14.28

Paragraph 14.27 of the draft Core Strategy refers to the Council's 2007 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study.

Paragraph 14.28 goes on to state that the Council has "adopted the quantitative standards" set out in that study. Whilst this statement may be true in respect of the Council's Leisure Department's function, it does not appear to be true in terms of the Council's planning functions, because the Open Space Study does not appear to have been adopted as SPD, and nor does there ever appear to have been any consultation on its findings.

As a piece of work to support the Council in its leisure services function, the report may well have merit. As a piece of work to support the application of an open space standard for planning purposes, the analysis is severely lacking in rigour, not least because in many instances the standard is not based on evidence of need, but on the perceptions of respondents to a survey, and also because in many instances the rationale behind the suggested targets simply makes no sense.

So for example:

* Parks and Gardens - for this item, the results of the survey suggest no shortage of provision. There is some concern regarding a lack of access in East Rother, although the analysis suggests this is almost negligible (0.04ha per 1000 population). In any event, there is a proposal for a new Country Park, not referred to in the analysis for Parks and Gardens, to the east of Bexhill which would make a major contribution towards increased provision).

Within the analysis presented in Appendix Gi for Parks and Gardens, the only rationale put forward at all for a requirement for additional land for Parks and Gardens appears to come from the 'benchmarking' review, which basically means that the standard exists not because there is any particular need identified in Rother, but because other authorities seek provision. This is very much the antithesis of the local evidence approach required under PPS12.

Irrespective of the above, there does not appear to have been any thought as to how such a standard might be applied in practice, given the general absence of large strategic sites (other than North-East Bexhill, which is related to the new Country Park referred to above). A number of medium sized/small developments, each delivering fragments of notional 'Parks and gardens', would not actually address supply, and since East Sussex County Council is already addressing the provision of a new country park, there is also no justification under the CIL regulations for financial contributions.

* Natural and semi-natural open space - As far as we can ascertain from Appendix G(iv), there is already a considerable surplus of natural and semi-natural green space across the District as a whole. There is also no shortfall identified for any of the sub-areas. So since there is a surplus all round against the Local Authority's standard, there is no justification for seeking more in any circumstances.

The attempt at a justification in Appendix G(iv) is largely unintelligible, but the relevant text states: "Due to the significantly rural nature of the district the standard of 2ha is aimed at new developments of large scale to ensure residential expansion is not at the cost of open space". This appears to suggest that large scale residential expansion necessarily impacts upon the resource of natural/semi-natural open space, but since the existing sites upon which the analysis is based are defined and mapped, the need would only arise in the event of one of the existing defined sites being lost and needing to be replaced, which is an entirely different and site specific response to open space provision, not something to be set out in a generic standard, and certainly not used in a standard when there is an overall surplus of provision.

For both reasons, therefore, this aspect of the "adopted standards" is not justified, appropriate, or CIL compliant.

* Amenity Green Space - The analysis at Appendix G(i) notes that in terms of the survey results, there was "a fairly mixed response" in terms of whether people felt there was too much or too little. The analysis reveals that the NPFA standard for incidental amenity green space would be 0.4 ha per 1000 population.

Notwithstanding that background, Appendix G(i) attempts to justify a standard of 1.73 ha on the basis of:

(a) The erroneous use of the 'benchmarking' approach - i.e. because other authorities have a higher standard, Rother should have one too. Not only is this an unsound methodology in any event, as previously alluded to above, but in this case the 'benchmarking' revealed standards of between 0.5 and 1.6 ha per 1000, and therefore the chosen standard of 1.73 ha exceeds anything revealed by that comparison anyway;
(b) The inexplicable adoption of the current level of provision at Battle, which is 1.73 ha per 1000 population, as the standard to be applied everywhere else in the District.

So in actual fact, the justification for the standard has nothing to do with levels of need or levels of provision, but basically an aspiration that all parts of the District should be like Battle. This approach is incompatible with the evidenced based requirement for policy in PPS12, and CIL requirements.

* Outdoor Sports Facilities - the background to this standard is an NPFA standard that would require 1.62 ha per 1000 population, and an existing level of provision of 2.76 ha per 1000 population. The survey results were mixed, with 52% stating there was inadequate provision, and 48% stating there was enough.

The proposed standard of 2.97 ha per 1000 is acknowledged to be high (compared to other authorities) and is said to be "for broad planning need only", although it is not clear what that means. The justification refers to consultation responses emphasising a lack of provision, although this conclusion does not appear to be borne out from the analysis presented.

Ultimately, the standard of 2.97 ha for the urban areas is chosen solely on the basis that this is the existing level of provision in Rye, and the justification says that the standard is set at this highest level "to protect current provision while attempting to offer standardisation across the District."

Again, therefore, the justification is erroneous, and bears no relationship whatsoever to need and supply. The approach is simply to take the highest rate of existing provision in any one settlement, and apply it to the others to "offer standardisation". This approach is inconsistent with a proper evidence-based approach to policy and the CIL regulations.

In addition to the above, we have reservations in any event regarding the over-reliance placed on the views of surveys in this form of work, firstly because the response sample is very small (705 responses were received, out of a total of 40,300 households in the district, which equates to just 1.7% of all households), secondly because inevitably those that do respond tend to be those people with a particular interest (out of the 5400 surveys issued, what did what did the 4,695 households who didn't respond think?), and thirdly because the information provided is obviously highly subjective. Notwithstanding these significant limitations, the responses to the survey are regularly given undue weight in determining the proposed open space standard.

In the light of the above, the first element of our objection is simply that the "adopted standards" are based upon a wholly inadequate evidence base.

Our second concerns stems from the fact that neither the policy itself nor the supporting text actually sets out what the proposed standard is, and reliance is instead placed upon the background document referred to above to set the standard. This approach means that the standard could in fact change at any time, simply by the Council issuing a revised evidence base, which would not itself be open to any form of consultation or examination. In essence, policy would be being set 'behind the scenes', and the changed policy implemented through CO3 without any recourse for testing. If the Council is to set a standard on open space, then the standard needs to form part of the policy, not part of a 'bottom draw' document.

Thirdly, not only is the policy inappropriate in terms of relying on the standards examined above, but the policy does not appear to provide any mechanism by which a surplus of open space in any particular locality can act as mitigation to the provision of new open space. It refers to "adopted standards" being "maintained", but since the adopted standards are in many instances based upon an acknowledged position of surplus, applicants are being required to maintain a surplus, which is contrary to the CIL regulations.