9. Bexhill

07 December 2018

Dear Sirs,

Representations to the Rather District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19)

We represent our client, Beaulieu Homes Southern Limited. Our client has been the owner of the former Sidley Sports Ground, Glover Lane, Bexhill since 2015 and is currently appealing a refusal against the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use including both housing and the re-provision of sports facilities for the community.

We have a number of submissions to this important, regulatory consultation on the Rother Site Allocations Local Plan, and focus these representations around the tests of soundness and legal compliance, as is necessary at this stage of the process.

We structure our representations as follows:

Background information on the recent history of the Sidley Sports Ground and the technical work that has been carried out to confirm its deliverability.

Comments on the Council's processes including their approach to meeting housing need, and the need for additional housing to be added to the Plan for flexibility.

Comments on the evidence base, including the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Feasibility Study that was carried out to inform the Council's future policy on the former Sidley Sports Ground.

Advice to the Council about an appropriate and justified policy direction on the former Sidley Sports
Ground.

Background

The former Sidley Sports Ground has been in the ownership of our client since 2015. This was the ground of Sidley Sports and Social Club and was previously home to Sidley United Football Club and Sidley Cricket Club. The club was privately owned and run, rather than in any community use. The site has been vacant since 2013 when Sidley Sports and Social Club (a Private Members Club) went into administration as it was not financially viable. The pitch was also of very poor quality, meaning that matches were called off due to the pitch being waterlogged. Since the Private Members Club went into administration, there have been ongoing issues of vandalism and security on the site, which have led to security fencing being erected.

Our client's most recent application at the site was in outline form, with all matters reserved for
subsequent approval. The application was for the change of use and development of part of the existing Sidley Sports Ground to residential development for up to 54 dwellings, together with the provision of a replacement sports pitch which is level and properly drained, with laid out car parking and space for a future club house and changing rooms. Whilst the site is in outline form, it was accompanied by indicative layout plans to give information about how the site could be delivered and to show that what was proposed by the application was deliverable on site. However, there is considerable flexibility to respond to other evidenced requirements through any reserved matters applications.

The site is proposed to be accessed off Glovers Lane. The application was informed and supported by technical reports and studies.

The application was refused in mid-2018 and in response to this refusal, we have lodged an appeal on behalf of our client.

Housing Numbers

The Development and Site Allocations Local Plan is being prepared as a 'daughter document' to the adopted Rother Core Strategy and the approach to the Plan is that of a 'filling in the gaps' left by the Core Strategy than anything more fundamental. Whilst this is one approach to the production of Local plan documents it is not the most positive one. It would have been a more pro-active approach to prepare a comprehensive Local Plan, starting from scratch and using an up to date assessment of housing need. The emerging Plan just seeks to deliver the housing requirement set out in the Core Strategy. This sets out that the housing development target for the District as a whole is for at least 5,700 new homes to be built over the plan period, which runs from 2011-2028. The majority of these (approximately 3, 100) are to be at Bexhill. Assuming that the emerging Plan has the same time period means that it does not even cover a ten-year period and will be swiftly out of date.

In terms of the number, this is based on the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update from 2013. Whilst this identified an objectively assessed housing need for Rother District of 6,180 dwellings to 2028, the Council chose to reduce this, citing environmental factors and that this number would, in any case be a boost to what was being provided previously.

In any case, this number is now out of date. The Council should be seeking to boost supply in response to the Government's new method for calculating housing need. The published information for Rother shows a housing need of 469 per annum between 2016 to 2026, based on the application of the proposed formula. The NPPF sets out the Government's dear objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes (para 59) and goes on to set out in paragraph 60 that the standard method for calculating need should be used unless there are 'exceptional circumstances'. The fact that Rother are not using this information is a potential issue of soundness in terms of the consistency of the emerging plan with the NPPF. To avoid this issue, the Council should add some flexibility into the housing supply to demonstrate a willingness to proactively boost supply. This should include revising the proposed allocation BEX11 (Land at Sidley Sport and Social Club, Bexhill) to reflect its potential as a mixed-use site including residential development of up to 54 dwellings, plus sports provision.

On this matter our view is that policy OVE1 (Housing Supply and Delivery) is unsound as it is not positively prepared or consistent with national policy.

Approach towards Bexhlll

The Council seeks to focus development in Bexhill, setting a requirement of 3,100 dwellings to be built in the settlement between 2011 to 2028. We support the focus of growth to Bexhill, as a highly sustainable settlement. The emerging Plan allocates development to the town, both within the town and on the edge of town, specifically three linked sites to the north of the town. However, there is scope to increase the housing provision in the Plan, as we have set out above, and one way in which to do this is to focus on sustainable opportunities within the existing settlement, such as our client's site at the former Sidley Sport and Social Club in the town. This site lies within the existing built-up area and is surrounded by medium density residential development, with good accessibility to services and facilities. Additional development in this location would avoid impacts on the protected landscape of the High Weald AONB, which covers substantial parts of the District, whilst providing much needed housing.

The Council sets out that there is a need to safeguard existing sports facilities in Bexhill, stating, in paragraph 9.14 of the Plan that opportunities for new playing pitches within Bexhill are limited due to the availability of land and the topography of the town. Policy BEX10 for Northeye provides an opportunity to provide new playing field provision alongside the redevelopment of the site; however, there is scope for additional opportunities for new pitch provision to take place as part of other site allocations on the edge of Bexhill. For example, we note that policy BEX4 allocates land at the former high school site and Drill Hall, Down Road, Bexhill, for a mixed use development creating a 'leisure destination'. The policy is currently top level and there appears to be scope to use this facility as a mechanism for the provision of additional high-quality sports pitches.

We have assessed that chapter 9 of the Plan is unsound: the approach towards Bexhill is insufficiently positive as it does not provide enough housing, it is not also effective as parts of the chapter are not deliverable (specifically BEX11).

Affordable Housing

Policy DH61 sets out the proposed approach to the provision of affordable housing. We support the principle of the policy, however to make an effective contribution to addressing the housing needs of the District, the overall number of housing allocations should be increased, in order to enable the delivery of affordable housing.

In terms of our client's site, criterion (i) of the policy applies, whereby 30% on site affordable housing must be provided on schemes of 15 or more dwellings (subject to viability). The allocation of the former Sidley sports and social club for mixed use would contribute to meeting the high requirements for affordable housing in the District by the provision of a greater than required by policy number of affordable homes.

Sustainability Appraisal

We have also assessed the Council's Sustainability Appraisal. This includes summaries of the assessments of site options and proposed policies including, as Appendix 4, an assessment of the site policy options. This table appraises two options for the former Sidley Sports and Social Club - purely housing and purely playing pitches. The SA does not appear accurate or objective in regard to its appraisal of the site, with the playing pitch option scoring higher than the provision of housing. There are several unsubstantiated instances (SA objectives 2 and 9) where the provision of housing has a cross, rather than a tick, despite more positive scoring being given to other sites for housing.

No mixed use is appraised for the site, this would have been a 'reasonable alternative' to explore further, given the owner's aspirations for the site and the planning application history. The SA is therefore flawed in this regard, as it does not assess and compare all of the realistic reasonable alternatives for the site.

Given our conclusions, our assessment is that in regard to the Sustainability Appraisal, this is not legally compliant.

Evidence Base Issues

The District Council has published a range of evidence-based studies which support the emerging Plan. Those most relevant to our client's site at Sidley are the Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Strategy, which is very dated, published in 2006/7 and the Rother and Hastings Playing Pitch Strategy from 2016.

The Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Strategy concludes with a quantity standard which for the Bexhill, Battle and Rye area is 2.97 hectares of outdoor sports facilities per 1,000 population. The study also concluded that the Council should plan for additional pitches in the Bexhill area. This is something that could be done through the review of the Plan, by allocating a site/sites for the provision of any additional sporting facilities that are required. This would be a justified and effective approach which responds to the evidence base.

The Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) recommends that the Sidley Sports and Social Club site should be protected with any development leading to the replacement of facilities to at least the same or improved level of quality and facility mix. The PPS is somewhat misleading stating that the site provided 'a high quality of football provision for local residents'. This is factually incorrect, given the ongoing quality issues that were experienced in regard to the football pitch in relation to drainage and car parking. The ground did not meet the requirements for a step 7 football club (the level that Sidley United play at).

Additionally, the club was always privately owned rather than being a community facility. Our client, the site owner, offered the new facilities to Sidley United, for free. Whilst this offer made by our client was turned down by the club as it was considered unviable, our client is open to resuming discussions at any point. We note from the press (our source of local information given the lack of any engagement from the Council) that several football clubs would be interesting in using the site and our client is happy to work proactively as appropriate, with interested parties.

The PPS also confirms that the current ancillary facility (with regard to competitive football) is not fit for purpose and that if the site comes back into use for football then a new ancillary facility including changing rooms and a social area would be required. Our client responded to these points through the planning application and there is plenty of scope to work with the necessary agencies to ensure that the site is delivered in accordance with the outcomes of the PPS and to meet the requirements of the football club.

The PPS scores the cricket pitch at the former Sports and Social Club site relatively poorly; scores are given for five elements of provision, only two of which are relevant to the site (outfield and changing/pavilion). The cricket pitch scores 63.3% in these two areas, giving it an overall rating of 'standard'. Given that the site had been vacant for three years at the time that the PPS was carried out, it is difficult to have much faith in the justification or effectiveness of this assessment.

Table 5 of the PPS sets out the pitch quality information in regard to football, giving a pitch score and an ancillary score. The Sidley Sports and Social Club site scores very badly, with 38.57% for the pitch and 7.69% for ancillary facilities. This gives an overall score of 'poor'.

We assess that the summary below from the PPS is also inaccurate in terms of the site being a 'previously good facility'. Given the evidence about the quality of the football pitch which is publicly available on Sidley Football Club's website, this cannot be substantiated. The ground was not fit for purpose and did not meet the minimum grading requirements of a step 7 football club.

Sidley Sports and Social Club (Gullivers): Located in the heart of Sidley, this previously good facility has currently fallen into disuse and is in a very poor condition. Until recently; the ground was home to both Sidley Cricket Club and Sldley Football Club, but financial mismanagement resulted in its sale forcing both clubs to source alternative facilities outside of Rother. The pavilion facilities and stands have suffered from arson and vandalism.

In summary, therefore, we have assessed that the PPS is internally inconsistent and does not form a sound evidence base for the Local Plan.

Sidley Sports Ground Feasibility Study

A feasibility study (prepared by 4global in partnership with LK2 Consulting) was commissioned by the Council to inform the future of the former Sidley Sports Ground. Unfortunately, our client, despite being the owner of the site and being keen to work collaboratively with the Council, was not invited to engage in the study, despite being listed as one of the 'key stakeholders' identified at paragraph 1.2 of the study. The study is evidently flawed from the outset without the engagement of the owner, who would have had a meaningful input, and there is no reference within the study to the fact that the site is not for sale.

We were not even aware of the study until the emerging site allocation document was made public. Whilst we requested a copy of the study, this was not made available to us until it was published on the Council's website. The aim of the study is to 'ascertain the future use of the site' and sets out various options for the future of the site. 3 of the options involve various levels of residential development, however, these options were not shortlisted. The reason given is that '...releasing the land for housing is not compliant with the planning policy designation afforded to the site'. However, this statement is flawed - planning policy should be informed by the evidence base, para 31 of the NPPF sets out that "The preparation (our emphasis) and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence". The study infers that a decision was already made about the use of the site, specifically regarding the potential for residential development, before the study was carried out. This is an unsound approach in terms of not being a justified strategy - it is also inconsistent with national policy.

The study sets out (based on the information from the PPS )that there is a requirement for 2 additional full-sized 3G pitches in Rather, with at least one of these being located in Bexhill. This could be located on our client's site, as demonstrated by the scheme currently at appeal. Alternatively, and as we have set out, there is scope for the emerging Plan to identify a new site for any facilities identified within the PPS, either as part of one of the other proposed allocations in the Plan (as set out within Policy BEX10) or as a separate allocation elsewhere in the Bexhill area.

The study usefully confirms that the former Sidley Sports and Social Club site cannot meet the minimum requirements of a dual use cricket and football site, information which renders part of the recent refusal on the site factually erroneous.
Whilst the study includes options for funding, these are only options at the moment and this does not give any certainty at all regarding delivery. There is no analysis of the potential of providing a scheme that is part residential and part sports uses, despite the scope for this to provide a deliverable scheme. As we have set out above, the proposal that is currently being appealed will ensure the delivery of sporting facilities at the site.

Policy BEX 11

The emerging Plan proposes to allocate the former Sidley Sports and Social Club for playing pitches (with one pitch proposed) plus ancillary 'hub' space and open space. This is considered (by the Council) to be the most viable use of the site, allegedly based on the outcomes of a feasibility study (despite the feasibility study setting out that there was already planning policy in place for the site). This completely contradicts the reasons for refusal for our client's planning application which refused the application on the basis that it did not re-provide both a full sized adult football pitch and a full sized adult cricket pitch.

Unfortunately, our client has been excluded from participating either in the Feasibility Study, or in the preparation of the policy, despite a willingness to work collaboratively with the Council. We were not even aware of the study until the emerging site allocations local plan was placed in the public domain.

However, the Council has been engaging with local sports clubs regarding the future of the site. We consider this surprising, given our client's ownership of the site and casts doubts over the Councils approach to the preparation of the Plan. Engagement with the owner of the site would have been an obvious step towards producing an effective and justified strategy and policy towards the future of the site.

In its current form, we therefore consider that policy BEX11 is unsound in terms of paragraph 35 of the NPPF, specifically in regard to the 'effective' test of soundness, given that there is no evidence that the policy is deliverable. Whilst the Feasibility Study sets out options for future funding, none of these are guaranteed, and therefore the policy fails the tests of soundness in regard to justification, effectiveness and consistency with national policy.

However, we are keen to work with the Council to address this through some minor modifications to the policy which will enable our client to successfully deliver the site, in line with the principles that the Council has set out.

We suggest these modifications below, using the traditional strikethrough to show proposed deletions and underlining to show proposed additions to the policy text:

Policy BEX11

The former Sidley Sports and Social Club, Glovers Lane, as shown on the Policies Map, is allocated for playing pitches for up to 54 dwellings a playing pitch for formal sport and appropriate ancillary uses.

Proposals will be permitted where:


(i) up to 54 dwellings are provided on site including an appropriate mix of size ad types of private and affordable housing.
(ii) One full size 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) for formal sport is provided, alongside associated ancillary uses and parking facilities
(iii) Provision is made for the protection and enhancement of site's boundaries in order to enhance biodiversity and improve the relationship with neighbouring residential properties, as indicated on the Detail Map. Provision should include the translocation of reptiles and appropriate protection or mitigation for light-sensitive species in accordance with a lighting design strategy and species activity surveys;

(iv) A Community Use Agreement accompanies the application to ensure community access to the facility. The Agreement shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-school users, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review;

(v) Highway access is provided from Buckholt Lane, via Glovers Lane, alongside any offsite highway works to make the development acceptable in highway terms;

(vi) Linkages to the wider transport infrastructure that supports local accessibility for both cyclist and pedestrians are incorporated, including connections to the proposed Bexhill Cycle Network; and

(vii) Sustainable drainage (SuDS) is provided in accordance with Policy DENS.

Conclusion

We welcome the opportunity to comment at this key stage of the Local Plan process; however, our view is that a more positive approach is needed by the Council.

We have identified that the Plan does not take a sufficiently positive approach to allocating housing and is out of step with Government policy in this regard as it does not seek to use the Government's new method (which should be used unless there are exceptional circumstances).

Our client has an available and highly sustainable site which is available for mixed use development, including up to 54 homes. The site is in the hands of a willing developer and would go some significant way towards delivering the Council's aspirations for the former Sidley Sports and Social Club in Bexhill.

We have set out within these representations that we have concerns regarding the evidence base that underpins the emerging Plan, and that the Sustainability Appraisal is also flawed as it has not assessed obvious and realistic reasonable alternatives in regard to our client's sites.

In terms of the evidence base, there has been a specific feasibility study to assess the future of the former Sidley Sports and Social Club. Rather astonishingly, our client, the owner of the site has been excluded from participating in the study, despite a willingness to work collaboratively in this regard.

Given our client's key role in delivering the site, we have suggested some amendments to Policy BEX11 to ensure its deliverability.

We hope that these comments are useful. We are happy to work with the Council on the elements of unsoundness in the Plan that affect our client's site.
We confirm that we wish to appear at the Local Plan Examination in this regard.

East Sussex County Council Representations on the Proposed Submission Rother Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

The County Council wish to make the following representations which seek modifications to make certain aspects of the Proposed Submission DaSA Local Plan sound. We also have some other comments and observations which relate to certain points that we raised at the draft consultation stage.

Minerals and Waste Planning

The comments below are made by East Sussex County Council in our role as the relevant Minerals and Waste Planning Authority for the plan area.

Soundness - Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps

As identified in our previous comments on the Options and Preferred Options DaSA, Pebsham Household Waste Recycling Centre and Waste Transfer Station, which is a strategic safeguarded waste site, and the Pebsham Waste Water Treatment Works are located within the Bexhill and Hastings/St Leonards Strategic Gap (Policy DEN3), but are not within the Combe Valley Countryside park (Policy HAS1).

The East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Plan (WMP), adopted 2013, sets out the strategy for waste management within East Sussex, Brighton & Hove and the South Downs National Park. Policy WMP22 of the WMP supports proposals for increasing capacity within the boundaries of an existing waste management site and making the most efficient use of existing waste sites. This was a consideration in the identification of sites under the Waste and Minerals Sites Plan (2017).

The Council recognises the importance of retaining strategic gaps as set out in Policy DEN3. However, it is concerned that the stipulation that development may only occur within the strategic gap under exceptional circumstances undermines the ability of the WMP to make most efficient use of waste sites as supported by adopted Policy WMP22 of the WMP. This creates ambiguity between the two policies, and the Council therefore believes that Policy DEN3 is currently unsound on the grounds that it is not effective. 2

To resolve this soundness issue the County Council requests that the following text is inserted into the supporting text after paragraph 6.18:

"This Plan recognises that there are strategic waste facilities within the Gap. Proposals for the intensification of these facilities within their existing boundaries, as enabled by the Waste and Minerals Plan, are supported in principle and do not have to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, provided that the openness of the Gap is maintained."

Requested Minor Modifications

Reference is made to the Waste and Minerals Plan and the Waste and Minerals Sites Plan in section 1 which is appreciated. However, there is no mention of the safeguarding of minerals sites, wharves and railheads within the Rother Local Plan area, as identified in policies SP8 and SP9 of the Sites Plan and policies WMP14 and WMP15 of the Waste and Minerals Plan as previously suggested in the County Council's response to the Options and Preferred Options DaSA. It is requested that reference to these policies or to the safeguarding of mineral sites is made.

Presently, safeguarded waste and minerals sites do not appear to be referenced on the Rother Local Policies Map. It is requested that either the safeguarded minerals sites within the Rother Local Plan area are included in this Policies Map, or that reference to the Waste and Minerals Policies Map is made on the Rother Policies Map as required by article 9 of the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

Paragraph 10.3 of the supporting text for policy HAS1 which concerns the Combe Valley Countryside Park refers to the continued use of land within the locality for waste collection, and states that such operations must be contained and should not conflict with the aims and objectives of the Combe Valley Countryside Park. This should refer to 'waste management' rather than waste collection.

Policy DEN3 states that development in a Strategic Gap will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Further clarity could be provided on what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'.

Other Comments

The reference to the National Planning Policy for Waste in paragraph 1.22 is welcomed.

In section 2, the inclusion of policy DHG7 External Residential Areas item (iii) Waste and Recycling is welcomed.

With regards to policy RHA2: Harbour Road Employment Area, Rye Harbour, the comments made by the County Council in response to the Options and Preferred Options DaSA have been taken into account. Paragraph 11.204 and policy RHA2 (vi) include text which requires proposals that could affect the wharf to demonstrate that capacity for landing, processing, handling and storage of minerals is safeguarded. This is strongly supported. Recognition of the waste management operation at Rye Oil is also appreciated.

Alterations to the Sustainability Appraisal are noted, and references to Commercial & Industrial Waste and Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste are appreciated.

Alterations to the Sustainability Appraisal are noted, and references to Commercial & Industrial Waste and Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste are appreciated.

Highway Authority

ESCC Cycling and Walking Strategy

Although the Cycling and Walking Strategy is briefly mentioned in the introduction section on page 13 we would request that a minor modification is made by adding the following text in the opening pages of the Bexhill site allocations chapter (pages 113-115) and the opening pages of the Hastings Fringes chapter (pages 175-178):

ESCC are in the process of developing a County wide Cycling & Walking Strategy, which will aim to deliver cycling and walking infrastructure on key corridors of movement between residential areas (including new developments) and key trip attractors, including education, employment, retail and leisure activities'.

Proposed site allocations

The County Council, in our role as the relevant Highway Authority for the plan area, have worked closely with Rother District Council in the production of the DaSA Local Plan and provided input at the Options and Preferred Options stage. For this reason, we do not wish to oppose the principle of the proposed allocations. However, we do seek some minor modifications to certain policies, and also wish to raise a soundness concern over one particular policy (BEX10). Despite this, we have set out below how we consider this soundness issue can be addressed by way of a modification to the policy in question.

It is recognised that a number of the proposed allocations have been, or are subject to planning applications that the Highway Authority has provided comment on (i.e. BEX1, BEX2, BEX7 and BEX9). In light of our involvement and our stated positions on the applications for these sites, alongside the evidence supporting the plan, we do not wish to object and raise concerns over the soundness of those particular proposed allocations.

BEX3: (Land at North Bexhill -Infrastructure) and sub-policies BEX3a, BEX3b, BEX3c

Policy BEX3c imposes a traffic calming requirement (criteria iii b) but Policy BEX3b doesn't. This does not suggest consistency across the three sites/sub-policies of BEX3 - as all traffic and most non-vehicular movement from the 3 sites reaches the proximity of Mayo Lane.

We therefore request that minor modifications are made to Policy BEX3 and BEX3c:
-that the policy criteria of Policy BEX3c (iii) (b) regarding traffic management is deleted from BEX3c and is instead written into the shared infrastructure policy (Policy BEX3).

BEX4: Land at Former High School Site and Drill Hall, Down Road, Bexhill
We agree with policy text in point (v) regarding the transport assessment.

We recommend that there should be a masterplan/design brief as the uses are specific and sustainable transport/connectivity should be a key feature.

The main impact of this development from a highways perspective will be on the trunk road.
BEX10: Land at Northeye (Former UAE Technical Training Project)

From a transport perspective, we do not consider that the proposed allocation is in a sustainable location and a development on this site could be reliant on access to and from to be primarily made by private car. This is primarily the case due to the sites detachment from the main settlement of Bexhill (as recognised in paragraph 9.107 of the plan) and that few amenities, community facilities and employment opportunities exist within a reasonable walking distance of the site. However, the County Council recognises the overarching development strategy set out in the Local Plan 'Core Strategy' 2014 and the fact that the site is partly brownfield. Given this we do not wish to object to the principal of the proposed allocation. Instead, we wish to ensure that any development in pursuant of this allocation is able to take full advantage of, as well as make improvements to sustainable transport measures in the locality, as well as seeking to implement measures that minimise the risk of travel by private car.

We therefore request that there is a modification to the policy that requires a Travel Plan to be submitted and approved by us for any planning application on the site. The Travel Plan will need to demonstrate how opportunities for walking and cycling can be fully utilised (there are existing cycle lanes either side of the A259), as well as other sustainable transport measures (e.g. possible car club, measures that encourage journeys to be made by bike and bus, etc).

We also request that an amendment is made to criteria vii) of the policy. It is not just the bus stops we would wish to see improved, we would also want to see improvements which aid the accessibility of the bus stops - i.e. widening of footways and an improved crossing point on the A259.

It is considered that such modifications are required to the policy in order for it to be effective and consistent with national policy (in reference to the tests of soundness).
FAC1: Land at Former Market Garden, Fairlight Cove

The supporting text for the policy notes that the access to the site will be on roads that are unadopted and privately maintained. It is highly unlikely that this road could be brought up to an adoptable standard. Although the County Council does not wish to oppose the proposed allocation, we would ask that reference is made within either the supporting text, or the policy itself, that consideration will need to be given to creating safe pedestrian routes to and from the site, which is particularly important given the lack of footway on the unadopted highway.

WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield

The indicative parking area for the proposed allotments is located opposite a 4 way junction. Therefore it will be important to fully consider highway safety at planning application stage. It would be hazardous for vehicles to reverse out of the site into the main road and therefore the parking area should be designed in a way that removes the need to reverse out. It is suggested that reference is made to this requirement in paragraph 11.237 of the supporting text to the policy.

Ecology

Energy from biomass (Paragraph 2.17)
It should be noted that because Ancient woodland requires ongoing management it does have some potential as a source for biomass energy.

Policy DHG2: Rural Exception Sites

We request the following minor modification: That biodiversity is added to Point (vi) of the policy i.e. to state that 'the development does not significantly harm biodiversity'.
Locally designated sites (Paragraph 6.3.4)

We request the following minor modification:

Delete the reference to 'East Sussex County Council' in this paragraph. This is because the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre is the main contact for information on locally designated sites (the Sussex Local Wildlife Site Initiative and the Sussex Geodiversity Partnership are both hosted by the Record Centre).

Biodiversity and Green Space (Page 60)

We request that a minor modification is made:

Mention should be made of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance, as listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The S41 lists are used to guide decision-makers, including local authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Act to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions. S41 habitats within Rother include woodland, maritime cliff and slopes, hedgerows and lowland meadows, and s41 species include hedgehog, common toad, house sparrow, brown-banded carder bee and pennyroyal.

Biodiversity opportunities in development: Paragraph 6.43

We request that the following minor modifications are made (additional words in italics and underlined) to paragraph 6.43 on page 84:

Ecological surveys and reports will be required to be submitted with planning applications for major development or where the development may impact on any designated sites, priority habitat of protected or notable species.

Housing allocation policy detail maps:

Policy detail maps show indicative layouts, but these may need to be adapted depending on the ecological constraints and opportunities. Site masterplans for allocated sites should be informed by an Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan (in line with BS42020:2013).


Lead Local Flood Authority

The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) recognises that the Local Plan 'Core Strategy' was supported by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and that the DaSA sets out non-strategic policies within the overarching development strategy for the district. Recognising the content of paragraph 156 of the NPPF, it is not a requirement for the DaSA to be supported by an up-to-date version of the SFRA. Nevertheless, the LLFA would wish to place on record that when Rother District Council review their Core Strategy, it will be required to be supported by an up-to-date version of the SFRA. This is particularly paramount given that since the 2008 version has been produced, a significant amount of evidence has been collated by the LLFA on local flood risk matters in the district.

The LLFA notes that the DaSA has been informed by site assessments and a number of background evidence studies. This has included surface water flooding information and flood zone mapping provided by the Environment Agency.

In light of the above, the LLFA does not wish to challenge the soundness of the DaSA and oppose the principle of the proposed allocations. However, we would request that the plan acknowledges that in avoiding areas of flood risk and ensuring that appropriate drainage proposals are delivered on the allocated sites (in the form of SuDS) that the quantums of growth set within each proposed policy allocation may need to be compromised in some instances. This is considered essential given that the LLFA has yet to see detailed masterplanning that identifies the potential land-take for whatever the appropriate drainage method will eventually be implemented. We would therefore suggest that the terms "approximately" or "circa" are used prior to the stated amount of residential development allocated to the site in question.

The County Council is aware that Rother District Council intends to formally submit the DaSA Local Plan to the Secretary of State in January 2019. The County Council supports this course of action as we consider that the matters raised in this representation can be suitably addressed and resolved during the Examination in Public into the DaSA Local Plan.

Should you require any further information on these points please do not hesitate to contact myself.

Rother District Council - Proposed Submission
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan consultation

Highways England ref: #6113

Thank you for your email of 26 October 2018 inviting Highways England to comment on Rother District Council's Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan and its accompanying Sustainability Appraisal.

Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity. We will therefore be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact the safe and efficient operation of the SRN.

Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 "The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development" and the September 2015 document 'The strategic road network Planning for the future - A guide to working with Highways England' explains how we engage on planning matters and the Local Plan process in order to deliver sustainable development whilst safeguarding the primary function and purpose of the SRN.

The SRN in Rother consists of the A21 and the A259 between Bexhill and Rye. As you are aware the SRN currently experiences congestion particularly in the peak hours. We therefore look to the Rother Local Plan to promote policies to help manage the impact of development traffic on the SRN.

The Rother District Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2018 was adopted in September 2014. The DaSA has been produced to address the need, identified in the Core Strategy, for more detailed development policies and specific site allocations. The DaSA forms part 2 of the Local Plan and together with the Core Strategy will form the basis for determining planning applications.

In February 2017 Highways England commented on the DaSA Local Plan Options and Preferred Options consultation. Key among our comments was
* We recommended the transport evidence base be updated as the study which had informed the Core Strategy was from 2011.
* The transport evidence base should include proposals for employment sites
* The transport evidence should examine the maximum that individual / cumulative sites can be developed to without unacceptable impacts on the combined road networks (strategic and local) or the points at which there is a requirement for mitigation
* Funding for improvements on the SRN should not rely on CIL contributions but require section 278 agreements
* We suggested mini Infrastructure Development Plans be considered for each allocation

As part of the current consultation, we have reviewed the following documents and set out our comments below.

* Development and Site Allocations Local Plan - Proposed Submission, October 2018
* Highways Capacity Assessment (HCA) Report (2028 Development and Site Allocations) Version 4.2, November 2018
* Infrastructure Delivery Plan, February 2015

The headings and numbering below refer to those used in the consultation and supporting documents.

Development and Site Allocations Local Plan

For Highways England to consider the Local Plan to be sound, the development proposed must be supported by a transport evidence base which assesses the cumulative traffic impact of all the development in the Plan upon the SRN. If required, the Local Plan must propose mitigation which delivers 'nil detriment' and which we can be confident is deliverable within highway land or land under the control of either yourselves as Local Planning Authority or the applicant and is compliant with all of the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Further, we must be confident that funding for any required highway mitigation is or will be in place and available at the appropriate point in the buildout period of the Local Plan. Mitigation schemes therefore need to be developed to a sufficient stage at outline design to enable robust cost estimates to be derived, which should be confirmed with Highways England.

5. Economy

Shopfronts, Signage and Advertising
Paragraph 5.2

In terms of the A259 and A21, Highways England does not allow advertisements within the highway boundary in accordance with Circular 02/2013 paragraph A2.

6. Environment

Sustainable Drainage
Paragraph 6.48

Highways England does not allow water run off due to any change of use into the highway drainage systems, nor new connections into these systems from third party development and drainage systems. On land where there is an existing drainage connection into the SRN drainage system then only the extant land use and existing outfall from that land will be accepted. Any continuation of the connection following change of use will not be permitted (Circular 02/2013 paragraph 50 applies.).

8. Overview

We note that the Core Strategy housing requirement target is at least 5,700 net additional homes up to 2028. Paragraph 8.6 states that the DaSA Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans need to identify further sites for at least 1,574 dwellings in addition to those identified in the Core Strategy. In paragraph 8.17 there is an intention to have a margin of over provision, particularly in Bexhill, because the annualised housing requirement has not been achieved to date.

As noted above, the transport evidence should examine the maximum that sites can be developed to without unacceptable impacts on the strategic and local road networks or the points at which there is a requirement for mitigation to bring about a 'nil detriment'.

9. Bexhill
Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure

We note that the development of the sites in policies BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c shall be required to contribute to shared infrastructure.

The cumulative impact of sites upon the SRN will need to be assessed and mitigated as necessary to result in a 'nil detriment' situation where the network is shown to be overcapacity. Any physical works will need to be agreed by Highways England, comply with design standards, be deliverable and fully funded by the development or an alternative realistic funding source identified. It is suggested that the policy context is re-worded to ensure that it is clear that 'nil detriment' (no worse than otherwise) is provided where the cumulative impact is 'severe' i.e the network is taken or is already over capacity.

This policy refers to direct provision and legal agreements in order to implement the shared infrastructure requirements. It should be noted that works to the SRN will be via a Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 agreement and not a Section 106 of The 1990 Town & Country Planning Act agreement.

Policies BEX6, BEX9, BEX10 and BEX11 include requirements to provide off site highway works to make the development acceptable in highway terms. BEX14 requires works to improve junction of Beeching Road and London Road. It should be noted that combined, these sites may have a cumulative impact on the SRN and may therefore be reasonably required to contribute towards improvements on the wider road network. In the case of BEX9 Spindlewood Drive, this site will also be required to upgrade the existing access onto the A259 Barnhorn Road as well as provide an access to Spindlewood Drive on the local road Network. This was shown to be necessary to avoid 'severe' impact at the A259 Little Common Roundabout.


Highways Capacity Assessment (HCA) Report (2028 Development and Site Allocations)

We note that the transport study covering the Local Plan transport assessment work has been undertaken using a revalidated Bexhill Hastings Link Road assignment model. The Local Plan evidence base does not appear to include any documentation covering the revalidation of the model. Without an assessment of how good the model is we are unable to concur that the outputs are reliable.

In terms of any impacts upon the SRN, our concerns relate to the non-consented development element of the Local Plan. The two future year scenarios examined in the above report are the "2028 with DaSA" and "2028 without DaSA". In terms of the modelling approach our essential requirement is to compare the 2028 with consented development scenario against the 2028 with additional non-consented scenario. In this respect, the "with" and "without" scenarios in the report (based upon the allocations in Table 2-3) do not quite seem to equate to the housing and employment numbers or allocations in Table 18 and Paragraph 8.19 of the main "Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Proposed Submission" document. Clarification is required as to whether Highways England's requirement has been met in this regard particularly as the sites at Barnhorn Green, Grand Hotel and Worsham Farm appear to be committed development. Any non-consented windfall assumed should also be included in a non-consented scenario.

Page 6 of the Highways Capacity Assessment Report states that the "2028 without DaSA scenario "excludes traffic growth due to increases in households or employment in the locations of development in the DaSA scenario". Information should be supplied to explain how this was done.

The Highways Capacity Assessment Report shows in Table 2-3 the numbers of trips to and from the modelled site allocations. We would like to see TRICS outputs showing trip rates for the different allocations to establish whether they are robust.

The Highways Capacity Assessment Report states that for both future scenarios that a furness procedure has been used to determine the future trip distributions. We request that the trip row and column totals within the matrices be provided prior to furnessing to ascertain whether the differences are significant (unless the process was singly constrained).

The Highways Capacity Assessment Report has focussed on development solely within the Bexhill Bexhill/Hastings part of Rother District. The model does not extend out towards Rye in the east and Wadhurst in the north. Further information and potentially assessment is required of non-consented development impacts upon the SRN elsewhere in the District, or text on why further assessment is not required. At this stage we consider that although the model includes the A259 trunk road it should at least be extended to include the A21 north of Hastings.

The Highways Capacity Assessment Report assumes a number of highway improvements will have been implemented by 2028. These are:

* The North Bexhill Access Road (NBAR)
* Queensway Gateway Road (QGR)
* Complementary measures associated with BHLR - junction improvements on The Ridge at Queensway and Harrow Lane and bus priority measures on the A259
* Junction improvements due to North East Bexhill development
* Signalised junctions of B2182 Holliers Hill / A2036 Wrestwood Road and B2182.

Whilst we are aware of the programme for the more significant schemes (NBAR & QGR) there is no detail on these schemes, no junction or link analysis, nor a programme to show that all of these improvements will be in place at the appropriate point in the Local Plan.

Notwithstanding these comments and queries the highways report includes V/C outputs for the 2028 "with" and "without" scenarios. The plots appear to show increasing numbers of vehicles and capacity issues on certain sections of the A259 classed as SRN. For our purposes it would be more useful to look at queues and delays rather than V/C ratios to ascertain whether the differences between the scenarios require further more detailed examination and mitigation. Assuming that the above queries and comments can be resolved we would need to see outputs in these formats moving forward.

The assessment shows increases on the A259 during the AM and PM peak periods, in the range of 50-200 vehicles per peak period. With our earlier comments above in mind with regard to the use of V/C in the assessment, the V/C ratio analysis highlights specific sections of the A259 that are shown to be operating at over 80% capacity. These being:

* A259 West of Little Common
* A259 East of A269 signal junction
* A259 East of A2036 roundabout (near Bexhill Leisure Pool)

However, the report contains no mitigation proposals for any junction or link that is shown to exceed capacity in 2028. Whilst here is a "Potential Mitigation Measures" chapter this does not deal with specific measures and is rather vague and includes items such as MOVA or SCOOT, along with other undefined junction modifications / improvements. It is not possible for Highways England to give views on the suitability of the proposed developments without there being clear identification of where mitigation is required, and what form it will take.

Your attention is drawn to Paragraph 18 of Circular 02/2013 which states that "Capacity enhancements and infrastructure required to deliver strategic growth should be identified at the Local Plan stage, which provides the best opportunity to consider development aspirations alongside the strategic infrastructure needs."

In the absence of any proposed mitigation measures which have been demonstrated to provide a 'nil detriment' situation, nor costings and funding sources, Highways England has no confidence that the development in the Plan is deliverable without severe harm to the SRN.

In addition, within the councils Core Strategy adopted in September 2014, policy TR3 is clear that "development will be permitted where mitigation against transport impacts ... is provided." It would appear therefore, that the requirements of Policy TR3 are not met within the Highways Capacity Assessment Report, and therefore the developments proposed in DaSA are not shown to accord with the councils adopted Core Strategy.


Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)

The IDP needs to be brought up to date once SRN mitigation required to deliver the development in the Local Plan has been agreed with Highways England. As part of this, any works will need to be costed and realistic funding sources identified. Funding via CIL contributions is not appropriate for SRN improvements as this does not provide sufficient certainty. All improvements/mitigations to the SRN will require section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 agreements.

There are also several references to the Highways Agency within the document which should be updated to Highways England.

Highways England can advise that the A259 Little Common roundabout improvement has been implemented.


Highways England's Current position

Highways England therefore considers that the DaSA Local Plan is not sound on transport grounds as it does not meet the tests of Justified nor Effective.

Whilst our current position may not be what the council had hoped for, we are keen to work with you, East Sussex County Council and any consultants employed by the councils to resolve our concerns and comments as advised above. We hope that we can reach a position prior to EIP which will enable us to enter into a Statement of Common Ground with the Council and County Council which shows that all parties consider the Local Plan is sound in terms of Transport matters. We look forward to your response in due course and hope that you find these comments, queries and advice useful.