Policy BEX11: Land at Sidley Sport and Social Club, Bexhill

Little Common Football Club is in complete support of this proposal, we have supported the work by Rother District Council and the Heart of Sidley in bringing the land at Sidley Sport and Social Club back into community usage. There are currently a lack of football facilities in Bexhill for clubs to compete at Step 5 in the football pyramid, our own club currently has to travel out of the town (Eastbourne) to play home matches. The town is in desperate need of a facility for the local community to allow its residents and the community to participate and enjoy non-league football in suitable facilities.

On behalf of Jay Carroll, Chairman and The Heart of Sidley Big Local Partnership
Heart of Sidley is in complete support of this proposal, and have engaged fully with Rother District Council in bringing the land at Sidley Sport and Social Club back into community usage. Heart of Sidley will contribute funding to the development of the proposed policy to ensure it is deliverable.

HEART OF SIDLEY is led by a partnership, which consists of local residents and traders with voting powers to agree projects for the future that meet the long term BIG LOCAL community vision with the £1million awarded in 2012. All the projects, including the proposed development has followed wide spread community consultation (+1,500 local residents) and the Development of the Heart of Sidley Community Plan which was endorsed by Big Local in 2014.

On behalf of William Harrison Chairman of Bexhill United Football Club

Bexhill United Football Club is in complete support of this proposal, and have engaged fully with Rother District Council in bringing the land at Sidley Sport and Social Club back into community usage. Bexhill United Football Club hopes to share the amenity with Sidley United Football Club playing games and training at the redeveloped ground.

Bexhill United has over 160 young people aged 5-16 participating in the Club in addition to our adult club which plays in the Southern Combination League and has been playing football in the Bexhill area for over 100years

I support this Policy BEX11 as provision for sports facilities are sadly lacking in the Sidley area. This proposed development would help to correct this deficiency, as well as providing a centre for Community Activities for the people of the area.

Sidley football club has been a central part of the local community for over 100 years and an opportunity for its return to the heart of Sidley can only strengthen cohesion among the people who have lived in the area for most of their lives, as well as making the area more attractive to new residents.

Many other ideas have been put forward by The Heart of Sidley Group for the extended use of the proposed facility for the benefit of local resident. I am sure this proposed Policy will be greatly welcome by all who have a connection with Sidley.

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above named document. Please find herein our formal comments for your consideration.

Sport England has an established role within the planning system which includes providing advice and guidance on all relevant areas of national, regional and local policy as well as supporting local authorities in developing the evidence base for sport.

Sport England aims to ensure positive planning for sport, enabling the right facilities to be provided in the right places, based on robust and up-to-date assessments of need for all levels of sport and all sectors of the community. To achieve this our planning objectives are to seek to PROTECT sports facilities from loss as a result of redevelopment; to ENHANCE existing facilities through improving their quality, accessibility and management; and to PROVIDE new facilities that are fit for purpose to meet demands for participation now and in the future.

We work with the planning system to achieve these aims and objectives, seeking to ensure that they are reflected in local planning policies, and applied in development management. Please see our website for more advice: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/

Site allocations and playing field provision

Development that would either involve the loss of playing field or prejudice the use of the playing field (for example, housing immediately adjacent to an existing playing field) would be strongly resisted by Sport England.

I also see that as part of site allocation BEX10 there is the potential for a cricket and or football pitch. I would advise that this element of the site allocation should be justified by a robust and up to date Playing Pitch Strategy (see below). It is often the case that single-pitch sites are found to be unsustainable and therefore there can be issues finding clubs/tenants to take them on.

I also note that BEX11 (Sidley Sports Ground) has been allocated for sport. Sport England is fully supportive of this allocation which is backed up by evidence in the most recent Playing Pitch Strategy.


Playing Pitch Strategy

The Local Plan should be informed by a robust and up to date assessment such as the Playing Pitch Strategy which I understand was completed for Rother in 2016. Sport England's most recent Guidance is clear that PPSs should be updated at least annually (Stage E). I would strongly encourage you to ensure a Stage E review is undertaken as soon as possible in order to ensure the evidence base for the local plan is up to date and robust. I note that this document forms part of the Local Plan evidence base. This document should also be used to inform questions around sporting infrastructure that is required (either in terms of updating or new provision).

Protecting playing fields and sport facilities
Currently the NPPF states:

Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

* an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements
* the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location
* the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

I note that there would not appear to be a policy dedicated to the protection of playing fields and sport facilities in line with the NPPF. Sport England would strongly recommend that such a policy be included in line with national policy.

Economic Development

it is noted that the local plan includes a section on the economy.

Sport England wishes to highlight the fact that sport makes a very substantial contribution to the economy and to the welfare of individuals and society. It is an important part of the national economy (measured using Gross Value Added) and employment. For those who participate there are health and well-being (or happiness) impacts. Its economic impact places it within the top 15 sectors in England and its wider economic benefits mean that it is a key part of society, which results in huge benefits to individuals and communities. Sport England would therefore request that the value of sport to the economy is reflected within the Local Plan.

I note within the document that there are references to ensuring the health and wellbeing of residents, improving pedestrian and cycle connectivity, prioritising cyclists and pedestrians (including creating links where previously there were none) and ensuring high quality public realm; these are welcomed.

Sport England believes these references would be further strengthened by specifically referencing Sport England's Active Design Guidance, with the recommendation that future design proposals follow its principles.

Sport England and Public Health England have recently refreshed our 'Active Design' guide which provides some really useful advice and case studies with clear reference to the NPPF to maximise the opportunities for design in physical activity. Sport England would commend this to you and suggest the concept of 'Active Design' be incorporated into policy and any new developments - please see website extract and link below:

Active design

We believe that being active should be an intrinsic part of everyone's daily life - and the design of where we live and work plays a vital role in keeping us active.
Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and create environments that make the active choice the easy choice for people and communities.

That's why Sport England, in partnership with Public Health England, has produced the Active Design Guidance. This guidance builds on the original Active Design (2007) objectives of improving accessibility, enhancing amenity and increasing awareness, and sets out the Ten Principles of Active Design.

I note within the document that there are references to ensuring the health and wellbeing of residents, improving pedestrian and cycle connectivity, prioritising cyclists and pedestrians (including creating links where previously there were none) and ensuring high quality public realm; these are welcomed.

Sport England believes these references would be further strengthened by specifically referencing Sport England's Active Design Guidance, with the recommendation that future design proposals follow its principles.

Sport England and Public Health England have recently refreshed our 'Active Design' guide which provides some really useful advice and case studies with clear reference to the NPPF to maximise the opportunities for design in physical activity. Sport England would commend this to you and suggest the concept of 'Active Design' be incorporated into policy and any new developments - please see website extract and link below:

Active design

We believe that being active should be an intrinsic part of everyone's daily life - and the design of where we live and work plays a vital role in keeping us active.
Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and create environments that make the active choice the easy choice for people and communities.

That's why Sport England, in partnership with Public Health England, has produced the Active Design Guidance. This guidance builds on the original Active Design (2007) objectives of improving accessibility, enhancing amenity and increasing awareness, and sets out the Ten Principles of Active Design.

Ten principles

The ten principles have been developed to inspire and inform the layout of cities, towns, villages, neighbourhoods, buildings, streets and open spaces, to promote sport and active lifestyles.

The guide features an innovative set of guidelines to get more people moving through suitable design and layout. It includes a series of case studies setting out practical real-life examples of the principles in action to encourage planners, urban designers, developers and health professionals to create the right environment to help people get more active, more often.

The Active Design Principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design.

Active Design has been produced in partnership with David Lock Associates, specialists in town planning and urban design.

Thank you once again for consulting Sport England. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

07 December 2018

Dear Sirs,

Representations to the Rather District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19)

We represent our client, Beaulieu Homes Southern Limited. Our client has been the owner of the former Sidley Sports Ground, Glover Lane, Bexhill since 2015 and is currently appealing a refusal against the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use including both housing and the re-provision of sports facilities for the community.

We have a number of submissions to this important, regulatory consultation on the Rother Site Allocations Local Plan, and focus these representations around the tests of soundness and legal compliance, as is necessary at this stage of the process.

We structure our representations as follows:

Background information on the recent history of the Sidley Sports Ground and the technical work that has been carried out to confirm its deliverability.

Comments on the Council's processes including their approach to meeting housing need, and the need for additional housing to be added to the Plan for flexibility.

Comments on the evidence base, including the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Feasibility Study that was carried out to inform the Council's future policy on the former Sidley Sports Ground.

Advice to the Council about an appropriate and justified policy direction on the former Sidley Sports
Ground.

Background

The former Sidley Sports Ground has been in the ownership of our client since 2015. This was the ground of Sidley Sports and Social Club and was previously home to Sidley United Football Club and Sidley Cricket Club. The club was privately owned and run, rather than in any community use. The site has been vacant since 2013 when Sidley Sports and Social Club (a Private Members Club) went into administration as it was not financially viable. The pitch was also of very poor quality, meaning that matches were called off due to the pitch being waterlogged. Since the Private Members Club went into administration, there have been ongoing issues of vandalism and security on the site, which have led to security fencing being erected.

Our client's most recent application at the site was in outline form, with all matters reserved for
subsequent approval. The application was for the change of use and development of part of the existing Sidley Sports Ground to residential development for up to 54 dwellings, together with the provision of a replacement sports pitch which is level and properly drained, with laid out car parking and space for a future club house and changing rooms. Whilst the site is in outline form, it was accompanied by indicative layout plans to give information about how the site could be delivered and to show that what was proposed by the application was deliverable on site. However, there is considerable flexibility to respond to other evidenced requirements through any reserved matters applications.

The site is proposed to be accessed off Glovers Lane. The application was informed and supported by technical reports and studies.

The application was refused in mid-2018 and in response to this refusal, we have lodged an appeal on behalf of our client.

Housing Numbers

The Development and Site Allocations Local Plan is being prepared as a 'daughter document' to the adopted Rother Core Strategy and the approach to the Plan is that of a 'filling in the gaps' left by the Core Strategy than anything more fundamental. Whilst this is one approach to the production of Local plan documents it is not the most positive one. It would have been a more pro-active approach to prepare a comprehensive Local Plan, starting from scratch and using an up to date assessment of housing need. The emerging Plan just seeks to deliver the housing requirement set out in the Core Strategy. This sets out that the housing development target for the District as a whole is for at least 5,700 new homes to be built over the plan period, which runs from 2011-2028. The majority of these (approximately 3, 100) are to be at Bexhill. Assuming that the emerging Plan has the same time period means that it does not even cover a ten-year period and will be swiftly out of date.

In terms of the number, this is based on the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update from 2013. Whilst this identified an objectively assessed housing need for Rother District of 6,180 dwellings to 2028, the Council chose to reduce this, citing environmental factors and that this number would, in any case be a boost to what was being provided previously.

In any case, this number is now out of date. The Council should be seeking to boost supply in response to the Government's new method for calculating housing need. The published information for Rother shows a housing need of 469 per annum between 2016 to 2026, based on the application of the proposed formula. The NPPF sets out the Government's dear objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes (para 59) and goes on to set out in paragraph 60 that the standard method for calculating need should be used unless there are 'exceptional circumstances'. The fact that Rother are not using this information is a potential issue of soundness in terms of the consistency of the emerging plan with the NPPF. To avoid this issue, the Council should add some flexibility into the housing supply to demonstrate a willingness to proactively boost supply. This should include revising the proposed allocation BEX11 (Land at Sidley Sport and Social Club, Bexhill) to reflect its potential as a mixed-use site including residential development of up to 54 dwellings, plus sports provision.

On this matter our view is that policy OVE1 (Housing Supply and Delivery) is unsound as it is not positively prepared or consistent with national policy.

Approach towards Bexhlll

The Council seeks to focus development in Bexhill, setting a requirement of 3,100 dwellings to be built in the settlement between 2011 to 2028. We support the focus of growth to Bexhill, as a highly sustainable settlement. The emerging Plan allocates development to the town, both within the town and on the edge of town, specifically three linked sites to the north of the town. However, there is scope to increase the housing provision in the Plan, as we have set out above, and one way in which to do this is to focus on sustainable opportunities within the existing settlement, such as our client's site at the former Sidley Sport and Social Club in the town. This site lies within the existing built-up area and is surrounded by medium density residential development, with good accessibility to services and facilities. Additional development in this location would avoid impacts on the protected landscape of the High Weald AONB, which covers substantial parts of the District, whilst providing much needed housing.

The Council sets out that there is a need to safeguard existing sports facilities in Bexhill, stating, in paragraph 9.14 of the Plan that opportunities for new playing pitches within Bexhill are limited due to the availability of land and the topography of the town. Policy BEX10 for Northeye provides an opportunity to provide new playing field provision alongside the redevelopment of the site; however, there is scope for additional opportunities for new pitch provision to take place as part of other site allocations on the edge of Bexhill. For example, we note that policy BEX4 allocates land at the former high school site and Drill Hall, Down Road, Bexhill, for a mixed use development creating a 'leisure destination'. The policy is currently top level and there appears to be scope to use this facility as a mechanism for the provision of additional high-quality sports pitches.

We have assessed that chapter 9 of the Plan is unsound: the approach towards Bexhill is insufficiently positive as it does not provide enough housing, it is not also effective as parts of the chapter are not deliverable (specifically BEX11).

Affordable Housing

Policy DH61 sets out the proposed approach to the provision of affordable housing. We support the principle of the policy, however to make an effective contribution to addressing the housing needs of the District, the overall number of housing allocations should be increased, in order to enable the delivery of affordable housing.

In terms of our client's site, criterion (i) of the policy applies, whereby 30% on site affordable housing must be provided on schemes of 15 or more dwellings (subject to viability). The allocation of the former Sidley sports and social club for mixed use would contribute to meeting the high requirements for affordable housing in the District by the provision of a greater than required by policy number of affordable homes.

Sustainability Appraisal

We have also assessed the Council's Sustainability Appraisal. This includes summaries of the assessments of site options and proposed policies including, as Appendix 4, an assessment of the site policy options. This table appraises two options for the former Sidley Sports and Social Club - purely housing and purely playing pitches. The SA does not appear accurate or objective in regard to its appraisal of the site, with the playing pitch option scoring higher than the provision of housing. There are several unsubstantiated instances (SA objectives 2 and 9) where the provision of housing has a cross, rather than a tick, despite more positive scoring being given to other sites for housing.

No mixed use is appraised for the site, this would have been a 'reasonable alternative' to explore further, given the owner's aspirations for the site and the planning application history. The SA is therefore flawed in this regard, as it does not assess and compare all of the realistic reasonable alternatives for the site.

Given our conclusions, our assessment is that in regard to the Sustainability Appraisal, this is not legally compliant.

Evidence Base Issues

The District Council has published a range of evidence-based studies which support the emerging Plan. Those most relevant to our client's site at Sidley are the Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Strategy, which is very dated, published in 2006/7 and the Rother and Hastings Playing Pitch Strategy from 2016.

The Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Strategy concludes with a quantity standard which for the Bexhill, Battle and Rye area is 2.97 hectares of outdoor sports facilities per 1,000 population. The study also concluded that the Council should plan for additional pitches in the Bexhill area. This is something that could be done through the review of the Plan, by allocating a site/sites for the provision of any additional sporting facilities that are required. This would be a justified and effective approach which responds to the evidence base.

The Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) recommends that the Sidley Sports and Social Club site should be protected with any development leading to the replacement of facilities to at least the same or improved level of quality and facility mix. The PPS is somewhat misleading stating that the site provided 'a high quality of football provision for local residents'. This is factually incorrect, given the ongoing quality issues that were experienced in regard to the football pitch in relation to drainage and car parking. The ground did not meet the requirements for a step 7 football club (the level that Sidley United play at).

Additionally, the club was always privately owned rather than being a community facility. Our client, the site owner, offered the new facilities to Sidley United, for free. Whilst this offer made by our client was turned down by the club as it was considered unviable, our client is open to resuming discussions at any point. We note from the press (our source of local information given the lack of any engagement from the Council) that several football clubs would be interesting in using the site and our client is happy to work proactively as appropriate, with interested parties.

The PPS also confirms that the current ancillary facility (with regard to competitive football) is not fit for purpose and that if the site comes back into use for football then a new ancillary facility including changing rooms and a social area would be required. Our client responded to these points through the planning application and there is plenty of scope to work with the necessary agencies to ensure that the site is delivered in accordance with the outcomes of the PPS and to meet the requirements of the football club.

The PPS scores the cricket pitch at the former Sports and Social Club site relatively poorly; scores are given for five elements of provision, only two of which are relevant to the site (outfield and changing/pavilion). The cricket pitch scores 63.3% in these two areas, giving it an overall rating of 'standard'. Given that the site had been vacant for three years at the time that the PPS was carried out, it is difficult to have much faith in the justification or effectiveness of this assessment.

Table 5 of the PPS sets out the pitch quality information in regard to football, giving a pitch score and an ancillary score. The Sidley Sports and Social Club site scores very badly, with 38.57% for the pitch and 7.69% for ancillary facilities. This gives an overall score of 'poor'.

We assess that the summary below from the PPS is also inaccurate in terms of the site being a 'previously good facility'. Given the evidence about the quality of the football pitch which is publicly available on Sidley Football Club's website, this cannot be substantiated. The ground was not fit for purpose and did not meet the minimum grading requirements of a step 7 football club.

Sidley Sports and Social Club (Gullivers): Located in the heart of Sidley, this previously good facility has currently fallen into disuse and is in a very poor condition. Until recently; the ground was home to both Sidley Cricket Club and Sldley Football Club, but financial mismanagement resulted in its sale forcing both clubs to source alternative facilities outside of Rother. The pavilion facilities and stands have suffered from arson and vandalism.

In summary, therefore, we have assessed that the PPS is internally inconsistent and does not form a sound evidence base for the Local Plan.

Sidley Sports Ground Feasibility Study

A feasibility study (prepared by 4global in partnership with LK2 Consulting) was commissioned by the Council to inform the future of the former Sidley Sports Ground. Unfortunately, our client, despite being the owner of the site and being keen to work collaboratively with the Council, was not invited to engage in the study, despite being listed as one of the 'key stakeholders' identified at paragraph 1.2 of the study. The study is evidently flawed from the outset without the engagement of the owner, who would have had a meaningful input, and there is no reference within the study to the fact that the site is not for sale.

We were not even aware of the study until the emerging site allocation document was made public. Whilst we requested a copy of the study, this was not made available to us until it was published on the Council's website. The aim of the study is to 'ascertain the future use of the site' and sets out various options for the future of the site. 3 of the options involve various levels of residential development, however, these options were not shortlisted. The reason given is that '...releasing the land for housing is not compliant with the planning policy designation afforded to the site'. However, this statement is flawed - planning policy should be informed by the evidence base, para 31 of the NPPF sets out that "The preparation (our emphasis) and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence". The study infers that a decision was already made about the use of the site, specifically regarding the potential for residential development, before the study was carried out. This is an unsound approach in terms of not being a justified strategy - it is also inconsistent with national policy.

The study sets out (based on the information from the PPS )that there is a requirement for 2 additional full-sized 3G pitches in Rather, with at least one of these being located in Bexhill. This could be located on our client's site, as demonstrated by the scheme currently at appeal. Alternatively, and as we have set out, there is scope for the emerging Plan to identify a new site for any facilities identified within the PPS, either as part of one of the other proposed allocations in the Plan (as set out within Policy BEX10) or as a separate allocation elsewhere in the Bexhill area.

The study usefully confirms that the former Sidley Sports and Social Club site cannot meet the minimum requirements of a dual use cricket and football site, information which renders part of the recent refusal on the site factually erroneous.
Whilst the study includes options for funding, these are only options at the moment and this does not give any certainty at all regarding delivery. There is no analysis of the potential of providing a scheme that is part residential and part sports uses, despite the scope for this to provide a deliverable scheme. As we have set out above, the proposal that is currently being appealed will ensure the delivery of sporting facilities at the site.

Policy BEX 11

The emerging Plan proposes to allocate the former Sidley Sports and Social Club for playing pitches (with one pitch proposed) plus ancillary 'hub' space and open space. This is considered (by the Council) to be the most viable use of the site, allegedly based on the outcomes of a feasibility study (despite the feasibility study setting out that there was already planning policy in place for the site). This completely contradicts the reasons for refusal for our client's planning application which refused the application on the basis that it did not re-provide both a full sized adult football pitch and a full sized adult cricket pitch.

Unfortunately, our client has been excluded from participating either in the Feasibility Study, or in the preparation of the policy, despite a willingness to work collaboratively with the Council. We were not even aware of the study until the emerging site allocations local plan was placed in the public domain.

However, the Council has been engaging with local sports clubs regarding the future of the site. We consider this surprising, given our client's ownership of the site and casts doubts over the Councils approach to the preparation of the Plan. Engagement with the owner of the site would have been an obvious step towards producing an effective and justified strategy and policy towards the future of the site.

In its current form, we therefore consider that policy BEX11 is unsound in terms of paragraph 35 of the NPPF, specifically in regard to the 'effective' test of soundness, given that there is no evidence that the policy is deliverable. Whilst the Feasibility Study sets out options for future funding, none of these are guaranteed, and therefore the policy fails the tests of soundness in regard to justification, effectiveness and consistency with national policy.

However, we are keen to work with the Council to address this through some minor modifications to the policy which will enable our client to successfully deliver the site, in line with the principles that the Council has set out.

We suggest these modifications below, using the traditional strikethrough to show proposed deletions and underlining to show proposed additions to the policy text:

Policy BEX11

The former Sidley Sports and Social Club, Glovers Lane, as shown on the Policies Map, is allocated for playing pitches for up to 54 dwellings a playing pitch for formal sport and appropriate ancillary uses.

Proposals will be permitted where:


(i) up to 54 dwellings are provided on site including an appropriate mix of size ad types of private and affordable housing.
(ii) One full size 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) for formal sport is provided, alongside associated ancillary uses and parking facilities
(iii) Provision is made for the protection and enhancement of site's boundaries in order to enhance biodiversity and improve the relationship with neighbouring residential properties, as indicated on the Detail Map. Provision should include the translocation of reptiles and appropriate protection or mitigation for light-sensitive species in accordance with a lighting design strategy and species activity surveys;

(iv) A Community Use Agreement accompanies the application to ensure community access to the facility. The Agreement shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-school users, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review;

(v) Highway access is provided from Buckholt Lane, via Glovers Lane, alongside any offsite highway works to make the development acceptable in highway terms;

(vi) Linkages to the wider transport infrastructure that supports local accessibility for both cyclist and pedestrians are incorporated, including connections to the proposed Bexhill Cycle Network; and

(vii) Sustainable drainage (SuDS) is provided in accordance with Policy DENS.

Conclusion

We welcome the opportunity to comment at this key stage of the Local Plan process; however, our view is that a more positive approach is needed by the Council.

We have identified that the Plan does not take a sufficiently positive approach to allocating housing and is out of step with Government policy in this regard as it does not seek to use the Government's new method (which should be used unless there are exceptional circumstances).

Our client has an available and highly sustainable site which is available for mixed use development, including up to 54 homes. The site is in the hands of a willing developer and would go some significant way towards delivering the Council's aspirations for the former Sidley Sports and Social Club in Bexhill.

We have set out within these representations that we have concerns regarding the evidence base that underpins the emerging Plan, and that the Sustainability Appraisal is also flawed as it has not assessed obvious and realistic reasonable alternatives in regard to our client's sites.

In terms of the evidence base, there has been a specific feasibility study to assess the future of the former Sidley Sports and Social Club. Rather astonishingly, our client, the owner of the site has been excluded from participating in the study, despite a willingness to work collaboratively in this regard.

Given our client's key role in delivering the site, we have suggested some amendments to Policy BEX11 to ensure its deliverability.

We hope that these comments are useful. We are happy to work with the Council on the elements of unsoundness in the Plan that affect our client's site.
We confirm that we wish to appear at the Local Plan Examination in this regard.

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.