QUESTION 8: Which option for the supply of affordable housing is most appropriate to ensure a sufficient supply of affordable homes without prejudicing the viability or deliverability of development?

Adopt option C. Affordable housing must be physically intermingled with market housing - encourages builders to build to a good standard for all and reduces the prejudicial 'ghetto' effect that can arise from large areas of affordable housing.

Option B is consistent with national planning policy and guidance.

What process will be applied to the allocation of any 'Housing Association' new homes built? How can I see the relevant policy documents?

Option C.
Provides opportunity for small, high value, site development to contribute to wider housing provision funding.

Option C

Comments by Rye Town Council on the Rother DC Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) (Local Plan)


1.The 2014 Core Strategy recognised that it needed a Development and Site Allocations Plan [DaSA Plan] (up to 2028) to identify the sites required to meet its provisions and to elaborate certain policies. It would need to tackle two specific issues affecting dwellings: to consider adjusting existing development boundaries to reduce the constraints on meeting targets; to address the shortfall of deliverable sites against the 5-year target.

2. It is noted that the DaSA Plan records the preferred sites across Rother District in two categories:

- sites where no Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is being made
- sites identified in Neighbourhood Plans; Rye is in this category.

4. Rye Town Council has considered the DaSA Plan in its three parts.

- It has NOTED Part A - the Context: (the Core Strategy), with its development requirements (not for review), and related policies. Where NPs are being prepared these are listed (Rye is listed).
- It COMMENTS on Part B - Development Policies as below. Many of these draft policies affect the RNP. Some have argued that it would have been useful to have had these as Rye was drafting its RNP, but we are where we are. We have been specifically encouraged to consider the definitive housing requirements for the Rye Neighbourhood Plan area (Rye targets have already been reconciled by Rother officers) and the policies for Development Boundaries and "Gaps".

- It has NOTED Part C - There are the Site Allocations for those parishes where no NP is being made. The only site allocations in this section relating to Rye are in Rye Harbour which we have considered in the RNP. Also there is discussion of traveller sites including one in Rye.

5. Whereas we had, at first sight, presumed that Part B might conflict with the emerging Rye NP, this is not the case. As agreed, here is the Rye TC comments in consolidated form on the three parts of DaSA.

The Rother District Development and Site Allocations Local Plan

Part A - Neighbourhood Plans (NP) - Rye NP is listed as being drafted. Version 8 emerging plan is on the website. www.ryeneighbourhoodplan.org.uk
Rother Officers have reconciled numbers in the RNP with the DaSA.

Part B Q1 - Water Efficiency -Support approach: adopt standard through Bldg Regs

Part B Q2-4 - Suggest Rye Harbour for turbines and biomass. Solar panels are not mentioned and could be fitted to large industrial and educational buildings in Rye. Support approach - should adopt national guidance standards.

Q5 - Retention of sites of social or economic value - Support approach and proposed criteria for retentions.

Q6 - Equestrian development - Support approach - as drafted

Q7 - Affordable Housing - Support Option B, in line with PPG (None under 10; 30% over 10 dwellings)

Q8 - Access to housing and space standards (Older people) - Support Option E

Q9 - 10 - Custom and self-build housing - 1% of target of 160 houses= 2 for Rye Rye could support 5 homes which is around 3%. Support Option D; a site is identified in Rye NP

Q11 - External residential areas - Support proposed policy

Q12 - Extensions to residential gardens - Support proposed policy

Q13 - Extensions and alterations, including annexes - Support proposed policy

Q14 - Boundary treatments and accesses -Support proposed policy

Q15 - Shopfronts and advertising - Strongly support proposed (more prescriptive) policy

Holiday Sites - Support proposed policy

Q16 - Existing Businesses and Sites - Support proposed policy

Q17 - Landscape and AONB - Support proposed policy

Q18 - Strategic Gaps - Rye-Rye Harbour to be extended Support the proposed definition of strategic gap, but given the unique nature and profile of Rye could be extended to gaps on the Eastern and Western approaches: New Road, Military Road and New Winchelsea Rd

Q19 - Bio diversity and Green Space - Support the policy approach

Q20 - Drainage - Support the policy approach

Q21 - Land Stability - There is a risk of (sandstone) rockfall around Rye. The rock structure is of similar composition to cliff structure of Fairlight / Pett . The risk locations include East, South and West Citadel; land above Military Rd and at Cadborough. Rye should be specifically identified and a similar policy applied to land at risk above and below where historical falls have occurred. Propose inclusion of Rye as for Fairlight and Pett Level

Q22 - Environmental Pollution - Support policy approach

Q23 - Comprehensive Development -Support policy approach

Q24 - Development Boundaries - The RNP proposes two changes to the development boundary of Rye. Policy approach should cater for this.

Part C - Targets
Rye (and Rye Harbour) Overall Targets: 355-400 dwellings (40 in Rye Harbour), 10-20,000 sqm employment. Dwellings Number Breakdown has been agreed with Rother DC Officers:

Total Completions Large Site Small Site Windfall
355 198 22 6 22
Balance: 107

Rye Harbour - Allocation to Rye Harbour - 40 dwellings - Support policy approach; as directed by Rother DC, and for historical reasons, the RNP has text covering the target of 40 dwellings in Rye Harbour (Icklesham Parish)
The 40 are included in the Rye target of 400 as above.

Traveller sites - Traveller Site - Rye Gritting Depot is listed but not a preferred option - Support policy approach

Would favour the policy that maximizes affordable homes in rural areas.

Prefer Option C - any scheme 5 units and below probably wouldn't be viable if contributions were required, so this in turn could reduce the number of schemes/homes been built

I would prefer to see option A in villages where most sites are likely to be small - this is where affordable housing is needed but development may not trigger the requirement for on-site affordable provision. However, option A would likely trigger challenges so option C would be better. However, developers should pay the financial contributions for developments of 6-10 a certain time after building begins (not when all houses finished). Not paying until all houses finished could make developers complete all but one house.

the more contributions the developer has to make to affordable homes the more he has to load on the price of the development you are therefore skewing ALL developments to a few of the high value rather than smaller more basic more affordable units for ordinary families, to try to get a few "affordable" homes paid for. you should be forcing a mixture of 2 and 3 bed semi/terraced homes in all developments, not just 5 bed executive detached, the market will determine that these are "more affordable"

We believe that the need for affordable housing in the rural areas is the greatest housing need facing Rother and so want to achieve the maximum return for rural areas. So of the options on offer, we wish for Option C, but wish it to be known that we regard the provision of actual homes better than a financial contribution for schemes of 6-10 dwellings. Even if such financial contributions are obtained, their use must be ring fenced to be within the rural part of Rother.

In order to better evaluate the problems of affordability for housing in Rother, it would be necessary to have a further breakdown of the Rother ratios between Bexhill and the rest of the District: is this available?

Recommend option C - amend thresholds to meet NPPF and seek financial contributions on 6 - 10 houses.

I would prefer Option A.
Affordable housing is probably the biggest problem in villages, anything which removes any requirement for this, or reduces the amount required to be delivered should be disregarded. There must be a good enough case to argue against the reducing of affordable homes for our area.
RDC should not be afraid to 'rock the boat' and stand up for what is really required in this area.
After all, no affordable homes means no local business or services as no one who does not work in London will be able to afford to live here.

Rye Conservation Society strongly supports option C but would like to see the affordable contribution retained for use within the relevant Rye and Rye Rural Parish Cluster

Whichever option is chosen, the plan should allow for small self-build sites.
Neighbourhood plans are consistently proposing small sites (10 or less) as the maximum in villages - a development of 30+ houses is large in the context of a village in the AONB. Therefore, the policy should take account of the need for smaller developments.

In the SRNP we recognise the key need for affordable dwellings to maintain the sustainability of the community. In our Policy HO6 we are proposing that any development of 6 or more houses should provide on-site 40% minimum affordable housing. We also do want to ensure that all the affordable provision is made in our village, given that a financial contribution if allowed, may mean the housing is provided elsewhere, to the detriment of this village. Of the options given, we therefore select Option C as being the closest to our principles.

Any policy in this area should recognise the reality of the problems of affordability of the housing market in Rother, that particularly in the AONB area, there is pressure caused because of the simple lack of availability as well as pricing. We would wish to see as many affordable dwellings as possible. Zone 1 of your own CIL charging map would seem to be the appropriate proxy for the highest level of contribution of affordable homes, which should all be actual provision of housing, not a financial contribution which may then be used to build affordable homes elsewhere.

Also we would urge for consideration a different threshold; instead of 40% of dwellings, it could be 30% of bedrooms. The reason for this is that in too many examples of developments with a requirement of 40% dwellings as affordable, they are provided by one bedroom flats which is not the type of housing provision required in rural communities, which is in fact two bed-roomed houses.

Support Option C with the proviso that contributions from the rural areas should be ring fenced to provide exception needs housing for the individual rural communities, preferably via a community Land Trust to ensure local control.

Policy option B is preferred. There is a disconnect between RDC's housing policy and its Core Strategy. The Core Strategy attempts to increase affordable housing in isolated rural areas without good public transport or shopping facilities whilst the housing policy seeks to relocate persons from Bexhill to rural areas. Thereby taking
individuals from a well serviced town to poorly serviced isolated areas whilst at the same time by virtue of the bidding system placing those who live and work in rural areas not able to locate near where they live and work. The combined cost of the CIL in Northern Rother and the cost of the affordable housing requirement of 40% will suppress housing delivery as the combination of the two costs will reduce developer profitability by approximately 1/3rd which will drive developers to more profitable areas with a lower affordable housing requirement. Policies need to be dovetailed to allow people who work in or near their village to be able to easily access affordable housing but equally importantly low cost starter homes for those
unable to meet the housing list requirements but who are still unable to afford market price housing in rural villages.

The Council should follow the National Planning Practice Guidance and adopt Option C. There is no special justification for Rother District to adopt more rigorous requirements as set out in Options A and B, which if introduced together with the additional financial development constraint imposed by CIL will stall much needed open market housing to add to the low level of existing supply in the District.

We support Option C.

However, we encourage a higher percentage of affordable homes than the legal
requirement.

We note with approval the following clause in the 2015 RDC HECA Report:
Measures we are taking to improve energy efficiency in new affordable homes.

Rother District Council remains committed to increasing the energy efficiency of all new affordable homes. This is currently achieved by imposing Developers and Registered Providers, a minimum planning policy requirement - that requires all new affordable homes to achieve a minimum sustainable code level three or above.

Reluctantly agree that Option C is appropriate, although regret Central Government's amended PPG necessitating what is in effect a watered-down policy.

Affordable housing: policy option B is preferred. There is a disconnect between RDC's housing policy and its core strategy. The core strategy attempts to increase affordable housing in isolated rural areas without good public transport or shopping facilities whilst the housing policy seeks to relocate persons from Bexhill to rural areas, thereby taking individuals from a well serviced town to poorly serviced isolated areas whilst at the same time by virtue of the bidding system placing those who live and work in rural areas not able to locate near where they live and work. The combined cost of the CIL in northern Rother and the cost of the affordable housing requirement of 40% will suppress housing delivery as the combination of the two costs will reduce developer profitability by approximately 1/3rd which will drive developers to more profitable areas with a lower affordable housing requirement. Policies need to be dovetailed to allow people who work in or near their village to be able to easily access affordable housing but equally importantly low cost starter homes for those unable to meet the housing list requirements but who are still unable to afford market price housing in rural villages.

Q.1
The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is based on the Core Strategy (CS). The CS was approved in 2014 but is based on earlier data, in particular the ONS population projections for 2011 which have now been overtaken by those for 2014. The CS inspectors report noted that the objectively assessed requirement for Rother of 338 households per annum based on ONS 2011 was significantly less than that based on 2008 "How Many Homes" model (584 households per annum). The Inspector, having considered evidence from the RTPI Research Report No.1 Jan 2014 advised that if the economy improved significantly it could lead to higher levels of housing need. The publication of the 2014 ONS population data has proved that need has increased. The CS Inspector's conclusion that the CS was sound was based on the need for the Council to review this matter and to ensure that the CS was up to date. This has not happened.
The Sustainability Appraisal has not considered this increased need and has merely relied on the CS requirement. Consequently the SA is inadequate and should be revised. This is likely to result in an increase in the requirement above that identified in the CS which should be reviewed. A sites allocation document based on levels of housing requirement which are inadequate will not be sound.

Q.8
Option B is preferred on the basis that the delivery of sites for all housing types should be the priority and this option would achieve that objective.
Q.78
Site NO7 and NO8 are preferred.
As set out in the response to Question 1 the current housing requirement for Rother is not met by either the Core Strategy or the proposals in the Local Plan. More housing will be required and Northiam is a sustainable location with schools, shops, bus service and other amenities.
Amendments to the boundaries of NO7 and NO8 have been made, see attached drawing, in order to overcome landscape objections as set out in the SHLAA analysis of these sites. NO7 is now confined to the redevelopment of redundant farm buildings which will give an improvement to the natural beauty of this area of AONB by the replacement of unsightly and dilapidated buildings with those of high quality design and additional landscaping. NO8 will now provide a completed of the street scene along Dixter Road.
Both sites are well related to the services as they lie adjacent to the centre of the village and consequently represent better potential for non-car use than other sites considered as part of the SHLAA.
It is expected that NO7 would deliver 6 units and NO8 would deliver 15 units. The access to NO7 is considered adequate in respect of the numbers of units now proposed.
Additional supporting information was submitted and can be viewed here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28107

Older Peoples Housing (Adult Social Care)

HOUSING Page 35

We agree with the District Council's preferred option of C. This option will prioritise the delivery of affordable homes but with the understanding that schemes under 6 units will struggle to be viable if a contribution of affordable homes is required.

Affordable Housing
5.1 Three options are proposed for affordable housing delivery. Whichever option RDC takes in the DaSA, there are two key considerations to bear in mind:

* The written ministerial statement and subsequent update in the PPG resisting affordable housing contributions on developments of 10 or less units;
* Development Viability.

5.2. Option A is to retain the Core Strategy requirements for affordable housing provision. However, the DaSA is clear that this does not accord with the PPG. The Plan would therefore be subject to challenge unless there is sufficient up to date evidence to show that the requirements are locally justified. It is considered that Option A would be a risk for RDC and could have detrimental effects in the long term for affordable housing delivery if successfully challenged during the Plan period.

5.3. Options B and C reflect the PPG and the most up to date Government advice on affordable housing. These options are unlikely to prejudice or discourage smaller developers from coming forward with smaller housing schemes and would potentially help to boost the supply of housing in the short term. If a discretionary application of financial contributions is to be applied, RDC would need to undertake detailed research into all areas of the District in order to demonstrate specific locations where this would be applied and the reasons for it. Essentially, options B and C should be considered further and RDC needs to review affordable housing requirements against expected population changes and anticipated locations for housing growth in order to establish which of the two would be most appropriate.

NCS would apply option C for affordable housing standards
NCS agrees with adoption of internal space standards
NCS agrees with preferred option for accessible & adaptable homes.
NCS would adopt option D,E & F for housing for older people

1. Executive Summary

1.1. These representations are made on behalf of Catesby Estates Ltd in response to the Rother District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Options and Preferred Options Consultation. The Consultation runs until 20th February 2017.

1.2. Once adopted, the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan will sit alongside the adopted Core Strategy (2014) as part of the Development Plan. Although the Core Strategy includes development targets, it does not allocate land to meet these targets, hence the need for a further strategic document. However, the DaSA does not look to allocate land everywhere in the District, and does not look to meet all of the targets, particularly in terms of housing. Rother is relying on designated Neighbourhood Plan Areas to progress allocations in those designated areas, and therefore does not look to include additional allocations in the DaSA.

1.3. In our opinion, this is not the correct approach to take. There is no requirement for a Neighbourhood Plan to be produced, and even if an area is designated, this does not mean that a plan will be progressed to becoming made. Rother should therefore look to allocate, at least some land in these areas, particularly for housing, to ensure that housing can be provided where it is needed most, and importantly, to relieve pressure on the Neighbourhood Plan Groups, who may through no fault of their own, be unable to progress Plans in a timely manner. Without this approach it could well be that some of the most sustainable settlements are without site allocations which would wholly undermine a proper strategic approach to development in the District.

1.4. This representation specifically considers proposals for the area of Battle, in light of the promotion of land at Claverham Way as a housing allocation. No comments are made in this representation in respect of proposed allocations elsewhere in the District, other than in relation to housing numbers where appropriate.

1.5. Land at Claverham Way, referred to as "The Site" throughout this representation, is located adjacent to the defined settlement boundary of Battle and is served by an existing access from the highway. The Site is enclosed by existing built form to the north and west, and by strong planting to the east and south. As is demonstrated in this representation, The Site is in a prime location, with a clear relationship to the existing settlement. Its development would enable a positive contribution to be made to both the natural and built environments through appropriate development proposals.

1.6. The Site is available and suitable for development. Development of The Site is also achievable and can be delivered within the early stages of the Plan Period. It can clearly make a very positive contribution towards housing supply in the area, addressing local housing needs in this sustainable, accessible location, and importantly, help to address the current housing shortfall against adopted Core Strategy Targets.

1.7. It is emphasised that The Site was submitted to the Call for Sites for the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, which formed part of the evidence base to the Core Strategy. The Site was identified as area BA27, and concluded to be unsuitable for development. This representation demonstrates that The Site is in fact entirely suitable for development and can come forward very quickly. The Site would make an essential contribution to the DaSA proposals and the achievement of housing objectives as contained in the Core Strategy.

1.8. In this regard, The Core Strategy sets a requirement for a minimum of 335 dwellings per annum through the Plan Period, which is below the identified Objectively Assessed Need for housing (OAN) of 363 dpa as stated in the 2013 SHMA. In order to ensure that this minimum target is met, it is essential that the best and most efficient use is made of available, deliverable housing sites. The exclusion of The Site from the DaSA proposals does not illustrate that Rother is making the most of the opportunities available to achieve this, or to meeting the diverse needs of its existing and future community.

1.9. As demonstrated in these representations, The Site is in a sustainable location which is capable of accommodating growth. Rother District Council should therefore look to ensure that growth can take place at the earliest opportunity, rather that delaying the process by relying on an emerging Neighbourhood Plan that appears to have stalled. Such an approach is not positive or proactive, and is not considered to sufficiently reflect the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to plan making.

1.10. The development of The Site would meet all requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. It would also secure an appropriate, deliverable housing site that can help to meet objectively assessed housing needs over the plan period, with an appropriate uplift included to accommodate changes in market signals, employment and migration. Through appropriate design, The Site would complement the area and make a very positive contribution towards the community and its long term sustainability. It should clearly be a welcomed addition to the Options and Preferred Options as presented in the DaSA.

2. Introduction

2.1. On behalf of our client Catesby Estates Ltd (herein referred to as "our client"), Savills is responding to the Rother District Council ("The Council" or "RDC") Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Options and Preferred Options Consultation ("the DaSA"). The consultation closes on 20 February 2017. Once adopted, the DaSA will form part of the Development Plan and sit alongside the Core Strategy which was adopted in September 2014.

2.2. The purpose of the DaSA is to allocate land for a range of development types to meet specific targets and requirements set in the Core Strategy. Of most relevance to this representation are proposed allocations for housing. The Core Strategy sets a housing target of 335 dwellings per annum (dpa) over the Core Strategy period (2011-2028). However, due to low early completion levels, this increased to 362 dpa between 2013 and 2028, notably 47% higher than the average past completions in the District (para 7.30 Core Strategy). It is also recognised that the Core Strategy housing target is circa 30 units lower per annum than the Objectively Assessed Housing Need for housing (OAN) in the District as stated in the 2013 SHMA. The Examining Inspector for the Core Strategy noted this, highlighting however that housing targets in the Core Strategy were to be applied as a minimum. The policy was thus, amended accordingly.

2.3. It is wholly relevant that RDC is currently unable to demonstrate an up to date supply of sites, sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against this adopted target. The August 2016 published statement "housing land supply as at April 2016" indicates that RDC can only demonstrate a 3.9 year supply. This is likely to have reduced further since April 2016 and therefore puts RDC at risk unless it can find sufficient land to accommodate the housing growth and needs of the District.

2.4. In this regard, the Government, through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities (LPAs) to plan positively, seeking new opportunities for development that can meet the identified needs of their respective District or Borough. Sufficient flexibility must be applied to allow for rapid change, and plans and decision making should have the goal of boosting significantly the supply of housing, firmly in their sights (see para 47, NPPF).

2.5. To ensure that the requirements of the NPPF are met, and housing is sufficiently provided to meet identified need, Local Planning Authorities ("LPAs") must have an update to date Development Plan that has been informed by an extensive evidence base, formed of various technical studies and reports that have been through a rigorous consultation process and, essentially, justify the proposals within the Emerging Plan.

2.6. Much of the evidence base supporting the Core Strategy remains applicable to the DaSA Consultation.
However, additional documents have been published, including the following:

* Sustainability Appraisal of the DaSA
* Strategic Gap background Paper
* Green Infrastructure Background Paper Addendum
* Water Efficiency Background Paper
* Site Assessment Methodologies Background Paper
* Rother and Hastings Playing Pitch Strategy
* Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Background Paper
* Other evidence, notably that prepared for the Core Strategy

2.7. Very few of these evidence base documents are applicable to this representation, owing predominantly to the content of the DaSA Options and Preferred Options Consultation. However, where applicable, these are referred to and commented upon in light of the DaSA and our client's land at east of Claverham Way, Battle. In particular, reference is made to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013, Assessment of housing need in the Hastings and Rother HMA and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment June 2013.

2.8. Whilst many of the other evidence base documents are not applicable to The Site which is the subject of this representation, we reserve the right to comment further on any of the consultation documents and associated evidence base at a later date.

2.9. This representation looks to comment on the DaSA consultation, and is divided into the following sections:

* Details of the Site
* Review of evidence base
* Review of policies and response to specific questions
* Proposed allocations
* Conclusions

3. The Site

3.1. The Site relates to land located to the east of Claverham Way, Battle, and comprises an open paddock laid to grass. It comprises an area of 3.67 hectares and is bound to the north and west by existing residential development fronting Claverham Way and Tollgates. Access to The Site would be via an existing turning head off Tollgates.

3.2. There are no public footpaths in or immediately adjacent to The Site, with the closest lying to the north extending from the southern side of North Trade Road along a track that leads past Tollgate Cottage (no.57) in an eastwards direction.

3.3. To the east and south, The Site is bound by mature boundary planting comprising a combination of hedgerow and trees. This planting separates The Site from additional parcels of agricultural land.

3.4. The Site immediate abuts the defined settlement boundary of Battle, and as a result, is in close proximity to a diverse range of buildings. This includes, for example, the Battle Sports Centre with associated structures, parking areas and playing fields, the Claverham Community College and a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings. A location plan of The Site is produced in Appendix 1 and Figure 1 below provides an extract of the location plan (not to scale) illustrating The Site's relationship to the settlement edge.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan indicating the relationship with the settlement: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28182

3.5. The Site is not within a conservation area nor does it contain any listed buildings. The closest heritage asset to The Site is the Grade II Listed Lower Almonry Farmhouse (listing ID 1231433), which is located to the north east of The Site, and approximately 95m away (in a straight line from the closest point). Beyond The Site, approximately 600m in a straight line to the east is the Battle Abbey Grade II Registered Park and Garden (listing ID: 1000309) and the Historic England owned Battlefield associated with the 1066 Battle of Hastings (listing ID 1000013). These areas are separated from The Site by a number of fields and Saxon Wood. These areas are beyond the extent of the plan in figure 1.

3.6. The Site, and indeed much of Rother District, is located in the High Weald AONB. It is however subject to no other landscape and heritage designations.

4. Evidence Base

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

4.1. The SHLAA forms part of the evidence base from the Core Strategy and also supports the proposals in the DaSA. The SHELAA is however somewhat out of date and it is questionable whether the site assessments provided some 3 to 4 years ago remain up to date and relevant.

4.2. In this regard it is relevant to this representation that The Site was identified in the SHLAA as site BA27. The SHLAA concluded that The Site was not suitable for development and as a result, it was classified as "red". The assessment stated the following in respect of The Site:

"Not suitable. Although site abuts development boundary, its prominence in the countryside would have an adverse impact on the AONB. Whilst greenfield sites will need to be considered, there are other sites on the edge of the built form which will have less of an impact if developed. ESCC Landscape Assessment supports this conclusion. Excluded primarily on grounds of Policy EN1, OSS1(iii-b), OSS3, OSS4 and OSS5, BA1(i)."

4.3. We cannot agree with the findings of the SHLAA in respect of BA27. There is no evidence to support the assertions regarding impact on the AONB and before The Site is dismissed further review and evidence gathering should be undertaken. Equally, the assessment specifically refers to compliance with policies of the Core Strategy. It does not take into account any local or site specific characteristics which will ultimately determine if a site is suitable for development.

4.4. It is appreciated that the DaSA as it currently stands does not include allocations for housing in Battle. Notwithstanding our view on this approach in general, the SHLAA has helped RDC determine which sites to include as allocations. It will also be used as an evidence base document for emerging Neighbourhood Plans. It is therefore essential that the evidence available is up to date and accurate to ensure that any allocations forming part of the Development Plan, as a whole, are correct.

4.5. On this basis, RDC should undertake a further review of the sites being dismissed in the SHLAA before utilising this information further as part of the DaSA, or enabling Neighbourhood Plan Groups to base their local allocations on what is clearly out of date information.

4.6. It is noted that our client proposes to follow up this submission to RDC with a detailed delivery document for The Site. This will demonstrate that the development of The Site is deliverable, particularly in the context of footnote 11 of the NPPF.
Strategic Housing Market Assessment

4.7. The SHMA was produced in 2013 as part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy and covers both Rother and Hastings Districts. The SHMA indicates that over the Core Strategy Plan Period (2011-2028) a total requirement for 6,178 (rounded up to 6,180) additional dwellings exists, as a baseline figure, based on 2011 census data and the 2013 updated population projections. This equates to an annual requirement for 363 (rounded down to 360) dwellings.

4.8. The Core Strategy housing target does not meet this suggested OAN for the District, falling short over the plan period of circa 400 units. The Examining Inspector for the Core Strategy however noted that the Core Strategy target is a minimum and therefore can be exceeded (para 43) to ensure that the OAN can be met and that the requirements of paragraph 47 of the NPPF are also complied with. For clarity, this states:

"To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
● use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
● identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
● identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;
● for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and
● set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances."

4.9. To ensure that the Development Plan meets housing needs, RDC must ensure that the DaSA allocates sufficient sites to meet the minimum housing targets set in the Core Strategy. As is demonstrated in this representation, RDC does not look to achieve this, relying heavily on the delivery of sites though potential, emerging Neighbourhood Plans. This approach is not considered to be sufficiently proactive and could ultimately affect the ability of RDC to meet its minimum housing requirements over the Plan Period.

4.10. In this regard, NPPF paragraph 182 is entirely applicable, setting out the test of soundness for a Local Plan. This paragraph identifies that an Independent Examiner will consider a Plan to be sound if it meets four specific requirements, namely:

"● Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
● Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
● Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
● Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable
development in accordance with the policies in the Framework."

4.11. In our opinion, an Independent Examiner would be unable to find the DaSA sound against these requirements for the following reasons:

The DaSA is not positively prepared;

4.12. The DaSA specifically excludes proposals for the Parish of Battle (amongst other Parishes) and RDC, instead, relies entirely on a Neighbourhood Plan to meet development needs. There is no guarantee that the Neighbourhood Plan will come forward in a timely manner and subsequently, that the development needs of the Parish will be met. Battle is a highly sustainable market town, and alongside Rye, is the tier growth area in the District, as identified in policy OSS1 (second only to Bexhill). Securing development in this area to meet objectively assessed needs should be a fundamental priority for RDC. However, the approach taken compromises the soundness of the DaSA as it does not provide sufficient certainty that the objectively assessed needs for the area will be adequately met over the Plan Period.

The proposed allocations are not sufficiently justified;


4.13. There is no evidence within the DaSA or associated evidence base to demonstrate that the approach to development in Battle, i.e. to rely on the Neighbourhood Plan, is the most appropriate strategy for the area. RDC has not considered any reasonable alternatives to this approach, such as allocating land in the DaSA, nor has it assessed sites that may have been put forward in the Parish.

4.14. Furthermore, there is no Sustainability Appraisal of the chosen approach for Battle, and so it is not sufficiently clear whether the option to rely on the Neighbourhood Plan for housing and development delivery in Battle, represents the best, and most sustainable, opportunity for the District.

4.15. In our opinion, RDC has missed a fundamental opportunity to secure sustainable new development, to meet the objectively assessed needs of the community, in this sustainable, accessible location, and there is simply no reasonable justification provided for doing so.

The Effectiveness of the Plan;

4.16. The purpose of the DaSA is to ensure that the Core Strategy's development targets are met, through the identification of suitable sites and their allocation. As no proposals are put forward for Battle, it is questionable whether the targets of 475-500 dwellings will be met, particularly in the event that a Neighbourhood Plan does not progress. RDC would have no fallback position, despite the housing target for Battle being increased at the Core Strategy Examination, and the Core Strategy itself clearly identifying that "Battle has a significant local housing need" (para 11.8 - own emphasis added). Equally, the Core Strategy also highlights that housing needs will be met through sites "brought forward in the forthcoming Development and Site Allocations Plan" (para 11.10). Subsequently, the DaSA would be ineffective at achieving its sole purpose of delivering the identified growth for this area and go against the detail of the Core Strategy itself.

Inconsistency with National Policy.

4.17. The DaSA Local Plan is not consistent with the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 14 and 47. It fails to allocate sufficient land to meet, at the very least, the housing targets contained in the adopted Core Strategy; it is not capable of addressing the full identified OAN for market and affordable housing over the Plan Period and it does not identify sufficient sites over the plan period (0-5, 6-10 and 11-15 year periods) to accommodate the minimum level of growth expected. The DaSA does not allow for the delivery of sustainable development in Battle, despite the Core Strategy clearly identifying Battle as a second tier settlement in its overall growth strategy, on par with Rye, and second only to Bexhill.

Sustainability Appraisal

4.18. A Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the DaSA proposals, including its preferred policies and allocations has been undertaken and accompanies the consultation. This assesses the proposed policies and development options against specific sustainability criteria, and each are scored based on their anticipated benefits and / or adverse effects. Table 5 of the SA sets out the scoring used, a copy of which is produced in figure 2.

Figure 2: Extract of table 5 from the SA showing scoring used in Assessment: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28183

4.19. Question 1 of the consultation asks for comments on the SA and its content.

4.20. RDC does not propose any policy or allocation for Battle. As a result there is no SA for this area or of The Site. We do not propose to undertake a full, separate SA of The Site. However, having reviewed the 16 SA objectives, it is considered that The Site would score positively or, at the very least, neutrally, on all of them.

4.21. For example, Objective 1 is to "Ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent sustainably constructed and affordable home." A well designed, residential development of The Site would clearly result in potentially significant beneficial effects against this objective, by providing much needed market and affordable housing, in a sustainable, accessible location. Housing mix could be agreed with the local planning authority to ensure local needs will be met. This would equally address Objective 4 "Reduce deprivation and social exclusion" through provision of a mix of much needed additional housing in the area which would be well integrated into the existing community due to the close proximity and relationship of The Site to the existing settlement.

4.22. In addition, Objective 7 "Improve accessibility to services and facilities for all ages across the district" would also be met, as the provision of much needed housing in this sustainable, accessible location, would enable good connections to existing local facilities and services. Furthermore, in respect of Objective 14 "Conserve and enhance biodiversity" and Objective 15 "Protect and enhance the high quality natural and built environment", an appropriate development of The Site would include areas of green space, additional planting, and biodiversity enhancements that would meet these objectives. Through design, a transition could be created between the natural and built environments ensuring that the character and appearance of the area, including features of local distinctiveness, are improved for the long term.

4.23. By failing to allocate any land for development in Battle, RDC is further compromising the requirement of Objective 9, to "Improve efficiency in land use and encourage the prudent use of natural resources". It places the area at risk of considerable development pressure if the Neighbourhood Plan does not come forward quickly, or indeed, in a timeframe that is otherwise expected by RDC.

4.24. To ensure this objective is met, RDC must allocate suitable sites for development in the Battle Area. This would ensure that land is used as efficiently as possible through agreed housing quantum, mix and density, and help protect other more vulnerable Greenfield sites in remote, unsuitable locations. Such an approach would also, importantly, reflect requirements of the NPPF to boost significantly the supply of housing and ensure flexibility is built into the Plan to allow adaption to rapid change. It would also not prevent an efficient use being made of brownfield land inside settlements and therefore would ensure that natural resources are used prudently.

4.25. On this basis, it is considered that from a sustainability perspective, residential development on The Site would score highly against the SA objectives and should therefore not be excluded from the DaSA on the basis of a potential emerging Neighbourhood Plan which appears to have stalled.

4.26. At this time, we have no further comments to make in this representation on the content of the SA. However, comments may be provided at a later date subject to amendments in future DaSA iterations.

Site Assessment Methodologies Background Paper

4.27. The purpose of this document is stated to provide a consistent and transparent methodology for assessing sites as part of the DaSA proposals. The general approach to determining if a site is appropriate for inclusion in the DaSA is stated to comprise the following key aspects:

* "ensure that it accords with the development strategy contained within the adopted Core Strategy
* be consistent with the 'core', strategic policies of the Core Strategy
* support 'sustainable development' as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and
otherwise is consistent with its policies
* duly consider the deliverability of development
* have regard to the findings of the separate Sustainability Appraisal process"

4.28. The Site has not been assessed by RDC as part of the DaSA Options and Preferred Options. Therefore, whilst at this stage we do not have specific comments on the methodology used by RDC, it is highlighted that had The Site been assessed against these criteria it would have clearly been identified as a suitable site for allocation. As is demonstrated in this representation, The Site is in an accessible, sustainable location, and its development would comply with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained in the NPPF. In addition, the development of The Site would reflect the Core Strategy policies and aspirations, particularly in terms of delivery of housing in Battle.

4.29. In terms of deliverability, the footnote to para 47 of the NPPF states "To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable." The Site would meet this requirement and can come forward quickly.

4.30. There is also no sustainability appraisal for The Site, but, as demonstrated above, had this have been undertaken, the outcome would have been positive, supporting the assertion that The Site should be allocated.

5. DaSA Part B - Development Policies

Question 8: Affordable Housing

5.1. Three options are proposed for affordable housing delivery.

5.2. Option A is to retain the Core Strategy requirements for affordable housing provision. However, the PPG and Written Ministerial Statement prevent contributions to affordable housing (or a sum in lieu) from being sought on sites of 10 or less residential units (or in certain rural areas, 5 units or less), unless in specific circumstances. The DaSA also acknowledges this to be the case. Subsequently, by applying the Core Strategy requirement, the Plan would be in direct conflict with the Government Guidance, and risk challenge unless there is sufficient, up to date evidence to demonstrate a local justification.

5.3. Options B and C reflect the PPG and the most up to date Government advice on affordable housing and should therefore be considered further by RDC. Both Options B and C are unlikely to prejudice or discourage smaller developers from coming forward with smaller housing schemes, and this is particularly relevant in villages where housing will still need to be provided but there are restrictions on the ability to provide new development. For example, the DaSA proposes a restriction on major developments in the AONB. As such, smaller schemes are likely to come forward, and if affordable housing requirements were in place, this would directly affect the ability of those sites to come forward. RDC therefore needs to consider its affordable housing requirements, and associated policy stance, in light of other preferred policies in the DaSA consultation.

5.4. If a discretionary application of financial contributions is to be applied, RDC must undertake detailed research in order to demonstrate that there are specific locations where the discretionary charge would, and should, be applied.

Question 18: Landscape and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

5.5. Two policies are proposed in respect of the AONB, DEN1 and DEN2. DEN1 requires that the layout, siting and design of development maintains and reinforces natural and built landscape character. This element of the policy is not stated to be specific to development in the AONB, but broadly relates to development. In respect of this element of policy, a well designed development proposal can meet the policy requirements. However, it may be necessary for reference to be made to Neighbourhood Plans or local guidance that may otherwise influence the design of development and would need to be read in conjunction with this policy.

5.6. The second part of DEN1 refers to Dark Skies and requirements of DEN6. We have no comments on this element of the policy at this stage.

5.7. Policy DEN2 specifically relates to the AONB, requiring development to conserve and seek to enhance the landscape and scenic beauty, reflective of the AONB management Plan. The policy goes on to require that development is small scale and in keeping with the landscape and settlement pattern, emphasising that major development will be resisted.

5.8. Reiterating the primary purpose of the AONB designation, to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, is a reasonable policy objective. However, the policy should not seek to resist all major development without sufficient justification. Each application, irrespective of its size, should be determined on its own individual merits. There is no policy basis, national or otherwise, for imposing a blanket restriction on major schemes.

5.9. From a housing perspective, a major development is defined as anything above 10 units (The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015). In the AONB, a major development is not to be determined solely against this definition. Instead, it is determined on the size and scale of development in relation to its surroundings.

5.10. Clearly, for larger settlements such as Battle, a development of 10 units is not substantial and the likelihood of a harmful impact being caused on the AONB or its setting is considered slim. Equally, from a landscape perspective, a major development is likely to have greater capacity to provide landscape enhancements that can conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB's landscape. A major development would be likely to result in considerable public benefits, especially the provision of much needed affordable housing, that weighs in favour of the scheme from a sustainability perspective. The opportunities for such benefits to be readily achieved through smaller schemes are comparatively limited.

5.11. The need to protect and enhance the AONB must be balanced against housing and other development needs, and by limiting the opportunity for such needs to be met, RDC risks challenge from speculative applications and appeals that question the broader application of the policy. RDC needs to ensure that it does not leave itself open to such challenge, and this can only be achieved through a more appropriately worded policy.

5.12. In this regard, it is considered that the purposes of the policy would still be achieved if RDC were to instead set out that priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the AONB's natural beauty, and that those submitting planning applications should provide evidence to demonstrate the overall benefits of the scheme, including from a sustainability perspective, and to show that the scheme would not conflict with the aims of the AONB designation. A policy approach of this type would then not unduly restrict all "major" developments, but would more positively enable RDC to appropriately determine all applications in light of their individual circumstances and relationship to the AONB.

Question 21: Sustainable Urban Drainage

5.13. Policy DEN5 requires SUDS to be provided on all development unless it is demonstrated to be
inappropriate.

5.14. The policy should make clear the type and level of SUDS that is expected to be provided, depending upon the size of a site, the development type and the quantum of development proposed. It is essential that this also accommodates the variation in SUDS provision between smaller and larger development sites, and enables options to be chosen that appropriately reflect the cost implications associated with such provision. Presently, the policy proposes a blanket approach to SUDS which may not, in reality be achievable and could prevent developments from coming forward.

5.15. With regard to part (iv) of policy DEN5, RDC needs to clearly set out the "other local plan policy objectives" that the provision of SUDS is meant to achieve. The vagueness of this paragraph provides insufficient certainty to assist Applicants during the preparation of planning applications.

Question 24: Comprehensive Development

5.16. It is not clear from the policy in which circumstances this would be applied and if the policy is specific to strategic development proposals, this needs to be clearly stated.

5.17. It is evident that requiring a comprehensive development to come forward on smaller sites will not always be possible, owing to various reasons including landowner aspirations and objectives. As such, the policy is unlikely to be applicable in and around the villages of the District and RDC must better define the parameters of this policy.

5.18. Securing appropriate funding for infrastructure should be managed through Section 106 Agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (or relevant replacement charging schedule as suggested in the February 2017 White Paper). Reliance cannot and should not be placed on the comprehensive delivery of development, irrespective of their scale, particularly as development of a scale sufficient to require major infrastructure works would typically look to include the works within the scheme.

5.19. On this basis, it may be more appropriate for RDC to rely on existing Core Strategy policies and delivery aspirations for strategic development and associated infrastructure improvements, or alternatively, amend the preferred policy wording for DIM1, so it relates specifically to allocations in the Development Plan.

Question 25: Development Boundaries

5.20. It is considered necessary for this policy to include a review mechanism for development boundaries, particularly in the event that housing targets increase over the Plan Period and there is a need to allocate new sites.

5.21. In addition, for clarity of the policy, the types of acceptable development in the countryside should be made clear either by reference to policy RA3 of the Core Strategy (Development in the Countryside), paragraph 55 of the NPPF, or a list of "appropriate" development.


6. Strategic Allocations

6.1. Part C of the DaSA provides details of the preferred site allocations which are intended to meet the housing and development targets as set out in the adopted Core Strategy.

6.2. The Core Strategy covers the period of 2011-2028 and requires a total of 5,700 dwellings to be provided over this period, equivalent to 335 per annum. As demonstrated above, this figure is already below the OAN for housing in the District over the same period, resulting in a shortfall in housing against the OAN of circa 450 dwellings. The Examining Inspector clearly identified this target as a minimum, requiring modifications to emphasise this. At paragraph 43 the Examiner stated that this minimum target "allows a higher level of provision to be achieved". Therefore, it is clear that RDC should look to treat this as a floor rather than a ceiling to housing provision in the District. This is particularly of relevance owing to RDC's current inability to demonstrate an up to date 5 year housing land supply, with published figures as of April 2016, suggesting a 3.9 year supply exists.

6.3. The DaSA states a requirement of 475 to 500 dwellings in Battle over the Plan Period and this is imbedded in policy BA1 "Policy Framework for Battle", section (iii). The policy wording is of paramount importance to the approach taken in the DaSA to housing allocations, stating that proposals for development and change in Battle will:

"Provide for 475-500 net additional dwellings in Battle over the Plan period 2011-2028, by developing new housing via opportunities both within the development boundary, and modest peripheral expansion opportunities that respects the setting of Battle within the High Weald AONB and supports community facilities;"

6.4. It is worthy of note that Battle has the second highest housing target in the Core Strategy, reflective of its position in the service centre hierarchy contained in the Core Strategy, and in particular policy OSS1. The housing targets are illustrated in figure 3 below (* Village total covers 20 villages in the District).

Figure 3: Table showing the Core Strategy Housing targets for the Plan Period (2011-2028): http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28184

6.5. The DaSA suggests that 50 of the 475-500 dwelling target for Battle have already been completed, are commitments or are windfall. This leaves a minimum target of 425 dwellings to be provided over the remainder of the Plan Period in Battle. These figures differ from those stated in the adopted Core Strategy, whereby paragraph 11.9 suggests that there remains a need for 145-170 dwellings to be provided in Battle over the Plan period. In any event, the quantum remains a minimum standard.

6.6. With specific regard to Battle, it should be highlighted that the Core Strategy Examiner's main modifications including increasing the housing for Battle from 400-440 dwellings to 475-500 dwellings (see para 27 of the Examiner's Report). This clearly emphasises the need for housing in the area to meet demands as they currently exist, and to accommodate a minimum level of expected growth over the remainder of the Plan Period.

6.7. Despite the increased housing target for the town, and the specific wording of policy BA1 (iii), RDC does not propose to allocate any housing in Battle as part of the DaSA. Instead, RDC has chosen to rely entirely on the delivery of housing, and indeed all other development, through a Neighbourhood Plan. This approach is not consistent with the Core Strategy, with policy BA1, or indeed with paragraph 11.10 which firmly states that allocations for housing in Battle will be brought forward through the "forthcoming Development and Site Allocations Plan" and are "likely to require extension to the current development boundary". The DaSA proposal do not correlate with the Core Strategy policies which it is meant to be
implementing, and are therefore not justified for Battle Parish.

6.8. If the Neighbourhood Plan for Battle was progressing at a consistent and steady pace, this may be a more acceptable approach to take, reflecting the Government's intentions to secure local decision making through Neighbourhood Groups. However, as mentioned, there has been very little progress on the Neighbourhood Plan for Battle, with no documented meetings taking place since July 2016, and no further action since the Call For Sites which completed in 2016. There is, therefore, no indication that the Neighbourhood Plan for Battle will come forward quickly and subsequently no foreseeable allocations for this sustainable settlement. More importantly for RDC however, there is no certainty that the DaSA will deliver the Core Strategy housing requirements for Battle and this would risk the Plan being found unsound at examination.

6.9. In order to ensure that the DaSA Plan can be found sound, RDC needs to take a more proactive approach to housing delivery and meeting the OAN. A positive way in which this could be achieved is through the allocation of a reasonable number of deliverable housing site in and around Battle that can come forward within a 0-5 year period. This would allow for some essential housing to come forward during the early stages of the Plan, whilst not discouraging any progression of the Neighbourhood Plan by enabling the Neighbourhood Plan Group to allocate sites for longer term delivery. This would help address current housing needs, show RDC's commitment to meeting the Core Strategy housing targets and provide the time that may be required for a Neighbourhood Plan to be progressed.

6.10. At this time, the Options and Preferred Options DaSA consultation does not illustrate that any such alternative has been considered, and as demonstrated in this representation, the likelihood of the Plan being found sound is considerably reduced.

6.11. This is further emphasised by the findings of the Core Strategy Examiner, who was clear that housing would be significantly boosted through allocations in both the DaSA and Neighbourhood Plans, and that these were "likely to progress more quickly if an adopted CS is in place" (para 45). However, since the Core Strategy was adopted in 2014, there have been no Neighbourhood Plans Made in Rother District. It is therefore clear that reliance on Neighbourhood Plans to provide considerable levels of housing over the Plan Period, and in particular the early stages, is unjustifiable, and will not provide the delivery required to meet the OAN. RDC must subsequently take a proactive approach to housing delivery, as suggested above, and look to ensure that the minimum housing targets of the Core Strategy, are, at the very least, being met by the DaSA.

6.12. The Site which lies adjacent to the settlement of Battle and to the east of Claverham Way, provides an excellent opportunity for housing to be provided in this sustainable, accessible location. Battle is a key service centre within the District. As a market town, it benefits from a range of facilities and services, including a High Street with approximately 110 shops, various convenience stores, local business parks and industrial areas, schools (primary and secondary) and more. The town also has good public transport links and a strong tourist appeal particularly during summer months. The town serves not only those in Battle but those residing in the surrounding area, and is a very sustainable, accessible settlement. This is clearly set out in RDC's own evidence base review of Battle "Battle Town Study" and appropriately reflected in the Core Strategy's approach to directing new development.

6.13. Development of The Site would provide an important addition to the Town. It would assist in meeting the local housing needs and can be delivered within a short period of time. As emphasised earlier in this representation, a delivery strategy will be submitted to RDC to demonstrate that The Site can be delivered in a 0-5 year period.

6.14. Allocation of The Site, in this sustainable, accessible location, would provide RDC with an opportunity to work in partnership with our client to secure an appropriate mix of housing, layout and arrangement of green space, planting and biodiversity improvements that would conserve and enhance both the natural and built environments, including the natural beauty of the AONB. It is clearly very favourable to support development of The Site.

6.15. Battle's importance in the District should not be underestimated, and by failing to allocate any land in the Parish, the DaSA does not serve its purpose of meeting the minimum housing targets in the Core Strategy nor does it conform to national planning policy. The DaSA would not be found sound at present, but through appropriate allocation of land in and around sustainable settlements such as Battle, there remains a chance that the DaSA could be found sound at examination. The Site will assist in meeting the minimum Core Strategy housing target for Battle, and through its allocation, would emphasise RDC's commitment to the delivery of much needed housing, and to achieving the minimum Core Strategy housing targets.

7. Conclusions

7.1. The Options and Preferred Options Consultation document for the DaSA is structured to allow comments to be provided on the various planning policy and development options for the District over the Plan Period of the Adopted Core Strategy. Rother is looking to meet housing and development targets for the District, as identified in the Core Strategy. However, these targets are a minimum, as specifically confirmed by the Examining Inspector's Report. Therefore, RDC should be looking to meet the full housing targets at the very least, and wherever possible exceed them.

7.2. RDC is relying upon the delivery of development through numerous Neighbourhood Plans. However, there are currently no made Neighbourhood Plans in the District suggesting that any housing in these areas is unlikely to come forward for some time. The Examining Inspector's conclusions that housing targets would be met in this way, therefore, is not currently being achieved, some 3 years after the adoption of the Core Strategy.

7.3. Battle is one such area where there are no proposed allocations for housing in the DaSA. This is despite the housing target being high (475-500 units), having been increased by the Core Strategy Examining Inspector. RDC's approach to development in Battle is not considered to be proactive or positively planned, and does not reflect the requirements of the NPPF to boost significantly the supply of housing. In this regard, RDC reliance on Neighbourhood Plans brings into question the soundness of the DaSA.

7.4. It has been demonstrated in this representation that further review is required of land in and around Battle, and in particular our client's site to the east of Claverham Way which provides an excellent opportunity for new housing to be provided. The Site is within a sustainable, accessible location and can make an important contribution to housing delivery in this area, without compromising the character and appearance of the natural or built environment. In addition, any future proposals at The Site can be agreed in partnership with RDC to ensure that the natural beauty of the AONB landscape is conserved and enhanced. The allocation of The Site is clearly favourable and should form a specific part of the DaSA. Other than unjustifiably seeking to rely on a potential emerging Neighbourhood Plan, there is no other practical or logical reason why RDC has not considered this opportunity.

7.5. Consideration has been given to a number of the proposed policies in the DaSA. Where applicable, changes are recommended but overall it is clear that further work, and associated evidence gathering, is required to support the DaSA.

7.6. In conclusion, the DaSA preferred options are overly cautious and fail to take the opportunity to provide essential much needed housing in the District. RDC has focused heavily on issues, such as landscape and visual impact in order to limit the amount of development that can come forward. A more appropriate balance needs to be drawn between the competing interests of the District and RDC has a considerable way to go before the DaSA proposals can be finalised for examination, and ultimately found sound.

7.7. Savills reserves the right to comment further on the DaSA and associated evidence base throughout the plan making processes and future consultations.

Appendix 1: Site Location Plan: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28185

1. Executive Summary

1.1. These representations are made on behalf of The Blue Cross, to the Rother District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Options and Preferred Options Consultation. The Consultation runs until 20th February 2017.

1.2. Once adopted, the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan will sit alongside the Core Strategy as part of the Development Plan. Rother adopted the Core Strategy in 2014. This does not include allocations of land to meet the stated targets, hence the need for a further strategic document (the DaSA) to do this.

1.3. The representations are submitted in light of the promotion of two sites currently owned by The Blue Cross but which are no longer in use for their initial purposes. The first site, the larger of the two, is located in Northiam, and comprises an area of circa 3.9 hectares of land, part of which represents previously developed land. The Site lies adjacent to the existing settlement and formed part of the Blue Cross animal welfare centre which was permanently closed on 14 October 2016. Other land adjacent to The Site is also owned by The Blue Cross but is not the subject of our representations or put forward as a proposed allocation.

1.4. The second parcel of land has an area of circa 0.5 hectares and comprises a grazing paddock adjacent to the settlement of Beckley. Location plans of the two sites are included as appendices to this representation.

1.5. It is emphasised in this representation that both sites were assessed for their development potential in the 2013 SHLAA and in the Sustainability Appraisal of the DaSA. However, neither of the two parcels are shown in the Options and Preferred Options Consultation Document as preferred development sites.

1.6. It is also emphasised that our client was contacted directly by RDC in 2009 enquiring about the availability of the Northiam Site for development.

1.7. The Core Strategy set a requirement for 335 dwellings per annum through the Plan Period. In order to ensure that this target is met, it is essential that the best and most efficient use is made of available, deliverable housing sites. Both parcels of land owned by the Blue Cross offer important opportunities for housing to be provided over the Plan Period. In addition, The Sites would come forward quickly, helping to address housing shortages and the current 5 year housing land supply in the District.

1.8. RDC supports an insufficient level of growth for Northiam, given the high sustainability credentials of the village and the clear capacity of the area to accommodate growth. It is of concern that such opportunities have not been taken or prioritised in areas such as Northiam despite the clear benefits that would accrue, and in light of the NPPF requirement to boost significantly the supply of housing. Allocation of both sites would help to ensure that RDC can meet its objectively assessed need for housing over the Plan Period with a suitable uplift included to accommodate changes in market signals, employment and migration.

1.9. Development of the two sites would meet all requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. They would provide a new supply of housing in a popular location and that is highly accessible for local facilities and a range of public transport modes. Through appropriate design, the sites would complement the character of the area including local distinctiveness of both the natural and built environments. As can be seen on the illustrative Masterplan for the Northiam Site, a considerable area of open space would be provided within the sites, clearly providing additional community and local benefits, including from a social and health perspective. The sites would have an attractive, welcoming environment whilst making the most efficient use of land available.


2. Introduction

2.1. On behalf of our Client The Blue Cross, ("our Client"), Savills is responding to the Rother District Council (herein referred to as "The Council" or "RDC") Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Options and Preferred Options Consultation (herein referred to as "the DaSA").

2.2. The Blue Cross is a leading national pet charity that helps over 40,000 sick, injured and homeless pets every year through its rehoming centres, rehoming network service, animal hospitals, clinics, and shops. As a registered charity and therefore being bound by the Charities Act 2011, Blue Cross is obliged to seek professional advice prior to the sale of any land and in doing so to obtain the best possible value.

2.3. The DaSA consultation closes on 20 February 2017. Once adopted, the DaSA will form part of the Development Plan and sit alongside the Core Strategy which was adopted in September 2014.

2.4. The purpose of the DaSA is to allocate land for a range of development types to meet specific targets and requirements set in the Core Strategy. Of most relevance to this representation is proposed allocations for housing. The Core Strategy set a housing target of 335 dwellings per annum (dpa) over the Core Strategy period (2011-2028). However, due to low early completion levels, this increased to 362 dpa between 2013 and 2028, notably 47% higher than the average past completions in the District (para 7.30 Core Strategy). In addition, this housing target is circa 30 dwellings per annum lower than the Objectively Assessed Need for housing (OAN) in the District, as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013. However, at the Examination of the Core Strategy, the Inspector did acknowledge this, highlighting that the housing targets were to be applied as a minimum (see paragraph 43 of Inspector's report).

2.5. Review of the Preferred Allocations in the DaSA indicates that RDC is looking to allocate 1,341 dwellings over the Plan Period. This falls considerably short of the required minimum provision as set in the Core Strategy, even if commitments and completions since 2011 are taken into account.

2.6. It is also a recognised fact the RDC is currently unable to demonstrate an up to date supply of sites, sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against the adopted Core Strategy target. The August 2016 published statement "housing land supply as at April 2016" indicates that RDC can only demonstrate a 3.9 year supply. This is likely to have reduced further since April 2016 and therefore puts RDC at risk unless it can find and allocate sufficient land to accommodate the housing growth and OAN of the District.

2.7. In this regard, the Government, through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities (LPAs) to plan positively, seeking new opportunities for development that can meet the identified needs of their respective District or Borough. Sufficient flexibility must be applied to allow for rapid change, and plans and decision making should be underpinned by the goal of boosting significantly the supply of housing (see paragraphs 14 and 47 of the NPPF).

2.8. To achieve this, LPAs must have an up to date Development Plan that has been informed by an extensive evidence base, formed of various technical studies and reports that have been through a rigorous consultation process and, essentially, justify the proposals within the Emerging Plan.

2.9. Much of the evidence base supporting the Core Strategy remains applicable to the DaSA Consultation. However, additional documents have been published, including:


* Sustainability Appraisal of the DaSA
* Green Infrastructure Background Paper Addendum
* Water Efficiency Background Paper
* Site Assessment Methodologies Background Paper
* Rother and Hastings Playing Pitch Strategy
* Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Background Paper
* Other evidence, notably that prepared for the Core Strategy

2.10. Of these documents, this representation will examine the Sustainability Appraisal and where applicable other evidence from the Core Strategy, including, for example, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013, Assessment of housing need in the Hastings and Rother HMA and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment June 2013.

2.11. Whilst many of the other evidence base documents are not applicable to the sites of interest in this representation, we reserve the right to comment further on any of the consultation documents and associated evidence base at a later date in relation to the sites of interest.

Structure of the Representation:

2.12. This representation is divided into the following sections:

* Details of the Sites
* Review of evidence base
* Review of policies and response to specific questions
* Proposed allocations
* Conclusions and summary

2.13. Throughout each of these chapters, comments are applied in relation to The Site and how, in our opinion, RDC should look to amend or update the Emerging DaSA to incorporate the sites into the emerging plan.

3. The Sites - Northiam and Beckley

3.1. This representation is submitted on behalf of The Blue Cross, and specifically in relation to two sites located in the District, one at Northiam and the other at Beckley. Each are described in this section.

St Francis Fields, Main Street, Northiam

3.2. This site herein referred to as "Northiam Land or "Northiam Site" comprises a number of vacant fields and associated buildings that once formed a functional part of the Blue Cross animal welfare centre. The centre focused on the rest and retirement of horses, and also provided dog and cat re-homing services. The animal welfare centre closed permanently on 14 October 2016. A location plan of the Northiam Site is attached at Appendix 1. A copy is also provided in figure 1 below (not to scale).

3.3. The Northiam Site comprises an area of c.3.9 hectares, part of which falls is now vacant previously developed land. The Northiam Site comprises numerous grazing fields, maneges for horse training, stables, storage structures, dog kennels, a cattery, a small Oast House and a pair of semi detached bungalows with private gardens. All of these buildings and structures are now vacant but remain in situ.

3.4. There are two access points serving the Northiam Site both of which are off Main Street. The northern most access provides the main thoroughfare into and out of the former establishment and is an hardstanding, providing direct entrance into the main complex and parking area. The second access lies further south and is a typical field access, used mainly for farm machinery. Mature planting lies adjacent to this access.

3.5. In addition, the Northiam Site has an additional street frontage to Main Street. There is however a drop in land level to the highway of between 1 and 2 metres. The boundary in this location is defined by mature and overgrown planting.

3.6. The Northiam Land has a varying topography, with levels changing most notably in a northern direction towards Beales Lane and in some places to the west towards Main Street. With the exception of the bottom part of the complex, the land is predominantly open grassland / fields, with some mature planting within and along the boundaries. Land adjacent to the Northiam Site but falling outside of the defined redline area, is also understood to contain trees that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Figure 1: Location Plan of the Northiam Site: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28195

3.7. In the immediate area of the Northiam Site there are numerous residential dwellings, including development fronting Main Street that appears to have been constructed relatively recently. Dwellings are typically two storeys in height and a varied materials palette is present in the locality.

3.8. The majority of the village falls within a Conservation Area, which extends along Main Street to a dwelling known as "Nautilus" and along Dixter Road, Higham Lane and High Park. To the south, the Conservation Area extends to the junction of Main Street (A28) with the B2088 adjacent to the Northiam CE Primary School. None of the Northiam Site is within the Conservation Area.

3.9. There are numerous listed buildings within the village. Those in proximity to the Northiam Site located in Main Street include The White House (Grade II), Beachfield (Grade II), The National Westminster Bank (Grade II), The Crown and Thistle Inn (Grade II) and Clinch Green Cottage (Grade II).

3.10. Northiam falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), as does a considerable part of the District.

3.11. The Northiam Land is identified in the DaSA consultation documents as site "NO16" and "NO19N/E/S". It is also highlighted that in 2009, RDC contacted our client to enquire about the availability of the land for development.

3.12. As part of this representation, an indicative site layout plan has been prepared by OSP Architects and is produced at Appendix 2. This clearly shows the capability of the Northiam Site to accommodate circa 125 dwellings with new areas of public open space that not only protect the character and appearance of both the built and natural environments, but also provide good quality amenity space that can benefit the health, wellbeing and social interaction of the wider community.

3.13. Allocation of this site is therefore a very favourable option for the village and should be considered positively by RDC as part of the DaSA.

Land at Kings Bank Lane, Beckley

3.14. This site herein referred to as "Beckley Land or "Beckley Site" has an area of 0.5 hectares, and is located off the eastern side of King's Bank Lane. It lies outside of a defined village boundary, although the boundary of Beckley does not cover a single area, rather it covers various smaller parcels to the west of the larger settlement area.

3.15. The Beckley Land comprises an open grazing paddock which is bound, in part, by mature trees and hedgerow, and to the east by post and rail fencing separating it from an adjacent paddock. This adjacent paddock is understood to have been the subject of various planning applications for residential development of up to 47 dwellings, including, most recently an application for 16 dwellings (reference RR/2016/3286/P). Although these have not been granted planning permission, this site does now form one of RDC's two preferred development options for Beckley, identified as parcel FO12.

3.16. The Beckley Land has direct vehicular access onto Kings Bank Lane, and this is located directly opposite a newly constructed terrace of dwellings which front immediately onto the highway. These form part of a planning permission for the erection of 7 dwellings at a former Public House, allowed on appeal in 2004 (reference RR/2003/3300/P). To the south lies another dwelling with associated outbuildings.

3.17. The Beckley Land is identified as site "FO10" in the DaSA consultation documents.

3.18. A location plan is produced in Appendix 3 and an extract for ease of reference is contained in Figure 2 below. It is noted that this does not show the development as now constructed on the western side of Kings Bank Lane. The blue arrow depicts the site entrance.

Figure 2: Location plan extract (not to scale) of the Beckley Land: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28196

3.19. There is a range of dwelling types in the locality, and these vary in age, character and materials palette. The majority of dwellings in the immediate vicinity are however two storey in nature. The site is not subject to any heritage designations nor are there any in the immediate area (including both conservation area and listed buildings). However, the site, as with the majority of the District, is within the High Weald AONB.

3.20. Due to the relatively modest size of this plot, no indicative layout has been prepared. However, assuming a developable areas of two thirds to allow for infrastructure, access, open space and buffer planting, the site can easily accommodate 10 dwellings which would make a very reasonable addition to the village and provide an acceptable density of 30 dwellings per hectare, to ensure the most efficient use of land is made.

4. Evidence Base

Sustainability Appraisal

4.1. Question 1 of the consultation asks for comments on the published Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which accompanies the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, options and preferred options. The SA assesses the proposed policies and development options against specific sustainability criteria, and each are scored based on their anticipated benefits and / or adverse effects. Table 5 of the SA sets out the scoring used, a copy of which is produced in figure 3.

Figure 3: Extract of table 5 from the SA showing scoring used in Assessment: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28197

4.2. RDC proposes only 1 site (of 18 sites) for its preferred allocation in Northiam. This is parcel number NO15. The SA concludes that NO15 has "mostly positive scores reflecting the good accessibility to local services", and that the site scores well against the SA objectives in relation to social and economic considerations. Negative scores are attributed to the site due to its Greenfield status and TPOs in and around the site.

4.3. Our Client's Northiam Site is shown as various parcels in the SA, namely NO19E, NO19N, NO19S (all of which are assessed as one in the SA) and NO16. The SA conclusions on these sites are stated as follows:

NO16:
"Moderately positive sustainability criteria identified, including relatively close proximity to local services in the centre of the village, which would have a positive impact on sustainability by encouraging walking, cycling and the use of public transport. However, significant development in this location would impact negatively on conservation area and allow further visual encroachment into the wider AONB landscape bringing it into direct conflict with Objective 15."

NO19 N/E/S
"Some positive scores reflecting the site's central location and close proximity to services and good accessibility to local amenities. However development would change the character of the wider AONB landscape with visual encroachment to the east of the village. Furthermore, there would be conflict with the integrity of the Conservation Area in direct conflict with objective 15."

4.4. Much of the same reasoning provided for NO15 would apply equally to both NO16 and NO19. Both sites have "good accessibility to local services" and would score well against both social and economic considerations by making positive contributions to the locality and community. Equally, some minor negative scores may result from an environmental perspective, however, as with any development site, there are opportunities to provide substantial enhancements to the natural environment through an appropriately designed layout for a scheme. As such, the overall conclusions are not considered to adequately reflect the position of the Northiam Land and its relationship to the adjacent settlement.

4.5. The conclusions were however drawn on the basis of the scores allocated in the SA. The following table draws together the SA scores of these three sites.

Table 1: SA scoring of NO16, NO19 and NO15 (for residential use): http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28198

4.6. RDC has negatively assessed and ultimately scored the Northiam Land considerably lower than the one suitable site in the village. However, we cannot concur with these conclusions.

4.7. It appears that the assessment has been based solely on assumptions and there is no foundation to the conclusions or scores attributed. For example, NO19 (N, E and S) is stated to have potential negative effects on objective 2 (improve the health and well-being of the population and reduce inequalities in health). The parcels are collectively of a sufficient size to accommodate high quality area of public open space. They would also form part of a potential development incorporating NO16 and therefore, as a whole, these sites would have potentially significant beneficial effects. This is supported by the illustrative Masterplan in Appendix 2. Such space would have a positive effect on the health and wellbeing of the community, and would also be located where it can help protect amenity of existing occupiers.

4.8. Objective 4 is to reduce depravation and social exclusion. Again, a well designed scheme with a range of dwelling types and tenures can ensure that this objective is met for sites NO16 and NO19. The Northiam Land as a whole may also contribute to achieving objective 5 (raise educational achievement levels) but in any event the contribution towards this objective would be no different to that of NO15,. Therefore the Northiam Land should receive an equal scoring to NO15 of potential beneficial effects.

4.9. Objective 9 is given a strong negative effect score for NO19. This objective is to improve efficiency in use of land and encourage prudent use of natural resources. Both NO19 and preferred site NO15 are located outside of, but adjacent to the settlement boundary. However, NO16 and 19 combined would use both Greenfield and Brownfield land, therefore making an efficient use of the land available. It is highlighted in this regard that part of the Northiam Site is vacant previously developed land, and should therefore be put to an efficient use in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The same cannot be said about NO15 which is a wholly Greenfield site.

4.10. The NPPF is very clear that housing supply is to be significantly boosted, and it is the role of the LPA in producing its plan to ensure that this is achieved. As such, allocating an acceptable, albeit large site outside of a settlement for development, which is in part brownfield, should not discourage the efficient use of other brownfield sites and the efficient use of natural resources both on site and in the wider area.

4.11. Furthermore, objective 10 relates to the reduction in congestion and increasing travel choices. Evidently, a larger development will increase the number of vehicles on the local road network. However, there is an urgent need to provide housing and therefore, wherever it is sited, there will ultimately be an increase in traffic generation. This cannot be avoided. Furthermore, The Northiam Land had a former use that would have attracted regular vehicle movements to and from the Centre. This must be taken into account when determining the amount of traffic a development of the Northiam Site is likely to generate.

4.12. On this basis, it is wrong for such considerations to go against the Northiam Sites and no other in the area, unless there is sufficient highway evidence to support conclusions. Such evidence does not appear to exist.

4.13. On this basis, we strongly contest the SA scoring and conclusions particularly for NO19. This should be reviewed and subsequently altered to correctly reflect the relationship of the Northiam Land to the settlement and its ability to positively contribute to the sustainability of the local community.

Beckley

4.14. In terms of Beckley, the DaSA supports two sites for development, namely FO12 and FO15. Our Client's land forms site reference FO10. FO10 was summarised as having both positive and negative effects on the village, including the setting of listed buildings, an historic field boundary and the AONB. In contrast, FO12 located immediately to the east of the site, was summarised as follows:

"Scores well in several SA criteria and strongly positive in terms of access to services and wider transport connections (Objective: 7/8/10). The site scores negatively against Objective 12because of potential surface water flooding mainly on the western half of the whole site. This could be mitigated with the implementation [of] a SUDs scheme. BAP status also impacts onthis site but habitat will be enhanced with further planting along the boundaries. SA scores arebased on the development of land to the rear of the existing Buddens Green estate.Development of the whole site would bring about a wholly inappropriate scale of developmentfor the village and would negatively impact on the AONB landscape. Land to the west of proposed residential area would be suitable as amenity space and the creation of a SUDs scheme."

4.15. It is considered that the conclusions of the two sites are relatively comparable, both having positively and negative effects on the surrounding area. However, this does not appear to be sufficiently reflected in the scoring. Table 2 below provides a copy of the SA scoring for sites FO10, FO12 and FO15.

Table 2: SA scoring of FO10, FO12 and FO15 (for residential use): http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28199

4.16. FO10 scores positively for objectives 1 and 5 (greater than the two selected sites). It also scores higher (albeit a neutral effect) than FO12 on objective 12 (minimising flood risk) and 14 (biodiversity), and higher (potential positive effects) than both selected sites on objective 3 (reducing fear of crime).

4.17. It is only objective 15 (enhancing the natural and built environments) that FO10 scores lower than the two selected sites. When looking at this scoring very crudely, there is clearly no reason why, having scored lower on only 1 objective, FO10 has been rejected as a preferred allocation.

4.18. This is particularly so, given that FO10 and FO12 are located immediately adjacent to one another and therefore, have a comparable relationship to the natural and built environments. There is clearly no justification for different scores being given to these two plots on the basis of impact.

4.19. Subsequently, we cannot agree that FO10 should be rejected as a preferred site for housing. It is clear that FO10 is a suitable site, scoring better in many categories than the selected site at FO12 immediately adjacent to it. RDC should therefore reassess the FO10 in the SA and provide a more accurate appraisal that sufficiently reflects the site and its relationship to the neighbouring, preferred site. It should also be allocated for housing as part of the DaSA.

4.20. Recommendations: Update and correct the SA review of the Northiam Land (NO16 and NO19), in addition to providing a fair review of the Beckley Land (FO10) which appropriately reflects the relationships of the sites to their surroundings.

Site Assessment Methodologies Background Paper

4.21. The purpose of this document is stated to provide a consistent and transparent methodology for assessing sites are part of the DaSA proposals. The general approach to determining if a site is appropriate for inclusion in the DaSA is stated to comprise the following key aspects:

* "ensure that it accords with the development strategy contained within the adopted Core Strategy
* be consistent with the 'core', strategic policies of the Core Strategy
* support 'sustainable development' as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and
* otherwise is consistent with its policies
* duly consider the deliverability of development
* have regard to the findings of the separate Sustainability Appraisal process"

4.22. Our Client's two sites at Northiam and Beckley have been assessed as part of the DaSA, but neither are included as proposed site allocations. This is despite RDC showing some interest in the opportunity of the Northiam Site in 2009 as to its development potential, and despite the status of part of the Northiam Site as vacant previously developed land. This representation however clearly demonstrates that the allocation of the two sites would be entirely acceptable and consistent with the NPPF and adopted policies of the Core Strategy, particularly in terms of housing delivery and meeting objective assessed needs for housing in the District. It has also been demonstrated that the Northiam and Beckley Land should have scored more positively in the SA and that both parcels of land can come forward quickly to contribute to housing delivery. Therefore, on the basis of the above, the assessments of the sites should have been more positive and both should form allocations in the DaSA.

4.23. No further comments are provided at this stage in respect of the Site Assessment Methodology. However, Savills reserves the right to comment on this at a later date should the need arise in future iterations of the DaSA Local Plan.

Core Strategy Evidence Base - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

4.24. The SHLAA forms part of the evidence base from the Core Strategy and this also supports the proposals in the DaSA. Therefore, whilst it was produced some 3-4 years ago, the conclusions have influenced RDC's preferred strategy as contained in the DaSA. In fact, the SHLAA site identification numbers have been used in the DaSA and SA to assess the sites and determine the preferred development strategy for the District.

4.25. In terms of the Northiam Land, the SHLAA identifies and assesses the site as separate parcels, with conclusions being drawn that there are significant access issues owing to the historic nature of Beales Lane which would need upgrading. However, by failing to consider the Northiam Site as one, RDC has failed to appreciate that there are many other access opportunities for the Northiam Land which would not have any detrimental impact on the existing road network or historic routes such as Beales Lane. No dwelling would need to be removed from the Conservation Area to accommodate an access to the Northiam Site, particularly as there is already an existing, suitable access serving the land at present.

4.26. The SHLAA states that sites NO19 are not suitable for housing development. However, it is well known that SHLAA assessments are very basic and do not take into account more detailed evidence or policy considerations. It is therefore of concern that the findings of the SHLAA, particularly for NO19, appear to have directly influenced the findings of the SA as examined above. RDC needs to fully justify its conclusions on this site.

4.27. Equally NO16 is stated to have considerable landscape constraints that render it unsuitable for development. No up to date landscape evidence is available to support this conclusion which again appears to have directly influenced the findings of the SA and resultant preferred allocations in this area.

4.28. With regards to the Beckley Site, the SHLAA reference, FO10, was also carried through to the DaSA evidence base and draft Plan. The SHLAA suggests that the site is an integral part of the AONB, has an historic field boundary and although acknowledging the access to the site, concludes that it is unsuitable for development. It should be highlighted that through development, the historic field boundary could be protected. This should not prevent development from taking place. It has also been demonstrated above that the concerns regarding the AONB are unfounded based on the very different conclusions drawn from FO12, immediately adjacent to the site. There is no evidence available to support the conclusions and subsequent objections to the development of the Beckley Site.

4.29. Recommendations: Review the Northiam and Beckley Sites again, having regard to all evidence available including the proposals as now put forward for this site and which form part of this representation.

Core Strategy Evidence Base - Strategic Housing Market Assessment

4.30. The SHMA was produced in 2013 as part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy and covers both Rother and Hastings Districts. The SHMA indicates that over the Core Strategy Plan Period (2011-2028) a total requirement for 6,178 (rounded up to 6,180) additional dwellings exists, as a baseline figure, based on 2011 census data and the 2013 updated population projections. This equates to an annual requirement for 363 (rounded down to 360) dwellings.

4.31. The Core Strategy housing target of 335 dpa (5,700 over the Plan Period) falls short of the OAN by c.30 dwellings per annum, or c.400 over the Plan Period. The Examining Inspector for the Core Strategy however noted that the Core Strategy target is a minimum (para 43). It should therefore be exceeded in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF, in particular paragraph 47.

4.32. In order to meet the District's housing needs, RDC must allocate sufficient sites in the DaSA to meet the minimum Core Strategy target. As indicated above, the DaSA Preferred Options appears to only allocate sites for 1,341 new dwellings over the Plan Period. This would fall considerably short of the minimum target in the Core Strategy, even if completions and commitments since 2011 were taken into account. Our Client's sites at Northiam and Beckley provide excellent opportunities to meet the housing needs. The Illustrative Masterplan produced in Appendix 2 also shows in more detail that the Northiam Land can accommodate circa 125 dwellings with provision of new areas of public open space. It would make a valuable contribution to the community and should therefore be considered more thoroughly as part of the emerging DaSA Local Plan.

5. DaSA Part B - Development Policies

Question 8: Affordable Housing

5.1. Three options are proposed for affordable housing delivery.

5.2. Option A is to retain the Core Strategy requirements for affordable housing provision. However, the DaSA is clear that this does not accord with the PPG or the written ministerial statement that now prevents contributions being sought on schemes of 10 or less units, or on schemes of 5 or less units in some rural
areas such as AONBs, unless specific circumstances apply. Consequently, by applying the Core Strategy requirement, the Plan would be at risk from challenge unless there is sufficient, up to date evidence to demonstrate a local justification.

5.3. Options B and C reflect the PPG and the most up to date Government advice on affordable housing. These options are unlikely to prejudice or discourage smaller developers from coming forward with smaller housing schemes, and this is particularly relevant in smaller villages where housing will still need to be
provided.

5.4. If a discretionary application of financial contributions is to be applied, RDC must undertake detailed research in order to demonstrate that there are specific locations where the discretionary charge would, and should, be applied.

Question 9: Approaches to Space Standards, Building Regulations and Older Persons

5.5. With specific regard to internal space standards, there is no obligation for a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to adopt standards, but if they do, the Nationally Described Space Standards should apply. These are not compulsory but are important to ensure that a minimum, acceptable living space is (at the very least)
provided by new development.

5.6. RDC must however recognise that the national standards are near identical to the London space standards, and it goes without saying that the characteristics of the District are far from comparable to inner and outer London. Therefore a careful application of the standards, if adopted, would need to be applied to ensure the right type of housing is provided to meet the community's needs.

5.7. In this regard, the application of minimum standards would ensure that a range of dwelling types, sizes and tenures can be provided in the District. It would also ensure that the best use of land can be made to increase the supply of housing over the Plan Period. However, this potential for increased density and use of land would need to be balanced against other considerations, notably local character, and therefore, RDC would need to ensure that a sound policy basis is in place to allow this balance to be drawn. A strong evidence base would also be required to justify different conclusions and applications of the standards in different locations.

5.8. Furthermore, RDC would need to clarify in what instances the standards would apply, including, for example, whether they would apply to conversions or even retrospectively. Further comments will be provided on this subject should RDC seek to include a policy requiring minimum standards to be met.

Question 12: External Space Standards

5.9. In deciding whether to prepare a policy on external standards, such as amenity space and parking, RDC needs to consider what impact this may have on the ability to make an efficient use of land and ensure an appropriate quantum of development can be provided. For example, the proposed policy DHG3 part i) states that gardens should be at least 10 metres in length. In some instances this may be alien to the
prevailing urban grain or simply impractical, and therefore some flexibility should be included in the policy text or accompanying preamble.

5.10. Equally, regard must be given to the wide variety of needs of the community, including those who may not want, or indeed be able to manage a garden space. The policy also indicates that for flats, an appropriate level of useable community space will be expected. Further clarification on this requirement should be
provided to ensure applicants are aware of RDC's expectations on "appropriate" provision.

Question 20: Biodiversity and Green Space

5.11. Proposed policy DEN4 seeks to positively address biodiversity and ecology in the District. Whilst this does come across in the policy, there are some concerns regarding the requirements of part iii), in that by requiring all development to retain and enhance biodiversity, development opportunity on sites will be considerably limited.

5.12. In some instances, this requirement would render an otherwise suitable site, undevelopable. RDC needs to balance this consideration against wider housing needs and ensure that suitable flexibility is in place to ensure land can come forward. This could be achieved through a requirement for full consideration of
existing features, provision of enhancements on or off site, and provision of suitable mitigation. The context of this policy should be considered in more detail, in line with the NPPF requirements for biodiversity and ecology. It is considered that the wording of the proposed policy should therefore be altered.

Question 21: Sustainable Urban Drainage

5.13. Policy DEN5 requires SUDS to be provided on all development unless it is demonstrated to be inappropriate. The associated policy wording should make clear the type and level of SUDS that is expected to be provided on sites, depending on their size, development type and development quantum. This must however account for variations that will be inevitable between smaller and larger development sites, in addition to the cost implications of providing SUDS particularly on smaller development sites.

5.14. The policy as currently worded provides a blanket approach to SUDS which may not, in reality be achievable and could prevent developments from coming forward. In addition, guidance should be provided in the associated policy text as to what other policy objectives the SUDS should aim to achieve (point iv).

Question 24: Comprehensive Development

5.15. It is not clear from the policy in which circumstances this would be applicable. Clearly if it relates to strategic, large scale development sites the policy may have more relevance. However, on smaller sites, in and around villages in the District, it is unlikely that this policy will be applicable. RDC would need to define the parameters of this policy better if it is to form part of the DaSA.

5.16. Although the objective is to secure appropriate funding for necessary infrastructure, development of a scale requiring such significant infrastructure often does come forward together, or when it does not, CIL and S106 contribution (or the equivalent that may come forward as proposed in the White Paper) can ensure
that the necessary infrastructure is delivered. As such, it may be more applicable for RDC to rely on existing Core Strategy policies or to alter the policy text to relate specifically to development of a certain size and type.

Question 25: Development Boundaries

5.17. For clarity of the policy, the types of acceptable development in the countryside should be made clear either by reference to a specific policy in the Plan, paragraphs of the NPPF, or a list of "appropriate" development.

5.18. It may also be necessary to include a review mechanism for development boundaries, particularly in the event that housing targets increase over the Plan Period and there is a need to allocate new sites.

General Observations

5.19. It is noted that there are no specific policies in the DaSA Preferred Options relating to design of development. Although the Core Strategy does provide a general direction under policy EN3, this is very broad and may not provide the guidance or certainty expected by applicants. It is assumed therefore that
RDC will look to rely upon the general design requirements in the NPPF or, alternatively, more specific requirements that may be set in Neighbourhood Plans. alternatively, RDC should look to produce an SPD that provides the level of guidance expected and ultimately ensures consistency in decision making.

6. Strategic Allocations

6.1. Part C of the DaSA provides the preferred site allocations, with chapter 15 covering villages with allocations. The Blue Cross Land at Beckley and Northiam is shown on the options maps but are not indicated as preferred development options for the DaSA.

6.2. Chapter 12 of the DaSA indicates that at least 5,700 houses are required over the Core Strategy Plan Period of 2011-2028. Of these, 1,670 are expected to be provided in villages. It is suggested that 740 dwellings still need to be identified in villages through the DaSA and Neighbourhood Plans, owing to permissions already granted. Figure 15 breaks down the housing requirements for villages and shows thefollowing information:

* Housing requirements as of 1 April 2016
* Housing completions (sites of 6 or more dwellings) between 2013-2016
* Where villages have allocations in the DaSA
* Where villages have emerging Neighbourhood Plans

6.3. The table indicates that for Beckley there have been 6 completions leaving a residual requirement for housing over the remainder of the Plan Period of 20 dwellings. For Northiam the total dwelling requirement is for 123 units. It is suggested that planning permission has been granted for 123 units in the village but that one of the scheme (which is not specified) can only achieve 52 units as opposed to 58 as approved. Therefore, the residual requirement for the village is stated to be 6 dwellings. Both are shown as subject to allocation in the DaSA.

6.4. It is of concern that the figures shown are unclear and non-descript. RDC do not clearly show where planning permission has been granted, when it was granted, or provide any indication that the developments will come forward. RDC need to demonstrate how it can be sure that the sites will come forward and that there is, subsequently, no need for any further allocations in the village. In our opinion, the fact that planning permission may have been granted does not prevent the appropriate allocation of further, deliverable sites in the DaSA. If anything, additional allocations, securing development, would ensure that housing targets are met, housing needs are met, and the objectives of the Government to
boost housing supply significantly are also adhered to.

6.5. In Northiam in particular, evidence is provided in this representation that the Northiam Land is suitable, available, achievable, developable and deliverable within a short period of time. This would not only help ensure that Core Strategy targets are met, but it would also help address the considerable shortfall in housing land supply that currently exists in the District (3.9 years as of April 2016) and ensure that there is flexibility to adapt to growth in the District over the Plan Period. By relying specifically on planning permission granted, there is no guarantee that development will come forward (unless it has already commenced) and therefore, no certainty that the plan will deliver the housing required in this village.

6.6. In this regard, para 12.9 is key. This, referring to the Core Strategy, clearly stages that "Plans should not dismiss sustainable sites simply because other sites have come forward that mean that development targets can be met without it. At the same time it is appropriate to have regard to the general scale of development in a settlement relative to its overall sustainability and status in the settlement hierarchy, as well as having proper regard to the individual merits,
and demerits, of sites."

6.7. As emphasised above in relation to the SA, RDC has not sufficiently assessed the merits or demerits of development on the Northiam Site and has disregarded the land for development based on planning permissions already granted. The Northiam Site is clearly a very sustainable site, in a sustainable, accessible location where it can make a very positive contribution to the local community as well as the District's housing requirements (see Illustrative Masterplan in Appendix 2). This is also emphasised by RDC initial interest in the availability of the land for development. On this basis, the Northiam Site should clearly be included as a key allocation in the DaSA.

6.8. Equally, in terms of the Beckley Site, whilst RDC may have identified two sites that can collectively provide the amount of housing sought for the village, this does not mean that the two sites are the best sites. This is again emphasised by our comments above in relation to the SA, which shows a more positive Sustainability Assessment for our Client's land, but, irrespective of this, the Site is not taken forward as a preferred allocation. The Beckley Site should however come forward as it is just as sustainable as the adjacent FO12 parcel. The Beckley Site would make a very positive contribution to the locality, both in terms of housing requirements, and the character and appearance of the area. On its merits, the site is
clearly very favourable and suitable for development. Again, we strongly contest that the Beckley Site should be allocated for residential development in the DaSA.

6.9. The availability and deliverability of The Northiam Site and Beckley Site is a material consideration of considerable weight, bearing in mind the that RDC does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply and desperately needs to secure suitable housing sites that can deliver in the early part of the Plan Period. RDC also concedes at para 12.14 that the preferred allocations would "meet, and potentially, slightly exceed, the minimum Core Strategy requirements". This approach, to barely meeting targets, does not reflect the national objective as set out in the NPPF is to significantly boost the supply of housing and therefore, RDC risks the plan being challenged at examination for failing to sufficiently meet housing needs with sufficient flexibility and, ultimately failing to sufficiently conform to the NPPF requirements.

6.10. In our opinion, further review is required of both the Northiam and Beckley Sites by RDC to sufficiently justify their exclusion from the DaSA allocations, particularly on the basis of concerns raised above regarding the SA of these parcels and the impactions of this on the preferred allocations now put forward.

6.11. Question 59 specifically relates to proposed allocations at Beckley Broad Oak and agreement is sought for the proposed preferred allocation and strategy. We cannot agree to the proposals for this area. There is absolutely no reason why the Beckley Site FO10 has not been included in the proposals for the DaSA, particularly as the SA assesses the site more positively than one of the preferred allocations. There is clearly an insufficient level of evidence available to support the DaSA preferred strategy for Beckley and therefore, more robust evidence is required if the Plan is to be unchallenged and ultimately, found sound.

6.12. In addition, question 58 asks about the revised settlement boundary. For the reasons outlined we cannot agree with the proposed settlement boundary and strongly argue that the Beckley Land should be included within the defined settlement.

6.13. Question 78 seeks agreement to the proposed development strategy for Northiam. Again we cannot agree with the proposed strategy and preferred allocation in the village. There are clearly insufficient allocations in the DaSA to meet the OAN over the Plan Period, and insufficient allocations proposed in Northiam to allow for a reasonable proportion of housing to be provided in this sustainable village. It is appreciated that care needs to be taken to conserve or enhance nearby heritage assets. It is also agreed that care needs to be taken to preserve and enhance the AONB. However, these considerations do not only affect Northiam, they affect the vast majority of the District; 80% of the District falls within the AONB. As such, this should not be used as a blanket reason to prevent otherwise appropriate development from coming forward without appropriate scrutinising being first undertaken to support the conclusions. The evidence base for the DaSA does not indicate that a recent assessment of the landscape and AONB has been undertaken to support the Emerging Plan.

6.14. It is also highlighted that site NO15 which is the preferred development site is considerably limited and this is clearly accepted by RDC. The site is also within the AONB and it contains TPO trees. This site is a small parcel and cannot reasonably be considered to meet the growing housing needs of the area let alone the wider District. Further sites therefore must form part of the strategy for the village, and our Client's site in Northiam provides the prefect opportunity for new development, and new areas of accessible public open space, to be provided that would significantly benefit the village.

6.15. Question 80 asks about revisions to the development boundary of Northiam. For the reasons above, we cannot agree to the proposed amendments and clearly argue the case for the inclusion of the Northiam Site in the defined settlement.

7. Conclusions and Summary

7.1. The Options and Preferred Options Consultation document for the DaSA is structured in such a way that allows consideration of the various policy options and development strategies that are being considered by RDC. However, it is considered that the evidence base does not provide a sufficient basis to support the proposed allocations for villages in the DaSA.

7.2. In particular, Northiam is a large village with a range of local facilities. The preferred allocation proposes only 6 new dwellings in the village, on the basis that the allocation has already been "filled" by granted planning applications. This is a sustainable village whereby the most efficient use of available land should be made to secure the housing required in the District. RDC does not take the opportunity to do this nor to meet the national objective of boosting significantly the supply of housing.

7.3. This is particularly relevant given that our client's Northiam Site has been vacant since 14 October 2016, when the animal welfare centre was permanently closed. This vacant site is, in part, previously developed land and should therefore be put to an efficient use to help address local housing needs. Such an opportunity was clearly considered by RDC when in 2009 enquiries were made to our Client with regards to the availability of the Northiam Land for development.

7.4. This representation has also demonstrated that the evidence supporting the allocations in Beckley is inconsistent. The preferred site lies immediately adjacent to our Client's land, but both are given very different assessments in the SA and SHLAA, resulting in the rejection of our Client's Beckley Site.

7.5. The OAN for housing in the District is at least 30 dpa higher than the adopted Core Strategy housing target, and whilst the Examining Inspector indicated that this target would be seen as a minimum, RDC does not appear to have applied the target as such. Instead of looking to, at the very least, meet this housing target, RDC has proposed allocations that total only 1,341 dwellings. Even if past completions and committed sites are taken into account, RDC would still fall short of these minimum housing requirements. It is therefore fundamental that RDC increases the allocations in the DaSA to ensure housing targets are met, that flexibility is contained in the Plan to accommodate change, and that the Plan is ultimately in conformity to the National Planning Policy Framework. Our Client's sites at Beckley and Northiam provide key
opportunities for additional housing allocation sites as part of the DaSA.

7.6. In this regard, it has been demonstrated in this representation that further review is required of our Client's sites at Beckley and Northiam, to allow a fair and reasonable assessment of them against sustainability criteria. This is particularly pertinent as such assessments have ultimately informed RDC's decision to allocate sites. In our opinion, there are shortfalls in the DaSA and its evidence base, and the Options and Preferred Options DaSA Consultation Document does not have sufficient, justified evidence to support the current proposals for the Plan.

7.7. Overall it is considered that the Preferred Options are overly cautious and fail to take the opportunity to provide essential much needed housing in the District. RDC has focused heavily on issues, such as landscape and visual impact in order to limit the amount of development that can come forward. Although these are material considerations, there are numerous other planning considerations that also lie in the balance and must be considered by RDC as part of the plan making process.

7.8. It is considered that much more work is required before the pre-submission plan is finalised in order to ensure the final submitted DaSA local plan can be found sound at examination.

7.9. Savills and The Blue Cross reserve the right to comment further on the DaSA and associated evidence base throughout the plan making processes and future consultations.

Appendix 1: Location Plan - Land at Main Street Northiam: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28200

Appendix 2: Concept Masterplan - Northiam: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28201

Appendix 3: Location Plan: Land at Kings Bank Lane, Beckley: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28202