Policy DIM2: Development Boundaries

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 We understand the need for the Rye NP to conform to the Core Strategy, the NPPF (initially 2012 now superseded by NPPF 2018) and be consistent with the emerging DaSA.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

I have been asked by the Bulverhythe Protectors to submit a statement supporting this policy as it relates to the Combe Valley Countryside Park, in particular the Bexhill Road Playing Fields. The open green landscape at the entrance of the Countryside Park and in the relatively narrow gap between Bexhill and St Leonards would be adversely affected by any significant built structures in this location. The Protectors will be ready to appear at the forthcoming inquiry to support this policy.

The DaSA is seriously flawed as it does not make it clear that the Council proposed to remove Development Boundaries from around some existing settlements provided for in the current Rother District Local Plan - adopted in July 2006.

Inset Map 38 of the currently adopted Local Plan shows a Development Boundary around the settlement of Winchelsea and also the nearby settlement of Winchelsea Beach. In the DaSA draft Inset Map 21 only shows a Development Boundary drawn around Winchelsea. Thus, it is only through a comparison between Inset Map 38 of the adopted Local Plan and draft Inset Map 21 of the DaSA that it can be deduced that the Council intends to remove the Development Boundary from around Winchelsea Beach.

The fact that the Council has not made any reference to this proposed change in the DaSA and to seek therefore, to this achieve this by default, is grossly unfair and unreasonable and could well be missed by those who might otherwise wish to also submit objections to this proposed change.

The Development Boundary as a planning tool provides a clear planning purpose in making it clear where development and redevelopment will be permitted in principle and where it will not be permitted. Moreover, there remains opportunities for infill and redevelopment schemes within the existing Development Boundary and there is no sound reason why such proposals should reasonably be judged against countryside restraint policies, as would be the case if the Development Boundary were to be removed.

The DaSA provides no justification for deleting the Development Boundary around Winchelsea Beach and this should therefore, be reinstated in the DaSA and both Figure 14 and Chapter 12 should be modified accordingly with an appropriate Inset Map provided.

The DaSA is seriously flawed as it does not make it clear that the Council seems to remove Development Boundaries from around some existing settlements provided for in the current Rother District Local Plan - adopted in July 2006

Through a process of deduction (as it is not stated in either Chapter 7 or Chapter 12 of the DaSA), the Council's intention to remove the current Development Boundary currently drawn around Pett Level as shown on Inset Map 29 of the adopted Local Plan. In producing Figure 14 on Page 104 and in producing Chapter 12, the Council had a clear opportunity to make it clear which settlement (other than those covered by or to be covered by Neighbourhood Plans) would have their Development Boundaries removed at the time the DaSA is adopted.

The fact that the Council has not made any reference to this proposed change in the DaSA and to seek therefore, to this achieve this by default, is grossly unfair and unreasonable and could well be missed by those who might otherwise wish to also submit objections to this proposed change.

The Development Boundary as a planning tool provides a clear planning purpose in making it clear where development and redevelopment will be permitted in principle and where it will not be permitted. Moreover, there remain opportunities for infill and redevelopment schemes within the existing Development Boundary and there is no sound reason why such proposals should reasonably be judged against countryside restraint policies, as would be the case if the Development Boundary were to be removed.

The DaSA provides no justification for deleting the Development Boundary around Pett Level and this should therefore, be reinstated in the DaSA and both Figure 14 and Chapter 12 should be modified accordingly with an appropriate Inset Map provided.

In addition, the Development Boundary should not only be reinstated, but should also be extended to include the whole of the developed curtilage at the property known as 'Clonette' at the north eastern end of Pett Level Road (the subject of current planning application no. RR/2018/2484/P) as shown attached.
(map attached: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31138)

Policy DIM2: Development Boundaries

Gladman consider that the plan would benefit from a more flexible approach to development on its boundaries, given the context of the overall supply of housing planned for (discussed below) and the incoming change in housing needs for Rother through the implementation of the standard methodology. To this end in order for the policy to be found sound we believe that the final paragraph of the policy should be deleted and replaced with a criteria based policy for edge of settlement development. In this regard we would recommend a policy similar to that contained within the emerging Ashford Local Plan, which has been the subject of main modifications consultation. We attach a copy of draft policy HOU5 from the Ashford Local Plan to this letter.

Since the adoption of the Core Strategy, there have been 1,324 completions in the District. In addition, a further Paragraphs 9.15 to 9.20 of the DASA refer specifically to the settlement boundary around Bexhill, where it is emphasised that this is drawn tightly around existing development within the built up area. The development boundary as proposed therefore excludes the site.

Whilst this would be acceptable if RDC were not looking to allow for further growth in Bexhill, it is clear from both the Core Strategy and the DASA that Bexhill is the focus for growth over the plan period. Therefore, it is necessary for the development boundary to be amended to include additional sites which are considered suitable for development, and deliverable in the short term. The site should be included within the development boundary.

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION ROTHER DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN (OCTOBER 2018) REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION
LAND AT CLAVERING WALK, COODEN, BEXHILL ON SEA.

Please accept this letter as a formal representation to the current consultation on the Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DASA) Regulation 19 Consultation which closes on 7 December 2018.

Once adopted the DASA will form part of the Development Plan alongside the Core Strategy which was adopted in 2014.

This representation is accompanied by the requisite response form, a Site Location Plan and an Illustrative Masterplan demonstrating how the site could be developed.
Policy Position Owing to the stage of the DASA (Proposed Submission) these representations address whether the plan can be considered sound at Examination. The test of soundness are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) both in the original March 2012 version and updated July 2018 version (para 35). These are:

"a) Positively prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

b) Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

c) Effective - deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and

d) Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework."
RDC has suggested that the DASA will be submitted for Examination to the Secretary of State in January 2019. It is anticipated that the DASA will be submitted for Examination before the 24th January 2019 which is the cut-off date for plans to be examined against the NPPF (2012), in accordance with the transitional arrangements set out in Annex one of the NPPF (2018).
It is however, also important for the DASA to be consistent with the NPPF (2018) as it will be applicable for the determination of planning applications, alongside the DASA and the Core Strategy, once the DASA is adopted. Consequently these representations focus on the policies contained in the NPPF (2012) but may refer to the NPPF (2018) where relevant.

Background

This representation is prepared in respect of the development proposals for land to the north of Clavering Walk, Cooden (the site). The site measures 8.13 hectares in size and is currently located outside of the defined settlement limits of Cooden, Bexhill.

The site is subject to no nature, landscape or heritage designations. This is particularly relevant as the DASA recognises that the landscape around Bexhill is attractive and comprises many designated landscapes. Whilst the site as a whole is located in Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3, the proposed development of the site will be delivered solely within land that falls within Flood Zone 1, as per the accompanying
2 Illustrative Masterplan. It is relevant that an outline planning application, with all matters reserved except for means of access, was recently submitted for the development of the site to provide up to 99 new homes. This application demonstrates that the proposed quantum of development, which will include the delivery of much needed affordable homes, can be achieved on the site without detriment to the character of the surrounding area, the amenity of existing residents or any surrounding designations. It also demonstrates that the site can deliver ecological and biological benefits as well as providing significant areas of public open space which would benefit the local community.

The site is adjacent to Bexhill on Sea, which is the largest, most sustainable settlement in the District. As set out in paragraph 9.1 of the DASA, Bexhill is "by far the largest settlement in Rother district, with a population of some 44,395 people (ESCC 2016), equivalent to some 48% of that of the district as a whole".
The Core Strategy recognises this, with policy OSS1 and associated Figure 8 identifying that of the 5,700 new homes to be delivered over the Core Strategy period, 3,100 of these, or 54%, are to be provided in Bexhill. In addition to this, 60,00sqm of commercial floor space is also to be accommodated in Bexhill. In this regard, the DASA at paragraph 9.6 identifies that Bexhill is "the focus for development within the District".

Evidently, RDC anticipates considerable growth within and around the wider area of Bexhill to ensure that the growing community can benefit from the service and facilities that this sustainable location offers.

The Core Strategy does not allocate any sites for development, it simply provides the overarching strategic policies for the District, sets the minimum housing and employment development targets and apportions the housing and employment development targets across the towns and villages within the District.
The purpose of the DASA is to provide detailed policies to supplement the strategic policies contained in the Core Strategy and to allocated sites to ensure that the housing end economic development requirements set in the Core Strategy are met over the plan period.

Representations on the DASA

Housing Provision

The Core Strategy sets out a minimum requirement for 5,700 new homes to be delivered over the Plan Period, of which 3,100 are to be delivered in Bexhill.
Since the adoption of the Core Strategy, there have been 1,324 completions in the District. In addition, a further 2,469 homes benefit from extant planning permission. Subsequently, there is a residual requirement for 1,637 new dwellings against the Core Strategy minimum target which needs to be allocated through the DASA.

The DASA allocates land for 1,381 new homes, excluding allocated sites which already benefit from a planning permission.

The allocation of land for only 1,381 new homes falls 526 dwellings short of the minimum Core Strategy requirement. It is RDC's case that 270 new homes should accounted for through the windfall and exception site allowance, this still leaves a shortfall of 256 new homes against the minimum Core Strategy requirement.
In light of this, it is clear that RDC is failing to deliver the minimum Core Strategy housing requirement, even allowing for windfall and exception sites and therefore the DASA fails to meet the tests of soundness within the NPPF, even with a windfall allowance. Consequently, the Proposed Submission DASA is not positively prepared as it is not effective in meeting minimum identified housing requirement
3 of the District; and it is not consistent with national policy, notably the requirement to significantly boost housing supply.

Whilst RDC anticipates that some additional sites will come forward through Neighbourhood Plans, there is nothing in the NPPF or National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) that prevents sites from being allocated by a Local Authority in a Neighbourhood Plan Area, or that prevents additional sites being allocated in the wider District to ensure that supply is met, notwithstanding any forthcoming Neighbourhood Plans. This is particularly relevant in the context of the Core Strategy housing target which the Inspector Examining the Core Strategy stressed was a minimum requirement.

In this regard, there is no guarantee that any of the identified emerging Neighbourhood Plans or Neighbourhood Plan Areas will come forward quickly, or allocate sufficient sites to meet the minimum housing requirement of the Core Strategy. Therefore, RDC should be looking to ensure that sufficient sites are allocated through the DASA, in accessible, sustainable locations, in order to meet the District's identified housing needs, with sufficient flexibility to allow for the inevitable non-delivery or under-delivery of some allocations.

In order for the DASA to be positively prepared and compliant with National Policy, it is requested that RDC allocates the site for a residential development of a minimum of 99 homes. The recent submission of a planning application for the site demonstrates that the site is available, suitable and deliverable. It is also located in Bexhill where the Core Strategy identifies a significant amount of the District's housing requirement should be delivered and therefore it is an ideal site for RDC to allocate through the DASA.

The allocation of the site through the DASA would assist RDC in ensuring that the minimum Core Strategy housing requirement is met and will help to provide much needed flexibility within the plan to ensure that the District's housing needs will continue to be met over the plan period.

Furthermore, allocation of the site would provide a degree of certainty that the site will be developed, as Bellway has an option over the land relating to the pending planning application. Bellway does not land bank its sites and is committed to delivering new homes in this location quickly and to a very high standard. This is assisted by the fact that the site is free from any heritage, nature or landscape designation, particularly given that Rother is a highly constrained District.

Bexhill Development Boundary and the Proposals Map

Paragraphs 9.15 to 9.20 of the DASA refer specifically to the settlement boundary around Bexhill, where it is emphasised that this is drawn tightly around existing development within the built up area. The development boundary as proposed therefore excludes the site.

Whilst this would be acceptable if RDC were not looking to allow for further growth in Bexhill, it is clear from both the Core Strategy and the DASA that Bexhill, as the major settlement in the district, is the focus for growth over the plan period. Therefore, it is necessary for the development boundary to be amended to include additional sites which are considered suitable for development, and deliverable in the short term.

The site meets these criteria. Bellway is committed to delivering 99 new homes on this site within a short period of time. The following table demonstrates the anticipated delivery timescales for the site:

(Table included: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31143)

Discharge of pre-commencement conditions and completion of legal agreements
December 2019 Commencement on site February 2020 Delivery of first units
July 2020 Evidently, the site can deliver much needed new homes within the early part of the DASA plan period, contributing towards early housing supply and providing certainty to RDC that its housing needs can begin to be met early in the plan period.

To this end, it is requested that the Proposals Map is amended to include the site within the development boundary of Bexhill and the text within paragraphs 9.15 to 9.20 is appropriately amended to reflect this.

Summary

This representation has demonstrated that there is a necessity for RDC to allocated additional sites for housing development over the plan period, through the DASA. As drafted, the DASA plans for a shortfall of at least 256 homes against the Core Strategy minimum residual requirement. If the windfall and exception site allowance are removed from the calculations, then this shortfall is even greater at 526 dwellings. These representations contest that to plan for such a shortfall demonstrates that the plan is not positively prepared or consistent with National Planning Policy. Consequently, there is a clear requirement for RDC to allocate additional sites for residential development through the DASA.

The site represents an ideal opportunity to provide an additional residential allocation in Bexhill, which is identified as the key areas for growth in the District through the Core Strategy, on a site that is available, deliverable and suitable, as evidenced by the recent submission of a planning application. It is therefore requested that the site is allocated for development of up to 99 residential units through the DASA, and the settlement boundary for Bexhill is revised to include the site.

illustrative maps included:

www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31139
www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31140

Policy DIM2 (Support in principle, amendment required)

Draft policy DIM2: Development Boundaries sets out that development shall be focused within defined settlement boundaries. These representations support the approach of development within the settlement boundary, with particular support given to the amendment of the settlement boundary of Bexhill to include site BEX3c. However, this representation seeks a technical amendment, as the extension does not go far enough.

Please see attached full representation for further information.

Highway Access report:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31171

Preston Farm Hall Representations report
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31172

POLICY DIM2: DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

4.9 While the development boundaries have been adopted under Core Strategy Policy OSS2, the policy within the DaSA does not provide scope for any alteration to development boundaries.

4.10 It is considered that the process of preparing the DaSA as a Local Plan document which addresses the strategic policies of an out-of-date Core Strategy is clearly unsound and is not a justified approach. It is considered that the development boundaries, which are based on this evidence, should be reviewed as they currently limit the scope of the LPA to provide enough land to provide the significant increase in housing number which is clearly required. The development boundaries are already out of date as the housing number has increased. Unless they are reviewed at this stage of the process, this is going to lead to confusion and inconsistency through the development management process.

4.11 Given that the Council's current level of supply is below that required using the standard methodology any policies relating to the delivery of housing and locations of development will be out of date.

4.12 Decision making on applications must be based in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in line with the NPPF. The PPG states that this is undertaken to "enable the development of alternative sites to meet the policy requirement". This suggests that where there are policies that restrict development, but which are not highlighted in foot note 7 of paragraph 11 then these should be ignored.

4.13 It is therefore considered that the development boundaries across the whole district should be reviewed as the current policy and proposed DaSA is unsound based on the plan has not been positively prepared, has not been justified, is not effective, and is inconsistent with National Policy. It therefore fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

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