QUESTION 17: Do you agree with the policy approach to existing employment sites and the proposed policy wording?

Option A

No comment

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

Option B but more flexibility on a site by site basis to allow for informed decisions to be made

We agree with Policy DEC3 in principle, but wish to see it strengthened by the inclusion in (i) a time period for the advertising and marketing in a proper fashion of the site for continued employment use. Also the 'or' in the third line should be changed to 'and'.

I do not agree with the piece meal conversion of small agricultural buildings that adversely affect the surrounding countryside and residences, as this has lead to a fragmented farm redevelopment with small poor quality development for owner profit and little more than rural lock up and leave garaging/workshops for individuals that offers no employment above hobbies and blights proper site redevelopment in a unified plan eg coldharbour farm, a better use for it would be to demolish the rotting asbestos sheds and "units" and landscape it and build houses, but retain the green field areas and stop the industrial creep.

Option A preferred - roll forward Core Strategy Policy EC3

NCS agrees with policy approach and wording

Whilst in broad agreement with this policy, I would expect it to also cover agricultural and forestry businesses.

I note from one of the background 'business' documents that there is a continued reference to the mill site in Robertsbridge. A Robertsbridge and Salehurst are producing a Neighbourhood Plan, then this site should be removed from your discussion/background documents as it fall within the remit of the Neighbourhood Plan and not this Rother document.

Rye Conservation Society agrees to the proposed policy and wording.

Agree with Option A

We agree with Policy DEC3, but feel it should be stricter. In our Policy EC3, regarding employment retention, we have three criteria, which we suggest you should adopt, namely:
1 lack of ongoing viability, and
2 it not having been in use for the last 24 months, and a marketing campaign for alternative use having been pursued, and
3 any alternative use should either preserve some employment or community use or benefits.

It is not clear how Policies DCO1 and DEC3 will operate together, as there appears to be an overlap. The criteria should be the same for both if the two are monitored as separate policies and should as a minimum require:
a) lack of existing use for at least 24 months;
b) evidence of positive professional marketing for at least 18 months; and
c) clear evidence of a lack of viability, which must be subjected to independent and publicly available scrutiny.

Do not agree. I thought that I read somewhere that the site would need to be marketed and empty for 18 months before other uses would be considered - where is this wording as part of this policy?
Our Neighbourhood plan is suggesting 2 year for our village given that space is in such short supply to get new business sites if existing sites are lost. Perhaps a longer time scale is needed for rural areas?

Support the policy.

This part of the Policy should not be prescriptive. If a site is demonstrated as being non-viable, then it is important that effective use is made of such brownfield land. It should be open to the market to determine a viable alternative use, which can then be judged against other policies in terms of potential impact. The wording should therefore, be amended to provide greater flexibility for suitable and alternative uses.

Agree.

Page 75 point 11: it should be clearly spelt out that the employment sites on both sides of Marley Lane just in from the intersection of the B2244 are wholly within Sedlescombe parish and should be considered part of the employment for both Sedlescombe and rural areas not battle. It is simply wrong to apply these sites to Battle's requirement as they are some 3.5 km from Battle PO but just 1.8km from Sedlescombe PO. This issue has been raised and not corrected at each stage of the
core strategy and still remains uncorrected. By mis-stating this detail the plan is significantly understating rural employment sites and overstating Battle employment sites. In addition the DaSA fails to include the Sedlescombe sawmills which when redeveloped will contribute significantly to the rural employment sq/m requirement.

The wording of Policy DEC3 should be made more positive in actively supporting and not just permitting comprehensive redevelopment of employment sites where this would facilitate access and environmental improvements and reduce development pressures on unsuitable locations. The wording of the Policy should also make it clear that where necessary and appropriate to facilitate these aims and to enhance investment potential neighbouring employment sites should be considered together for comprehensive redevelopment.

An example of where a more positive approach is needed is the Ravenside retail park and the neighbouring Brett Drive industrial estate. Both suffer from tired and in many cases sub-standard buildings, a very inefficient internal road layout, parking congestion on estate roads and backing up of traffic onto the main roads. There is also significant unused potential from the generally single storey retail development and the extensive "air-space" over the Ravenside car park. Since the opening of B&M and Marks and Spencer and the Link Road (and since the preparation of the Review of employment sites) there has been a very noticeable increase in footfall and traffic attracted to Ravenside. Recent inappropriate proposals for restaurants on the Glyne Gap field also indicate that there is unmet demand for increased investment in this area

There doesn't seem to be provision in the Bexhill Allocations Chapter for the proposal of new policies. It follows from the above however that there should be a further BEX policy encouraging the comprehensive joint redevelopment of the Ravenside retail park and Brett Drive industrial estate. The Policy should set out appropriate criteria for redevelopment to take place - which should include providing for suitable replacement premises for employers unable to afford upgraded premises.

The Background Paper to the DaSA entitled Employment Sites Review (November 2016) identifies Beech Farm in the rural area of Battle as an established employment site measuring 2.2 hectares and containing approximately 12 business units (page 59). The site is identified as being substantially occupied and we can confirm that occupancy rates have been consistently high for a number of years. The site is currently at full capacity with 25 businesses within 19 units.

The site comprises a number of relatively attractive former agricultural barns and stables that have been converted into business units. Three larger, more modern agricultural buildings provide larger units that are predominantly being used for storage and distribution purposes. The smaller units are being used by a variety of businesses, including a beautician's, photography studio, stained glass manufacturer, archery shop, and two mechanics' workshops.

The buildings are grouped together in an old farmstead, which reflects their original intended uses; however an area of undeveloped land lies immediately to the north of the larger, modern buildings which would provide a suitable location for additional buildings at this important rural business site. The Estate has already been approached by one of the current tenants at Beech Farm for a new, larger building (approximately 900sqm) that would accommodate its growing needs, and the area of land to the north would be an ideal location for this. This area has been included within the boundary of the employment site in the Employment Sites Review Background Paper, which suggests that the Council already consider it to form part of the site (rather than as part of the surrounding countryside).
The proposed site is well-screened by existing vegetation along all its boundaries and is not in agricultural use. In fact, it would not be suitable for agricultural use given its proximity to the employment site and separation from the adjacent fields by substantially vegetated boundaries. The land is redundant for this reason and the Estate have therefore put it into temporary use as an archery range. The preferred use of the land would be for an extension to the existing employment site so that the Estate may continue to provide units of various sizes and design to suit the evolving needs of rural businesses.

The Employment Sites Review Background Paper (despite it including proposed aforementioned area within the site boundary), states that there are no expansion opportunities at the site. We do not agree with this, and consider there to be a significant opportunity for additional buildings that meet the growing needs of local rural businesses. The site has proven to be successful to date, and makes an important contribution to the rural economy. Its location in a relatively remote area is inconsequential as there is a specific demand for sites like this in rural areas, as acknowledged in the adopted Core Strategy 2014 and draft DaSA. The success of the site to date, as well as the commitment by the Estate to investing in site improvements (including additional buildings), is a testament to this.

Page 76 of the DaSA confirms the importance of rural business sites:

"(15) the Rural Areas have seen most business development in recent years, as well as accounting for the greatest amount of floorspace with full planning permission, which together approximate to the minimum floorspace target; (16) these findings point to the role that rural areas are playing in meeting the accommodation requirements of businesses and, hence, to the economic growth of the District, and it is recommended this trend should not be frustrated".

We are aware that a Neighbourhood Plan Area has been designated for Battle and the surrounding area, which would include the Beech Farm employment site; however this plan does not appear to have made any progress since the Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated in April 2015. It is therefore crucial that the DaSA provides the necessary policies to support employment development in the Battle area, and allocates sites where appropriate. Policy EC3 (Existing Employment Sites) of the Core Strategy supports a full review of existing employment premises and the allocation of new sites in the DaSA and/or Neighbourhood Plans. The DaSA is now in preparation and, given the lack of progress with the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, the DaSA must provide the necessary supporting policies for additional buildings at the Beech Farm employment site.

Until the DaSA is adopted, Policy EC3 will apply to any proposal for new buildings at Beech Farm and part (ii) of the policy currently supports the "intensification, conversion, redevelopment and/or extension [of sites] having regard to other policies of the Plan". Our concern with relying on part (ii) of Policy EC3 (or Policy DEC3 of the DaSA, if it is adopted) in the submission of a planning application for new buildings at Beech Farm, is that there would be the potential for other policies in the plan (such as restrictive countryside policies or AONB policies) that could prevent the application from being approved. This uncertainty would create risk to any application that is submitted and, as such, the Estate would hesitate to release the funds required for making such a speculative application. Greater certainty would be needed regarding the principle of the development if the Estate is to submit an application for new buildings at Beech Farm, and this could be achieved if the site is allocated.
We therefore request that the area of land immediately north of Beech Farm is allocated for additional business development that would complement the existing, successful, rural business site. The extent of the existing site and extension area would follow the exact same boundary drawn around the site in the Employment Sites Review Background Paper (page 60). We reiterate that the Battle Neighbourhood Plan cannot be relied upon to allocate the site, given the lack of progress demonstrated to date.

2. Question 17: Do you agree with the policy approach to existing employment sites and the proposed policy wording?

The current consultation on the DaSA proposes to replace Policy EC3 of the Core Strategy with policy DEC3. The wording of the new policy appears to be identical, apart from a slight discrepancy in part (iv) in the use of the word 'prioritising' instead of 'prioritise'. Whilst perhaps more grammatically correct, we do not consider there to be a need to amend Core Strategy Policy EC3 for this reason alone.

The original intention of the policy amendment appears to include a need for greater flexibility to include 'lack of need' and 'incompatible land uses' as alternative reasons for why a change of use at an existing employment site might be acceptable (along with viability, which is already mentioned), and this is something that we would support in the policy wording. We also support the retention of part (ii) of the policy, which remains as per Policy EC3 (quoted earlier in this letter).

3. Housing Allocations in Battle

Following our comments in relation to the need to include employment site allocations for the Battle area within the DaSA to mitigate a Neighbourhood Plan not coming forward at all, or within a reasonable timeframe, we consider it important to comment on housing sites in this respect as well. The need to adequately meet the housing requirements for the Battle area in the DaSA is paramount because of the threat of speculative applications being submitted as a result of the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

The adopted Core Strategy sets a requirement of 475-500 dwellings to be brought forward in Battle during the plan period. Paragraph 11.10 states that sites are to be brought forward in the DaSA, although paragraph 7.52 includes the possibility of sites coming forward in Neighbourhood Plan.

The same housing requirements are carried over to the draft DaSA, with an identified residual requirement of 425 dwellings to be allocated on new sites in Battle. This is not an insignificant amount and it makes a valuable contribution to the District's housing supply. Given the lack of progress being made with the Neighbourhood Plan, to rely entirely on it to deliver the required number of new homes would put a question mark over the ability of the plan to deliver the requisite number of dwellings during the plan period (particularly the early part of it). Eight other Neighborhood Pplans are being relied upon in this way - albeit two have made sufficient progress that their delivery can more reasonably be relied upon (Salehurst & Robertsbridge NP, and Sedlescombe NP).

The draft DaSA states that all the Neighbourhood Plans need to be in place at approximately the same time and that "it is vital for all communities to have plans in place as soon as possible" (paragraph 55). However, it is impossible to control this process, and the Council are placing an unreasonable amount of pressure on the Neighbourhood Forums, who are under no obligation to produce their plans within a certain timescale.

The timing for the delivery of the plans is very much dependent on the resources available to each Neighbourhood Forum and the process falls outside of the Council's control. It is therefore paramount that the Council prepares for the inclusion of sites within the DaSA for the Neighbourhood Plan Areas. These sites can always be withdrawn at a later date should the identified Neighbourhood Plans progress at an appropriate pace, as is currently being proposed by Wealden District Council and which is an appropriate contingency strategy.

The inclusion of employment and housing site allocations in the DaSA for Battle would not preclude their replacement with policies contained in a Neighbourhood Plan, should one be produced at some point during the plan period. In any case, the community would be able to contribute to the identification of appropriate site allocations in the DaSA and the process would therefore not conflict with the main purpose of the Localism Agenda which is to include local communities in key planning decisions in their area. To exclude allocations in the DaSA from the Battle area could result in little economic or residential development taking place for the early part of the plan period, leaving the Council with an employment and housing land supply shortage when assessed against objective needs.

As such, we submit the following three sites for allocation for residential development on the western edge of Battle, within the Beech Estate:

* Land West of Vale Road
* Land West of Battle Hospital A
* Land West of Battle Hospital B

Plans and forms containing information for each of these sites are enclosed.

We look forward to reviewing your Authority's response to these representations in due course.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

Beech Farm Employment Site:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28093

Land west of Battle Hospital A - Plan:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28094

Land west of Battle Hospital B - Plan:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28095

Land west of Vale Road - Plan:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28096

QUESTION 17: Do you agree with the policy approach to existing employment sites and the proposed policy wording?'

Whilst we acknowledge Draft Policy DEC3 reflects the wording of the Core Strategy Policy EC3 we consider that the final paragraph should be amended in order to clarify the approach to 'alternative uses' i.e. "if a mixed use scheme is not viable, prioritising alternative community uses, affordable housing and then market housing, subject to local needs".

A key question here is that if a mixed use scheme is shown not to be viable then it is likely that community and / or affordable housing proposals on their own will also not be viable?

In light of this we would suggest that policy is amended so that criterion iv is amended to:

"where continued employment use of a site/premises is demonstrated not to be viable, permitting complementary enabling development as part of an overall scheme to make most effective use of the property for employment purposes; if a mixed use scheme is not viable, then alternative uses will then be considered and these may include the provision of community uses, affordable housing and market housing, subject to local needs".

This policy which provides for intensification, redevelopment and extension of sites needs to be clearly tied within the policy wording to the identified existing employment sites (smaller and larger business areas and estates) which should be listed in an Appendix. Policy DC01 provides for retention of sites of economic value generally.

The policy should be amended to:

Effective use of the existing employment sites listed at Appendix - will be secured by:

Transport Strategy & Economic Development
ECONOMY Page 65

Agree with policy DEC3, but it is suggested that element iii), includes reference to 'enhancing' access along with facilitating this.

1. Introduction

1.1 This representation is prepared on behalf of F Forte Developments Ltd in response to Rother District Council's 'Development and Site Allocations Local Plan' preferred options consultation document.

1.2 F Forte Developments Ltd is a privately funded company that owns and is promoting land south of Terminus Road, Bexhill-on-Sea for residential development. The site plan is contained within Appendix A.

1.3 Following its review of this representation, we respectively request that the Council amend its proposed designations to include this site as a residential allocation.

2. Policy BEX8: Land South of Terminus Road

2.1 Our client who owns the land at Terminus Road, which is cited in Policy BEX8, strongly objects to this policy designation as it runs contrary to the requirements set out in the NPPF. Our client instead would support the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes only and it has potential capacity for 26 to 30 dwellings.

2.2 Whilst the site is currently being used for car sales and a car wash, it is not currently viable or even desirable in its current use. The extant planning position for the current use places a number of highly restrictive planning conditions upon the use, in order to protect the neighbouring residential amenity, that it makes the current operations highly inefficient. It has been very difficult for the existing uses to keep within these limitations and as a result there have been a number of enforcement cases against the site and complaints from neighbours when such limitations are breached. It is not desirable for the existing use to continue at this location and a residential redevelopment would be entirely appropriate.

2.3 This proposed mixed-use designation in Policy BEX8 has not been based on up to date evidence and no assessment of development viability has been carried out.

2.4 The only reference to this site is made in Appendix 3 of the preferred options
consultation document, under the site ID BX81. This assessment has made an incorrect and misleading assessment of this land. The footnote on page 72 of the preferred options document clearly states that 'employment sites' are defined as those providing for business uses falling with Class B of the Use Classes order together with similar 'sui generis' uses. Whilst the site contains a car wash and car sales business it has not historically been designated for employment purposes. A car wash and car sales use falls under Sui Generis use and is more akin to a retail use than a Class B employment use. The land south of Terminus Road does not contain any Class B uses and therefore does not meet this criteria and has never been allocated for employment purposes. However, the assessment in Appendix 3 has wrongly stated that land south of Terminus Road is an existing employment site.

2.5 The assessment claims that this site would be well suited to a more intense business use such as offices, however there is no evidence to justify this claim. There is also no desire on the landowner's part to develop this site for office use.

2.6 Paragraph 158 of the NPPF requires each local planning authority to ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Paragraph 160 requires local planning authorities to have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area. Paragraph 161 requires local planning authorities to use this evidence base to assess the needs for land or floorspace for economic development. Paragraph 173 states that in pursuing sustainable development careful attention should be given to viability and costs in planmaking and decision-taking. Paragraph 182 requires a local plan to be justified through proportionate evidence.

2.7 The NPPG provides further guidance of evidence and viability. Paragraph 004
(Reference ID: 10-004-20140306) states that assessing viability requires judgements which are informed by the relevant available facts. It requires a realistic understanding of the costs and the value of development in the local area and an understanding of the operation of the market.

2.8 Paragraph 014 (Reference ID: 12-014-20140306) states that the evidence should be focused tightly on supporting and justifying the particular policies in the Local Plan. It also states that the evidence needs to inform what is in the plan and shape its development rather than being collected retrospectively. It should also be kept up-to-date.

2.9 In light of the national policy requirements, it is clear that the designation of land south of Terminus Road for a mixed-use development has not been evidenced and justified.

2.10 The 'Employment Sites Review: Background Paper', which was published in November 2016 provides a full review of the Council's existing employment sites and was included as a core evidence base document for this DPD. Paragraph 1.1 set out the function of this document:

1.1. This Study has been carried out to inform the Council's forthcoming
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan in relation to meeting the identified need for land and premises to support the economic well-being of the District. It considers the continued suitability of both existing and allocated industrial estates/areas and sites, as well as the potential of further sites, for business use.

2.11 Paragraph 9.30 of the Development and Site Allocation DPD states that a full review of existing and potential sites for employment use was carried out in tandem with looking to allocate sites, to ensure that the requirements are secured in an effective way.

2.12 This document makes no reference to land south of Terminus Road. No other evidence base document considers this site. As such it can be assumed that site does not constitute an existing employment site and is not important for the Council's employment strategy in the Development and Site Allocations DPD.

2.13 Despite the clear policy position set out in the NPPF and PPG, the Council has not undertaken any viability analysis of its preferred site allocation. Nor do they have any up to date evidence base that considers the market demand and market values for office space in Rother.

2.14 The Council has given no thought to the viability and deliverability of the mixed-use allocation on land south of Terminus Road. No discussions with the land owner has taken place about taking this site forward as a mixed use scheme. It is not the landowner's intention to develop an office-led mixed use scheme as the designation referred to in this document is not viable and as such there are deliverability concerns.

2.15 Our client accepts that the existing car sales/car wash land use represents a poor use of space and in accordance with paragraph 17 of the NPPF, should seek to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. Our client is committed to the redevelopment of this site, but given the short and long-term commercial market context within Bexhill-on-Sea, there is no prospect that this site could be developed for office space. This site would provide a more appropriate residential development site.

2.16 Our client therefore requests that this site be designated for residential purposes. It has the potential to deliver between 26 and 30 dwellings in a sustainable location that is within easy of a number of key services and facilities and a range of public transport options.

3. Policy DEC3: Existing Employment

Sites and Premises Effective use of existing employment sites

3.1 Our client objects to Policy DEC3 as it provides a restrictive policy that could potentially sterilise employment space, particularly in times of economic uncertainty.

3.2 Our client would instead support Option B that also gives consideration to
redevelopment of existing employment sites for housing purposes. This approach
would accord with the principles set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which seeks to
encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Rother does not have a lot of previously developed land and the Council should be exploring all opportunities in which to deliver new development on such land.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Our client also requests that land to the south of Terminus Road be allocated for
residential development as:

- The site has the potential to deliver between 26 and 30 dwellings in a
sustainable location that is within easy of a number of key services and
facilities and a range of public transport options.

- The site is currently underused as a car sales and car wash and does not
constitute an employment site as defined by the Core Strategy or
preferred options document, i.e. it does not contain Class B use classes.

- The Council has not produced any evidence to justify a mixed-use
development at this location.

- The site is not included within the Employment Land Review assessment.
*
-A mixed-use scheme would be unviable at this location and short and
long-term market conditions dictate that an office development at this
location is not deliverable, even as part of a mixed-use scheme.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28079

The Background Paper to the DaSA entitled Employment Sites Review (November 2016) identifies Beech Farm in the rural area of Battle as an established employment site measuring 2.2 hectares and containing approximately 12 business units (page 59). The site is identified as being substantially occupied and we can confirm that occupancy rates have been consistently high for a number of years. The site is currently at full capacity with 25 businesses within 19 units.

The site comprises a number of relatively attractive former agricultural barns and stables that have been converted into business units. Three larger, more modern agricultural buildings provide larger units that are predominantly being used for storage and distribution purposes. The smaller units are being used by a variety of businesses, including a beautician's, photography studio, stained glass manufacturer, archery shop, and two mechanics' workshops.

The buildings are grouped together in an old farmstead, which reflects their original intended uses; however an area of undeveloped land lies immediately to the north of the larger, modern buildings which would provide a suitable location for additional buildings at this important rural business site. The Estate has already been approached by one of the current tenants at Beech Farm for a new, larger building (approximately 900sqm) that would accommodate its growing needs, and the area of land to the north would be an ideal location for this. This area has been included within the boundary of the employment site in the Employment Sites Review Background Paper, which suggests that the Council already consider it to form part of the site (rather than as part of the surrounding countryside).
The proposed site is well-screened by existing vegetation along all its boundaries and is not in agricultural use. In fact, it would not be suitable for agricultural use given its proximity to the employment site and separation from the adjacent fields by substantially vegetated boundaries. The land is redundant for this reason and the Estate have therefore put it into temporary use as an archery range. The preferred use of the land would be for an extension to the existing employment site so that the Estate may continue to provide units of various sizes and design to suit the evolving needs of rural businesses.

The Employment Sites Review Background Paper (despite it including proposed aforementioned area within the site boundary), states that there are no expansion opportunities at the site. We do not agree with this, and consider there to be a significant opportunity for additional buildings that meet the growing needs of local rural businesses. The site has proven to be successful to date, and makes an important contribution to the rural economy. Its location in a relatively remote area is inconsequential as there is a specific demand for sites like this in rural areas, as acknowledged in the adopted Core Strategy 2014 and draft DaSA. The success of the site to date, as well as the commitment by the Estate to investing in site improvements (including additional buildings), is a testament to this.

Page 76 of the DaSA confirms the importance of rural business sites:

"(15) the Rural Areas have seen most business development in recent years, as well as accounting for the greatest amount of floorspace with full planning permission, which together approximate to the minimum floorspace target; (16) these findings point to the role that rural areas are playing in meeting the accommodation requirements of businesses and, hence, to the economic growth of the District, and it is recommended this trend should not be frustrated".

We are aware that a Neighbourhood Plan Area has been designated for Battle and the surrounding area, which would include the Beech Farm employment site; however this plan does not appear to have made any progress since the Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated in April 2015. It is therefore crucial that the DaSA provides the necessary policies to support employment development in the Battle area, and allocates sites where appropriate. Policy EC3 (Existing Employment Sites) of the Core Strategy supports a full review of existing employment premises and the allocation of new sites in the DaSA and/or Neighbourhood Plans. The DaSA is now in preparation and, given the lack of progress with the Battle Neighbourhood Plan, the DaSA must provide the necessary supporting policies for additional buildings at the Beech Farm employment site.

Until the DaSA is adopted, Policy EC3 will apply to any proposal for new buildings at Beech Farm and part (ii) of the policy currently supports the "intensification, conversion, redevelopment and/or extension [of sites] having regard to other policies of the Plan". Our concern with relying on part (ii) of Policy EC3 (or Policy DEC3 of the DaSA, if it is adopted) in the submission of a planning application for new buildings at Beech Farm, is that there would be the potential for other policies in the plan (such as restrictive countryside policies or AONB policies) that could prevent the application from being approved. This uncertainty would create risk to any application that is submitted and, as such, the Estate would hesitate to release the funds required for making such a speculative application. Greater certainty would be needed regarding the principle of the development if the Estate is to submit an application for new buildings at Beech Farm, and this could be achieved if the site is allocated.
We therefore request that the area of land immediately north of Beech Farm is allocated for additional business development that would complement the existing, successful, rural business site. The extent of the existing site and extension area would follow the exact same boundary drawn around the site in the Employment Sites Review Background Paper (page 60). We reiterate that the Battle Neighbourhood Plan cannot be relied upon to allocate the site, given the lack of progress demonstrated to date.

2. Question 17: Do you agree with the policy approach to existing employment sites and the proposed policy wording?

The current consultation on the DaSA proposes to replace Policy EC3 of the Core Strategy with policy DEC3. The wording of the new policy appears to be identical, apart from a slight discrepancy in part (iv) in the use of the word 'prioritising' instead of 'prioritise'. Whilst perhaps more grammatically correct, we do not consider there to be a need to amend Core Strategy Policy EC3 for this reason alone.

The original intention of the policy amendment appears to include a need for greater flexibility to include 'lack of need' and 'incompatible land uses' as alternative reasons for why a change of use at an existing employment site might be acceptable (along with viability, which is already mentioned), and this is something that we would support in the policy wording. We also support the retention of part (ii) of the policy, which remains as per Policy EC3 (quoted earlier in this letter).

3. Housing Allocations in Battle

Following our comments in relation to the need to include employment site allocations for the Battle area within the DaSA to mitigate a Neighbourhood Plan not coming forward at all, or within a reasonable timeframe, we consider it important to comment on housing sites in this respect as well. The need to adequately meet the housing requirements for the Battle area in the DaSA is paramount because of the threat of speculative applications being submitted as a result of the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

The adopted Core Strategy sets a requirement of 475-500 dwellings to be brought forward in Battle during the plan period. Paragraph 11.10 states that sites are to be brought forward in the DaSA, although paragraph 7.52 includes the possibility of sites coming forward in Neighbourhood Plan.

The same housing requirements are carried over to the draft DaSA, with an identified residual requirement of 425 dwellings to be allocated on new sites in Battle. This is not an insignificant amount and it makes a valuable contribution to the District's housing supply. Given the lack of progress being made with the Neighbourhood Plan, to rely entirely on it to deliver the required number of new homes would put a question mark over the ability of the plan to deliver the requisite number of dwellings during the plan period (particularly the early part of it). Eight other Neighborhood Pplans are being relied upon in this way - albeit two have made sufficient progress that their delivery can more reasonably be relied upon (Salehurst & Robertsbridge NP, and Sedlescombe NP).

The draft DaSA states that all the Neighbourhood Plans need to be in place at approximately the same time and that "it is vital for all communities to have plans in place as soon as possible" (paragraph 55). However, it is impossible to control this process, and the Council are placing an unreasonable amount of pressure on the Neighbourhood Forums, who are under no obligation to produce their plans within a certain timescale.

The timing for the delivery of the plans is very much dependent on the resources available to each Neighbourhood Forum and the process falls outside of the Council's control. It is therefore paramount that the Council prepares for the inclusion of sites within the DaSA for the Neighbourhood Plan Areas. These sites can always be withdrawn at a later date should the identified Neighbourhood Plans progress at an appropriate pace, as is currently being proposed by Wealden District Council and which is an appropriate contingency strategy.

The inclusion of employment and housing site allocations in the DaSA for Battle would not preclude their replacement with policies contained in a Neighbourhood Plan, should one be produced at some point during the plan period. In any case, the community would be able to contribute to the identification of appropriate site allocations in the DaSA and the process would therefore not conflict with the main purpose of the Localism Agenda which is to include local communities in key planning decisions in their area. To exclude allocations in the DaSA from the Battle area could result in little economic or residential development taking place for the early part of the plan period, leaving the Council with an employment and housing land supply shortage when assessed against objective needs.

As such, we submit the following three sites for allocation for residential development on the western edge of Battle, within the Beech Estate:

* Land West of Vale Road
* Land West of Battle Hospital A
* Land West of Battle Hospital B

Plans and forms containing information for each of these sites are enclosed.

We look forward to reviewing your Authority's response to these representations in due course.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

Beech Farm Employment Site:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28093

Land west of Battle Hospital A - Plan:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28094

Land west of Battle Hospital B - Plan:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28095

Land west of Vale Road - Plan:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28096