Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Representation ID: 24270

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Executors of the Estate of the late Mr F. Rumsey .

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Rother District Council needs to ensure that a suitable range of sites, of varying sizes and scales, are allocated in the Plan to ensure the delivery of a sufficient number of new homes to address the under delivery against the 5 year requirements. The Council needs to ensure that the Plan is flexible and able to meet the demands on it both in terms of providing for need but also delivering at a sufficient rate.


It can be clearly seen that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield land or previously developed sites to deliver the necessary level of housing supply. The lack of urban capacity for the delivery of a sufficient level of housing means that the utilisation of sites outside of the existing settlement boundary and the realignment of settlement boundaries in order to envelope such sites will be necessary in order to meet need.

We disagree with the sustainability appraisal and assert that this land should be included within Policy BEX3.

The inclusion of this land will enable Rother to provide a suitable and sustainable level of development that does not negatively impact upon the surrounding environment, and on a District scale provide much needed housing.

Full text:

Land north of Bexhill - Policy BEX3
Representation - Disagree with removal of land from allocation

We submit this formal response to the Proposed Submission Local Plan and with regard to the above mentioned site and corresponding Policies which are for consideration. Our'client has important land interests in the District including land north of Bexhill and this submission accordingly responds to those elements of the Local Plan relevant to these interests.

St Mary's Lane/Ninfield Road site
The overall site comprises a triangular land parcel of relatively flat land. It contains two properties set within generous grounds and an area of pastoral farmland. It is bordered to the south by a wooded embankment, beyond which is a recreation ground. There are a number of mature trees located within the southern part and an established hedgerow/tree line along the route of Ninfield Road.

A map was included as part of the submission and can be found here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31121

'Landscape Study 2016
The site was also considered within the North Bexhill Landscape Study 2016 as site F - Land Between St. Mary's road and Ninfield Road. Within the study the site was considered as follows:
'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.

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.'

In assessing the site, on examination of the evidence, it was the only area in which the level of landscape sensitivity was described as consistently moderately low and therefore was considered to have a capacity to accept change as 'Moderately High'. The only other sites to achieve this were sites D and E1 both of which are now allocated for housing development within the Plan.

In landscape terms the site should be considered viable, however, this did not translate to the subsequent allocation consideration.

Local Plan Assessments
The site was originally identified as a preferred site BX124 in the Issues and Options Local Plan.

A map was included as part of the submission and can be found here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31122

When the site was considered by the Council at this stage the land was included as part of the overall North Bexhill Development options.

The site was then also considered under the Councils Sustainability Appraisal (Sept 2018) but was included in the much larger site allocation of 8X131. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when considered within a larger site extending out into the countryside the Council raised a Major objection in terms of the impact on the natural and built environment.

Finally, the site was also referred to within the Sustainability Appraisal as part of the North.

A map was included as part of the submission and can be found here: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31123

When considering the site as part of both Options 1 and 2 the Council's appraisal found only minor negative impacts within the Sustainabilify Appraisal. However, the Council offered additional comment which states further considered that development west of the A269 would erode the countryside setting of this part of Bexhill and green gap to the Thome'. Subsequently the site has not been brought forward as part of the land allocation within Policy BEX3.

We do not agree with this assertion not only because the site was analysed in the 2016 Landscape Study but because the level of development being afforded on the eastern side of the A269 would impact upon the 'green gap' to the Thorne and the site should have been considered in this context.

We find that the Council's own assessment of the site are too narrow in scope when referring to landscape impact of this site alone. As such the reasons provided do not justify the site being removed from allocation.

National Policy Context and Housing requirements
Paragraph119 of the NPPF 2018 states that 'Local planning authorities, and other plan-making bodies, should take a proactive role in identifying and helping to bring forward land that may be suitable for meeting development needs' This requirement follows from the NPPF 2012 which sought to maximise development potential.

The most recent 5 year housing land supply position for Rother (set out by the Local Plan Annual Monitoring Report April 2018) states that RDC have a land supply of 3.44 years in place. The Council accepts that the under-delivery against housing requirements amounts to a 'persistent under-delivery of housing'; hence, a 20% buffer should and in line with paragraph 47 of the NPPF 2012 has been applied to the Council's requirement.

Local Housing Needs
The Council consider that through the implementation of sites now approved and allocated within the DaSA Plan the trajectory for development will ensure that future completions will supplement the persistent under delivery when sites come forward. However, this takes no account of external changes to demographics or policies in the future and whilst there is now the necessity to review a Local Plan every five years it is forwarded that the site should be included within the current Plan submission.

The last full assessment of housing requirements is set out in the Hastings and Rother Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Housing Needs Assessment dated June 2013. This informed the subsequent Core Strategy Local Plan requirement to deliver 'at least 5, 700 new homes' over the 17 year plan period.

We argue that given that as the figures adopted originally by Rother within the Core Strategy Local Plan for housing provision were (and still are) expressed as an 'at least' number, it is incumbent on the authorities to be proactive in seeking to identify opportunities for additional housing development and this should remain the case for Rother.

To further emphasize the need for greater provision we are also aware that the Council's Local Plan Monitoring Report April 2018 confirms that they have not met their annual housing supply requirements and therefore have taken account that significant weight be attributed to the benefits of new housing.

In setting out the reasoning for the housing provision in forthcoming years Paragraph 2.36 of the Monitoring Report April 2018 confirms that 'Therefore, the Council resolved that pending the DaSA Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans, sites that accord with the Core Strategy's overall development strategy and are suitable, deliverable and otherwise contribute to sustainable development, including circumstances where they are not within a development boundary, be
considered favourable'

As such we welcome that this admission that housing sites that come forward should continue to be viewed favourably is acknowledged within the reasoning behind the 'Overview' Policy which refers to housing targets and provision - Policy OVE1: Housing supply and delivery pending plans.

'In view of the fact that the annualised housing requirement has not been achieved to date and that housing delivery is likely to not "catch up" on present projections, it is considered appropriate to not only have a margin of over-provision, particularly in Bexhill where there is a high reliance on a strategic site, but also to avoid unduly deferring the identification of suitable sites and to ensure that planning permissions continue to come forward in a timely manner. '

The pre-amble confirms that the historic under-provision is noted and that other sites brought forward should also be considered favourably subject to complying with other Policies. With regard to housing in settlements the secondary element of Policy OVE1 states that:-

.... planning applications will be favourably considered for development proposals in those settlements where:
(i) they contribute to meeting the housing target for that settlement and accord with the relevant spatial strategy; and
(ii) the site and development proposals are otherwise suitable having regard to other relevant policies of the Core Strategy, including the considerations in OSS2 and OSS3, and of this Plan.

We assert that the land between St Mary's Lane and Ninfield Road as shown in this
documentation would comply with the principles outlined within emerging Policy OVE1 and would offer an opportunity to assist in exceed the provision requirements of the current Plan submission following the documented under provision of recent years.

Summary
Rother District Council needs to ensure that a suitable range of sites, of varying sizes and scales, are allocated in the Emerging Plan to ensure the delivery of a sufficient number of new homes to address the under delivery against the 5 year requirements. The Council needs to ensure that the Plan is flexible and able to meet the demands on it both in terms of providing for need but also delivering at a sufficient rate.

From examining and assessing sites through the call for sites process, it can be clearly seen that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield land or previously developed sites within the District to deliver the necessary level of housing supply. The lack of urban capacity for the delivery of a sufficient level of housing means that the utilisation of sites outside of the existing settlement boundary and the realignment of settlement boundaries in order to envelope such sites will be necessary in order to meet this need.

Taking account of each of the above factors we disagree with the Council's comments in its sustainability appraisal that the site is not suitable for development and assert that this land should be included within the remit of Policy BEX3.

The inclusion of this land will enable Rother to deliver a site in the District that would on a local scale provide a suitable and sustainable level of development that does not negatively impact upon the surrounding environment, and on a District scale provide much needed housing.

We would welcome the opportunity to provide verbal representation at examination in public.

Object

Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Representation ID: 24374

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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

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

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

Full text:

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

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

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

Object

Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Representation ID: 24405

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Des Moxam

Agent: Mr Sam Finnis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Rother District Council needs to ensure that a suitable range of sites, of varying sizes and scales, are allocated to ensure the delivery of a sufficient number of new homes to address the under delivery against the 5-year requirements. The Council needs to ensure that the Plan is flexible and able to meet demand.

From examining and assessing sites through the call for sites process, it can be clearly seen that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield land within the District to deliver the necessary level of housing supply. The lack of urban capacity means that the utilisation of sites outside of the existing settlement boundary and their realignment will be necessary in order to meet need.

Taking account the above factors we disagree with the Council's sustainability appraisal that the site is not suitable for development and assert that this land should be included within the remit of Policy BEX3.

The inclusion of this land will enable Rother to deliver a site in the District that would on a local scale provide a suitable and sustainable level of development that does not negatively impact upon the surrounding environment, and on a District scale provide much needed housing.

Full text:

Land north of Bexhill - Policy BEX3

View - Disagree with removal of land from allocation

We submit this letter as a formal response to the Proposed Submission Local Plan and with regard to the above mentioned site and corresponding Policies which are for consideration. Our client has important land interests in the District including land north of Bexhill and this submission accordingly responds to those elements of the Local Plan relevant to these interests.

We note the Council intend to submit the Plan prior to 24 January 2019, and therefore it is required to comply with the 2012 version of the NPPF. It is not inconceivable that issues raised at this Regulation 19 stage could cause slippage in the timescale, resulting in submission post-24 January 2019.

The NPPF (2012) sets out the tests for soundness of Local Plans at paragraph 35, which requires Local Plans to be:

a) Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

b) Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

c) Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

d) Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

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. The majority, some 3, 100, are to be at Bexhill, with 475-500 dwellings at Battle, 355-400 dwellings at Rye, at least 100 dwellings on the fringes of Hastings and 1,670 dwellings across villages.

Rother District Council and its neighbouring Local Authorities are experiencing an overriding need for housing. Rother and almost all surrounding Authorities cannot show a five year housing land supply, and there is a documented under provision of affordable housing across Rother.

St Mary's Lane/Ninfield Road site

The site comprises a triangular land parcel of relatively flat land. It contains two properties set within generous grounds and an area of pastoral farmland. It is bordered to the south by a wooded embankment, beyond which is a recreation ground. There are a number of mature trees located within the southern part and an established hedgerow/tree line ah3ng the route of Ninfield Road.

Figure 1 (Land between St Mary's Road and Ninfield Road) included: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31162

Landscape Study 2016

The site was also considered within the North Bexhill Landscape Study 2016 as site F - Land Between St. Mary's road and Ninfield Road. Within the study the site was considered as follows:

'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.

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. '

In assessing the site, on examination of the evidence, it was the only area in which the level of landscape sensitivity was described as consistently moderately tow and therefore was considered to have a capacity to accept change as 'Moderately High'. The only other sites to achieve this were sites D and E1 both of which are now allocated for housing development within the Plan.

In landscape terms the site should be considered viable, however, this did not translate to the subsequent allocation consideration.

Local Plan Assessments

The site was originally identified as a preferred site BX124 in the Issues and Options Local Plan Submission 2016 - (Figure 19. Bexhill North Housing Options Map).

Figure 2 (Taken from the Issues and Options submission 2016) included: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31163

When the site was considered by the Council at this stage the land was included as part of the overall North Bexhill Development options.

The site was then also considered under the Councils Sustainability Appraisal (Sept 2018) but was included in the much larger site allocation of BX131. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when considered within a larger site extending out into the countryside the Council raised a Major objection in terms of the impact on the natural and built environment.

Finally, the site was also referred to within the Sustainability Appraisal as part of the North Bexhill (BX133) Options and referred to as site B.

Figure 3 (Site plan taken from Sustainability Appraisal) included: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31164


When considering the site as part of both Options 1 and 2 the Council's appraisal found only minor negative impacts within the Sustainability Appraisal. However, the Council offered additional comment which states further considered that development west of the A269 would erode the countryside setting of this part of Bexhill and green gap to the Thorne.' Subsequently the site has not been brought forward as part of the land allocation within Policy BEX3.

We do not agree with this assertion not only because the site was analysed in the 2016 Landscape Study but because the level of development being afforded on the eastern side of the A269 would impact upon the 'green gap' to the Thorne and the site should have been considered in this context.

We find that the Council's own assessment of the site are too narrow in scope when referring to landscape impact of this site alone. As such the reasons provided do not justify the site being removed from allocation.

National Policy Context and Housing requirements

Paragraph119 of the NPPF 2018 states that 'Local planning authorities, and other plan-making bodies, should take a proactive role in identifying and helping to bring forward land that may be suitable for meeting development needs' This requirement follows from the NPPF 2012 which sought to maximise development potential.

The most recent 5 year housing land supply position for Rather (set out by the Local Plan Annual Monitoring Report April 2018) states that RDC have a land supply of 3.44 years in p\ace. The Council accepts that the under-delivery against housing requirements amounts to a 'persistent under-delivery of housing'; hence, a 20% buffer should and in line with paragraph 47 of the NPPF 2012 has been applied to the Council's requirement.

Local Housing Needs

The Council consider that through the implementation of sites now approved and allocated within the DaSA Plan the trajectory for development will ensure that future completions will supplement the persistent under delivery when sites come forward. However, this takes no account of external changes to demographics or policies in the future and whilst there is now the necessity to review a Local Plan every five years it is forwarded that the site should be included within the current Plan submission.

The last full assessment of housing requirements is set out in the Hastings and Rother Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Housing Needs Assessment dated June 2013. This informed the subsequent Core Strategy Local Plan requirement to deliver 'at least 5,700 new homes' over the 17 year plan period.

We argue that given that as the figures adopted originally by Rother within the Core Strategy Local Plan for housing provision were (and still are) expressed as an 'at least' number, it is incumbent on the authorities to be proactive in seeking to identify opportunities for additional housing development and this should remain the case for Rather.

To further emphasize the need for greater provision we are also aware that the Council's Local Plan Monitoring Report April 2018 confirms that they have not met their annual housing supply requirements and therefore have taken account that significant weight be attributed to the benefits of new housing.

In setting out the reasoning for the housing provision in forthcoming years Paragraph 2.36 of the Monitoring Report April 2018 confirms that 'Therefore, the Council resolved that pending the DaSA Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans, sites that accord with the Core Strategy's overall development strategy and are suitable, deliverable and otherwise contribute to sustainable development, including circumstances where they are not within a development boundary, be considered favourably ' (Our emphasis)

As such we welcome that this admission that housing sites that come forward should continue to be viewed favourably is acknowledged within the reasoning behind the 'Overview' Policy which refers to housing targets and provision - Policy OVE1: Housing supply and delivery pending plans.

'In view of the fact that the annualised housing requirement has not been achieved to date and that housing delivery is likely to not "catch up" on present projections, it is considered appropriate to no/ only have a margin of over-provision. particularly in Bexhilll where there is a high reliance on a strategic site, but also to avoid unduly deferring the identification of suitable sites and to ensure that planning permissions continue to come forward in a timely manner.'

The pre-amble confirms that the historic under-provision is noted and that other sites brought forward should also be considered favourably subject to complying with other Policies. With regard to housing in settlements the secondary element of Policy OVE1 states that:-

.... planning applications will be favourably considered for development proposals in those settlements where:

(i) they contribute to meeting the housing target for that settlement and accord with the relevant spatial strategy; and

(ii) the site and development proposals are otherwise suitable having regard to other relevant policies of the Core Strategy, including the considerations in OSS2 and OSS3, and of this Plan.

We assert that the land between St Mary's Lane and Ninfield Road as shown in this documentation would comply with the principles outlined within emerging Policy OVE1 and would offer an opportunity to assist in exceed the provision requirements of the current Plan submission following the documented under provision of recent years.

Summary

Rother District Council needs to ensure that a suitable range of sites, of varying sizes and scales, are allocated in the Emerging Plan to ensure the delivery of a sufficient number of new homes to address the under delivery against the 5 year requirements. The Council needs to ensure that the Plan is flexible and able to meet the demands on it both in terms of providing for need but also delivering at a sufficient rate.
From examining and assessing sites through the call for sites process, it can be clearly seen that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield land or previously developed sites within the District to deliver the necessary level of housing supply. The lack of urban capacity for the delivery of a sufficient level of housing means that the utilisation of sites outside of the existing settlement boundary and the realignment of settlement boundaries in order to envelope such sites will be necessary in order to meet this need.

Taking account of each of the above factors we disagree with the Council's comments in its sustainability appraisal that the site is not suitable for development and assert that this land should be included within the remit of Policy BEX3.

The inclusion of this land will enable Rother to deliver a site in the District that would on a local scale provide a suitable and sustainable level of development that does not negatively impact upon the surrounding environment, and on a District scale provide much needed housing.

We would welcome the opportunity to provide verbal representation at examination in public.


Object

Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Representation ID: 24447

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Highways England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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

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

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

Full text:

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

Highways England ref: #6113

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development and Site Allocations Local Plan

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

5. Economy

Shopfronts, Signage and Advertising
Paragraph 5.2

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

6. Environment

Sustainable Drainage
Paragraph 6.48

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

8. Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)

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

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

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


Highways England's Current position

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

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

Support

Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Representation ID: 24563

Received: 07/12/2018

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure

Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.

Full text:

ROTHER DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ALLOCATIONS LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OCTOBER 2018

The Sussex Wildlife Trust (SWT) recognises the importance of a plan led system as opposed to a developer led process and supports Rother District Council's (RDC) desire to produce a cohesive Local Plan. Therefore, we hope that our comments are used constructively to make certain that this proposed submission plan properly plans for the natural capital needed within the district and ensures that any development is truly sustainable.

Where SWT is proposing a change to policy or the supporting text, recommended additions are highlighted in bold and deletions are struck through.

Amended text document attached:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31198

It is not clear when the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA) may be submitted for examination, in terms of the transition period for the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018NPPF). Therefore SWT will be assessing the compliance of the DaSA against both the 2018NPPF and the previous 2012NPPF.

PART A - DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

Policy DRM1: Water Efficiency

SWT strongly support this policy and the requirement for the higher standard of water efficiency.

Policy DCO2: Equestrian Development

We strongly support this policy and in particular, the inclusion of 'biodiversity' within part (iv).

Policy DHG7: External Residential Areas

SWT support the need for this policy but would like to see it strengthened to ensure a holistic approach when considering private external space and the district's Green Infrastructure network. As it stands we do not believe it is consistent with national policy in terms of the requirement for plans and policies to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of ecological networks (2012NPPF paragraph 117,2018NPPF paragraph 174).

Additionally, policy EN5 of the Core Strategy states that 'Biodiversity, geodiversity and green space will be protected and enhanced, but multi-agency working where appropriate, to: Maintain and develop a district-wide network of green infrastructure...' When considered early in the design stage of a development, gardens can be made to play a key component in a cohesive green infrastructure network. We therefore recommend that part (i) of the policy is amended as follows:

'...Appropriate and proportionate levels of private usable external space will be expected. For dwellings, private rear garden spaces of at least 10 metres in length will normally be required. Consideration should be given to orientation and permeability to ensure external space contributes positively to the district's green infrastructure network. In relation to flat developments and complexes, an appropriate level of useable communal amenity space should be provided...'

Policy DHG11: Boundary Treatments

We support the inclusion of this policy, but feel that it needs to better reflect the requirement in paragraphs 109 of the 2012NPPF and 170 of the 2018NPPF for planning policies and decisions to contribute to the establishment of coherent ecological networks. Connectivity and permeability are key components of a coherent ecological network. We ask that the following amendment is made to criterion

(ii) to ensure that permeability is maintained and where needed increased:

'(ii) the proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of design, height and materials or species, is consistent with the character of the locality and ensures permeability for biodiversity'

Policy DEC2: Holiday Sites

SWT strongly support the inclusion of criteria (ii) however it needs to be amended as below to ensure that it is in line with the requirement in the NPPF to create net gains to biodiversity and promote the conservation and enhancement of priority habitats and species (paragraph 109, 2012NPPF and paragraphs 170 and 174, 2018NPPF).

'(ii) conserve or and enhance sensitive habitats and species;'

Policy DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
We support the inclusion of this policy, however SWT is concerned about the use of 'scenic beauty' rather than 'natural beauty'. Paragraph 6.32 of the plan correctly states that the term 'natural beauty' includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, along with for the High Weald, priority habitats such as ghyll woodland. We are concerned that the term 'scenic beauty' does not encompass the biodiversity element in such clear terms and suggest that the policy is amended:

'All development within of affecting the setting of the High Weald AONB shall conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic natural beauty, having particular regard to the impacts on in character components, as set out in the High Weald AONB Management Plan...'

Policy DEN3: Strategic Gaps

We strongly support the inclusion of a strategic gaps policy, however are disappointed that there is no acknowledgement within the policy or supporting text of the roles that these gaps play in terms of natural capital provision and green infrastructure (GI).

RDC's Green Infrastructure Background Paper (August 2011) demonstrates the numerous opportunities for GI enhancement across the district and many of the focus areas marry well with the strategic gaps protected in policy DEN3. It therefore seems inconsistent to disregard the contribution these areas do and could make to GI and natural capital, in particular in relation to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy EN5(i).

The 2018NPPF states in paragraph 171 that 'plans should: ...take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries'. Similarly in paragraph 174 that 'To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks...' (paragraphs 114 and 117 of the 2012NPPF). The
Strategic Gaps could clearly contribute to these policy requirements and hence we encourage RDC to assess the value of these gaps in terms of natural capital assets and their place within the district's GI network.

In order to be both effective and consistent with National Policy, we recommend the following additions are made to the policy:

'...Within the Gaps, development will be carefully controlled and development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must:

(i) Be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area

(ii) Conserve and enhance the benefits and services derived from the area's Natural Capital

(iii) Conserve and enhance the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network...'

SWT is also not clear what 'exceptional circumstances' constitutes in policy DEN3 and therefore question the policies effectiveness. This should be clarified in the supporting text. Alternatively the policy could be made more prescriptive including criteria on how exceptional circumstances might be judged.

Policy DEN4: Biodiversity and Green Space

We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the recognition of irreplaceable habitats which has been added since the regulation 18 version of the DaSA. However SWT does not feel that DEN4 is currently consistent with national policy and in particular paragraphs 170 and 171 of the 2018NPPF.

We note that paragraph 6.39 refers to the need for development to produce net gains to biodiversity, but this is not sufficiently reflected in policy DEN4 or Core Strategy policy EN5. The 2018NPPF is direct in its requirement for planning policies and decisions to ensure measurable net gains to biodiversity are delivered in line with the Government's 25 Year Plan for the Environment. As such, the policy wording needs to be strengthened.

SWT is also concerned about the effectiveness of paragraph 6.43 of the supporting text. Whilst we fully support the need for up to date ecological information to inform planning decisions, the text restricts this to major development, designated sites, priority habitat and protected species. The 2012NPPF is clear in paragraph 165 that all planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the natural environment. Additionally, in SWT's experience supporting text does not carry the same weight as policy in planning decisions and is instead more often used to explain the reasoning of the policy wording. We
therefore request that the requirement in paragraph 6.43 is also included in the policy.
Part (ii) should not include the caveat of 'seek to', especially in relation to international sites. This is not legally sound given the strong requirements of the Habitat Regulations. It is also contrary to the requirement in paragraph 174 of the 2018NPPF (117 of the 2012NPPF) for plans to promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of ecological networks of which designated sites of biodiversity value make a key component.

Given the abundance of ancient woodland within the district, SWT feel that it is remiss of RDC not to include specific policy wording on this irreplaceable habitat. We acknowledge that ancient woodland is briefly referenced in Core Policy EN5, but would like to see it included in DEN5. In particular the requirement for a buffer of at least 15 metres between any development and ancient woodland as per Natural England's standing advice. We note that this requirement is included in the policy wording for some of the allocations in the plan - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2. Therefore for consistency, this requirement should be included in this policy so that it can be applied to windfall applications which will not have site
specific policy criteria in the DaSA.
Part (iv) of the policy has a requirement for larger developments of more than 2 hectares or 50 dwellings to produce a Green Infrastructure masterplan. Looking at the allocation section of the DaSA, SWT is concerned that very few meet this requirement. We therefore recommend that the criteria is extended to require smaller developments to deliver towards Rother's Green Infrastructure network. This is in line respectively with paragraphs 114 and 170 of the 2012 and 2018NPPFs.

SWT is concerned that part (v) of the policy is not clear enough in terms of what applicants need to do in relation to the SARMS. The SARMS has been created to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect on the Dungeness Complex SPA from increased recreational pressure. The HRA of the Pre-Submission DaSA states in paragraph 5.10 that 'the implementation of the Strategic Access and Recreation Management Strategy (SARMS) for the Dungeness Complex is fundamental to ensuring that the recreation pressures are
effectively managed to maintain the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.' Therefore it seems that in order to be legally compliant, all developments which will result in an increase in residents within the SARMS area must contribute to the delivery of the SARMS. SWT does not believe that this will be the outcome of policy DEN4 as it is currently written and therefore do not believe it to be effective. We recommend that the wording of part (v) is strengthened and that additional supporting text is included to ensure applicants are clear as to what is required of them.

As noted above, SWT request the following amendments to policy DEN4:

'Development proposals should be informed by up to date ecological information and support the conservation of biodiversity and multi-functional green spaces in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EN5 and the following criteria, as applicable:

(i) proposals where the principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geodiversity will be supported in principle;

(ii) development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of
international, national, regional and local designated sites of biodiversity and geological value; irreplaceable habitats (including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees); and Priority Habitats and Species, both within and outside designated sites. Depending on the status of habitats and species concerned, this may require locating development on alternative sites that would cause less or no harm, incorporating measures for prevention, mitigation and (in the last resort) compensation. For ancient woodland, a buffer of at least 15 metres from the development will be required.

(iii) in addition to (ii) above, all developments should retain and enhance provide net gains for biodiversity in a manner appropriate to the local context, having particular regard to locally present Priority Habitats and Species, defined 'Biodiversity Opportunity Areas', ecological networks, and further opportunities identified in the Council's Green Infrastructure Study Addendum.

(iv) 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. All development should conserve and enhance Rother's green infrastructure network.

(v) all developments within the strategy area of the Dungeness Complex Sustainable Access and Recreation Management Strategy should have regard to the measures identified in that Strategy and will be required to contribute to its implementation, this may be a financial contribution at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.'

Policy DEN5: Sustainable Drainage
SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy, however we suggest it is strengthened to make sure it is robust enough to ensure no significant effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC in terms of hydrology. In particular, whilst criterion (v) is welcome, it does not go far enough to provide certainty that the SuDS features will be maintained in perpetuity. Similarly criterion
(vi) should include specific reference to source control features. We recommend that the policy it is amended as follows:

(v) 'applicants should demonstrate that arrangements are in pace for on-going maintenance of SuDS over the lifetime of the development. For schemes within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, a specialist management company should be in place before the first occupation on sites. Step-in rights for the Local Authority may be required to ensure the SuDS continue to be managed in the event of failings of the management company in place.'

(vi) within the Pevensey Levels Hydrological Catchment Area, unless demonstrably inappropriate, SuDS designs should incorporate at least two stages of suitable treatment, one of which should be a source control feature unless demonstrably inappropriate; and...'

Policy DEN7: Environmental Pollution

SWT strongly support the addition of biodiversity into this policy since the regulation 18 consultation version of the DaSA.

PART B - SITE ALLOCATION POLICIES
General Comments

As stated in our regulation 18 consultation response, SWT are encouraged to see that the site selection criteria included consideration of ecological constraints and opportunities and that designated sites/sites of high biodiversity value are excluded from allocation. However, again we note that this assessment is based on desktop information rather than on the ground ecological information which is disappointing.

We note that the requirement for ecological surveys has been removed from policies IDE1 and MAR1 since the regulation 18 consultation. However this now means that there is no policy wording in the DaSA that requires decisions to be based on up to date information on the natural environment as per paragraph 165 of the 2012NPPF. If our amendment regarding up to date ecological information is not accepted for policy DEN4, then we request that all site allocation policies include the following wording:

'Proposals should be informed by up-to-date ecological information'

SWT is concerned that the DaSA is inconsistent in its approach to the protection of irreplaceable habitats and in particular ancient woodland adjacent to allocations. Seven allocations include land adjacent to ancient woodland, however only three of these - BEX9, BRO1 and NOR2 - include a requirement for at least a 15 metre buffer between the ancient woodland and the development boundary as per Natural England's standing advice. The detailed maps for allocations BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a and BEX3b include an indicative ancient woodland buffer, but the requirement for this is not specified within the associated policy wording. This is not acceptable. The policy for any allocation that includes or is adjacent to ancient woodland should include a requirement of a buffer of at least 15 metres. We recommend that similar wording to that included in BRO1 is used:

'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), between the edge of development
and the ancient woodland'

Policy BEX1: Land at Levetts Wood and Oaktree Farm, Sidley, Bexhill

SWT supports a plan-led planning process and acknowledges that site allocation BEX1 is included in the adopted North East Bexhill SPD. However we question whether the district's natural capital can absorb the level of development proposed around the edges of Bexhill. In particular sites BEX1, BEX2, BEX3a, BEX3b and BEX3c should be considered holistically to ensure that any development takes account of the ecosystem services currently being provided by these areas. The cumulative impact of these allocations should also be considered in terms of the green infrastructure enhancements that could be provided. We recommend that a GI strategy that covers all of these allocations is developed.

We support the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:

'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), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'

Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley

We support the inclusion of criteria (iv) and (viii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and the adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:

'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), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'

Policy BEX3: Land at North Bexhill - Infrastructure

Whilst SWT remains concerned about the level of development proposed for Bexhill, we do support the inclusion of an overarching policy on infrastructure. We question why this policy does not include allocations BEX1 and BEX2 which are functionally linked with allocations BEX3a, b and c. In particular, the area for housing in the south part of BEX3c appears to be directly adjacent to BEX2. The NPPF is clear that Local Planning Authorities should take a strategic approach to the creation of ecological networks and green infrastructure and as such this policy should apply more widely.

Policy BEX3a: Kiteye Farm and adjoining land

We support the inclusion of criterion (vii) however we question why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:
'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), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'

Policy BEX3b: Land west of Watermill Lane
SWT questions why the policy does not specifically require a buffer of at least 15m between the development and any adjacent ancient woodland. This would be consistent with paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF, Natural England's standing advice and other similar site allocation policies within the DaSA such as BEX9. Suitable wording should be added to the policy:

'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), between the edge of development and the ancient woodland'

Policy HAS1: Combe Valley Countryside Park

SWT strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the requirements in relation to the SSSI and LWS. However as stated previously, the 2018NPPF is much clearer in the necessity for development to provide net gains to biodiversity (paragraph 170). Therefore in order to be consistent with national policy, the caveat of 'where practicable' should be removed from criterion (ii) as follows:

(ii) provide for the proper conservation and, where appropriate, management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Local Wildlife Site within it and creates net gains for biodiversity within the Park, where practicable; and...'

Policy HAS4: Rock Lane Urban Fringe Management Area

We strongly support the inclusion of this policy and in particular the strong development boundary and the support of improvements to biodiversity interest. SWT is concerned by the level of urban sprawl that has occurred around Hastings and would object to anything further, this policy is therefore welcome.

Policy BRO1: Land west of the A28, Northiam Road, Broad Oak

SWT strongly supports the requirement in criterion (v) for a buffer of at least 15 metres to protect the adjacent ancient woodland. This is consistent with Natural England's standing advice and respectively paragraphs 118 and 175 of the 2012 and 2018NPPF.

Policy CAM1: Land at the Former Putting Green Site, Old Lydd Road, Camber
We support the inclusion of criteria (vi) and (vii) and the associated supporting text in paragraphs 11.67 and 11.68. However we are concerned that criterion (vii) is not clear enough in regards to what 'contributes towards implementation' actually means and therefore is not effective. We recommend that the wording is strengthened.

We also recommend that Figure 46 includes the location of the SSSI so that applicants have a clearer idea of where the constraints and opportunities lie. Most of the other detailed maps include the location of environmental features such as ancient woodland, so it seems inconsistent for designated areas to be missing.

Policy CAM2: Land at the Central Car Park, Old Lydd Road, Camber
SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (v) and (vi), this is an improvement from the regulation 18 version of the policy. However again we are concerned that part (vi) is not clearer enough. As per our comments for policy CAM1 we also recommend that Figure 47 includes the locations of the various environmental designations in the vicinity of the allocation.

Policy FAC1: Land at the Former Market Garden, Lower Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove

SWT supports the inclusion of criteria (iv) within this new allocation policy, however we are concerned that the contribution this site makes to the area's green infrastructure network has not been fully considered.

Policy NOR2: Land South of The Paddock/Goddens Gill, Northiam

We strongly support the inclusion of part (iii) within this new allocation policy and in particular the specification of the buffer being at least 15 metres wide in line with Natural England's standing advice.

Policy RHA1: Land at Stoneworks Cottages, Rye Harbour

It is not clear to SWT why policy RHA1 and the associated supporting text does not contain any reference to the SARMS. Given the proximity of the allocation to the SPA and the specific policy wording in CAM1 and CAM2, this seems very inconsistent. A seventh criterion should be added which requires a contribution to the SARMS as demonstrated in the allocation policies for Camber.

Policy WES4: Land between Moor Lane and the A28, Westfield

SWT note that since the regulation 18 consultation the allocation of this site has changed from open space to allotments. SWT do not object to this change, but we do question why the requirement for ecological improvements to be implemented in accordance with the Hasting Fringes Biodiversity Opportunity Area and the Rother Green Infrastructure Study has been removed. Allotments can contribute to both GI and ecological networks and as such we request that the criteria is reinstated.

We hope our recommendations are adopted to ensure that the policies within the DaSA are as robust and effective as possible. SWT would be happy to discuss any of the above points with RDC. We do wish to attend the Examination in Public to ensure our views are given due consideration.