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

Agree.

No comment

Fully agreed

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 policy DEN4

We support DEN4 to improve biodiversity

Support DEN4

i) Agree
ii) Would prefer it to read "Development proposals should not cause more than minimal harm to the biodversity...". The idea that development might cause significant harm does away with the idea of protecting the environment and biodiversity.
iii and iv) Agree

i) Agree
ii) I would prefer to see it read "Development proposals should do minimal harm to the biodiversity..."; The idea that proposals could potentially do something close to "significant"; harm is not good. Mitigation measures should be put in place before development starts.
iii and iv) Agree

We would prefer to see a policy in DEN4(ii) 'to prevent a net loss of biodiversity and to ensure a comprehensive network of habitats, and to work with others to ensure that habitats, features and networks are monitored, restored, enhanced and if possible created, so as to achieve a net gain in biodiversity and sustain wildlife in all areas'.

We also note that there is no specific policy upholding and/or furthering the Green Infrastructure Network, on which RDC has already done some pioneering work. That work needs to be supported by a specific policy.

this is paying lip service to the biodiversity issue as you did nothing when I alerted you to the damage to protected species when my neighbour bulldozed the coldharbour site for an illegal mobile home, and you did not put any stipulations on an environmental survey or retrospective financial penalty or biodiversity enhancement. ANY green field development results in a loss of biodiversity for that site and prospective and RETROSPECTIVE surveys and mitigation should be mandatory, especially onerous conditions should be applied to retrospective applications.

Recommend Option B enhancement policy - this would take a more positive approach by both seeking biodiversity enhancement from development supported by details of appropriate opportunities
The SA/SEA supports the more positive approach

NCS agree with policy approach and wording

Broadly I agree.
Part (iv) - see comment raised on Q9 with regard to the phasing of a large site by smaller sites to avoid having to comply

Rye Conservation Society agrees to the proposed policy and wording.

With developments being allowed to build within 10 metres of Ancient Woodland, it is clear that Rother does not comprehend the effect of this on biodiversity. The trees may be protected, but the animals using them are not. Option B can be supported if it will consider the wider effect of development on the ecosystem.

I agree with this policy approach particularly with regard to green space such as BEX5. This site in Knole Road, Bexhill is in an urban environment and could therefore be 'linked' with neighbouring gardens. The "eco system services" of this site include flood protection to the lower-lying properties to the south (1.5m difference in level over the site) as well as filtration of air pollutants from traffic (the site is close to the town centre), and biodiversity. The site was recognised in the Rother Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study as one of just 3 high-quality sites.

We believe Policy DEN4 could be strengthened by reference to your own Green Infrastructure Network. In our Policy EC4 we say that if there is any loss of natural features in a development, they must be replaced elsewhere on the site. DEN4(ii) does not say this and should.

We suggest that the Policy DEN4 could be strengthened as follows:

Development proposals should give high regard to ecological networks and should retain and enhance features of biodiversity and geological interest. This should be to protect and enhance the Rother Green Infrastructure Network.

Thank you for consulting the RSPB on the Rother District Council. We have reviewed the 'Development and Site Allocations Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options' and the accompanying Habitats Regulations Assessment and would like to make the following comments.

The RSPB does not wish to comment on individual site allocations or housing developments at this stage of the consultation, however, we advocate the planning of development to minimise its impact on designated sites for biodiversity. As the Plan acknowledges, Rother district is located in an area of high nature conservation value, with a significant number of Nature 2000 sites (Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)) located within and adjacent to the District boundary. We should urge that the council would apply a high standard of protection to these sites as set out in the Habitat Regulation Assessments (HRA) and that robust assessments are carried out in relation to the housing developments that lie in proximity to internationally designated sites; Dungeness SAC, Pevensey Levels. Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, proposed SPA extension and Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay proposed Ramsar site.

Dungeness to Pett Level SPA may be vulnerable to the effects of recreational pressure associated with increasing populations in the surrounding area. In order for the Plan to be found sound and for it satisfy the tests of the Habitats Regulations, it is therefore essential that measures are in place to protect these sites from the effects of the new housing development and other relevant development proposed by the Plan.

In the RSPB's view, a key requirement in the development of Rother Local Plan Site Allocations is the assessment of the possible impact on the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and the inclusion of any mitigation that may be needed. We are aware of your current commitment to the survey work to develop a Sustainable Access Strategy to address the mitigation of increased recreation of disturbance by working with Shepway District Council, Natural England and other environmental interests, including the RSPB.

Thank you for involving us in this process. We would welcome your continued consultation throughout the plans development, to enable us to feed into this work and help to ensure its effectiveness. We would however urge a commitment to a time scale for the adoption of this Sustainable Access Strategy and clear agreement of its objectives to allow for monitoring to ensure effective protection of these sites.

Thank you for consulting the RSPB on this application.

Policy DEN4:
A positive approach to biodiversity is welcomed. However, we feel that the policy needs to be revised:
* In (ii) the aim should be to prevent a net loss of biodiversity, not 'avoid significant
harm'.
* The wording of sub-section (iii) strengthened from "...all developments will be
expected to retain and enhance biodiversity..." to "...all developments must retain
and enhance biodiversity...".
* To ensure that a comprehensive network of habitats is maintained. To help this
aim, sub-section (iv) should seek that Green Infrastructure (GI) strategies for
individual developments link into the GI strategy for the district.
* To contribute to the protection, management and enhancement of biodiversity.
* To make a positive contribution to biodiversity, through the restoration and
enhancement of existing habitats, as well as the creation of new ones.
* To maintain existing green spaces and provide alternative equivalent where
appropriate.
* Proposals which have an adverse impact on bio or geodiversity or green spaces,
which cannot be adequately avoided, mitigated or compensated for, will be
refused.

It would also be appropriate to cross reference the policy to the Green Infrastructure
background paper and the need for all developments to undertake biodiversity
surveys if they meet the criteria set out. Currently a lot of smaller developments do
not submit surveys in the first instance and rely on the planning officers to pick this
up. The Council's Validation Checklists should be reviewed to ensure that this is
picked up at validation rather than later when the 'clock is ticking'.

Access to the Countryside and green spaces need to be protected.

Agree.

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

Biodiversity & Green Space

DEN4(i) - should read 'conserve and enhance'.

DEN4(iv) - the GI Masterplan should deliver multiple benefits, where possible and as appropriate.

Habitats

DEN4 (iii) and the accompanying text, should include reference to the protection of irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and aged and veteran trees outside of ancient woodland).

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

-Biodiversity and green space

Yes

Ecology

-Biodiversity and green space

Broadly, yes, but reference should be made to Habitats and Species of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the NERC Act, and the policy should also allow for the protection of biodiversity (notable species and habitats) that occurs outside designated sites.

Additional comments:

* In line with Defra guidance, and to ensure consistency across Sussex, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) should now be referred to as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS). Similarly, Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites (RIGGS) should now be referred to as Local Geological Sites (LGS).

* ESCC should be added as a source of reference for LWS (Table in para 10.50).

* Where the policy and accompanying text refers to BAP habitats and species, the text should include reference to Habitats and Species of Principal Importance as listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (which draws upon the UK BAP and therefore includes the same species).

* Para 10.52. Ecological assessments and reports carried out for developments should be carried out in accordance with best practice guidance (CIEEM Technical Guidance on Ecological Impact Assessments and Report Writing) and BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity - code of practice for planning and development.

* Para 10.52. It is important to note that ecological surveys and mitigation/compensation measures may be seasonally restricted. The time required to carry out appropriate mitigation/compensation prior to the commencement of development should also be programmed in.

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

5.12. It would be more appropriate for the policy to require full consideration to be given to existing features and for enhancements or mitigation measures to be secured on site. This may enable, for example, protected species to be moved and a new habitat created that would allow development to also come forward. However, requiring all development to also retain existing features, is likely to prevent otherwise acceptable development sites, from coming forward. The policy wording should therefore be appropriately revised to ensure that a balance is maintained between development opportunity and protection of the natural environment.

1. Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


2. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Structure of the Representation:

2.12. This representation is divided into the following sections:

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

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

3. The Sites - Northiam and Beckley

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

St Francis Fields, Main Street, Northiam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land at Kings Bank Lane, Beckley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Evidence Base

Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beckley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site Assessment Methodologies Background Paper

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

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

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

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

Core Strategy Evidence Base - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Core Strategy Evidence Base - Strategic Housing Market Assessment

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

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

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

5. DaSA Part B - Development Policies

Question 8: Affordable Housing

5.1. Three options are proposed for affordable housing delivery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 12: External Space Standards

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

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

Question 20: Biodiversity and Green Space

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

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

Question 21: Sustainable Urban Drainage

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

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

Question 24: Comprehensive Development

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

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

Question 25: Development Boundaries

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

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

General Observations

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

6. Strategic Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusions and Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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