Policy BEX9: Land off Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill

Both Natural England and the Environment Agency have found serious faults in the proposal by the prospective developer to this site.

Rother District Council has been told that "a competent authority must take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce harmful effect of a plan or project as part of (an appropriate assessment." It is obvious that the developer and the Council have yet to prove that any development on this site, which is so close to a RAMSAR wetlands region would not adversely affect that Special Area of Conservation, beyond any reasonable scientific doubt.

It is also very clear that the information provided by the proposed developer to mitigate any potential adverse effecxt on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via water borne pollution will not work and furthermore, will failvery quickly. The Envirnoment Agency are also requiring that the solution to this issue, if one exists, must be "maintained over the long term." So far, the requirements of both Natural England and the Environment Agency, and those of local residents, have yet to be satisfied .

ii.It is my understanding that a request to Highways England has been made to 'relax' guidelines on the Barnhorn Entrance to the development, and that this relaxation is in line with The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation - Manual for Streets 2. However, the Manual for Streets 2 clearly states in its Presidential Forward: 'Exploring in greater detail how and where its key principle can be applied to busier streets and roads in both urban and rural location up to, but not including Trunk Roads'.'Its scope is limited to residential and other lightly trafficked streets, although some of its principles may b applied to other road types where appropriate, It is not, however, meant to be used for trunk routes of any description, as these roads are covered by the Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.' In addition, the new Transport Assessment was carried out during the same time as Major Roadworks, re-designing Barnhorn Rd approach & roundabout to Little Common September 2017. The whole of the Transport Assessment is based this survey and therefore, flawed to such a extent it would provide vast inaccuracies.

ii -
I understand, that it has been asked of Highways England:
1- To relax the 'Set Back Distance' from a normal 4.5M down to 2.4m. Making it 44%
shorter distance.
This would cause large vehicles to actually have to pull out onto Barnhorn Rd, before they could actually have a visual of the traffic. Which of course, is lunacy, to have to pull onto a busy Trunk/A Road before knowing if it was safe to do so. Larger vehicles would not be able to see pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement before pulling out.
2 - Relax the 'Corner Radius' from a normal 10.5M down to 6M, again 44% reductions on the width of the opening of the road.
This would affect the safe manoeuvring of vehicles entering & exiting the development, with large vehicles regularly stopping traffic in both directions to enter the site.
This has concerned me greatly, as Barnhorn Rd (A259) is a Trunk Road. I would imagine therefore, that the Highway Agency within its realms of duty to the safety of the SRN and public, should decline this request, and if not, should be called into question.

ii-
A proposed centre turning lane would impede all emergency vehicles including ambulances to pass queued traffic. The proposed turning lane also will impede householders from departing and entering their properties when travelling in the direction on the opposite side of the centre lane.

A259/ Barnhorn Rd currently has traffic backed up much further (1/2 mile or more) than the proposed entrance. This current situation will be made worse once the 350+ houses on the opposite side of the road are built and the traffic lights are action.

Further to this an additional 1200 + development in North Bexhill that is still to be developed will have an additional enormous impact on the A259 with regards to traffic travelling West out of Bexhill.

Regards xi: The Environment Agency states in a letter to RDC dated 20.11.18
"We support Natural England's view in that the proposal still lacks evidence to allow an Appropriate Assessment to determine, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that an adverse effect on the Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar site can be avoided. We do not believe that the additional 'Information to inform an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations', Oct 2018 report provides sufficient information to allow a conclusion of 'no likely significant effect' on the Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar site. Therefore we maintain our objection and recommend an Appropriate Assessment. On the authority of the 'People Over Wind' ruling, the mitigation measures should be considered at the appropriate assessment stage. Only then can a conclusion be drawn as to whether the plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site."

Regards xi: A competent authority must take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of a plan or project as part or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site. In light of recent case law at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling in the matter of People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17), reliance on mitigation measures designed to avoid or reduce harmful effects at the likely significant stage is now vulnerable to legal challenge. Full Objection Statement made by The Enviroment Agency can be found in a letter to RDC dated 20.11.18

Regards xii - The wildlife corridor illustrated on the map neglects to show a road that is planned on running through it. If this is a Wildlife Corridor is a provision for any protected species on the site then no road should be running through it.

The Spindlewood Development is simply not a suitable site for housing at this location. It would have major and possible irreparable adverse effects on the adjacent RAMSAR, SAC, SSSI & Ancient woodland site, as well as the overwhelming addition of traffic on Barnhorn Rd (A259) and the direct centre/heart of Little Common Village, not to mention, having a negative affect on the way people live, work, travel and take leisure.

I am aware that the NPPF14 states 'Local planning authorities should positively see opportunities to meet the development needs of their area.' However it also states -'Unless: any adverse impacts of doing so, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.'

As this proposed development site may, adversely affect a Special Area of Conservation NPPF119 comes into effect and the development be restricted. Therefore, this development should not be considered under NPPF14 as - NPPF 119 states: The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives in being considered, planned or determined.

With regards to the 'Spindlewood'/ Meads entrance - if you were to turn right out of Spindlewood to drive down Maple Walk you would be driving along a stretch of road that is unadopted, no pavements and narrows to a single lane. High levels of vehicular traffic would make it dangerous to people on foot, particularly where there are no footpaths where the road narrows. Turn left and you will drive directly in the congested junction in the heart of the village. Long lines of traffic every day are backed up past this junction.

There have been more than 1000 letters of objection submitted to RDC from the public under planning application RR/2017/1705/P . With further objections from Environment Agency, Natural England, Sussex Ornithological Society, Sussex Wildlife Trust, Campaign to protect Rural England, Bexhill Heritage, and Woodland Trust, just to name a few. With such a public outcry does the local council wish to continue to promote this particular site?

Regards xiii - It is inaccurate to say 'care is taken in respect of the amenity of adjoining residential properties to the north, north east and south east'. This is not true with respect of 55A, 55B, 75 & 77 Barnhorn Road

1- 55B has clear views over the site. 55B is only some 8 meters away from its southern boundary. A large 5 bedroom house with all of its primary windows (ground floor & 1st floor) and bedroom balcony overlooking the proposed site.

2- 55A also a large 5 bedroom house positioned only metres from the proposed site. It too has all of its primary windows (all Large) and 1st floor bedroom balcony with clear views over the site, both at ground level and 1st floor level.

3- 77 & 75 are both located within 2 meters of the proposed Barnhorn Rd entrance.

This development would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, noise & light pollution, vehicle vibrations, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupier of all the above properties at the rear of said properties.

The lack of space between the properties and the proposed roads means minimal or no planting/screening will be possible.

Regards xiii-

Care has not been taken with regards to the overlooking/loss of privacy, Noise, light and disturbance resulting from use, diminished affects on residential amenities, living conditions, as well as the Visual amenity (but not loss of private view) this development will have upon 55A & 55B Barnhorn Road.

The loss or serious impairment of such a view is unquestionably a material planning consideration. In addition, while it does not concern cherished views of any building or landscape, the effect of a proposed development on the outlook from habitable rooms or residential gardens may be a valid ground of objection where the development would appear visually intrusive and overbearing.

The proposal would lead to previously private areas being overlooked.

There would be unacceptable intrusion in the form of noise nuisance, general disturbance, odour, and so on

We do not believe the DaSA local plan to be compliant because as regards Policy BEX9 the legally required confirmation has not been obtained to demonstrate beyond scientific doubt that a development on this site will have no harmful affect upon the protected and adjacent Pevensey Levels. Such a confirmation is a prerequisite of inclusion of BEX9 in the plan if BEX9 is to be considered deliverable as a development opportunity. There are significant doubts about whether the result of detailed investigations required for BEX9 could demonstrate that damage to the Levels would be avoided.

Policy BEX9 and the associated adjustment to the Local Plan development boundary should be removed from the DaSA. Our reasons for this are:

1. for the reasons specified under question 1 above (legalities) the correct and necessary pre-assessment processes have not been undertaken or where investigations have taken place they have incorrectly desktop based and not site specific.

2. Inclusion of BEX 9 is unsound because the DaSA forecast of future housing land supply does not require its inclusion if the supply target is to be met. The site BEX9 lies adjacent to internationally important protected areas under SSSI, SAC and RAMSAR designations. Development on BEX9 would put the integrity of these sites at risk.

3. The DaSA housing forecast exceeds the required target even though large windfall site developments are excluded from the figures. This is inconsistent with reality as exampled by the recent grant on appeal on a large windfall site development on land next to. Ash ridge Court, Bexhill where approximately 40 homes were granted approval under reference APP/U1430/W/17/3191063. Such windfall developments have typically occurred throughout the life of the current Local Plan and it makes no sense to ignore them from the future forecast. BEX9 is not required for the forecast to be achieved without inclusion of the windfalls but it is even less required when these are taken into account.

4. The legally required Appropriate Assessment has not been prepared prior to inclusion of BEX9 in the Plan. This renders the plan unsound and is in contravention with the European Court Decision April 2018 in the matter of People over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C - 323/17). This renders the inclusion of BEX9 as unsound.

The applicant has not demonstrated they have seriously considered the impact of the polluting factors on the Pevensey levels Ramsar site. The answer probably lies in the fact they cannot due to the location of the existing areas that are protected. The applicant cannot provide the guarantee no lasting damage will be incurred and
quite simply are not interested in these factors. This application should have been turned aside long ago for these reasons.

Again there are technical submissions objecting to the application but I would summarise as follows -

In this case and at this location the effects on the watercourses and fluvial ecosystem of the Eastern part of the Pevensey Levels SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI WOULD BE disastrous. No amount of engineering could mitigate these effects to protect the Pevensey Levels.

This application should be refused.

REPRESENTATION RAMSAR - BEX9

There is a comprehensive report by Mr G Lawson on the RDC website under RR/2017/1705/P dated 13.11.18 which provides the technical detail. This all relates to Ecology and the Pevensey Levels.

The applicant is effectively paying 'Iip service' on these key areas and the information he has supplied does little to mitigate the adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via waterborne pollution - it simply will not work and fail very quickly.

Such a scenario would be a breach of the Habitats Regulations and contravention of the People over Wind Court of Justice European Union judgement quite recently established in Ireland.

There should NEVER be any development on a site so close to the RAMSAR wetlands which would adversely affect this Special Area of Conservation.

In summary the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for you to consider the application. They WILL not provide the long term monitoring/maintenance to protect this land and it will be destroyed for ever.

As regards Policy BEX 9 the DaSA fails to be legal because:

* necessary investigations have not been undertaken prior to the inclusion of BEX 9 in the DaSA as required by the Habitats Regulations, the European Court of Justice decision in April 2018 in the matter of People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillite Teoranta (C-323/17),

* if the necessary detailed investigations had been undertaken then it would have been found that inclusion of BEX 9 and its subsequent development would result in damaging consequences for the protected and adjacent SSSI, SAC and Ramsar sites in the Pevensey Levels. It would not have been possible to prove beyond scientific doubt that such harm would not befall the Levels, and

* the consequence of inclusion of BEX 9 and its subsequent development would be in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework requirement to enhance the biodivereity of protected areas such as those neighbouring and 30m from the BEX 9 site.

As regards Policy BEX 9 the DaSA is unsound because:

* it cannot be justified on grounds of robustness or a credible evidence base. Because of the illegal failings noted above BEX 9 is not robust and such evidence as has been produced fails to meet the requirements of credibility. Evidence produced by the applicants of the as yet undecided outline Planning Application ref RR/2017/1705/P which constitutes that basis for inclusion of BEX 9 in the DaSA has been found to be grossly misleading, frequently inaccurate and fundamentally flawed in its depth and detail. The many (circa1500) formal objections to this planning application give credence to this, especially as regards environmental and ecological considerations and in respect of the proposed access arrangements to the BEX 9 site.

* Policy BEX 9 is ineffective because, for reasons outlined above development of that site cannot actually happen. Geographical, topographical, hydrographical and fluvial impacts and long term consequences have not been satisfactorily dealt with and the clear evidence from objectors, including Natural England and the Environment Agency together with engineering assessments by objector Mr. G Lawson demonstrate that Policy BEX 9 is not deliverable in terms of its subsequent development.

* delivery partners are not on board and signed up as regards BEX 9 in the DaSA. Quite the opposite - both Natural England and the Environment Agency with. also, East Sussex County Council as lead flood authority have expressed severe concerns about the development of the BEX 9 site because of the consequential risks of damage to the protected SSUI, SAC and Ramsar sites on the Pevensey Levels approx 30 m and downstream from the BEX 9 boundary.

For these and other related reasons Policy BEX 9 and the associated revision to the Bexhill Development Boundary (which has been redrawn in the DaSA to include the site of BEX 9) should be removed from the DaSA.

Development And Site Allocations Local Plan

Representations of Bexhill Heritage
Bexhill Heritage is a new, locally-founded and based charitable organisation dedicated to the care and protection of the heritage built environment of the town. Despite its recent creation the charity has already attracted over 200 members, some professionally qualified in planning, architecture or building surveying. Bexhill Heritage has already carried out three high profile and practical projects, and has reviewed all the planning applications submitted to the Council in 2018 within Bexhill.

We have reviewed the current document and believe that the plan has been thoroughly and professionally prepared. We understand it is to be assessed by an independent person appointed by the Planning Inspectorate. We wish to make the following representations on the soundness of the plan, all of which are specific to Bexhill-

1) Lack of height restriction policy town centre and sea front

Whilst there has long been a recognition and appreciation by the Council and residents of the special qualities of the sea front and town centre, and a significant part of the town centre is covered by a Conservation Area designation, such recognition has proved insufficient. The only whole site redevelopments carried out in the last ten years have resulted in buildings which are too high to relate satisfactorily to their surroundings and they thus detract from the appearance of the vicinity. These are the eight storey buildings at the seaward end of Sackville road and in Sea road, the flats which are known as South Beach.

Thus it is clear that a specific policy is needed to guide developers, landowners, Councillors and staff and to give reassurance to the public, which restricts new buildings to a more reasonable maximum height both in the town centre and on the sea front, much of which is outside the Conservation Area.
The following policy is suggested -

"Within the Town Centre and on the sea front the redevelopment of sites will be limited to a height commensurate and compatible with adjacent buildings and the area within which the site lies. This will generally mean a maximum of four storeys".

2) Town Centre - need for policy amendment - Social Zones

The Council and the public have for many years been concerned that the Town Centre is blighted by the dominance of vehicles to the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists but little has been done to address this. There are changes afoot and the plan recognises this in para 9. 154 and mentions the potential for Social Zones. However. schemes for management / parking must have at their core the need for such social zones where pedestrians be they residents, visitors, shoppers can take pleasure in their activities freer from accompanying worries about moving traffic, dangers, noise and pollution. However, policy 8X12 - Bexhill Town Centre does not sufficiently recognise this and should be strengthened.

Accordingly the following amendment is suggested to paragraph three of BEX12 -
Insert "social zones and" after "provide" and instead of "will be supported" replace by "will be implemented".

3) Suburban Redevelopments - Policy omission - Need for new policy

There is a noticeable trend towards the replacement of individual dwellings by flats.

This is not new and is inevitable. Its effects have so far been moderate. As the process gathers pace its townscape effects are becoming more adverse even with the most attentive development management regime the Council can put in place.

Too often the redevelopment will result in the gardens and vegetation which softens suburban areas giving way to three and four storey buildings seeming to fill the plots and with car parking occupying much of the remaining area.

Existing development management policies, and those proposed in the plan are important in curbing the worst aspects of such redevelopments but a general policy which guides developers, aids Councillors and reassures residents would further help - the following is suggested -
"The redevelopment of one or two dwellings in sections of road largely comprising
one and two storey dwellings will normally be limited to three storeys."

4) Site Allocations - Land off Spindlewood Drive - Objection

Bexhill Heritage has submitted objections to the current application at this site on heritage grounds. These relate to adverse effects of the new dwellings on the setting of the "historic medieval farm complex" (para 9. 100), namely Barnhorn Manor and to the related gateway features fronting Barnhorn Road. We maintain these objections, the "care" required by the text is not reflected in the Figure 29 Detail Map.

5) Site Allocations - Land at Gulliver's Bowls Club Knole Road - Reasons Unsound Alteration Needed

It is not clear why this site is specifically allocated for sheltered housing. No such specific allocation has been placed on a site which, in or view, is far more suitable for sheltered housing given that it is close to the town library and a large supermarket - land south of Terminus Road (policy BEX8).

At Knole Road the specific allocation reduces the possibility of a development that sufficiently reflects the need for a high quality building appropriate to the setting of the listed buildings opposite.

Policy BEX5(v) calls only for the development to "not adversely affect the character of the area or the setting of the listed terrace to the south". This is insufficiently robust and BEX5(v) should be altered to read -

(i) "some 40 flats are provided of which 30% are affordable"

(v) "the design of the scheme with a maximum of 4 storeys should be of the
highest architectural quality".

Site Allocation BEX6 - land adjacent to 276 Turkey Road - amendment

Here, for the first time, at para 9.72 is a specific reference made to the "potential future redevelopment of the Cemetery Lodge site". The implication of this wording is that there is the possibility of Cemetery Lodge being demolished. We are entirely opposed to the demolition of this fine Edwardian building which our surveys have proved to be in good condition. We therefore seek the deletion of the offending final
sentence of para 9.72.

We trust the Inspector will take due notice of our representations and afford Bexhill Heritage the opportunity to appear at the Examination hearing to explain and expand upon these further, and respond to questions.

TRAFFIC REPRESENTATION

It is obvious that the increase in traffic volumes/noise/air pollution will have a serious effect on the health and wellbeing of the residents in Barnhorn Road and on the roads leading to and from Meads Road.

There will be an unacceptable danger to all road users on Barnhorn Road and particularly residents accessing their properties in the vicinity of the proposed new entrance onto Barnhorn Road. The narrow entrance together with the ghost lane, being so close to the S bends heading west, will make it almost impossible for residents to exit and enter their drives safely, if at all, with their vision being severely compromised. This new access has not been thought through and is just not workable on a daily basis, where there is already far too much traffic volume.

The Highways own guidelines (which are put in place to protect the public using the highways), have been ignored, namely shortening the distance from the new entrance to the dangerous S bends and reducing the width of the splay. The measurements provided by the developer are inaccurate and therefore not workable in its current state.

Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue (some of which are unadopted) are totally unsuitable for the heavy traffic volumes that will occur as a direct result of the Spindlewood development.

There is no doubt that the new development will be used as a 'rat run' to access Barnhorn Road from Cooden Sea Road and the reverse, causing yet more pollution, noise and disruption to the residents in these areas. Rosewood Park residents, visitors delivery vehicles will also use the 'rat run' to gain access to and from Little Common School/Shops/Clubs etc.

No thought or consideration has been given to the site in respect of the increased traffic, noise and air pollution that will happen, the DaSA document is lacking in any comments in this regard.

In summary there can be no justification for the proposed site access.

REPRESENTATION RAMSAR - BEX9

There is a comprehensive report by Mr G Lawson on the RDC website under RR/2017/1705/P dated 13.11.18 which provides the technical detail. This all relates to Ecology and the Pevensey Levels.

The Spindlewood site is unique amongst all the sites contained in the DaSA proposal as it is the only one that is so close to a RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC area and consequently demands significant levels of protection.

The information that the applicant has supplied does little to mitigate the adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via water borne pollution - it simply will not work and fail very quickly.

Such a scenario would be a breach of the Habitats Regulations and contravention of the People over Wind Court of Justice European Union Judgment 6292296 quite recently established in Ireland. (CJEU)

There should NEVER be any development on a site so close to the RAMSAR wetlands which would adversely affect this Special Area of Conservation.

In summary the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for you to consider the application. They WILL not provide the long term monitoring/maintenance to protect this land for and it will be destroyed for ever.

REPRESENTATION BEX9 - SUDS

The applicant has not demonstrated they have seriously considered the impact of the polluting factors on the Pevensey levels Ramsar site. The answer probably lies in the fact they cannot due to the location of the existing areas that are protected. The applicant cannot provide the guarantee that no lasting damage will be incurred and quite simply are not interested in these factors. This application should have been turned aside long ago for these reasons.

Again there are technical submissions objecting to the application but I would summarise as follows -

In this case and at this location the effects on the watercourses and fluvial ecosystem of the Eastern part of the Pevensey Levels SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI WOULD BE disastrous. No amount of engineering could mitigate these effects to protect the Pevensey Levels.

This application should be refused.

TRAFFIC REPRESENTATION

It is obvious that the increase in traffic volumes/noise/air pollution will have a serious effect on the health and wellbeing of the residents in Barnhorn Road and on the roads leading to and from Meads Road.

There will be an unacceptable danger to all road users on Barnhorn Road and particularly residents accessing their properties in the vicinity of the proposed new entrance onto Barnhorn Road. The narrow entrance together with the ghost lane, being so close to the S bends heading west, will make it almost impossible for residents to exit and enter their drives safely, if at all, with their vision being severely compromised. This new access has not been thought through and is just not workable on a daily basis, where there is already far too much traffic volume.

The Highways own guidelines (which are put in place to protect the public using the highways), have been ignored, namely shortening the distance from the new entrance to the dangerous S bends and reducing the width of the splay. The measurements provided by the developer are inaccurate and therefore not workable in its current state.

Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue (some of which are unadopted) are totally unsuitable for the heavy traffic volumes that will occur as a direct result of the Spindlewood development.

There is no doubt that the new development will be used as a 'rat run' to access Barnhorn Road from Cooden Sea Road and the reverse, causing yet more pollution, noise and disruption to the residents in these areas. Rosewood Park residents, visitors delivery vehicles will also use the 'rat run' to gain access to and from Little Common School/Shops/Clubs etc.

No thought or consideration has been given to the site in respect of the increased traffic, noise and air pollution that will happen, the DaSA document is lacking in any comments in this regard.

In summary there can be no justification for the proposed site access.

REPRESENTATION RAMSAR - BEX9

There is a comprehensive report by Mr G Lawson on the RDC website under RR/2017/1705/P dated 13.11.18 which provides the technical detail. This all relates to Ecology and the Pevensey Levels.

The Spindlewood site is unique amongst all the sites contained in the DaSA proposal as it is the only one that is so close to a RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC area and consequently demands significant levels of protection.

The information that the applicant has supplied does little to mitigate the adverse effects on the Pevensey Levels (RAMSAR/SSSI/SAC) via water borne pollution - it simply will not work and fail very quickly.

Such a scenario would be a breach of the Habitats Regulations and contravention of the People over Wind Court of Justice European Union Judgment 6292296 quite recently established in Ireland. (CJEU)

There should NEVER be any development on a site so close to the RAMSAR wetlands which would adversely affect this Special Area of Conservation.

In summary the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for you to consider the application. They WILL not provide the long term monitoring/maintenance to protect this land for and it will be destroyed for ever.

REPRESENTATION BEX9 - SUDS

The applicant has not demonstrated they have seriously considered the impact of the polluting factors on the Pevensey levels Ramsar site. The answer probably lies in the fact they cannot due to the location of the existing areas that are protected. The applicant cannot provide the guarantee that no lasting damage will be incurred and quite simply are not interested in these factors. This application should have been turned aside long ago for these reasons.

Again there are technical submissions objecting to the application but I would summarise as follows -

In this case and at this location the effects on the watercourses and fluvial ecosystem of the Eastern part of the Pevensey Levels SAC, RAMSAR and SSSI WOULD BE disastrous. No amount of engineering could mitigate these effects to protect the Pevensey Levels.

This application should be refused.

I am particularly concerned with the proposed development and the impact on local traffic. If this goes ahead there will undoubtedly be an increase in traffic volumes along with associated noise and air pollution around the site affecting Barnhorn Road and the narrowness of the entrance/exit onto the A259 at Barnhorn Manor.

Note there is no mention of noise or air pollution increases as a direct result of the development in the DaSA document.

There is particular danger around the access site entrance being so close to the bend heading west and the problems that local residents adjacent to and opposite the ghost lane will experience in accessing and exiting the drives to their homes.

The local roads are totally unsuitable for heavy traffic that will be a result of the proposed development and many of these are actually unadopted roads with maintenance paid for by residents (local roads of concern are Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue). Will the developer or new development residents contribute to the upkeep of these unadopted roads?!

The development will create a rat run effect of traffic coming from Cooden Sea Road to Barnhorn Road and vice versa. Rosewood Park residents will also use this rat run to gain access to and from Little Common school and the shops/Royal British Legion.

On the basis of impact on traffic and pollution and for the aforementioned issues, I do not believe the DaSA proposals are sound.

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.

In general I believe the plan to be legally compliant, but pre-populating the representations form in a way is that is most favourable to the Council is likely to be deemed as maladmininstrative by the Local Government Ombudsman. I do not believe that a consultation exercise that encourages respondents in a particular direction could possibly be considered as reasonable and proper. The correct process, given the likely outcome of an Ombudsman investigation, would be to halt the current exercise and start again.

Given that I - and doubtless others - have drawn this to your attention, any decision to proceed without re-visiting the representations form would also likely be judged as maladministrative.

I do not believe that sufficient heed has been paid to the environmental impact of any plans to develop BEX9.

Further attention should be paid to the views of Natural England and the Environment Agency in regard to possible mitigation measures to prevent permanent and irreversible damage to the Pevensey Levels.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the plan to be legally compliant, but as my father (Stephen Shaw) has said the decision to pre-populate the representations form in a way is that is most favourable to the Council is likely to be deemed as maladmininstrative by the Local Government Ombudsman. I share his view that a consultation exercise that encourages respondents in a particular direction could possibly be considered as reasonable and proper. The correct process, given the likely outcome of an Ombudsman investigation, would be to halt the current exercise and start again.

As my parents have said, given that we have drawn this to your attention, any decision to proceed without re-visiting the representations form would also likely to be judged as maladministrative.

In respect of legal complaiance, as I have said the correct process, given the likely outcome of a Local Government Ombudsman investigation, would be to halt the current exercise and start again.

In respect of soundness, I do not believe the DaSa evidences that sufficient heed has been paid to the environmental impact of any plans to develop BEX9 - the impact upon the Pevensey Levels and the impact upon air quality for those living alongside Barnhorn Road.

Like my husband (Stephen Shaw), in general I believe the plan to be legally compliant, but pre-populating the representations form in a way is that is most favourable to the Council is likely to be deemed as maladmininstrative by the Local Government Ombudsman. I do not believe that a consultation exercise that encourages respondents in a particular direction could possibly be considered as reasonable and proper. The correct process, given the likely outcome of an Ombudsman investigation, would be to halt the current exercise and start again.

Given that we - and doubtless others - have drawn this to your attention, any decision to proceed without re-visiting the representations form would also likely be judged as maladministrative.

I do not believe that sufficient heed has been paid to the environmental impact of any plans to develop BEX9.

Further attention should be paid to the views of Natural England and the Environment Agency in regard to possible mitigation measures to prevent permanent and irreversible damage to the Pevensey Levels.

If such mitigation measures include - as they must - a degree of uncertainty and risk, I do not understand how the DaSA can properly include BEX9 given the number of alternative sites to the north of Bexhill where Central Government has funded the necessary road infrastructure.

Like my brother and father, I am not a lawyer, but the decision to pre-populate the representations form in a way is that is most favourable to the Council is likely to be deemed as maladmininstrative by the Local Government Ombudsman. I share his view that a consultation exercise that encourages respondents in a particular direction could possibly be considered as reasonable and proper. The correct process, given the likely outcome of an Ombudsman investigation, would be to halt the current exercise and start again.

Given that we have drawn this to your attention, any decision to proceed without re-visiting the representations form would also likely to be judged as maladministrative.

In respect of legal compliance, the correct process - given the likely outcome of a Local Government Ombudsman investigation - would be to halt the current exercise and start again.

I share my family's concerns about the extent to which, in regard to BEX9, the irreversible environmental impact upon a site of international importance and protection has been respected.

However, as a cyclist, I am particularly concerned about the potential dangers of the egress onto Barnhorn Road and the impact upon residents of Meads Road, Spindlewood Drive, Maple Walk and Maple Avenue, all of which are totally unsuitable for very heavy traffic volumes. The DaSA does not seem to have acknowledged the 'rat run' effects, nor the impact upon private roads like Maple Walk that have no pedestrian footways.

Like all cyclists, I am particularly concerned by the impact of potentially many more cars on air quality. The DaSA is ineffective and unjustified because it makes no mention of air pollution. (It also seems not to mention light pollution or noise pollution.)