Planning for Growth" March 2011, and the draft
NPPF), accommodating migration pressures is part and parcel of planning
for new housing. There is a tendency amongst Local Planning Authorities
to view migration as somehow being an externality that it is within their
power to control, and that by adjusting housing provision to suit locally
arising needs (i.e. excluding migration) that this is somehow to the benefit
of local communities. The fact is that Local Planning Authorities have no
control over the occupation of property within their areas, and people are
free to move around the country as they wish. In areas where there is
pressure on housing from in-migrants, restricting supply simply means that in-migrants and locally arising households have to compete for a stock of
housing that is of insufficient size to cater for both groups, with the
inevitable result that house prices rise, and many local people will be
forced to move out of an area due to the lack of accommodation. Ironically,
planning to only meet locally arising housing needs in areas of high
demand for in-migrants actually acts against the stated objective of
housing local people. Migration is therefore part of the 'natural' change of
population within any given area, and is no more subject to local authority
control than births, deaths, or falling household size.

On that basis, the graph at Figure 10 on page 27 is of interest in terms of
showing the significance of migration as a factor in housing need, but is is
wholly irrelevant as a tool for policy formation, since zero net migration is
simply not a real-world scenario.

(3) It is relevant to note from Figures 5 and 6 that under the policy based
projection in Figure 5 (i.e. with the constraint of the South East Plan
housing figures), Rother District loses a higher proportion of the 35-49 age
group, and retains less of the 20-34 age group, than it would do under the
Trend-based projections (i.e. with no housing restriction) shown in Figure
6. In other words, restricting the supply of new homes appears to have a
negative effect on the Council's stated objective to maintain a balanced
population, because restricting housing supply doesn't affect the
proportion of older people, but does restrict the proportion of people of
working age.

(4) The SHMA confirms that based on household projections of 5,220 new
households between 2006-2026, the South East Plan proposed growth of
5,600 new homes over the same period is in fact appropriate (taking in to
account also that as a result of standard vacancy rates, the number of new
homes always exceeds the number of new households).

(5) The need for affordable housing significantly exceeds the supply of
affordable housing (paragraphs 5.9-5.10 of the Background Paper in
particular refer). Bexhill and the rural areas are the main areas of
affordable housing need.

(6) A significant proportion of need arises from the growth in single person
households, but as the Background Paper correctly points out at
paragraph 5.23, the size of home occupied is determined primarily by
income and wealth rather than need per se, and therefore single person
households do not necessarily occupy single person housing units.
(7) House prices in Rother are not significantly different to East Sussex as a
whole (Figure 14 of the Background Paper), albeit lower than the average
for the South East, which is obviously a factor of the relative peripherality
of the district to London compared to some of the home counties. As in all
parts of the country, housebuilding rates fluctuate on a year by year basis
(Figure 17), but the report notes that the housing market is somewhat
stronger in the inland rural areas (paragraph 5.6)

11. Section 6 of the Background Paper explains the relationship between new
housing and economic performance, and notes that economic performance
appears to be being constrained by a lack of suitable housing, in particular a lack
of affordable housing to help the economically active young stay in the area, and
a lack of housing generally which results in labour being drawn in from outside the
District (para 6.6 of the Background Paper).

12. Section 8 of the Background Paper sets out the various environmental
designations that apply to the District. The salient point to note here is that none
of these have changed since the South East Plan was adopted. Paragraph 11.11
in the conclusion confirms that the South East Plan's proposals for 280 units per
annum took account of strategic environmental constraints.

13. Section 9 considers Infrastructure Constraints, and concludes that, aside from the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, there are no other "showstoppers" to housing
provision. As set out elsewhere in our submissions, we strongly dispute any
suggestion that development at West Bexhill is dependent in any way on the
Bexhill-Hastings Link Road.

14. Section 10 considers housing delivery. It notes in the first instance that the scale of potentially suitable housing land equates to some 6,800 units according to the SHLAA, some 20% more than the South East Plan figure, thereby confirming that there is in fact no shortfall in suitable land to meet the SE Plan figure.

15. We turn then finally to the conclusions of the Background Paper in respect of the matter of the scale of housing growth, which are set out in paragraphs 11.16-
11.19.

16. At paragraph 11.17, the Background Paper says that the "further appraisals set out in the preceding sections in relation to sustainability and deliverability" of
development at Bexhill, Rye and the Hastings fringes lead to the view that the
scale of development "for those areas" should be reduced.

17. The problem here though is that, as per our analysis above shows, there is in fact nothing in the Background Paper (or the Sustainability Appraisal) to lead to that conclusion, even for the specific areas mentioned.

18. In fact, the evidence presented by the Council demonstrates the opposite:
housing need and demand remain high, there are identified shortfalls in affordable
housing provision, there are sufficient suitable sites to deliver a higher housing
requirement from the SHLAA, and the document itself admits that economic
performance is being hampered by a lack of suitable housing.

19. Reliance on lower house-building rates as a result of the recession as an excuse for a lower housing target is a policy of the "tail wagging the dog", and also runs the risk of becoming a self fulfilling prophesy - once targets are lowered, housebuilding will itself be constrained by a lack of allocated land;

20. There appear in fact to be only two main reasons underlying the reduction in the proposed number of news homes, and these are set out at paragraph 7.23 of the Core Strategy itself. Here the Core Strategy seeks to justify the reduced rate firstly on the delay of a few years in the projected opening of the Link Road, and
secondly on the fact that housing completions between 1991 and 2011 have run
at 241 units per annum, which is less than the 280 per annum proposed in the
South East Plan.

21. Both arguments are effectively covered by our comment above (i.e. that a
previous shortfall in housing completions should not be used as an argument for
perpetuating a shortfall), and neither of the two points raised by the Council at
7.23 should be accorded any significant weight accordingly, even if the assertions
are correct.

22. However, dealing with the two points in more detail, over the lifetime of the Plan to 2028, the delay in the opening of the Link Road is not a significant factor, and whilst it might affect the delivery of the Council's Masterplan for North-East Bexhill in the short-term, it should not materially affect delivery overall (particularly since West Bexhill is capable of delivering homes earlier in the Plan period to off-set any delay).

23. Secondly, in relation to average build rates from 1991, it was of course fairly
common across the South East region (which is generally a constrained area for
new building) that meeting the higher rates of growth set out in the South East
Plan meant increasing housing delivery over historic rates, by bringing more land
forward for development. Historic rates should not therefore be a guide to future
rates, and (as the PINS guidance states), nor should long-term Core Strategies
be prepared on the basis of the current recession, but on 'normal market
conditions'.

24. The scale of completions achieved in the last 5 years, which include significant
downturns in completion rates, in fact tend to suggest that 280 units per annum in
'normal market conditions' is very much achievable. From the latest Annual
Monitoring Report on the Council's website, we understand that completions
between 2006 and 2010 (i.e. the first four years of the Plan period) equated to
1135 units at a rate of around 283 per annum, including individual years at over
400 per annum. The 2011 Housing Land Supply paper includes a figure of 222
units for 2010/11, making the total five year supply 2006-2011 to be 1,357 units,
at a rate of 271 units per annum. Notwithstanding the current recession, there is
nothing to suggest that, with suitable and deliverable land available,
housebuilding rates could not meet or indeed exceed 280 per annum.

25. There is perhaps a simple explanation for lower rates of development from 1991. Firstly, the scale of development required as a result of the previous Structure Plan (the East Sussex and Brighten and Hove Structure Plan) was largely the same as the rate proposed in the South-East Plan, with a requirement of 5,500 units between 1991 and 2011 (275 per annum). In the event, that level of provision will not end up being provided, but this is essentially because 1,100
dwellings in the Local Plan were allocated to North-East Bexhill, to be developed
alongside the delivery of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, and on the basis that
these would be delivered by 2011.

26. The fact that North-East Bexhill has not even started, let alone been built out,
helps to explain the shortfall in completions in previous years, since a site for
some 1,000 units has remained idle through the Structure Plan period, and
therefore for a long time there has been a 1,000 unit 'hole' in the available land
supply, and the consequent shortfall in completions in the earlier part of the
Structure Plan period was never properly corrected at the time of the Local Plan
Inquiry (notwithstanding the concerns that we raised on this very point at that
time).

27. Ironically, the over-reliance on North-East Bexhill and the Link Road in this new Core Strategy suggests a strong chance of history repeating itself.

28. For all of the above reasons, we consider that the reduced scale of housing
provision compared to the South East Plan renders the Core Strategy:

(a) Legally unsound, both whilst the South East Plan remains, but irrespective
of revocation, unsound because decision making during the preparation of
the plan has taken in to account an unlawful consideration (as per the Cala
judgement);

(b) Unjustified, since there is no substantive evidence to support a reduced
housing figure, against substantive evidence to the contrary; and

(c) Not consistent with national policy (particularly PPS3, Planning for Growth,
and the emerging NPPF).

Proposed Amendments
29. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, and in the presence of substantive evidence supporting the housing provisions of the South East Plan, we consider that the housing requirement should be amended to reflect the South East Plan provision, extended to the end date of 2028 i.e. 5,600 units 2006-2026 plus 560 units 2026-2028 (280 per annum x 2) = 6,160.

Support

Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21174

Received: 07/11/2011

Respondent: Wealden District Council

Representation Summary:

Wealden District Council supports the approach taken of balancing all requirements in the provision of growth. In particular supports the critical nature of timely infrastructure delivery to support economic/housing growth and the implications this has upon the scale/pace of growth.

The consideration of the change in circumstances from when the South East Plan was developed to the current situation is considered a valid approach. By the very nature and legislative requirements of assessments and evidence required for LDFs, the analysis/conclusions will be more detailed, locally valid and up-to-date than the RSS. The Proposed Submission Core Strategy is therefore supported.

Full text:

Wealden District Council welcomes the Proposed Submission Core Strategy for Rother District and supports the approach taken of balancing all requirements in the provision of growth. In particular supports the critical nature of timely infrastructure delivery to support economic and housing growth both in Rother District and within the Sussex Coast sub region and the necessary implications that this has upon the scale and pace of growth that can be accommodated.
8. The consideration of the change in circumstances from when the South East Plan was being developed to the current situation is considered to be a valid approach in the development of the Core Strategy. By the very nature and legislative requirements of the assessments and evidence required for Local Development Frameworks, the analysis and conclusions will be more detailed, locally valid and up to date than that of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The Regional Spatial Strategy does acknowledge this fact however and has a range of policies concerning sustainable development, including provision of infrastructure, and housing provision which need to be considered in this context. The Proposed Submission Core Strategy is based on what is considered by Rother District Council to be a robust and current evidence base of deliverability and sustainability considerations and therefore this approach is supported.