MOD 7.4

The Councils Sustainability Appraisal 2013(SA)only considers two options; one for its housing figure of 5700; and the second for the SHMA figure of 6180. It does not consider the third option of attempting to meet some of Hasting housing needs.

It fails to do so because it lacks the appropriate evidence in the form of a Landscape Capacity Assessment which could highlight capacity at sustainable market towns within the District. The lack of this information also impairs its robust assessment of its ability to meet its own SHMA needs.

The SA 2013 report considers two options. Option B3 figure of 5700 dwellings(335pa)and Option B4 figure of 6180 dwellings(363)which represents its current SHMA.

The additional figure of 480(28pa)required to meet the SHMA is however considered to have greater impact on the District over the plan period. However when you compare this against the Scale of Growth proposed in the Deposit Plan(SA 2008)under Option 2 (SE Plan figure of 280pa+ 25% = 350 pa)it suggest a significant impact compared to the Option B(SA 2013)figure of 335pa. Indeed the current SA suggests at the level of 335 pa many of the sustainable objectives are neutral yet in 2008 a figure of 350 pa was found to have a significant impact hence it was rejected. The SHMA 2013 report suggests a figure of 363 dwellings pa needed as a minimum to meet its housing needs. In reality this is only 480 dwellings(28pa)more than the Council now feel is sustainable. Much of the commentary made between Option B3 and B4 in the 2013 SA is exactly the same implying little if any significant change between these Options. What is needed is an assessment which attempts to define the "tipping point" in landscape capacity where housing numbers would have a " significant and demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits" when measured against the 3 dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

The insert paragraph 7.22 claims that it recognises that a higher housing figure is achievable largely by giving greater weight to meeting its housing objectives. Yet also claims that to deliver the additional 480 dwellings needed to meet its objectively assessed housing needs would be unsustainable. However the evidence for this claim is not available in particular the capacity for settlements in the AONB to contribute further towards meeting this need. This is an important component of the Councils evidence base when you appreciate the Council consider further options to expand Bexhill limited in housing market terms and has transport capacity constraints.

At present we have a Council unwilling to meet its own housing needs nor carryout the appropriate assessments that could enable it to contribute towards meeting its Strategic Housing Market needs.

Further supporting evidence to support this representation can be accessed here: 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

Mod 7.4 MAIN MODIFICATION NOT LEGALLY COMPLIANT:
The sustainability report for the rural areas is not sufficiently detailed to give a proper assessment of sustainability of additional housing in each individual village.

MAIN MODIFICATION NOT SOUND:
The sustainability report for the 'rural areas' cannot be said to support the level of housing. This report is not sufficient for the level of development proposed for the villages. A separate report for each of the villages where substantial numbers of houses are proposed must be produced as each village will have its own set of problems. This work must have been carried to enable RDC to produce the 'global' rural areas report. To amalgamate their problems in this way is of detriment to the villages and shows a lack of concern from RDC for their quality of life. 3 areas of special concern in this document are:
1) Flooding : This information is vital for villages like Robertsbridge which has severe problems with flooding even with the flood defences built. Robertsbridge is built in a valley with the river Rother running through the middle. The flood defences were built to cater for current housing levels and protect the centre of the village. However, houses on the slopes are now also vulnerable with rain water running down the roads, into housing estates and causing damage to fences and houses. To build on greenfield sites, thus increasing the run off from additional housing would only make this problem worse. I submit as evidence copies of photographs of the flooding in 2001 which show the extent of the problem.
2 : 'Live in a sustainably built and affordable home'. I submit, as evidence, an e-mail from Keiran O'Leary a housing development officer at RDC. This shows that for local people on local wages, there is still little chance of affoding their own home and being left with only a rent option. In my conversation with Mr O'Leary prior to this e-mail, he admitted that the 'London factor' would stop most local people being able to purchase a property even if labelled affordable.
3 : 'Improve the health and well-being of the population....' Increased housing will not change the health of the population. Developers may offer a new doctors surgery as part of their plans, but without extra medical staff to work in them, then the health of the residents of a village would be worse not better. Analysis should have been done regarding the number of new houses/residents per doctor or nurse to ensure that current residents are not penalised. Currently, some residents in Robertsbridge (elderly or not) have to travel to Battle to see a doctor.

Further supporting evidence was submitted with the representation and can be accessed using the following link:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20594

The premise that a higher level of development could not be accommodated within the rural area has not been proven in the updated evidence. We note in our representation on proposed modification 12.6 that the additional text which is proposed to follow Figure 12 would seek to restrict the level of development in the rural area if 'previously unidentified' sites were to come forward in advance of a site allocations DPD.

We understand that these 'previously unidentified' sites would not have been identified in the Council's latest SHLAA. We also understand that the proposed housing requirement figures for the villages, set out in the proposed replacement version of Figure 12 (proposed modification 12.5) are closely modelled on the suitable, achievable and deliverable sites the Council have identified in their SHLAA. Should additional sites be granted planning permission, they would also by definition be suitable, achievable and deliverable sites, and their presence alongside the SHLAA sites would indicate that there were more such sites in the rural area than the Council currently believe to be the case, and therefore than the capacity for development is also greater.

This would in turn imply that it would be possible to deliver a greater level of housing in the rural area than is currently anticipated, without unacceptable harm with regard to environmental factors. We support the Council's proposal for the new housing target to be a minimum figure (proposed modification 7.6). It is consistent with this principle that the Local Plan should anticipate that more development may come forward in the District as a whole, and we believe most probably in the rural area, through windfall sites. This development should not be restricted by any provisions within the plan, as to do so would be contrary to paragraph 47 of the NPPF, which requires local authorities to meet the full housing needs of the housing market area. The plan does not do this at present, and any means by which this may be achieved should not be discounted.

In 7.4 it reads "This most recent Appraisal supports the planned level of housing growth, recognising that it is higher than that previously proposed, largely on the basis of the greater weight given to housing objectives".

What objectives are these? Please state these in full! These are clearly undefined and so without proper and complete identification of such objectives no weight can be given to such a statement and therefore is open to debate under NPPF guidance.

Bovis Homes Ltd have established a stake in the Trinity College owned land at North East Bexhill (Glovers/Worsham Farms) proposed in the Adopted Local Plan for strategic growth (Adopted Local Plan Allocation BX2).

Bovis Homes Ltd have carefully considered the Council's proposed modifications issued in the Schedule of Main Modifications document (August 2013) and the implications the proposed modifications have for the future development of the urban extension at North East Bexhill (Local Plan Allocation - BX2).

Bovis Homes Ltd can support the proposed modifications and consider them to be sound. In particular, Bovis Homes Ltd are in support of the modifications confirming the Council's positive approach to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development and its intention to deal promptly and approve development schemes that accord with the Local Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Mod 2.1).

Bovis Homes Ltd also supports the modifications confirming the funding of the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (Mod 4.1); and understands the Council's clarifications regarding the revocation of the South East Plan and its housing targets (Mod 2.2).

Bovis Homes Ltd accepts the Council's conclusion that the housing levels should be set at a level which is considered sustainable, in terms of balancing jobs and growth and taking into account transport infrastructure and impacts on the environment etc. (Mod 7.4). Bovis Homes Ltd therefore supports the modifications increasing the amount of housing to be delivered in the District over the plan period from 3,700-4,100 to at least 5,700 dwellings between 2011 and 2028 (Mod 7.5); and the Council intention to positively support an increase in house building rates (Mod 7.6). Bovis Homes Ltd strongly supports the Council's confirmation that the revised housing figures should be considered minimum targets to achieve, rather than rigid development ceilings (Mod 7.12).

Bovis Homes Ltd particularly supports the Core Strategy's continued emphasis on focusing growth on the town of Bexhill and in particular the urban extension at North East Bexhill; and the revised housing figures for Bexhill: 3,100 dwellings (Mod 7.14).

For the record, Bovis Homes Ltd can confirm that an agreement has now been reached with Trinity College, owners of Glovers/Worsham Farms to prepare and submit a planning application for at least 1,200 homes on the BX2 site, as soon as reasonably practical. The current intention is to submit a hybrid planning application early in the second half of 2014 with the first phase of development to be considered 'in detail' in order to accelerate the delivery of homes once consent has been issued. The scheme's anticipated determination date is early 2015, and the scheme's commencement date is expected to be later in that year. The timetable is related to the construction and delivery of the Hastings to Bexhill Link Road and the recently permitted 'Gateway Road/junction', which will provide the main means of access for the residential site, and the adjacent commercial site to be delivered by Sea Change Sussex (previously SeaSpace). The development trajectory for the residential site is approximately 125 dwellings per year, subject to market conditions.

Bovis Homes Ltd are meeting with the Council's Planning Team to agree a programme to bring forward the planning application's preparation and determination in an efficient and timely manner.

My objections to the Main Modifications relate to:
MOD 2.1 P.6
MOD 7.4 p.31
MOD 7.11 p.34
MOD 12.4 p.80

My objections are as follows:
* The Main Modifications to the plan would make it incompatible with the overall policy. They do not take account of local needs, the allocation is disproportionate in relation to other areas in the district and the numbers do not relect the real situation in terms of additional dwellings in the village.
* The numbers identified in the Modification to Figure 12 is disproportionate and not justified in relation to allocations to other areas in the district.
* The requirement in the Policy to meet local needs and ensure that development is in line with the character and sustainability of services is not reflected in the Modification to the Plan, in relation to Figure 12. Due account has not been made to:
*windfalls
*services in the village - there are no primary school places available in the village, there is no access to medical services, the roads are under severe pressure due to traffic to and from Bexhill to Battle Station (due to poor service on the line from Bexhill), there has already been a fatality, broadband link up is extremely poor due to the village being at the end of the line and the village experiences electricity supply failures quite frequently.

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.