QUESTION 18: Do you agree with the policy approaches to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB and to the respective proposed policy wordings?

Agree.

Policy protecting landscape features needs careful consideration. Whilst there is a need to protect, there is also a need to provide for development which may in turn be in locations that have the potential to impact on the landscape. The policy should allow for development subject to landscape impacts being assessed and mitigated where possible. Development also provides an opportunity for enhancement.

The High Weald AONB Unit supports the proposed policy approaches to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB and the respective policy wordings.

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

Support policies DEN1 and DEN2

Fairlight Parish Council comments:

We strongly support this proposal.

We support policy DEN1 and DEN2 to protect the AONB from damaging development

I agree with the policy approaches.

Support DEN1 and DEN2

I agree

We applaud the recognition of the significance of the HWAONB by giving it a separate policy. It could be more sharply focused by including 'such development should ... not result in the loss of Ancient Woodland, and should conserve and enhance the ecology and productivity of fields, trees and hedgerows'.

yes

New policy A setting out the basis for assessing local landscape character impacts is recommended

NCS agrees with policy approach and wording

Yes, any policy which will help to preserve the natural environment in which we live must be good, as long as there is constant consultation with the correct people to ensure that the most current criteria are being met.

Rye Conservation Society agrees to the proposed policy and wording.

In Policy DEN 2, please define "small scale". In the AONB, small scale is not 40 houses on one site - no more than 10 is more in keeping with the High Weald landscape. Yet such developments have been acceptable in Rother. If you take the AONB landscape seriously, only small developments (10 maximum) should be approved.

We welcome Policies DEN1 and DEN2. We have in the SRNP our own Policy EN3. In it we suggest certain specific objectives which development in the HWAONB should observe, as follows:
1 restore watercourses to improve water quality and prevent flooding;
2 use local materials and support woodland management;
3 respect historic gateways and cause no loss of banks or hedgerows;
4 not cause the loss or degradation of Ancient Woodland;
5 conserve / enhance ecology and productivity of the countryside.

We applaud the separate policy for the HWAONB and the specific reference to dark skies in Policy DEN1.

Support the policies.

The term "major development" needs to be defined if the Policy is to be clearly understood.

Policy DEN1: Agreed.
It is good that RDC has a policy on lighting but it needs to have a specific policy fleshed out to preserve dark night skies. Such policy needs to restrict lighting to its intended purpose and avoid any light spill.

Consider solar street lighting and shields to stop lighting dwellings

Policy DEN2
The proposals 10.1 - 10.11 should take account of (a) the HWAONB advice note
published October 2016, 'Legislation and Planning Policy in the HWAONB', and (b)Policy EN3 of the Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan.

All development will be considered with regard to any negative impact it may have on the landscape character of any adjacent countryside. Proposals which preserve the open character of any gap between settlements and, as a minimum, is not detrimental to the Green Infrastructure Network (as identified by RDC) will be supported. Development will only be permitted where it conserves or enhances the natural beauty of the immediate area in which the development sits.

In particular all opportunities must be taken to:

* restore the natural function of rivers, streams and other watercourses to improve
water quality, to prevent flooding and enhance wetland habitats;
* respect the settlement pattern of parishes or towns, use local materials and wood
fuel systems that enhance the appearance of development;
* relate well to historic route ways and not divert them from their original course or
damage their rural character by loss of banks, hedgerows, verges or other
important features;
* not result in the loss or degradation of Ancient Woodland or historic features
within it and, where appropriate, will contribute to its on-going management;
* conserve and enhance the ecology and productivity of fields, trees and
hedgerows, retain and reinstate historic field boundaries, and direct development
away from medieval or earlier fields, especially where these form coherent field
systems with other medieval features.

Agree. Particularly appreciate the 'dark skies' wording. There is way too much light pollution in RDC area.

The following comments, related to biodiversity matters, are made on behalf of the Sussex Wildlife Trust.

If a question from the consultation is not included below, please assume that the Trust has no comments to make at this time.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

QUESTION 2: Do you agree that the optional water efficiency standard should be adopted and the proposed policy wording?

We are concerned that this policy appears to limit itself to water efficiency and believe that it should be broader in its approach to water resource management. The policy appears to consider only domestic water efficiency and we question if the policy should also consider commercial use.

QUESTION 3: Where, if anywhere, do you think could be an appropriate location for wind turbine(s) to be sited in the District?

Any proposal for wind turbines and associated infrastructure, such as connections to the grid, needs to ensure that impacts on biodiversity and their placement within the landscape in terms of their potential impacts on ecological networks are assessed before suggestions are made regarding suitable locations.
Therefore changes in policy wording to reflect this should be made.

QUESTION 4: What opportunities do you think there are to encourage biomass/wood fuel from local sources and how should these be reflected in planning policy?

This could be demonstrated through a policy which encourages biomass potential in commercial and possibly residential developments through appropriate design. However, the policy would need to recognise the importance of protecting woodlands so that their biodiversity value is considered and enhanced through the process. Further, the Rother Local Plan currently does not include an ancient woodland policy; if a wood fuel policy is adopted a separate ancient woodland policy is needed.

QUESTION 7: Do you agree with the policy approach to equestrian developments and the proposed policy wording?

We are encouraged to see the supporting text for this policy recognise the sensitivities of equestrian developments in the countryside and the need to ensure that these features are safeguarded. In relation to this we highlight that in paragraph 7.16 the last sentence states 'However, there is scope for equestrian development in the countryside that is limited in scale'. The term 'scale' perhaps needs defining to add clarity.

We are concerned about equestrian developments being proposed on designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites. Therefore we welcome an approach to more clearly defined acceptable limits of equestrian development in relation to designated sites. The policy could benefit from underlining the need for up to date ecological management plans accompanying proposals, as per National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF) section 165.

QUESTION 12: Do you agree with the proposed policy approach to external residential areas and the proposed policy wording? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

Creative approaches and orientation should be considered when designing external spaces. Their setting within the green infrastructure aspirations of the District should be looked at during the planning application stage. This would ensure a holistic and considered approach to green infrastructure.

While bullet point (i) gives clarity to the external spaces of dwellings of 3 or more bedrooms, there is a lack of commitment to the amount of space need for flat and complex developments. The last sentence of this bullet point states that, 'an appropriate level of usable community and amenity space should be provided'. We are concerned that this statement does not give the decision maker a clear enough direction for its interpretation.

Bullet point (ii) should reference the need to be permeable and where gardens are being lost efforts should be made to ensure there is no loss to biodiversity reference NPPF section 109. The council may find the RHS advice leaflet useful www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=738

We suggest bullet point (iii) uses wording to incorporate green roofs on waste and recycling stores to help add to a developments' contribution to biodiversity as per NPPF section 118 'Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged'.

QUESTION 13: Do you agree with the proposed policy approach to extensions to residential gardens and the proposed policy wording? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

This is an interesting policy and we welcome its inclusion. The Sussex Wildlife Trust have concern that an extension to a garden, if allowed, could in time lead to other development within that garden boundary. Therefore, the type of habitat a garden extension would involve needs to be considered.

We remind Rother District Council that the NPPF section 53 highlights the need to resist inappropriate development of gardens. Therefore perhaps wording to this effect is needed within the policy.

QUESTION 15: Do you agree with the policy approaches to boundary treatments and drives and accesses and to the wording of the proposed policies? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust suggests that policy DHG7 (Boundary Treatments) includes wording to reflect the sentiments of section 118 of the NPPF.

This could be achieved by including a bullet point requiring impermeable boundary features to include gaps or passages beneath them to enable movement of wildlife such as hedgehogs and amphibians.

In addition policy DHG8 (Accesses and Drives) should reflect the need to ensure the proposals for new driveways do not lead to a loss in natural capital delivering ecosystem services. Therefore these should be permeable and look to include biodiversity features. See RHS guidance www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=738

QUESTION 18: Do you agree with the policy approaches to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB and to the respective proposed policy wordings?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the policy approach to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB. We recommend that policy DEN2 be strengthened by the addition of wording requiring development to deliver biodiversity gains which meet the AONB objectives.

We are concerned that the wording in the last sentence of the policy 'major development will be resisted' would not allow a decision maker to be clear when determining an application. What is the level of resistance intended?

QUESTION 19: Do you agree with the proposed definition of the Strategic Gaps, and the policy applying to them? If not, what changes would you wish to see?

Figure 7 demonstrates that an area of the existing Bexhill and Hastings/St Leonards green gaps is proposed to be removed from the strategic gap. However the supporting text (10.19 - 10.21) does not indicate the reasons for the exclusion. We feel the supporting text for this section would benefit from a brief explanation for the reason in inclusion or exclusion of areas.

We ask the council to consider the value of the strategic gaps in harnessing the district's natural capital. This natural capital will be delivering vital ecosystem services to the district and potentially to the authorities adjoining Rother District. Therefore we would suggest that this is reflected in the policy wording by:
'Within these gaps development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must be unobtrusive, not detract from the openness of the area and ensure that ecosystem services are not compromised.'

We believe this additional wording will reflect the importance of strategic gaps for ecosystems service delivery and will also enable the policy to sit in line with NPPF para 109.

QUESTION 20: Do you agree with the policy approach to supporting biodiversity and green space and to the proposed policy wording?

We are encouraged by the manner in which the supporting text for this policy has been approached. The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the inclusion of an 'Enhancement Policy' approach, however the wording should be strengthened to better conform to the wording and ethos of Chapter 9 of the NPPF.

Part i - the qualification of 'in principle' should be removed. The proposal is either supported in full or it is not, 'in principle' adds nothing to the policy.

Part ii - the word 'significant' should be removed. All developments should aim to avoid harm to biodiversity.

Part iii - should look to reflect the sentiments of the NPPF section 109. The first sentence should be amended to read:
'In addition to ( ii) above , all developments will be expected to deliver net gain to biodiversity by retaining and enhancing biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context ....'

Part iv has a requirement for 'larger developments of more than 2 hectare or 50 dwellings...' to produce a green infrastructure (GI) masterplan'. Looking at the allocations, very few meet this requirement. We recognise that there are some larger allocations around Bexhill where we would certainly support the need to produce GI masterplans but we are concerned about the substantial number of allocations which do not meet these criteria. We suggest that the threshold is lowered to 25 dwellings. We also recommend that the policy requires all development to contribute to the aspirations of Rother's Green Infrastructure Strategy.

We suggest that Rother District Council include an Ancient Woodland policy within the Local Plan. This would reflect the ethos of the NPPF which clearly states in section 117:
'Planning permission should be refused for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighs the loss.'

QUESTION 21: Do you agree with the policy approach to sustainable drainage and the proposed policy wording?

Reviewing the supporting text and policy wording there is no recognition of Pevensey and Pett being low lying areas (below sea level) and the associated risk of sea and ground water flooding. We suggest that this is included.

QUESTION 23: Do you agree with the policy approach to managing environmental pollution through the planning process and with the proposed policy wording?

The policy would be strengthened by ensuring that there is mention of biodiversity within the policy bullet point relating to lighting.

Lastly, although the supporting text highlights that the district is not subject to any Air Quality Management Areas, with increasing development we suggest that the council recognise the natural capital that helps filter and deal with pollutants.

Increased levels of development in the district means resources may come under increasing pressure. It may benefit the council to consider talking to the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre about their Ecoserve programme. This programme shows where the district's natural capital is delivering ecosystem services such as air purification in relation to population demand.

QUESTION 24: Do you agree with the policy approach to comprehensive development and the proposed policy wording?

We support recognising the importance of a holistic approach to development which considers the three roles of sustainable development. In order to achieve this within the policy wording we suggest that the policy looks to include wording regarding net gain to biodiversity as per section 109 of the NPPF. We feel that this is important as phased development may overlook the cumulative impact on the district's natural capital and the ecosystem services being delivered.

PART C: SITE ALLOCATIONS

General Comments
The Trust recognises that the presence of designated sites and priority habitats and species has been a contributing factor in the assessment of the suitability of site allocations. We very much support the council's approach to exclude designated sites and sites of high biodiversity value for development. However we note that the site assessments were primarily based on desk-top studies. With the exception of North Bexhill and Spindlewood Drive it does not appear that any on the ground assessments have been carried out.

Given the council's commitment in the Core Strategy objectives 'To protect important ecological resources in the district' and in policy EN5 to 'support opportunities for management, restoration and creation of habitats...' we recommend that preliminary ecological appraisals are carried out for the preferred sites before they are officially allocated. This will ensure that any issues relating to ecology are identified before the plan reaches the examination stage.

We are pleased to see that the 'Key constraints/opportunities' sections for many of the preferred site allocations consider ecological impacts. However, these considerations are again inconsistently reflected in policy wording. For example, policy IDE1 requires that an ecological assessment is undertaken and that any impact on protected species mitigated. Further to this, policy MAR1 states that development proposals should be subject to an ecological survey.

By singling out only two of the site allocations, this may give the impression that proposals for other allocations may not require ecological surveys. The NPPF has a clear requirement for planning decisions to be based on up to date information and for development to achieve net gains for biodiversity. It would not be acceptable for proposals to proceed without the inclusion of up to date ecological information, especially given that thus far the sites have only been assessed at a desk-top level. This position needs to be reflected in the Biodiversity Policy (please see comments for QUESTION 20) and in all the site allocation policies. Therefore the following wording should be added to all site allocations:
'Prior to determination:
A site wide landscape and ecological management plan that is informed by up to date ecological information, including information on the site's utilisation and delivery of ecosystems services, will be produced. Mechanisms needed for implementation will be identified and secured. This will be to the
satisfaction of the local planning authority to ensure long term maintenance of retained and newly created habitats.'

We recognise that information regarding a site's utilisation of ecosystem services maybe too onerous for small allocations. However, we take this opportunity to highlight to the council that the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre are now able to run a programme called Ecoserve. This programme uses biodiversity and habitat data to look at the ecosystems services currently provided by an area's natural capital. It also assesses where the demand for those services are in relation to population. We suggest that this might be a useful evidence base for the council to consider as an aid to helping smaller developments see how they could make a contribution or enhancements to the continued delivery of those services through their site.

Additionally, many of the site allocations are adjacent to ancient woodland. Again whilst this is usually noted in the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section, it is not consistently reflected in the policy wording for the allocation. For example Policy BRO1 part (v) specifies that 'a buffer zone of at least 15 metres is provided to the Ancient Woodland', while the presence of an ancient woodland is not mentioned in, for example, policy BEX1 or BEX2. Conversely policy BEX 9 does specify the need for a buffer to protect the adjacent ancient woodland, but the width of the buffer is not specified.

Core Strategy policy EN1 and NPPF paragraph 118 require the protection of ancient woodland in the district. Additionally, Natural England's Ancient Woodland standing advice is clear that a minimum buffer must be at least 15 metres. We therefore recommend that an Ancient Woodland policy is included in the DaSA and that any site allocation policy with the potential to impact on ancient woodland includes a requirement of a buffer zone of at least 15 metres.

We also note that most of the allocations require the 'retention and enhancement of boundary planting'. We understand that this requirement is primarily to mitigate visual impacts on the AONB, however this is also an opportunity to ensure that each allocation contributes to the creation of an ecological network for the district. We therefore recommend that when boundary planting is specified, additional wording is used, such as:
'Provision is made for the retention and enhancement of boundary planting, for the benefit of biodiversity and for screening purposes'.

The majority of the site allocation policies use the term 'some' when describing the number of dwellings or size of employment space required within a development. This is not a standard planning term and hence we are concerned that its use leaves the policies open to broad interpretation. Given the landscape and ecological sensitivities of many of the site allocations, we recommend that a maximum figure is proposed in each policy. This will provide clarity and ensure that the policy can be robustly applied.

Alternatively, if an approximate value is preferred, we recommend the use of the word 'approximately' rather than 'some' as this is more frequently used in a planning policy context. However, if the council is minded to use this approach, we would ask that an additional requirement is added to the policies to ensure that overdevelopment does not occur. We recommend the following:
'The final number of dwellings/employment size selected must be based on up to date environmental information that demonstrates the current ecosystem delivery of the site and its capacity to absorb the proposed level of development. '

QUESTION 26: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

General comment
The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However, we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb this level of development around Bexhill. All the allocated sites around the north east of Bexhill should be treated holistically and assessed for their impact on ecosystem services (NPPF paragraphs 109, 114 and 117). There must be a strategic approach to the development of these sites to ensure that ecological networks are retained across the sites.

Policy BEX1
We support the protection of the adjacent ancient woodland and the retention of the tree line through the centre of the site, as shown in the detailed map. However, this protection does not appear to be repeated in the policy wording. Additionally, the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section recognises that the land along the Combe stream to the north-west of the site should be retained as an amenity/wildlife corridor. Again, this is not reflected in policy wording. If requirements are not included in the policy, we are concerned that they may be disregarded at the application stage. This could also lead to confusion for developers and inconsistency in the decision making process. Therefore, policy BEX1 should be strengthened to include:
 A buffer of at least 15 metres to the ancient woodland
 The retention of the central belt of trees and enhancements to create a robust corridor between the ancient woodland and the wider countryside.
 The retention of the land along the Combe stream as an amenity/wildlife corridor
The Trust supports the retention of the central tree belt; however, the proposed access appears to sever this corridor. We recommend that the access is reconfigured to ensure the corridor is preserved in its entirety. If this is not deemed feasible wording should be added to ensure that the tree belt still functions as and ecological corridor.

It is vital that any green infrastructure within the site connects well to the surrounding area. We recommend additional wording in section (iv) to insure this:
'landscape and woodland belts are developed, implemented and connected to the wider landscape as an integral part of proposals'.

QUESTION 27: Do you agree with the preferred sites for housing development at Bexhill? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Trust questions whether the district's natural capital is able to absorb this level of development around Bexhill. Before finalising site allocations, especially larger greenfield sites around the development boundary, we recommend that the council assesses the capacity of these sites to provide ecosystem services. We take this opportunity to highlight to the council that the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre are now able to run a programme called Eco serve which uses biodiversity and habitat data to look at the ecosystems services the natural capital is currently providing and where the demand for those services are in relation to population. We suggest that this might be a useful evidence base for the council to consider.
QUESTION 28: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

General comment
As per our comments for QUESTION 26, site BEX2 should be assessed strategically with allocation BEX1 and BEX3. Overall, these allocations cover a significant area of greenfield, which will be providing vital ecosystem services to the district. The cumulative impact of these allocations on the district's natural capital needs to be assessed and accounted for to ensure that the expansion of Bexhill is truly sustainable as per the NPPF. Additionally, any green infrastructure strategy should cover all these sites to ensure permeability throughout the developments and multifunctional benefits across the north east of Bexhill are achieved.

Policy BEX2
As per our comments for QUESTION 26, we are concerned that some of the intentions in the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section and the detailed map are not reflected in the policy wording. We recommend that policy BEX2 is strengthened to include:
 A buffer of at least 15 metres to the ancient woodland
 Part (ii) should include a requirement for the pond to be retained as an ecological feature with landscaping to connect it to the wider countryside

QUESTION 29: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Notwithstanding our general comments in QUESTIONS 26 and 28, if development is to occur here then option 1 would be preferable. This would retain a larger proportion of greenfield and allow more creative approaches to green infrastructure and ecological enhancements. We recommend that information on the site's utilisation and delivery of ecosystem services should be produced and used to inform the site's layout.

The Trust is concerned that the now approved North Bexhill Access Road severs the ghyll woodland at Kiteye Wood.

Any development in this area should seek to mitigate this impact through appropriate habitat creation and/or management. Additionally, the policy should make reference to the retention of the land along the Combe stream as an amenity/wildlife corridor, as per policy BEX1. These requirements could be included in part (vii) of the policy, which we support.

As with previous comments the wording to protect ancient woodland should be strengthened to include a requirement for a 15 metre buffer.

We also recommend that the policy protects the 'Woodland Complex at Buckholt Farm' Local Wildlife Site, to the north east of the site allocation. Whilst it sits outside the development boundary, this ancient woodland could still be harmed by the indirect impacts of the development. These need to be assessed and avoided at the master planning stage.

QUESTION 33: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX7? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust supports the retention of the southern section of the site as an ecology area. However, the wording of section (iv) should be strengthened to include a requirement to enhance the area as per core strategy policy EN5. We recommend:
'The southern section of the site remains undeveloped as an ecology area. Ecological enhancements should be implemented to improve the area for biodiversity. Provision should be made for the long term management of this area.'
QUESTION 35: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX9? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust supports the retention of the tree belts in the centre of the site, the designation as a natural green space and the wording of part (vi). However, it is not clear to us how this corridor will be retained intact given that vehicle access is only proposed from the east of the site. This indicates that internal roads will sever the corridor in order to access the residential area in the North West. This should be a consideration in designing the layout of the site. At the very least we recommend wording to ensure that the integrity of the green corridor is maintained.

We support the inclusion of section (vii), however this should be strengthened with a requirement for the ancient woodland buffer at least 15 metres wide.

Additionally, it should be specified that the pond is retained as an ecological feature, rather than as part of any SuDS scheme for the site.

QUESTION 36: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX10? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust supports requirement (ii), however this should be expanded to specify that integration includes an integrated scheme of green infrastructure to ensure that the entire site remains permeable and receives multifunctional benefits.
The words 'where possible' should be removed from part (v). The pond should be retained and enhanced; this cannot be seen as unduly onerous given the site of the scheme.

QUESTION 37: Which of the development options for Northeye do you prefer? Should other options be considered?

Any policy for this site must include protections against the potential negative impacts of the creation of sports pitches such as flood lighting and impermeable surfaces. We recommend wording is included to ensure that there are no harmful impacts of this type of development.

QUESTION 38: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX11? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

This policy should include wording to manage the type of playing pitches which might be suitable on this site. Consideration should be made to the use of artificial pitches and associated lighting. In particular, potential impacts on bats which are likely to be present in the area should be considered.

QUESTION 43: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEX15? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The 'Key constraints/opportunities' section states that 'a large proportion of the site suffers from surface water flooding'. Therefore, we recommend that an additional criterion is added to the policy to ensure that a SuDS scheme is implemented to rectify this issue. We also recommend that green infrastructure is included to both help with the flooding issue and to connect the site to the wider GI network in the town.

QUESTION 47: Do you agree with the preferred site for housing development along the Hastings Fringes? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Trust supports the allocation of brownfield sites of low ecological value over the allocation of greenfield sites. A large amount of development is already proposed for the fringes of Hastings through the Hastings Development Management Plan. We would not support any further urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside without full accounting of the area's natural capital and assessment of the area's utilisation and delivery of ecosystem services.

QUESTION 49: Do you agree with the preferred sites for employment development along the Hastings Fringes? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Trust does not support further urban sprawl at the Hastings fringe; however of the four sites recommended, the preferred sites seem to be the least damaging. As stated previously we recommend that preliminary ecological appraisals are carried out before sites are formally allocated to ensure that there is no significant harm to biodiversity.

Additionally, a wider green infrastructure plan should be required, covering both of these sites in conjunction with the adjacent Hasting allocations to ensure a holistic approach.

QUESTION 50: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HAS2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We recommend that point (iv) is strengthened as follows to ensure net gains to biodiversity as per the NPPF:
'provision is made, in conjunction with the adjoining employment allocations, for the retention, enhancement and long-term future management of woodland to the north of the site for the benefit of biodiversity'.

QUESTION 51: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HAS3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support criterion (iv), however any green infrastructure should be integrated into the surrounding employment allocations, to ensure multifunctional benefits are seen across the whole area.

QUESTION 53: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HAS5, including the boundary as defined in the Policies Map? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We recommend an addition to criterion (ii) to ensure net gains to biodiversity as per the NPPF.
'...the Site of Nature Conservation Importance within it, and creates net gains to biodiversity within the Park...'

QUESTION 54: Do you agree with the recommendation regarding the Hastings Fringes development boundaries? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundaries to be applied to this area?

The Trust strongly supports the designation of a strong development boundary which prevents further urban sprawl into the wider countryside. (Please see QUESTION 47).

QUESTION 56: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEC1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support requirement (iii), but would recommend the addition of 'for the benefit of biodiversity' to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network of the district.

QUESTION 57: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEC2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We recommend that the policy is strengthened to better reflect the contents of the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section. In particular, reference should be made to the requirement to keep the remaining area as amenity land and to the retention of the pond as an ecological feature rather than as part of any SuDS scheme deemed necessary.

QUESTION 59: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Broad Oak? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust strongly supports the exclusion of sites containing ancient woodland and/or designated for their biodiversity value such as BO14. To allocate such sites would be contrary the policies within the Rother Core Strategy.

QUESTION 60: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BRO1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the wording of requirement (v) and the specification of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that this wording is replicated in other policies for sites adjacent to ancient woodland.

We support requirement (iv), but would recommend the addition of 'for the benefit of biodiversity' to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network of the district.

QUESTION 61: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BRO2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support requirement (iii), but would recommend the addition of 'for the benefit of biodiversity' to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network of the district.

QUESTION 65: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAM2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

This policy needs to be strengthened to ensure that the adjacent Local Wildlife Site, Local Geological Site, SSSI and Special Protection Area are protected from harm. Whilst the protection and management of the dunes is a key landscape and ecological objective of the SPD, there does not appear to be a specific requirement to protect and enhance these designated sites. This should be addressed in the policy.

QUESTION 66: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the deletion of the SSSI from the development boundary. Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SSSI is of national importance to biodiversity and should not be degraded through encroaching development.

QUESTION 68: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAT1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The 'Key constraints/opportunities' section states that buffer planting should be informed by ecological surveys, however this requirement is not reflected in the policy wording. Given that the site appears to contain well developed scrub, any application for this site must include a thorough ecological survey to assess if the site can absorb the level of development suggested whilst producing net gains for biodiversity.

QUESTION 69: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAT2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Requirement (iii) should be subject to ecological surveys to assess the impact of severing the hedgerow. We also recommend that 'for the benefit of biodiversity' is added to the end of requirement (iv)(b) to ensure that any tree and hedgerow planting contributes to the wider ecological network in Catsfield.

QUESTION 72: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HUR1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

As the stream/ditch that sub-divides the two lower fields is recommended to be retained for both heritage and ecological reasons, this should be reflected in the policy. We recommend that requirement (vii) is amended to:
'...is retained and incorporated within the layout as an ecological feature. Development should ensure that the biodiversity value of the feature is enhanced and that it is integrated into the wider blue/green infrastructure plan for the site...'

QUESTION 73: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HUR2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

This site is adjacent to Hurst Green Meadows and Woodland Local Wildlife Site. This should be acknowledged in the policy and a requirement to protect and enhance the LWS should be included.

QUESTION 76: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy IDE1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly support the requirement for an ecological assessment. This assessment should inform the design and layout of the development to ensure the site remains permeable to species. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity gains throughout the development should be taken.

QUESTION 79: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy NOR1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Enhancements to the existing tree belts should be sought for the benefit of biodiversity.

QUESTION 82: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy PEA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the protection of the traditional orchard and the aims to bring it into long-term sustainable management. This is a priority habitat and as such its protection and enhancement is fundamental to the council's aims in the Core Strategy. We strongly support requirement (v) and recommend that there is a requirement for a long-term ecological monitoring and management plan for the site.

Requirement (vi) should include 'enhancement' as well as retention to ensure net gains to biodiversity. We also recommend that the requirement for a SuDS scheme is included in the policy.

QUESTION 83: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?

The Trust strongly supports the exclusion of the traditional orchard from the development boundary. This will help to protect the site in the long term.

QUESTION 84: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Rye Harbour? If not, which site should be preferred?

The Trust strongly supports the exclusion of sites designated as SSSI. These would clearly not be suitable for development and their allocation would be contrary to the Core Strategy and NPPF.

QUESTION 85: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy RHA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The site is also adjacent to the SPA and this should be acknowledged in the policy. We recommend that requirement (iv) is extended as follows:
'...development of RH10 does not adversely impact upon the Rye Harbour SSSI and avoids impacts on the SPA'.

QUESTION 86: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?

It appears a typo is included in paragraph 15.98. The reference to Donsmead, Station Road should be removed.

We support the proposed development boundary as it should prevent further development encroaching onto sites designated for their biodiversity value.

QUESTION 87: Do you agree with Policy RHA2 regarding the Harbour Road Industrial Estate and the proposed boundary changes? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Given the ecological sensitivity of the land surrounding this allocation, we recommend that requirement (iii) is strengthened as follows:
'...a comprehensive landscaping strategy and an ecological monitoring and mitigation plan to improve the overall appearance and the biodiversity value of development.'

QUESTION 88: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Westfield? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust strongly supports the exclusion of sites containing ancient woodland and/or designated for their biodiversity value. To allocate such sites would be contrary the policies within the Rother Core Strategy.

QUESTION 89: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly suggest the policy includes wording relating to up to date ecological surveys and boundary features working for the benefit of biodiversity are incorporated as per our general comments at the start of this section. Further to this, as identified in the 'Key constraints/opportunities' section, the previous ecological appraisals suggested biodiversity gains. The Trust strongly supports the inclusion of wording to support biodiversity gains but seeks that these are not limited to bird and bat boxes. Instead biodiversity gains should be implemented depending on the findings of the up to date ecological surveys submitted at the time of the application. We remind the council that if they are minded to suggest bird and bat boxes as part of the gains for this site in future, wording should be included to highlight the need to incorporate natural features supporting these artificial homes.

QUESTION 90: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly suggest the policy includes wording relating to up to date ecological surveys and boundary features working for the benefit of biodiversity are incorporated as per our general comments at the start of this section. The aerial photograph shows the degraded formal gardens and it would be interesting to see if this allocation could consider how these former gardens might be integrated into the layout of the development site, as it may enable the retention of features of interest.

QUESTION 91: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES3? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

The southern section of the allocations lies within the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA). We strongly support the requirement for an ecological assessment. This assessment should inform the design and layout of the development to ensure the site remains permeable to species.

Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity gains throughout the development as per the ecological surveys and aspirations of the BOA should be taken.

QUESTION 92: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES4? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We note this allocation falls outside the 2006 development boundary. However, we are supportive of measures taken to encourage modes of sustain able transport and to interlink those benefits with biodiversity gains. The text accompanying the allocated site states that there are locally present protected species. Therefore we recommend that (iii) reads:
'ecological improvements are based on up to date ecological surveys and are implemented in accordance with these findings and those of the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and Rother Green infrastructure Strategy'.

Question 93 - 103

We support the retention of gaps between settlements. While these gaps are often retained for reasons of coalescence and visual sensitivities, we highlight that the Sussex Wildlife Trust also sees the need to recognise the importance of these green gaps in delivering ecosystem services to the local communities (NPPF section 109).

QUESTION 105: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy GYP1, including the boundary as defined on the Policies Map? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We strongly suggest the policy includes wording relating to up to date ecological surveys and boundary features working for the benefit of biodiversity are incorporated as per are general comments at the start of this section.

QUESTION 109: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy (MAR1)? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

We support the requirement for an ecological survey. We recommend that criterion (i) includes 'for the benefit of biodiversity' and the criterion (iv) requires the use of SuDS.

QUESTION 110: Do you agree with a policy to support the continued allocation for the re-instatement of the railway link from Robertsbridge to Bodiam along its original route?

The Sussex Wildlife Trust support sustainable modes of transport. However, we do not have enough information about this particular scheme to offer an opinion on this policy. It is unclear whether the application has been progressed with the consideration of the existing landowners and the level to which biodiversity interests have been considered.

QUESTION 111: Do you have any comments on this scope or content of the new Local Plan that are not covered by other questions?

We highlight the need for a specific Ancient Woodland Policy as per section 117 of the NPPF.
'Planning permission should be refused for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweighs the loss.'

We welcome the inclusion of the green infrastructure study as an evidence base for the local plan. We would like to know if this will progress into a clear strategy identifying delivery mechanisms. We suggest that the local plan may benefit from a specific policy on green infrastructure/ecological networks to ensure consistent integration of this infrastructure within development.

Should you have any further questions regarding our consultation response please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely,
Laura Brook
Conservation Officer

Landscape

ENVIRONMENT Page 79

Yes

Archaeology

Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

ENVIRONMENT Page 79
-Landscape character and High Weald AONB

Yes

Ecology

ENVIRONMENT Page 79

-Landscape character and High Weald AONB

Yes.

Policy DEN1: Agreed.
It is good that RDC has a policy on lighting but it needs to have a specific policy fleshed out to preserve dark night skies. Such policy needs to restrict lighting to its intended purpose and avoid any light spill.

Consider solar street lighting and shields to stop lighting dwellings

Policy DEN2
The proposals 10.1 - 10.11 should take account of (a) the HWAONB advice note
published October 2016, 'Legislation and Planning Policy in the HWAONB', and (b)Policy EN3 of the Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan.

All development will be considered with regard to any negative impact it may have on the landscape character of any adjacent countryside. Proposals which preserve the open character of any gap between settlements and, as a minimum, is not detrimental to the Green Infrastructure Network (as identified by RDC) will be supported. Development will only be permitted where it conserves or enhances the natural beauty of the immediate area in which the development sits.

In particular all opportunities must be taken to:

* restore the natural function of rivers, streams and other watercourses to improve
water quality, to prevent flooding and enhance wetland habitats;
* respect the settlement pattern of parishes or towns, use local materials and wood
fuel systems that enhance the appearance of development;
* relate well to historic route ways and not divert them from their original course or
damage their rural character by loss of banks, hedgerows, verges or other
important features;
* not result in the loss or degradation of Ancient Woodland or historic features
within it and, where appropriate, will contribute to its on-going management;
* conserve and enhance the ecology and productivity of fields, trees and
hedgerows, retain and reinstate historic field boundaries, and direct development
away from medieval or earlier fields, especially where these form coherent field
systems with other medieval features.

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 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