Site Allocation: Land at North Bexhill

1.1 Section 9 of the DaSA is unsound as it has not been positively prepared and is not justified as it has not been based on the findings of the Council's evidence base or the comments received from the public consultations.

1.2 Our client owns land to the west of Ninfield Road, See Annex A. Our client's land was included on the Core Strategy Key Diagram as a Growth Area. It is also identified as a site allocation in the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Preferred Options document. This land has been removed as a site allocation within the Proposed Submission version, but there has been no justification for this change.
1.3 Figure 21 of the DaSA Proposed Submission sets out the allocations, (www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31263)
1.4 The Site is identified in Figure 23 (www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31264) of the DaSA Preferred Options document as part of the preferred option for this area, see image below. It forms part of an area referred to as North Bexhill (Ref: BX124) that is discussed from paragraph 13.16 of the DaSA Preferred Options.

1.5 The site is also shown as part of the housing options in Figures 24 and 25, which set out alternative visions for the area.

1.6 To be justified, this DaSA should be based on a robust and credible evidence and the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. As will be explained below, there is no evidence that the removal of land to the west of Ninfield Road from the preferred options has been based on any evidence or as a result of any comments during the preferred options consultation. There is simply no paper trail for this site allocation change.

Participation

1.7 A key test of soundness is whether the consultation process has allowed for the effective engagement of all interested parties. The consultation statement should set out what consultation was undertaken, when, with whom and how it has influenced the plan.

1.8 The Consultation Statement cited the four following responses to site BX124:
- BX124 option one, two and or three should be considered.
- Options 1, 2 and 3 should be combined to maximise the housing achievable on this site

- Consideration should be given to increasing housing numbers at BX124 and its surroundings. Infrastructure and local facilities are better and environmental damage would be less, compared to other sites.
- BX124 could be enlarged further as the land immediately outside the site is suitable for housing.

1.9 The Council's response to these consultation responses was:

- It is considered that development west of the A269 would erode the countryside setting of this part of Bexhill as well as the loss of grassland habitat. Development north of NBAR lacks the general containment achieved by Option 1, whilst new development north of NBAR near the A269 would result in coalescence with the adjoining settlement of the Thorne/ Lunsford Cross. These areas are therefore not included within the allocation.

1.10 The Council's preferred option showed land west of Ninfield Road in its preferred option and two alternatives. There were no options excluding this land. There were also no comments received by the Council suggesting that this land should be excluded.

1.11 The Consultation Statement should state how the consultation has influenced the plan. This has not occurred in this instance as a decision has been made to exclude this land to the west of Ninfield Road irrespective of the Council's preferred option and publicised alternative options and any comments received during the consultation process. The consultation process has actually identified that there is no public opposition to this land and suggested that the development area as a whole should be increased, not decreased.

Research and Fact Finding

1.12 Another key test of soundness is whether the plan is justified by a sound and credible evidence base.

1.13 The Council's Consultation Statement claims that development west of Ninfield Road (the A269) would erode the countryside setting of this part of Bexhill as well as the loss of grassland habitat. This conclusion runs contrary to the Council's own published evidence base.

1.14 Since the publication of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan Preferred Options document, the Council has not published any new documents that directly consider the land to the west of Ninfield Road. The relevant evidence base that informed the DaSA Preferred Options document and was published in advance of the Preferred options consultation remains relevant. The relevant evidence base documents are as follows:

- North Bexhill - Report 1 - Landscape and Ecological Study (Aug 2015)
- North Bexhill - Report 2 - Appraisal and Recommendation (Aug 2016)

1.15 These documents will be considered below.

North Bexhill Report 1 Landscape and Ecological Study (Aug 2015)

1.16 The site is identified in North Bexhill Report 1 as 'LDU F: Land Between St. Mary's Lane and Ninfield Road' and is considered in detail in Section 2.4.26 of and Figure 2.25 of this document, see image below. (www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31265).

1.17 This image considers landscape constraints and notes that the site has a 'Moderate Low Sensitivity' - the lowest rating. Paragraph 2.4.28 provides further commentary, stating:

2.4.28 Landscape and Visual Sensitivity - This LDU has few significant landscape features and has relatively ordinary scenic value. It occupies an area of flat topography in proximity to Ninfield Road and the northern approach to Bexhill. It is well contained in views, although there are localised views from St. Mary's Lane and from the public footpath which extends along the southern boundary of the LDU.

1.18 In Paragraph 2.4.30 this report concludes:

2.4.30 Capacity to Accept Change - This LDU has a Moderate High capacity to accommodate change owing to its relatively ordinary landscape character and limited visual sensitivity. Limited development in this location would not appear discordant with the existing settlement pattern on the northern edge of Bexhill.

1.19 Under 2.5.32 this document provides a tabular analysis of this site's landscape sensitivities and the following conclusions were reached:
*- Landscape quality = Moderate Low
*- Cultural elements = Moderate Low
*- Landscape elements = Moderate Low
*- Overall Landscape sensitivity = Moderate Low

1.20 Under 2.5.33 this document provides a tabular analysis of this site's visual sensitivities and found that it had a Moderate Low rating.

1.21 Under 2.5.34 it was concluded that the Combined Landscape and Visual Sensitivity was Moderate Low.

1.22 Under 2.5.35 this document provides a tabular analysis of this site's landscape value and found that it had a Moderate Low rating, noting that:

this area has little scenic value and comprises farmland on the edge of the settlement and the grounds of two dwellings.

1.23 Under 2.5.36 this document provides a tabular analysis of this site's capacity to accept and found that it had a Moderate High rating, stating:

This area comprises relatively ordinary farmland and the curtilage of two properties.
It has potential to accommodate some development without giving rise to significant
landscape and visual effects.

1.24 The Council's comments relating to the site in the Consultation Statement runs contrary to the assessment made in North Bexhill Report 1. It is clear that the Council's comments are made not based on any credible evidence as the published evidence gives a different conclusion and one that notes that this site has high potential to accept development.

1.25 Given the conclusions of North Bexhill Report 1, there is no tangible reason as why the land west of Ninfield Road has now been excluded as a site allocation.

North Bexhill Report 2 Appraisal and Recommendation (Aug 2016)

1.26 The first landscape and ecological study was accompanied by a further report, North Bexhill Report 2, that provided further appraisal and recommendations.

1.27 In specific regard to the land to the west of Ninfield Road, Section 2.3.2 states:
To the east, adjacent to St. Mary's Lane, Ninfield Road and Mayo Lane, the parts of the Study Area are found to have an undistinguished landscape character with the existing settlement edge detracting from its landscape character. In particular, the area located between St. Mary's Lane and Ninfield Road is identified as having a relatively ordinary scenic value and being well contained in views, apart from some localised views. The Landscape Study explains how the parts of the Study Area bound by Ninfield Road, Mayo Lane and Watermill Lane are visible from the adjoining valley side to the north, although, in these views this area is perceived alongside the existing settlement edge. Directly to the north, the Study Area sits on the south facing slope of this valley with the higher ground to the north identified as being sensitive in landscape and visual terms.

1.28 Section 2.3.3 identified the land to the West of Ninfield Road as being part of larger area that has a better capacity to accept change, and states:

2.3.3 Capacity to Accept - Change Based upon the above considerations, the Landscape Study concludes that some parts of the Study Area have a better capacity to accept change than others. The areas to the east of St. Mary's Lane and Ninfield Road and to the north west of Mayo Lane are found to have the highest capacity to accommodate new development, with them possessing a moderate high capacity to accept change, as it would not appear discordant with the existing settlement pattern on the northern edge of Bexhill and be well related to the existing edge of the town, with the area being separated from the wider landscape to the north as a result of the intervening topography.

1.29 Paragraph 3.6.2 goes into the detail of the access into this parcel of land, stating:

3.6.2 Access The parcel of residential development to the west of Ninfield Road would be accessed from the new A269 roundabout. The housing area immediately to the east are shown to be accessed from a new roundabout off Ninfield Road.

1.30 Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 set out 3x options for development north of Bexhill, and in each case, the land to the West of Ninfield Road is included as a residential development site.

1.31 The land to the west of Ninfield Road has been identified as a residential development site in the Council's evidence and there is no other evidence available that suggests that it should not be included as such within the overall spatial strategy. The Council's comments in relation to this land as set out in the Consultation Statement are not only surprising, but are also factually incorrect and run contrary to the conclusions within the Council's landscape assessment. To exclude this site from the DaSA would therefore be unsound.

Alternatives

1.32 The land to the west Ninfield Road had always been part of the preferred options for North Bexhill, until its exclusion in the DaSA Proposed Submission document.

1.33 It had previously been given the reference BX124, but it would now appear that the Council has given the site a new reference, BX131. The only time this site is mentioned in the Council's evidence base is within the Council's Sustainability Appraisal, which states:

This site includes land to the west of Ninfield Road/St Marys Lane which would result in the loss of grassland habitat. This area is rural in context and development would be considered to result in a negative impact against Objective 15 [Protect and enhance the high quality natural and built environment].

1.34 There is no evidence that considers the site in more detail other than the landscape reports cited above. The conclusions set out in the Sustainability Appraisal run contrary to the evidence base which confirms that the site is not a high quality natural environment and has a high capacity to accept change. This SA conclusion is therefore unsubstantiated and brings into question its robustness as an assessment.

1.35 Therefore, it cannot be shown that the Council's chosen approach is the most appropriate given the reasonable alternatives. There is also no clear audit trail showing how and why the preferred approach was arrived at and how the site to the west of Ninfield came to be excluded from the option taken forward. The Council's site allocation cannot be considered sound.

Annex A: Site Location Plan - Land to the west of Ninfield Road

(www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31266)