QUESTION 25: Do you agree with the proposed policy wording on development boundaries?

Agree

The policy seeks to retain the image that development on one side of a line is acceptable whereas on the other it is not. Instead of considering development in such a way, the NPPF puts a big emphasis on sustainability. Sustainable Development can encompass a wider range of aspects and should be the driver for the development.

Option B

Why change that which has worked well in the past.
Risk of facilitating development outside of existing framework is not acceptable.

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

Yes to Option A but with a bit more flexibility on a site by site basis, because if too restrictive no development will happen

I support Option B and would add that rural areas need the flexibility to permit Rural exception sites and sheltered housing to enable elderly/disabled to stay in their communities.

yes

Option A preferred - new policy that clarifies in policy terms the sue of development boundaries in development management

NCS agrees with the policy wording.

Agree with Option A. Ticehurst NP will set the new development boundary.

This policy needs to be strengthened considerably. There is no mention of the development boundaries of villages/towns following the Neighbourhood Plan process. Development of sites which accord to the number of houses required to be included in the housing count i.e.sites of 6 or more, must be limited to those identified in NP areas, failure to do this would make a mockery of the NP system whereby the Government gave local people the chance to state where development should be.
Paragraph 12.9 must be re-written as it would appear to allow for further development above and beyond what has been allocated by allowing developments to proceed on sites that have now been removed from plans, thus removing the 'will of the people' in favour of 'dictated' sites from RDC. Failure to change this paragraph to allow NP villages/towns to choose their own preferred sites, shows that RDC is not fully engaging in the NP process or respecting the view of their residents, and therefore RDC is not compliant with national policy and the NPPF.
Please view the recent planning appeal for Newick which saw a major development allowed in the village which was against the NP. This type of error must not be allowed to happen again.

Policy DIM2: DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
Question 25
Delete "normally" from 3rd paragraph, line 2 of DIM2.
Reason: Development boundary policy must be definite and give certainty. No
reasons are provided for inclusion of "normally" or circumstances explained where development may be permitted which does not accord with Local Plan policies or for which a countryside location is unnecessary. Planning law requires that all applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise: there is accordingly no requirement to insert "normally" into the policy wording.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, is already heavily developed and should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 & 83.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, is already heavily developed and should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 & 83.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, is already heavily developed and should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 & 83.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.

Ref DaSA Part C
Dear Sir

I am writing to you regarding the above proposed plan as it applies to Peasmarsh.

After consulting with various local people and after attending yesterday's Parish Council meeting it is apparent there is widespread objection to the proposal and indeed real alarm at the apparent paucity of research made by Council before issuing the proposals.

Whilst attached you will find an amalgam of various issues discussed and our reasons behind them I would draw your particular attention to two particular problems.

Several of my neighbours in so called Griffin Lane have endurde many problems with flooding at times of heavy/moderate rainfall when our gardens are turned into lakes as current drainage from the proposed site, cannot cope properly. Indeed in the 24 years I have lived at this address I have spent considerable sums trying to rectify this, to no avail. Your proposals for building on this land can only exacerbate this problem hugely, unless a major upgrade of surface water drainage and sewage is conducted well in advance of any building. Failure to do so would be a wilful example of you ignoring this fundamental problem.

The second major issue is the traffic access for the proposed site directly onto the A268 as suggested. Frankly, I am amazed that the proposed entry/exit point is regarded a safe and viable without major changes i.e. traffic calming, roundabouts etc.

As ever, the devil is in the detail but it is clear major expenditure is needed to overcome the problems referred to above. In an effort to be positive regarding development regarding question 81 for alternative sites you will see these are suggested which would have less onerous cost requirements for the council and would remove the danger of direct access onto the A268 main road.

The attached document will give you a more comprehensive view of our discontent with the proposal and I strongly disagree with the plan as it stands

Yours faithfully

Roger Evans.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages, the village has been over developed with private developers and the council placing housing with Hop Garden, Maltins, Farley way, I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.

Question 25
I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.


Question 81
Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.
If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.
However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope


Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasmarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.


Question 83
I regret that we me not able to agree, in their totality, to major changes to the development
boundary. The reasons may be implied from our comments on PEA1 and question 82.

Question 25
I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.


Question 81
Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.
If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.
However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope


Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasmarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.


Question 83
I regret that we me not able to agree, in their totality, to major changes to the development
boundary. The reasons may be implied from our comments on PEA1 and question 82.


I would also like to add that historically a development of this type on this land was rejected in 1972 causing the development company Galleon Estates to go bankrupt and into liquidation. Although I do not have any record of why the planning permission was rejected at that time, I do not believe that there as been any improvement in the facilities of the village since then that would change that original decision. I fact over the thirty one years that I have lived here things have deteriorated.
We are now down to one shop in the village that doesn't open on Sundays. Public transport only exists with financial support from the Parish Council. In village employment in the form of a garage and repair workshop, and the wood yard have already gone for the benefit of housing development.

Houses that are built and others on the market in the village, take a long time to be sold and occupied and are often soon back up for sale which makes me wonder who these new houses are being made available for, certainly not the existing purchasers or those in the village.

I am also struggling to understand how this proposed development aims to, and I quote "improve pedestrian linkage connecting to the school and Main Street", if there is not going to be another pathway to School Lane. If there was, and it was via the southern aspect of the preferred site it wouldn't be an improvement any way because it would be uphill and parents with children will still use Main Street and the path opposite the Maltings or drive causing more chaos at the school.
School lane is manic with vehicles at school time as it is.

Access to the proposed site via "Pippins" will mean that 10 or more metres of highway will have a `priority solution`. Being that all the ground services will also have to pass under this section of road the risk of this narrow access being blocked by road works or other obstructions is relatively high. This would mean that the new development would be totally isolated and emergency vehicles, let alone residents would not be able to access the estate.

On a more personal note my houses was built by Galleon Estates and I have in the Conveyance for the property dated 25th August 1972 in the first schedule the full and free right of way along what I believe is the track that goes up between The Clock House( which used to be the old Post Office and shop) and Laurel Hall(which used to be the old Sunday School) to enable possible access to the rear of my land. I would be interested to know how this will be maintained should this proposed development go ahead. I believe that all four houses that were built by Galleon Estates have this same right.

I have worked for over fifty years to have a property that I can enjoy in my retirement. Looking out onto from my land and being partly surrounded by a housing estate is not a vision I had in my retirement plans.

I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.

Question 24

I agree with the policy approach to a comprehensive development but reserve judgement on the proposed policy wording. It should be noted that the correct and sensible approach does not of itself insure a sensible outcome. For the reasons stated in answers to your questions 82 and 83 some very unwise and ill thought out proposals have resulted. Perhaps the Planners have become carried away by enthusiasm in making recommendations in regards to Peasmarsh and, for example, the inclusion of a derelict orchard (decaying trees) within or attaching to a children's' play area creating a wholly unnecessary hazard.

Question 25
I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.





































































Question 81
Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.
If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.
However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope















Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasrnarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.










Question 83
We regret that we me not able to agree, in their totality, to major changes to the development boundary. The reasons may be implied from our comments on PEA1 and question 82.

Agree.

Southern Water would support the proposed policy wording in the preferred option to DIM2: Development Boundaries as it would seem to include infrastructure requirements in the phrase ".. that which accords with specific Local Plan policies...". It would be our preference for the policy to explicitly set out an exception for utility infrastructure as it may be required to serve the housing development elsewhere in the plan.

Southern Water may need to undertake development to meet the needs of development set out in the DaSA or to meet stricter environment standards. We are keen to ensure that any future infrastructure development in these circumstances would not be unduly restricted by inappropriate or highly restrictive policies. Paragraph 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that local plans should 'plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this framework'.

If the policy is intended to exclude utility infrastructure then the policy fails to recognise the key role of our infrastructure in achieving sustainable development, contrary to the premise of the NPPF. The development identified in the DaSA is likely to generate the requirement for additional infrastructure as set out in our representations on individual site policies. Paragraph 177 of the NPPF emphasises the importance of ensuring the timely delivery of infrastructure to support development and if there is no exception made for utility infrastructure, the application of any countryside policies in the determination of any planning application outside of settlement boundaries may make this difficult.

Proposed Amendment

In the interests of clarity and in order to support the delivery of the level of development set out elsewhere in the DaSA, Southern Water proposes the following wording change to policy DIM2: Development Boundaries (our addition underlined):

Policy DIM2: Development Boundaries

The development boundaries of settlements, defined in accordance with Core
Strategy Policy OSS2, are shown on the Policies Map.

New development shall be focused within defined settlement development
boundaries, principally on already committed and allocated sites, together with
other sites where proposals accord with relevant Local Plan policies.

In the countryside (that is, outside of defined settlement development boundaries), development shall be normally limited to that which accords with specific Local Plan policies, including policies which support the delivery of essential infrastructure, or that for which a countryside location is demonstrated to be necessary.

The development boundaries around settlements require comprehensive review if the required 5 year land supply target is to be met as defined by objectively assessed housing need.

Until the policy wording is put out to consultation, Option A is rather meaningless and just gives the LPA carte blanche to restrict housing development contrary to the requirements of the NPPF and emerging central government policy.

Currently, Option B would be the preferred option as at least it gives some flexibility as to where housing development could be allowed in accordance with OSS2.

Policy DIM2 would appear to indicate that the LPA have no intention of reviewing development boundaries around settlements contrary to the statement in para 11.8 and OSS2 so clearly there is a conflict.

Finally, I would like to suggest that the development boundary for Rye be extended to include the land at the end of Hilltop Drive shown outlined in red on the attached Title Plan, the area within it outlined in green having already been developed for housing.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28097

Landscape

IMPLEMENTATION Page 115

Development boundaries

Yes

Ecology

IMPLEMENTATION Page 115

-Development boundaries

Yes.

The following comments are made assuming that all developments will be assessed for their ecological impacts, and that if ecological assets are such that appropriate mitigation and/or compensation cannot be provided, the development should not go ahead. It should be recognised that LEAPs and LAPs can have ecological impacts and therefore may not always be appropriate within landscape buffer areas, ecological areas etc.

If grid references had been provided for allocated sites, more detailed comments could have been provided.

1. Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Evidence Base

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DaSA is not positively prepared;

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

The proposed allocations are not sufficiently justified;


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

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

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

The Effectiveness of the Plan;

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

Inconsistency with National Policy.

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

Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site Assessment Methodologies Background Paper

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

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

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

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

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

5. DaSA Part B - Development Policies

Question 8: Affordable Housing

5.1. Three options are proposed for affordable housing delivery.

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

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

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

Question 18: Landscape and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 21: Sustainable Urban Drainage

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

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

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

Question 24: Comprehensive Development

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

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

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

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

Question 25: Development Boundaries

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

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


6. Strategic Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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