Policy EC3: Existing Employment Sites

Were existing employment sites are brought forward consideration of compulsory purchase should considered were the owners have approval for enabling development as is the cas e at the Mill site in Robertsbridge.

This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.

Policy EC3 'Existing Employment Sites'

This policy is considered to be unsound, for the following reasons.

* This policy is unjustified.
* The Council's own evidence points to an over-supply of land available for employment purposes.
* The Council's own evidence base shows that the Council is planning for 30% less dwellings than is required in the district.
* The Council cites a lack of suitable sites as a reason for reducing its housing requirement yet is seeking to retain all employment land.
* Policy EC3 undermines the ability to deliver a balance of viable employment floorspace and housing by requiring the retention of employment floorspace even when it is proven unviable (thus no demand) at the expense of housing for which there is a proven and identified need.
* This policy is not consistent with adopted and emerging national planning policy.
* Adopted and emerging national policy seeks to prevent the retention of employment sites and allocations.
* Policy EC3 is not consistent with national policy. Its core function is to require the retention of all existing employment sites regardless of need.
* This policy undermines the delivery of housing for which there is an overwhelming need, prioritising a use for which there is an over-supply of land available for development.

National and Regional Planning Policy

Adopted and emerging national planning policy is clear that employment sites should not be retained in perpetuity where there is no proven need.

Planning Policy Statement 4 'Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth' (PPS4) Policy EC2 'Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth' (h) states:

'Existing site allocations should not be carried forward from one version of the development plan to the next without evidence of the need and reasonable prospect of their take up during the plan period'. If there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated uses, the allocation should not be retained, and wider economic uses or alternative uses should be considered'

Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 75 states:

'Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of employment land or floorspace, and applications for alternative use of designated land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses'

South East Plan Policy RE3 'Employment Land Provision' States:

'Accessible and well-located industrial sites should be retained where there is a good prospect of employment use'

Soundness of this Policy

Planning Policy Statement 12 'Local Spatial Planning' (PPS12) requires 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 PPS12 states that justification must be founded on a robust and credible evidence base.

Evidence of employment and housing need in Rother District

Policy EC3 'Existing Employment Sites' assumes that the need for employment land is greater than for other land uses particularly market housing.

Firstly, the policy requires that all land and premises currently (or last) in employment use will be retained for employment purposes unless it is proven that there is no reasonable prospect of its continued use for employment purposes or it would cause serious harm to local amenities.

Secondly, the policy requires that if continued employment use is judged unviable then 'complementary enabling development' will be allowed in order to make the most of the land for employment purposes. If this approach is also proven unviable the policy states:

"prioritise alternative community uses, affordable housing and then market housing, subject to local needs"

The assumption of this policy that need for employment land is greater than other land uses particularly housing is contrary to the Council's own evidence of demand and supply for both housing and employment.

Employment Floorspace

Appendix 4 of the 2010 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) shows that between 1996/1997 - 2009/2010 there has been 26,178sqm of employment floorspace delivered in Rother. Appendix 1A of the Employment Land Review (ELR) Update August 2011 shows that 2,359 sqm of employment floorspace was delivered in 2010/2011. This equates to an annual average of 1,902sqm per annum since 1996.

Table 10 of the AMR shows that there are 33 hectares of committed employment land (Local Plan Allocations, Outstanding Planning Permissions and sites under construction).

This figure includes 22.6 hectares of unimplemented existing allocated employment sites not subject to a planning application with an approximate yield of 67,800sqm of floorspace. This alone based on the past 15 year annual average completion rate of (1,902sqm) equates to 35 years of supply of unimplemented allocations.

Policy EC2 seeks to increase this supply to 100,000sqm of additional employment floorpspace (paragraph 16.21 of the Draft Submission Core Strategy) which in addition to unimplemented allocations would result in a further 16.9 years worth of supply across the plan period of 2011-2028, resulting in a 51.9 year supply of employment land in total based on average past completions.

Housing

Appendix 2c of the AMR shows that between 1996/1997-2009/2010 there have been 3,149 dwellings completed in Rother. This equates to an average of 224 dwellings per annum.

The South East Plan (2009) Policy H1 'Regional Housing Provision 2006-2026' requires Rother to deliver 280 dwellings per annum (5,600 dwellings up to 2026).

The Council's 2010 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) projects that there will be an increase of 5,220 households in the district between 2006-2026. To meet this need an annual average delivery rate of 276 dwellings is required.

Appendix 2c of the AMR shows that 1,135 dwellings have been completed since 2006 at an average delivery of 227 dwellings per annum. This means that Rother's identified housing need between 2011-2026 is 4,085 dwellings. In order to meet the identified housing need in Rother an annual average of 272 dwellings is required until the end of the proposed plan period of 2028.

Policy OSS1 'Overall Spatial Development Strategy' of the Draft Submission Core Strategy plans for the delivery of 3,700 - 4,100 additional dwellings up to 2028. This supposes an annualised average of 137 - 151 dwellings per annum. This provision is some 87 - 73 dwellings less than has been delivered on average in Rother since 1996 and 135 - 121 per annum dwellings less than the Council's own SHMA projects for which there will be need.




Analysis

The Council's own evidence base shows that the retention of all existing employment sites is unjustified. The annual delivery rate of employment floorspace, which reflects demand, shows that there is 35 years of employment land supply of unimplemented employment allocations alone. Policy EC2 seeks to allocate a further 16.9 years worth of employment land resulting in a pipeline of 51.9 years of supply based on the average completion rates since 1996.

Policy EC3 actively seeks to stymie the delivery of housing on employment sites that are proven not to be viable despite the Council's evidence that less dwellings than its SHMA has identified are needed have been delivered in the district or are planned for. To reiterate the point, the SHMA identifies a need for 276 dwellings per annum (2006-2026). Only 227 dwellings per annum on average have been delivered since 1996 requiring 272 dwellings to be delivered per annum up to the end of this plan period of 2028.

The Council's own Housing Provision Back Ground Paper (August 2011) recognises the importance of ensuring the right linkages between economic and housing policies in achieving economic growth (paragraph 11.8) through in-migration. Yet Policy EC3 undermines the ability to deliver a balance of viable employment floorspace and housing by requiring the retention of employment floorspace even when it is proven unviable (thus no demand) at the expense of housing for which there is a proven and identified need.

Further, paragraph 15.10 of the Draft Core Strategy recognises the acute problems of housing affordability in the rural majority of the district. This affordability problem is due to a severe lack of supply. The Council cites environmental constraints as being very influential in setting the levels of housing in Rother (paragraph 7.25 of the Draft Submission Core Strategy). It is therefore not justified that the Council should seek to retain redundant employment land for which there is no proven need.

Consistent with National Policy

Both adopted and emerging national policy seeks to prevent the retention of employment sites and allocations where there is no proven need and require that regard is had to the reuse for alternative uses. Paragraph 75 of the draft NPPF specifically requires regard to be had to market signals in the consideration of the retention of employment land and allocations.

Policy EC3 is not consistent with national policy. Its core function is to require the retention of all existing employment sites regardless of need. Indeed it requires that even when sites are proven to be unviable for employment purposes (invariably due to a lack of demand) employment must be delivered through subsidy resulting from 'complementary enabling development' in order to make the most effective use of the site for employment purposes.

When even this approach is proven to be unviable community uses should take precedence over housing for which the Council's own evidence identifies a need.

This approach is entirely contrary to national planning policy which specifically stipulates that the long term protection of employment floorspace or allocations should be avoided and regard must be had to the need for alternative uses. Emerging policy even requires that regard is given to market signals and the relative need for different land uses.

Moreover the Council states in Paragraph 7.54 of the Draft Submission Core Strategy that brownfield windfall sites have made a significant contribution to delivering housing in the district. The Council anticipates that some 225 dwellings will be delivered on windfall sites up to 228 9Appendix 3). This is in excess of a year's supply of the Council's proposed requirement. Policy EC3 prevents the most likely windfall sites (former employment sites) coming forward for residential development. Thus this policy undermines the Council's own housing delivery strategy.

In the light of the proven need for an increase in supply of housing to meet projected demand and the oversupply of employment land in Rother of some 35 years based on past completion rates, Policy EC3 is entirely inconsistent with the objectives of national planning policy for the following reasons:

* It seeks the long term protection of employment land in perpetuity;
* It does not have regard to the need for all existing employment sites nor does it make provisions for assessing demand;
* It requires the subsidisation of employment floorspace regardless of need;
* It does not make provision for considering the reasonable prospects of sites being actively used for employment purposes;
* It prevents redundant employment sites coming forward for different land uses having regard to market signals;
* It prioritises uses that are over provided for at the expense of housing for which the Council's own evidence base identifies an unmet need.

Conclusions

Policy EC3 is unsound when considered against two of the tests of soundness of PPS12.

The policy is not justified when assessed against the Council's own evidence base which shows a need for significantly higher levels of housing than is planned for, whilst simultaneously having an oversupply of some 35 years of unimplemented employment allocations indicating significantly less demand than is provided for. In this Draft Submission Core Strategy the Council sets out its policy intention to increase employment land supply by a further 16.9 years and reduce the annual housing target by 135 - 121 dwellings per annum than the Council's own SHMA projects is needed.

The Council cites environmental factors as a reason for setting the district's housing targets significantly below what its own SHMA identifies is needed, and below the average annual completion rate since 1996. Yet this policy seeks to retain redundant employment sites suitable for residential development regardless of need, in circumstances where the Council itself admits "housing affordability in Rother is especially acute particularly as a product of high house prices" (paragraph 15.10 of the Draft Core Strategy).

Adopted and emerging national planning policy specifically instructs planning authorities not to retain redundant employment sites and allocations, directing authorities to have regard to alternative uses and market signals. Policy EC3 comprehensively disregards national planning policy. It seeks the long term protection of employment land, even requiring the subsidisation of employment floorspace, which in itself acknowledges potential lack of demand. This policy will only allow the use of redundant sites for housing as a last resort despite the Council's own acknowledgement that housing affordability is acute, invariably due to constrained supply, and the Council's own SHMA points to less housing having been delivered than is needed, and finally despite national planning policy.

Part (iv)

It is not clear how priority would be established for assessing alternative uses of redundant employment sites/premises in relation to community uses, affordable housing and market housing. Furthermore, paragraph 16.23 draws attention to Policy HO2 "regarding the priority of economic potential, rather than affordable housing potential in such situations", however there appears to be no policy HO2 in either part (iii) of the PSCS (Spatial Strategies) or part (iv) (Core Policies) of the PSCS. Therefore, stronger justification and clarification is needed or alternatively, this element of the policy should be deleted..

Whilst it is understood that the Council would wish to make appropriate provision for employment-generating development, it needs to ensure that the right sites, in the right location are identified. It should not simply retain former employment premises on the assumption that they are now in the right location to meet modern day requirements. Indeed, the government has published consultation documents on this matter. Moreover, the draft National Planning Policy Framework also requests councils to take a fresh look at such matters.

Objection is therefore made to the way in which this policy is both worded and applied to certain sites, particularly the land on the eastern side of Winchester Road, Rye. If land is not being used as hoped by the Council, then it should surely consider whether a change of policy is appropriate. To simply retain land for uses such as car parking and car washing, when housing and mixed uses are needed is inappropriate. Whilst it is acknowledged that the policy does contain an element of flexibility, in parts (i) and (iv), these can cause substantial delay in the re-development of land. In particular, councils often require landowners or developers to try to prove that there is little or no demand for their premises. This can result in added cost and avoidable delay, whilst marketing exercises are undertaken.

The Council should, from its own records, knowledge and contact with developers and agents, know what land is required for certain uses- and where these should be. To impose further delay is therefore unjustifiable. Furthermore, the wording of the policy is such that it indicates that the Council has limited knowledge of viability and development economics. For example, if a scheme is not viable, then suggesting that priority be given to affordable housing in preference to market housing is nonsensical. Market housing is likely to generate much more development value and it should not, therefore, be relegated to the bottom of the list of acceptable alternative uses. The effect of such a policy is already clearly demonstrated by sites such as that at Winchelsea Road remaining in an under-used state.

Ticehurst Parish Council would urge RDC to protect commercial premises. The loss of retail outlets in Ticehurst will encourage people to use the new supermarket at Hawkhurst and thus deprive the local shops of vital custom. Any attempt to alter retail/business premises to residential should be resisted. A degree is skepticism with regard to non-profit justification for applications for change of use should be used. Extortionate rents by landlords can lead to empty premises and an application to alter to residential results in a profit for the owner and loss to the community. Hodders Yard in Stonegate was a prime example of this - a commercial offer which would have resulted in a community shop was turned down and the change of use to residential now approved means that the potential of a heart to the centre of Stonegate has been lost.