Policy DHG1: Affordable Housing

A Report by Rye Town Council on the consistency of the Rye Neighbourhood Plan (RNP) with the Rother DC Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) (Submission Copy)

1.The 2014 Core Strategy recognised that there was a need for 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.

2. The publication of the DaSA coincides with the RNP Plan Submission to meet Regulations 15 and 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act. Therefore this is a consideration of the RNP in relation to the emerging DaSA. Rye notes two specific development issues, tackled by the DaSA:

a. 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.

b. to identify development across Rother District in two categories:

i. preferred sites where no Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is being made
ii. Neighbourhood Plans, that identify sites to meet targets; Rye is in this category.

3. Throughout 2018, Rye Town Council has kept abreast of the drafting of the emerging DaSA through its work on the RNP. At this stage Rye has reconsidered the three parts of the DaSA Plan to ensure that the RNP remains consistent.

- The Context (Introduction - Section 1): Where Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) are being prepared these are listed (Rye is listed). We understand the need for the Rye NP to conform to the Core Strategy, the NPPF (initially 2012 now superseded by NPPF 2018) and be consistent with the emerging DaSA. All of which it does, as covered in the Rye NP Basic Conditions Statement. Rye notes the targets as below, which the RNP meets.

- Business: 10,000-20,000sqm at Rye/Harbour Road
- Dwellings: 355-400 at Rye over the planning period. The Rye NP includes figures to show commitments and the residual balance.

Part A: Rye COMMENTS on the Development Policies in the emerging DaSA as below. Some additional work in 2018 has been necessary to ensure that the Rye NP is consistent with the emerging DaSA, and did not unnecessarily duplicate its policies, unless the community wanted to make particular emphasis. The emerging
requirements for the Rye NP area have been periodically reconciled with Rother targets. It should be underscored that we agreed with Rother planning officers in May 2017 that the Rye NP should "overplan" numbers of dwellings as there remains uncertainty about the deliverability of some allocations to sites. We also included the policies for Development Boundaries and the Rye "Strategic Gap".

Part B - Rye NOTES the Site Allocations for those parishes where no NP is being made. Because historically Rye was considered with Rye Harbour for development targets, the Rye Harbour allocation (for 40 dwellings) and the business allocation in the Harbour Road is of interest to Rye and has been considered in the text of the RNP, but not allocated, as instructed by Rother Planners. It is also noted that there are now no traveller sites allocated in Rye.

4. Here is a summary of the comparison of the DaSA with the RNP.

DaSA Policy no: DRM 1
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: None
DaSA Policy: Resources: Water Efficiency
COMMENTS: Agree: provides policy; adopts standard through Bldg Regs

DaSA Policy no: DRM 2
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: E4 Para 4.88
DaSA Policy: Resources: Renewable energy
COMMENTS: Agree: complements RNP E4. We have suggested that Rye Harbour has potential for turbines and biomass. Solar panels and such installations could be fitted to large industrial and educational buildings in Rye.

DaSA Policy no: DRM 3
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: E4
DaSA Policy: Energy Requirements
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP E4

DaSA Policy no: DCO 1
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: B1 and I1
DaSA Policy: Community: Retention of sites of social or economic value
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP E4

DaSA Policy no: DCO2
How the RNP relates to the DAaSA: None
DaSA Policy: Community: Equestrian development
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP E4

DaSA Policy no: DHG 1
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: Para 4.8
DaSA Policy: Housing: Affordable Housing
COMMENTS: Agree: confirms the policy for Rye: 30% in developments over 10 dwellings

DaSA Policy no: DHG 2
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: N/A
DaSA Policy: Housing: Rural Exception Sites
COMMENTS: Not considered

DaSA Policy no: DHG 3
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Housing: Internal space standards
COMMENTS: Agree: national guidelines; complements RNP D1

DaSA Policy no: DHG 4
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Housing: Accessible Homes
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP D1

DaSA Policy no: DHG 5
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: H2
DaSA Policy: Housing: Homes for older people
COMMENTS: Agree: complements RNP H2

DaSA Policy no: DHG 6
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: H3 and H7
DaSA Policy: Housing: Custom and self-build housing
COMMENTS: Agree: complements RNP H3 and H7 The RNP allocates in two Rye sites to a figure of around 5 homes which is around 3% of target.

DaSA Policy no: DHG 7
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Housing: External residential areas
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP D1

DaSA Policy no: DHG 8
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Housing: Extensions to residential gardens
COMMENTS: Agree ; complements RNP D1

DaSA Policy no: DHG 9
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Housing: Extensions and alterations
COMMENTS: Agree: complements RNP D1 Extensions should be examined on an individual basis but have sense of place and must not cause over development, loss of amenity or excessive density

DaSA Policy no: DHG 10
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Annexes
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP D1 Annexes should be examined on an individual basis but have sense of place and must not cause over development, loss of amenity or excessive density

DaSA Policy no: DHG 11
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1
DaSA Policy: Housing: Boundary treatments
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP D1

DaSA Policy no: DHG 12
How the RNP relates to the DaSA:
DaSA Policy: D1 Drive Access
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP D1

DaSA Policy no: DEC 1
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1 and E3
DaSA Policy: Economy: Shopfronts and advertising
COMMENTS: Agree: complements RNP Complements RNP D1 and E3

DaSA Policy no: DEC 2
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: None
DaSA Policy: Economy: Holiday Sites
COMMENTS: Agree but not directly applicable

DaSA Policy no: DEC 3
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: B1
DaSA Policy: Economy: Existing employment sites
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP B1

DaSA Policy no: DEN 1
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: D1 and E2
DaSA Policy: Environment: Landscape
COMMENTS: Agree: strongly support Complements RNP D1 and E2

DaSA Policy no: DEN 2
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: Para 4.72, 4.88
DaSA Policy: AONB
COMMENTS: Agree: support; provides policy. Has formed part of the Rye objection to the BP proposal off the Udimore Road which is adjacent to the AONB

DaSA Policy no: DEN 3
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: E1 and para 4.72 to 4.76
DaSA Policy: Environment: Strategic Gaps Rye-Rye Harbour
COMMENTS: Agree: strongly support map (DaSA Figure 8) and policy, that complements RNP E1

DaSA Policy no: DEN 4 E
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: 2- E3 Paras 4.77 to 4.80
DaSA Policy: Environment: Bio diversity and Green Space
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP E2 and E3

DaSA Policy no: DEN 5
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: F1 and para 4.32
DaSA Policy: Environment: Sustainable Drainage
COMMENTS: Agree ; complements RNP F1

DaSA Pollicy no: DEN 6
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: Para 4.89
DaSA Policy: Environment: Land Stability
COMMENTS: Agree; provides policy We have raised the risk of (sandstone) rockfall around Rye. DaSA now lists Rye's risk locations include East, South and West Citadel; land above Military Rd and at Cadborough.

DaSA Policy no: DEN 7
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: None
DaSA Policy: Environment: Pollution
COMMENTS: Agree: provides policy. Vehicle pollution is a particular issue for those adjacent to the A259

DaSA Policy no: DIM 1
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: Individual site policies
DaSA Policy: Implementation: Comprehensive Development
COMMENTS: Agree; support as this complements policy for several of our allocated sites

DaSA Policy no: DIM 2
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: E1
DaSA Policy: Implementation: Development Boundaries
COMMENTS: Agree; complements RNP E1. RNP proposes two changes to the development boundary of Rye, otherwise the development boundary should remain

DaSA Policy no: Rye Targets
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: H1 H2
DaSA policy: Targets: Rye (and Rye Harbour) Overall Targets: 355-400 dwellings (40 in Rye Harbour) 10-20,000 sqm employment
COMMENTS: Dwellings Number Breakdown has been agreed with Rother DC Officers:
Total Site: 355
Completions: 277
Large Site: 6
Small Site: 25
Windfall: 6
Balance: 81

DaSA Policy no: Rye Harbour Target
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: Para 4.2
DaSA Policy: Targets: Allocation to Rye Harbour 40 dwellings
COMMENTS: Agree: as directed by Rother DC; 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 but site allocation if left to Rother/Icklesham.

DaSA Policy no: Other Policies
How the RNP relates to the DaSA: None
DaSA Policy: Traveller Sites
COMMENTS: No sites

The council does not appear to support the housing of local people. There is no indication for whom this housing is being built. If more and more green fields are to disappear then plans should clearly state for whom these developments are being made. Affordable housing should in the first instant be for local people who have lived and worked in the area. According to media reports, it seems developers at times get away with not providing what is specified. Councils need to be making sure that this does not happen. Social housing should provide people with quality housing in safe environments. Siting housing near Gypsy and Traveller Sites does not do this, in this instant proposed housing in Watermill Lane backing onto a proposed traveller site fails to acknowledge the safety of the local community including Sidley.

Is 'expect' strong enough? Please enshrine new criteria from the new NPPF (para 57) and the new PPG regarding viability.

1) We are currently struggling to clarify the claim of unviability on the Strand Meadow development of 30 homes in Burwash.

2) We are also unclear why the new proposals within rural areas have increased the size of the development from 5 to 6 units before on site affordable housing requirement is triggered.

We also believe that the current policy on the type of affordable housing provided through developments which includes shared ownership and affordable rent should be reviewed. The Housing Needs Survey we carried out as part of the Neighbourhood Plan shows that one of the two principal areas of need was from young working families on low incomes who need social rented units and are currently being priced out of the higher rents (80% of Local Market Rents) which are provided through the Affordable Rent product. Their incomes also preclude them from shared ownership. It is clearly not right that hard working families should be 'too poor' to be able to access affordable housing.

Paragraph 4.7 explains that in light of national affordable housing thresholds that post-date the adoption of Core Strategy Policy LHN2 (Affordable Housing), paragraph 4.12 confirms that the wording of Core Strategy Policy LHN2 should be treated as being amended in part (b) to require affordable housing for schemes of 10 or more dwellings (or 0.3 hectares or more) and this is then reflected in Draft Policy DHG1 at parts (ii),(iii) and (iv)(b).

While paragraph 63 of the NPPF (2018) states that the "Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments" and, notwithstanding that the glossary in Annex 2 states that 'major developments' relates to 10 or more homes (or a site area of 0.5 hectares or more), the National Planning Policy and Guidance (at Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 236-031-2016116) confirms that national policy is that "contributions should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less and which have a maximum gross floor space of no more then 1,000 sq m (gross internal area). Paragraph 4.12 and draft Policy DHG3 should therefore, be mended to take account of the affordable housing thresholds set out in the National Planning Policy and Guidance.

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.

Rye Conservation Society
Comments on Rother Development & Site Allocation Policies
Cabinet Version

November 2018

Development Policies

Resource Management

Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency

Limits daily household water consumption to no more than 110litres/person per day.
RCS supports.

Policy DRM2: Renewable Energy Developments
General support for low energy schemes where they meet other Core strategy and D&SAP policies. No support for large scale wind farms.
RCS supports.

Policy DRM3: Energy Requirements
Proposed developments of more than 100 dwellings or 10,000sqm of non-residential floor space should demonstrate that due regard has been had to energy efficiency, including through the use of renewable and low carbon energy technologies, as part of their Design and Access Statement.
RCS supports.

Communities

Policy DCO1: Retention of Sites of Social or Economic Value
18 month period to show that use is no longer a prospect of continuing use.
RCS supports.

Policy DCO2: Equestrian Developments
RCS supports.

Housing

Policy DHG1: Affordable Housing
Sets requirement for affordable housing % (Rye 305 on sites with 10 or more/. 3 hectares)
Viability still a factor although 2018 NPPF sets standard for viability threshold.
RCS supports

Policy DHG2: Rural Exception Sites
RCS supports

Policy DHG3: Residential Internal Space Standards
To adopt government space standards.
RCS strongly supports.

Policy DHG4: Accessible and Adaptable Homes.
All dwellings are required to meet M4 (2): Category 2 - Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. This does not provide for wheel chair access but where there is an identified need on the Housing Register, sites that provide affordable housing in line with Policy DHG1, are as part of the affordable housing requirement, expected to provide 5% of the total housing requirement to meet M4 (3): Category 3 - Wheelchair Accessible Dwellings.
RCS supports.

Policy DHG5: Specialist Housing for Older People.
Supports such schemes with 'walkability' an issue.
RCS strongly supports.

Policy DHG6: Self-build and Custom House building.
Supports concept. On sites of 20 or more dwellings, provision for 5-10% of the total number of dwellings to be provided should be made available as serviced plots for self and custom house builders.

Plots should be made available and marketed through relevant marketing agencies for a period of at least 12 months. If the plots are not sold within this time period, the dwellings may be released for conventional market housing in line with the terms set out in the relevant legal agreement.

RCS supports.

Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas.
For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required.
Provision for car parking and safe and secure cycle storage should be made in accordance with Core Strategy Policy TR4 and East Sussex County Council's 'Guidance for Parking at New Residential Development' and 'Guidance for Parking at Non Residential Development'.
Waste and Recycling: Sufficient bin storage and collection points must be provided on all new residential developments and changes of use. Their siting and design should be considered at the outset.
RCS strongly supports.

Policy DHG8: Extensions to Residential Gardens.
RCS supports.

Policy DHG9: Extensions, Alterations and Outbuildings.
RCS supports.

Policy DHG10: Annexe.
RCS supports.

Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments.
RCS supports.

Policy DHG12: Accesses and Drives.
RCS supports but notes that no specific mention is made of the need to deal adequately with rainwater run off.

Economy

Policy DEC1: Shopfronts, Signage and Advertising.
RCS generally supports but is concerned that the extent of permitted development rights relating to advertising/sign is at odds with thrust of policy, as has been shown in Rye. Would like to see permitted advertising rights suspended in Conservation Areas.

Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites.
RCS supports.

Policy DEC3: Existing Employment Sites and Premises.
Where continued employment use of a site/premises is demonstrated not to be viable, permitting complementary enabling development as part of an overall scheme to make most effective use of the property for employment purposes; and if a mixed use scheme is not viable, prioritising alternative community uses, affordable housing (where affordable housing would be sought in line with Policy DHG1) and then market housing, subject to local needs.
RCS supports.

Environment

Policy DEN1: Maintaining Landscape Character.
RCS supports.

Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
RCS supports.

Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps.
Strategic gap between Rye and Rye Harbour identified. Within these Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area. Enhancement of the Gaps through effective landscape management which strengthens and reinforces their significance as protected landscape areas will be supported.
RCS supports.

Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space.
Development proposals should support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5. Larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals.
RCS supports.

Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage.

RCS supports but would like to see requirement for all new water courses to be open accept for access requirements and for 'daylighting' where appropriate of existing culverts stated in policy not just in supporting text.

Policy DEN6: Land Stability.

General policy which does not identify Point Hill area as potential problem area.
RCS supports.

Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution.
RCS strongly supports.
Implementation

Policy DIM1: Comprehensive Development.
RCS still has concerns as to the exact circumstances which will require a 'comprehensive' approach. How will this apply to Rock Channel, where there are two co incident sites, Bourne's and Jempsons? Will Martello (Bourne's) have to produce a 'fictitious ' master plan for both sites even though Jempson's may not be developed in the near future or will it be sufficient to show that suitable access has been maintained.
Policy need to be clarified as to where and how it is applied.

Policy DIM2: Development Boundaries.
RCS supports.

Site Allocation Policies

Overview Policy OVE1: Housing supply and delivery pending plans.
RCS supports.

Figure 16 identifies an updated residual requirement for additional homes on new sites of 6+ dwellings in each of the towns as at 1st April 2018

Figure 16: (Residual requirements to meet Core Strategy targets as at 1 April 2016) included:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31170


RCS supports and notes adoption of lower end of Core Strategy target for Rye which it believes to be prudent given the development difficulties in Rye.

Northiam Parish Council (NPC)
Comments on Rother Development & Site Allocation Policies
Cabinet Version
November 2018

1. Introduction

1.1 Legislation establishes a clear "plan-led" planning system and requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for its area.

1.2 In September 2014, the Council adopted its Rother Local Plan 'Core Strategy', which sets out its vision, overarching development strategy and strategic policies for development and change, and conservation, for Rother District over the period up to 2028. The Core Strategy identified the need to prepare this further Plan to both set out more detailed 'development policies' for certain topics in order to assist in determining proposals and to identify specific 'site allocations' to deliver the agreed housing and other development targets.

1.3 This Development and Site Allocations ("DaSA") Local Plan is effectively "part two" of the Council's Local Plan. It has been prepared to be in general conformity with the Core Strategy and has the same time horizon.

1.4 Together with the Core Strategy, this DaSA Local Plan provides the basis for determining planning applications in much of the district and supersedes all generic policies and relevant spatial policies from the earlier 2006 Rother District Local Plan.

1.5 The Core Strategy replaced the broader policies of the earlier 2006 Rother District Local Plan. This Local Plan now supersedes most of the remaining more detailed 2006 Local Plan polices, as listed at Appendix 2, exceptions being a few 2006 policies, mainly site allocations, not covered by this Local Plan but within a neighbourhood area where a Neighbourhood Plan is yet to be made.

1.6 National planning policies are contained in the 'National Planning Policy Framework' (NPPF). Local planning policies should be consistent with national planning policies, unless there are reasons justifying a local exception. The NPPF is also a material consideration in determining applications.

1.7 The NPPF defines the purpose of the planning system in terms of contributing to "sustainable development", with three interdependent economic, social and environmental objectives. It includes a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development', which is applied locally through Core Strategy Policy PC1.

1.8 The first NPPF, published in 2012, has recently been revised through the publication of a new NPPF in July 2018. While this Local Plan has been prepared to accord with the 2012 NPPF, notably in terms of housing provisions (which are set by the current Core Strategy), regard has also been had to the 2018 NPPF. Hence, it is believed that this Plan's policies, as set out in Part A and Part B, are also consistent with this latest statement of Government policy.

1.9 These development policies apply to all development applications including those relating to a site within a area with a Neighbourhood Plan which. When the D&SAP is formally adopted the policies within the D&SAP will have primacy over local neighbourhood plan policies unless there is a compelling case for the adoption of the NP policy.

Development Policies

Resource Management

Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency
Limits daily household water consumption to no more than 110litres/person per day.
NPC supports.

Policy DRM2: Renewable Energy Developments
General support for low energy schemes where they meet other Core strategy and D&SAP policies. No support for large scale wind farms.
NPC supports.

Policy DRM3: Energy Requirements
Proposed developments of more than 100 dwellings or 10,000sqm of non-residential floor space should demonstrate that due regard has been had to energy efficiency, including through the use of renewable and low carbon energy technologies, as part of their Design and Access Statement.
NPC supports.

Communities

Policy DCO1: Retention of Sites of Social or Economic Value
18 month period to show that use is no longer a prospect of continuing use.
NPC Strongly supports.

Policy DCO2: Equestrian Developments
NPC supports.

Housing

Policy DHG1: Affordable Housing
Sets requirement for affordable housing % (Rye 305 on sites with 10 or more/. 3 hectares)
Viability still a factor although 2018 NPPF sets standard for viability threshold.
NPC supports

Policy DHG2: Rural Exception Sites
NPC supports

Policy DHG3: Residential Internal Space Standards
To adopt government space standards.
NPC strongly supports.

Policy DHG4: Accessible and Adaptable Homes.
All dwellings are required to meet M4 (2): Category 2 - Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. This does not provide for wheel chair access but where there is an identified need on the Housing Register, sites that provide affordable housing in line with Policy DHG1, are as part of the affordable housing requirement, expected to provide 5% of the total housing requirement to meet M4 (3): Category 3 - Wheelchair Accessible Dwellings.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG5: Specialist Housing for Older People.
Supports such schemes with 'walkability' an issue.
NPC strongly supports.

Policy DHG6: Self-build and Custom House building.
Supports concept. On sites of 20 or more dwellings, provision for 5-10% of the total number of dwellings to be provided should be made available as serviced plots for self and custom house builders. Plots should be made available and marketed through relevant marketing agencies for a period of at least 12 months. If the plots are not sold within this time period, the dwellings may be released for conventional market housing in line with the terms set out in the relevant legal agreement.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas.
For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required.
Provision for car parking and safe and secure cycle storage should be made in accordance with Core Strategy Policy TR4 and East Sussex County Council's 'Guidance for Parking at New Residential Development' and 'Guidance for Parking at Non Residential Development'.
Waste and Recycling: Sufficient bin storage and collection points must be provided on all new residential developments and changes of use. Their siting and design should be considered at the outset.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG8: Extensions to Residential Gardens.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG9: Extensions, Alterations and Outbuildings.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG10: Annexe.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments.
NPC supports.

Policy DHG12: Accesses and Drives.
RCS supports

Economy

Policy DEC1: Shopfronts, Signage and Advertising.
NCP supports.

Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites.
NCP supports.

Policy DEC3: Existing Employment Sites and Premises.
Where continued employment use of a site/premises is demonstrated not to be viable, permitting complementary enabling development as part of an overall scheme to make most effective use of the property for employment purposes; and if a mixed use scheme is not viable, prioritising alternative community uses, affordable housing (where affordable housing would be sought in line with Policy DHG1) and then market housing, subject to local needs.
NPC supports.

Environment

Policy DEN1: Maintaining Landscape Character.
NCP strongly supports.

Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
NCP strongly supports.

Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps.
Not applicable to Northiam

Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space.
Development proposals should support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5. Larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings (whichever is the smaller) should produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan as part of their proposals.
NCP supports.

Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage.
NCP supports but would like to see requirement for all new water courses to be open accept for access requirements and for 'daylighting' where appropriate of existing culverts stated in policy not just in supporting text.

Policy DEN6: Land Stability.
NCP supports.

Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution.
NCP strongly supports.

Implementation

Policy DIM1: Comprehensive Development.
Policy needs to be clarified as to where and how it is applied

Policy DIM2: Development Boundaries.
NCP supports.

Site Allocation Policies
Overview Policy OVE1: Housing supply and delivery pending plans.

NOR 1
Policy NOR1: Land south of Northiam Church of England Primary School.
Northiam

Land south of Northiam Church of England Primary School, as shown on the Policies Map, is allocated for housing. Proposals will be permitted where:

(i) Some 6 dwellings are provided, of which 40% are affordable;

(ii) vehicle access is to the A28 to the satisfaction of the Highway
Authority;

(iii) existing trees on the eastern and western boundaries, protected by Tree Preservation Orders, are retained; and the hedgerow on the eastern boundary is retained and enhanced with native species; and

(iv) an assessment and evaluation of the she's archaeological potential has been carried out and mitigation measures are implemented.

NPC supports.

NOR 2
Policy NOR2:Land south of The Paddock/Goddens Gill Northiam

Land south of The Paddock Goddens Gill, as shown on the Policies Map, is allocated for residential development. Proposals will be permitted where:

(i) either:

(a) some 52 age-restricted dwellings for older people are provided;
or

(b) some 36 dwellings are provided. In both cases, 40% of the dwelling units shall be affordable.

(ii) vehicle access b via The Paddock to the satisfaction of the Highway
Authority;
(iii) tree belts and hedgerows on (he site boundaries are maintained and reinforced with planting of native species, and provision is made for the retention and future management of a buffer zone of semi-natural habitat, at least 15 metres wide (which does not include residential gardens), on the eastern boundary, between the edge of development and the ancient woodland.

We have concerns as to the proposed density of dwellings on this site

Appendix B: D&SAP Policies attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31180