MOD 7.1

At present the best estimate for housing demand, implied from trend -based household projections, shows a requirement for 9979 dwellings in the period 2011-2028 for Rother. The equivalent figure for Hasting Council is 7493(What House Where. Rother DC SHMA 2013 suggest a figure of 6178 dwellings for its District and 6863 figure for Hasting. Assuming for the moment the Councils figures are correct they have an obligation to meet these housing needs within the administrative boundaries unless they can prove this need is being met by an adjoining authority.

A further consideration is that Hasting BC confirms it cannot meet all its assessed housing needs in its Borough. Based upon its Proposed Modifications it will fall short by some 3200 dwellings. Hasting have indeed asked Rother whether they could accommodate "some or all its current need". Rother has rejected this request based on environmental and infrastructure constraints. However, the option to meet some of the Hasting housing need has not been tested. As a fundamental component of the landscape character of a large part of Rother is that over 80% of the District falls within an AONB. It would therefore seem crucial in any assessment of housing capacity that a robust landscape assessment of all potential SHLAA sites is undertaken to judge the balance between its obligation to give "significant weight to support economic growth"(par 19 NPPF)and to meet its development needs(para 47)set against the "great weight" given to conserve the AONB(para 115). Failure by the Council to undertake a review of its landscape assessment makes the Council's claim that there is no capacity to either meet its own objectively assessed housing need or contribute to those of Hastings need unsound.

It is important to recognise that both Hasting BC and Rother DC have for some time acknowledged that these two authorities operate as a well established "Housing Market Area". It has not attempted to extend its SHMA to other adjoining authorities. It therefore falls upon these two authorities to make ever effort to meet is objectively assessed needs within its SHMA.

Further supporting evidence to this representations:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20562
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20564
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20568
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20569
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20570
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20571
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20572
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20573
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20566
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20567

Replacement paragraph 7.10 is supported because it is based on an up-to-date assessment of housing need derived from the June 2013 'Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update: Housing Needs Assessment' which has had regard to paragraphs 47 and 159 of the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012.

Too large a jump from 4,800 to 6,180.

The proposed text for the new paragraph 7.10 quotes selectively, and omits references to the requirement in paragraph 47 of the NPPF to meet housing needs within the housing market area. It is clear that the Council regard the housing market area as containing both the Rother and Hastings local authority areas, given the decision of these authorities to undertake a joint SHMA, and the reference later in the proposed paragraph to the shortfall in capacity in Hastings Borough. However, as drafted the paragraph doesn't make it clear why the shortfall in capacity in Hastings Borough is relevant, as it makes no reference to the need for housing in Hastings, or to the level of housing which can be delivered within that Borough.

This paragraph should be amended to make clear reference to the housing market area. It should also specify the level of housing required in the housing market area, and the level which the two authorities' emerging Local Plans are set to deliver.

In the SHMA, it states "Although the projected growth in households is expected to come from single person households this does not mean that the majority of provision should be for 1and 2 bed properties. Many small households occupy larger dwellings than they strictly need. Furthermore, satisfying demand for larger property through new development could free up significant volumes of smaller dwellings within the existing stock". This is contrary to NPPF guidance point 7 with regard to social & environmental factors. The question remains that due to the small catchment area as defined by DTZ, who will be able to afford the houses which they may vacate? Poor economic growth and sustainable business models in this area are key factors in housing problems. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) state a rapid growth in zero-hours contracts and has reached over 1 million. Indeed you point out the business to housing problem stating "Whilst the amount of proposed housing development has increased since the above study, this scale of employment land release is still regarded as an appropriate minimum on the basis that it is well above trend-based forecasts". Why build more houses when there are insufficient jobs to sustain and supply such developments? Please publish your exact reasoning!

In order for people to live in Rother, 1-2 bedroom houses are far more affordable than larger sized houses yet as it was described in representation against MOD 12.5, even these are beyond the means of local communities for the large majority.

We are pleased that the document no takes on board the thrust of the new LPPF document and no longer refers to the defuncy South East Plan. The increases in housing supply are welcomed which will aid to create a more prosperous local economy which will in turn be significantly beneficial to local communities.

MOD2.2 The inserted text is welcomed but we see no necessity for the final sentence which makes reference to the South East Plan which is no longer applicable, by referencing it as a document only causes unnecessary confusion. Future infrastructure investment should now be based on the new LocalPlan. The final sentence should be deleted.

MOD 7.1 The new reference to the 4,800 dwellings as set out in the South East Plan is unnecessary.

MOD 7.5 The increased supply to at least 5,700 is to be welcomed.

MOD-7.6 We seek to alter the proposed paragraph 7.30 as follows: (changes in CAPS)

7.30 This growth is justified primarily in terms of COMPLYING WITH THE NPPF TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY AND contributing to the projected demand for new homes, as well as in meeting the local need for housing and the need to support economic regeneration. The possibility of further opportunities for sustainable housing (as well as employment) development arising over time is A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY; hence the requirement is expressed as a minimum QUANTUM for the purposes of plan making. These will be further assessed as part of site allocations/neighbourhood planning processes.

MOD 7.9 With regard to the additional sentence; please consider adding 'modest' prior to 'potential' and insert 'detailed' prior to 'assessment'.

MOD 7.10 Please delete the additional modification as it is not necessary.

MOD 7.12 The increased housing provision figures at 5,700 are welcome as a minimum provision.

MOD 7.13 After the words 'sites are assessed' please add 'or subject to planning applications'.

MOD 7.14 Figure 8; the increase for the Villages to have 1,670 dwellings is welcomed.

MOD 7.18. At the proposed paragraph 7.57 the Council is taking windfalls into account. In terms of making an assessment of the 5 year land supply, is the Council making an allowance for the non­ implementation of planning permissions. We suggest that a percentage figure based on evidence be used in order to have a fair methodology.

MOD 8.5. Add on to the modification 'and that this delivery rate will be monitored on an annual basis'.

MOD 8.7. Delete 'support' or 'deliver' and add on to the final sentence 'or to allocate fresh housing land via planning permissions or alternative allocations'.

MOD 8.10. Delete 'marginal but critical' for 'strategically important'.

MOD 9.1 We object to the inclusion of the modification and seek that it be deleted.

MOD 12.4. We support the additional dwelling supply.

MOD 12.6. After 'Neighbourhood Plans', please add on 'or newly approved planning permissions'

This Main Modification 7.1 is unsound because it is ineffective. The amended Core Strategy and in particular this Modification do not sufficiently emphasise two important criteria for the planning of housing developments:

(a) the development should avoid damaging the quality of the countryside immediately surrounding the curtilage of a town. This criterion is frequently highlighted in the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and in particular applies to Battle;

(b) the development should avoid placing additional pressure on town facilities such as car parks, roads and shops, unless there are specific remedies for that additional pressure. Battle is an example of a town with traffic and parking congestion as well as insufficient space for additional supermarkets. Expansion of housing at its periphery will either produce unremedied problems; or the remedies if implemented will adversely alter the character of the town.

The NPPF requires the Council to provide for the objectively assessed housing needs of the local population and does not require the Council to make provision for regional housing needs (paragraph 159). The Council should clearly distinguish between the objectively assessed needs of the local population and the regional housing need, in accordance with the consultant's independent advice and the nature of the Council's obligation under the NPPF. Neither the modification nor the decision-making process leading to the modification appears to make a distinction.

The Sustainability Appraisal presented to the Council in support of the modified housing numbers on 8 July 2013 states the Council has rejected the application by Hastings Borough Council to develop housing in Rother to offset Hastings' shortfall (paragraph 3.4.7). The Council's decision to increase housing numbers to 5700 was therefore based on the assumption that 6100 additional dwellings were required by Rother District to meet its own objective assessed housing needs and this figure was unrelated to Hastings' shortfall. However, neither this 6100 figure nor the modified housing number of 5700 is supported by the objectively assessed evidence of Rother's housing need based on its social and economic factors.

The summary of the consultant's findings in the Sustainability Appraisal is also unclear and advice material to the decision-making process was omitted from the report and not followed.

The modified net additional district housing figure of 5700 is therefore unjustified and the decision-making process was not legally compliant.

There is a consequential objection to all modifications which are related to the modified district-wide housing figure which are modifications: MOD 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15, 7.16, 7.18, A3.1, as well as the settlement specific number modifications and in particular the villages related number modifications MODs: 12.1, 12.4 and 12.5.

The Revised Housing Requirement
Proposed Modification Nos. MOD 7.1, 7.5, 7.6, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 and 7.15

1. These representations (TCPS Representations No. 1), relate to Rother District Council's proposed revision to the housing requirement set out in the schedule of Main Modifications dated August 2013.

2. The updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment published in June
2013 states that, based upon East Sussex County Council's 2011 demographic projections, there is a need for 6,180 more homes in Rother District (363 dwellings per year- dpa) over the 2011 - 2028 Plan period. Within the 'HOUSING Market Area' there is a combined need for 13,000 new homes (767 dpa) needed within both Rother District and Hastings Borough (6,860 new homes- 404 dpa) over the same period.

3. Modification numbers 7.5, 7.12 and 7.13 states that "at least 5,700 dwellings (net)" will be provided within the District between 2011 - 2028. This leaves however, a shortfall of some 480 dwellings (8%) compared to the assessed need in the District.

4. Within Hastings Borough, draft Policy DS1 of the Borough Council's Proposed Submission version of 'The Hastings Planning Strategy' states that "3,400 net new homes" will be provided during the period 2011 - 2028 leaving a shortfall of some 3,460 dwellings (50.4%) compared to the assessed level of need. In the Borough Council's 'Proposed Main Modifications' published in May 2013 (which were recently the subject of a further Public Examination), there is no proposal to increase the housing supply notwithstanding the significant shortfall.

5. Thus, within both Rother District and Hastings Borough there will be a combined shortfall of some 3,940 dwellings over both Plan period compared to the assessed need. This raised two important questions; Firstly, what further scope is there for Rother District to meet more of its assessed need and secondly, what scope is there for also helping to meet some of the shortfall from neighbouring Hastings Borough (given that it is situated within the same Housing Market Area). Indeed, it is understood that the Borough Council has asked the District Council if it could accommodate some or all of this deficit (see paragraph 7 of the District Council's 'Summary Appraisal of Sustainable Housing Growth').

6. Draft Policy OSS1 of the District Council's Proposed Submission Core
Strategy (August 2011) put forward a requirement for an additional 3,700 - 4,100 dwellings (net) during the Plan period, but this has now been increased to "at least 5,700 dwellings" in the Proposed Modifications. The Council indicate that this has been achieved principally by re-evaluating the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in its 2013 update "largely on the basis of greater weight given to housing objectives" (MOD 7.4- para 7.22).

7. The updated (June 2013) SHLAA assesses a potential supply (at 1st April
2013) of 6,139 dwellings over the Plan period (including 275 completions between 2011 - 2013). This is 439 dwellings more that the Council's proposed modification requirement of at least 5,700 dwellings, suggesting that there is scope to increase housing provision in the District to a figure of at least 6,139 dwellings, which would be closer to the assessed housing need figure of 6,180 dwellings in the District over the Plan period. There would still be a significant housing need shortfall within the Housing Market Area, but this would help ensure that the District Council at least meets its own projected need as far as possible.

8. Whilst the Council argue that "the potential for further growth elsewhere is seen as impacting increasingly, and significantly, on environmental designations, most noticeably on the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald AONB" (MOD 7.4- para 7.23), no background evidence has been produced to support this claim other than the generalities contained in the updated Sustainability Appraisal. Indeed, the Council also states ''the possibility of further opportunities for sustainable housing (as well as employment) development arising over time cannot be ruled out, hence, the requirement is expressed as a minimum for the purposes of plan making. This will be further assessed as part of the site allocations/neighbourhood planning process" (MOD 7.6- para 7.30).