Policy FAC2: Land east of Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on your proposed submission of the "Development and Site Allocations Local Plan"

Our comments relate solely to Fairlight Cove as covered in paras 11.101 to 11.128.

It is stated that the Core Strategy requirement is for 37 dwellings in the village from large sites. 16 dwellings will be provided at the former Market Garden site. That leaves 21 to be to be built in the village. The proposed allocation for the East Field site is for 30 houses. No explanation is given for this increase in the number of dwellings for the village as a whole and the East Field site is not in the village.

The number of dwellings to be built is of paramount importance because of the extra strain it will put on the local resources. As you state the village has a limited range of services, very limited in some respects such as no primary school, no railway station, and an inadequate bus service. Additionally, the road infrastructure is unsuitable for multiple construction vehicles, is poorly maintained by ESCC Highways and is not capable of carrying any additional traffic volumes.

The East Field site is, as you acknowledge, within the AONB boundary. Whilst the proposed submission is dismissive of the importance of this, this view is not shared by all and in particular we draw your attention to the letter from the ESCC County Landscape Architect regarding the planning application Ref. RR/2018/2726/P made by Welbeck for a larger development on the same site.

Part of the attraction of an AONB is not only its visual appearance from within its boundaries but also from other vantage points. The proposed permitted 30 dwellings and doctor's surgery would be predominantly visible from both the eastern end of the Hastings Country Park and the western end of Cliff End, both viewpoints on the Saxon Shore Way.

The proposed vehicular access point to the East Field site adjacent to "Robins Croft" and the pedestrian crossing are unsafe for both vehicle occupants and pedestrians. The speed of traffic along this section of road and the proximity to the blind bend to the east and the junction with Rosemary lane make it extremely unwise to designate this as the access point.

My objections are set out in a letter to your office dated 4 December 2018 as they do not fit within 200 words. Such a limit is ridiculous in a matter of this importance.

Fairlight Parish Council has always resisted the development of the East Field (Land East of Waites Lane) on Wakehams Farm. Our position remains unchanged. Previous consultations have indicated also that most residents would prefer there to be no development on this site.
However, as part of the Neighbourhood Planning process our assessment was that there was no alternative site in Fairlight which could be developed if, and only if, the local need for this could be demonstrated.
We recognise that it is essential that Rother has an up to date Local Plan. If Fairlight must have an allocation a modest development of 20 dwellings in accordance with Figure 12 of the Core Strategy 2014 with 50% age restricted as proposed in the proposed DaSA would be preferable to the much larger development of 150 homes for which a planning application has been submitted (ref: RR/2018/2726/P)
Any future application would have to show how all planning issues including drainage and safe access would be managed and would be subject to robust examination.

Fairlight Parish Council wishes to be represented at the public inspection.

The proposed development of 30 homes will not conserve and enhance the AONB due to the following:

1) the new development will be poorly integrated with the existing village because of the distance of the access point from the village centre and the lack of opportunity for pedestrian access at the west or southern edges of the site into the village. This would be contrary to objectives S2 and S3 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan "To protect the historic pattern and character of settlement" and "To enhance the architectural quality of the High Weald and ensure development reflects the character of the High Weald in its scale, layout and design";

2) the development of 30 houses is unlikely to provide a doctor's surgery due to the scale of the development and the costs of providing such a long access route to the site. As demonstrated by the current planning application for 150 units, such requirements will prompt proposals for a larger scale development to finance this infrastructure. Larger scale development would not be appropriate in the AONB, where paragraph 172 of the NPPF says that development should be limited and only permitted in exceptional circumstances. It would also extend the visual impact of the development eastwards into more open countryside.

Re: Rother Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

As residents of Fairlight Cove we wish to make the following comments on the unsoundness of the DaSA Local Plan in so far as it relates to Fairlight and Fairlight Cove, East Sussex. We have answered the consultation online but yet again the amount of space provided for comments is grossly inadequate (only 200 words!) - hence this letter. We object to the DaSA Local Plan in so far as it impacts upon Fairlight and Fairlight Cove.

1. Our key objection is the inconsistency of the policies set out in this document, which on the one hand recognises the unique character of this locality and the fact that it is within the designated High Weald AONB, while recommending the construction of 30 new houses within that same AONB area.

2. Section 6 Environment Policy DEN 1 states that new development m the High Weald AONB must make a positive contribution to the landscape character of the area in which it is located. DEN 2 says that development should be small scale, in keeping with the landscape and settlement pattern. Major development will be inappropriate except in exceptional circumstances. DEN 3 states that any development must be unobtrusive and not detract from the openness of the area.

3. All these are sensible and reasonable considerations against which to judge the proposals for Fairlight Cove.

4. However, the plans for Fairlight Cove in Section 1 1 do not meet these tests and are not in keeping with the landscape and settlement pattern:

(1) The Core Strategy from 2014 suggests that 37 new dwellings should be built in Fairlight "from large sites".

(2) The first site identified in the DaSA is the Market Garden site where outline planning consent, subject to conditions , has been granted by Rother DC for the construction of 16 dwellings. That site is at least within the village settlement area and close to local facilities. It does not impact on the surrounding countryside, (see 11. 108)

(3) The second site now identified at 11. 109 is the East Field for the remaining 21 new dwellings. It is acknowledged that this site is not within the existing settlement area and encroaches on the AONB land. Construction will also lead to the loss of good agricultural land. The proposed development threatens the beauty of the area and the loss of invaluable country views, flora and fauna. It will certainly not conserve and enhance the AONB landscape.

(4) The use of this site totally contradicts each of the Rother Environment policies DEN 1, DEN 2 and DEN 3.

(5) Paragraph 11. 109 of the report goes even further in disregard of these policies by stating that the site can accommodate some 30 dwellings - nine more than even the Core Strategy suggested. This is misconceived. The report lacks robust and credible evidence to justify this conclusion. No substantial reasoning is set out for this expansion in the number of proposed dwellings.

(6) The actual facts are as follows:

(a) There is no shortage of housing in Fairlight. By reason of the age of much of the population (many of whom are retired and elderly) there is a constant turnover of housing. There is therefore no development or infrastructure requirement.

(b) There can be no justification for building outside the existing settlement boundaries in the AONB land as that will unquestionably detract from the views and openness of the area and cause serious damage to the local environment. Paragraph 11. 121 recognises that the development of this site "will need to conserve and enhance this designated landscape". But there is no way that that can be done.

(c) Surface water drainage is a major problem throughout Fairlight - as acknowledged in Paragraph 11. 126. The East Field site is subject to flooding.

(d) There is very serious lack of capacity in the existing drainage and sewerage system in and around Fairlight Cove. This is very well known to Rother DC and Southern Water. The system at present cannot cope with large volumes of water generated by rainfall. The DaSA does not hide this but does not explain how these problems will be overcome. Indeed, Paragraph 6.59 states that the Fairlight /Pett Level area has been recognised as an area of drainage concern. The report acknowledges the wider drainage capacity concern. Further it recognises that East Sussex County Council has even been considering identifying the village as an Area of Critical Drainage Concern in East Sussex.

(e) These drainage and sewerage issues are not addressed properly in Section 11 of the DaSA in the plans for new dwellings in Fairlight Cove on the East Field site. There is no explanation or consideration as to when and how the sewerage system and local plant will be expanded and upgraded to take account of the increased usage, There is no analysis of how this cost will be met. Building on agricultural land in an AONB is not consistent with national planning policies.

(f) Transport difficulties have also been overlooked to a large extent. The East Field site is located off the Battery Hill/Pett Level Road, a narrow C class road which has "tight bends, steep gradients and poor visibility in places" - see paragraph 11. 101. That is a considerable understatement. The site would have only a single access near a blind comer on to the Pett Level Road. The new homes will generate even more congestion than exists at present. There are no plans to improve the roads or the bus services. Dangers to existing road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, are already an issue in the local community.

(g) The suggestion that the development is necessary to accommodate a new doctors' surgery is again flawed. Why cannot a surgery be located within the existing village? A surgery is already held at the Village Hall. You do not need to expand a village in order to build a new surgery.

(h) There is no logical basis for building outside the boundaries of an existing village, where there is no actual demand for new housing, where there are no employment opportunities and where the drainage facilities and sewerage system can barely cope with the existing population. The fact that the area also has very poor communications reinforces these points.

(i) No account has been taken in the DaSA of how the children living in the expanded village are to be educated. There is no spare capacity in the local junior schools, which are already over-subscribed.

(j) Logically, new housing developments within Rother should be close to population centres and in areas which have good communications, job opportunities and adequate education facilities. That must be the rational way to proceed. Expanding Fairlight by cutting into the East Field is not the answer the local authority's housing needs.

We object strongly to these plans for development in Fairlight Cove. In this respect the DaSA is unsound and deeply flawed on each of the four grounds of soundness.

We would be happy to elaborate on these objection at any public inquiry or investigation by the Planning Inspectorate.

Yours sincerely
Dr Ruth Kosmin
Leslie Kosmin

We find nowhere within the commenting system makes provision for addressing the failure to follow the Statement of community involvement.

East Field Action Group
c/o Keith Jellicoe
St Catherines
Waites Lane
Fairlight

5th December 2018

Ref: DaSa_2018_Proposed Submission

The East Field Fairlight Action Group (EFFAG) was founded in 2012, members joined because they were opposed to the potential development & consequences it would have on the village. EFFAG speaks for its membership of some 130 residents, with the additional support of the Fairlight Preservation Trust (200 Members), the Fairlight Residents Association has some 350 Households, of which the majority are against ANY development of the site. Whilst we cannot speak for the wider Rather community, it may well be that they have also been failed by the consultation process. A Survey carried out by FPC in 2016 found that 78& of residents wished to protect & preserve green space, 76% wished to preserve heritage assets (farmland is a heritage asset) 79% wished to protect & preserve the character of Fairlight, 77% we concerned about traffic issues. Yet RDC excluded most of them from the consultation process.

EFFAG believes that RDC has failed to follow the Statement of Community involvement in that:

Means of involving people

2.5 The Council will seek to choose the appropriate consultation processes that best balance community impact, accessibility and available resources. Greater use is being made of online and social media methods of consultation, while appreciating that they are not accessible for all sections of the population.

The council failed to seek the appropriate means of consultation in that the only methods of publication have been the council website & 1 small advert in the local Observer newspaper. 51% of Fairlight residents have no access to the internet (it may well be a similar figure elsewhere in Rather due to a predominantly older population) & so are fully excluded from knowledge of, or access to plans & documentation, the local shop sells less than 50 copies of the newspaper. Since the majority of Fairlight Residents are over 65 (RDC are aware of this) it should have been anticipated that such restricted method of notice was insufficient & therefore exclusive of certain "Hard to reach groups".

We believe RDC has unfairly discriminated against older people & is therefore ageist.

Who can be involved in plan-making?

3.8 There will be opportunities for everyone to participate in the production of all planning policy documents, as shown above.

Opportunity to participate exists, only where prior knowledge of said opportunity exists, how would people without internet access know that they could participate.

The point of access is wholly unsuitable, traffic emerging from the site will have limited or no visibility of traffic already on Pett Level road.

The footpath is not continuous, it is not wide enough to permit any combination of mobility devices & or pushchairs to pass without having to dismount to the road & risk injury or worse, the terrain does not permit for widening without compulsory purchase of front gardens.

This would exclude any mobility impaired persons from living in the new development, hardly inclusive! As they would take their life in their hands each time they tried to get to the post office, it would also preclude anyone in Fairlight with mobility issues access the shiny new GP surgery.

DOT manual for streets:

2.3.7 Access to buildings and public spaces is another important function of streets.
Pedestrian access should be designed for people of all ages and abilities

2.7 Disability discrimination

2.7.1 Highway and planning authorities must comply with the Disability Equality Duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. 16

This means that in their decisions and actions, authorities are required to have due regard to the six principles of:
. promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons;
. eliminate discrimination that is unlawful under the 2005 Act;
. eliminate harassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities;
. promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons;
. encourage participation by disabled persons in public life; and
. take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons.

I refer to the comments from the High Weald AONB Partnership:

The proposed development of 30 homes will not conserve and enhance the AONB due to the following:

1) the new development will be poorly integrated with the existing village because of the distance of the access point from the village centre and the lack of opportunity for pedestrian access at the west or southern edges of the site into the village. This would be contrary to objectives S2 and S3 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan "To protect the historic pattern and character of settlement" and "To enhance the architectural quality of the High Weald and ensure development reflects the character of the High Weald in its scale, layout and design";

2) the development of 30 houses is unlikely to provide a doctor's surgery due to the scale of the development and the costs of providing such a long access route to the site. As demonstrated by the current planning application for 150 units, such requirements will prompt proposals for a larger scale development to finance this
infrastructure. Larger scale development would not be appropriate in the AONB, where paragraph 172 of the NPPF says that development should be limited and only permitted in exceptional circumstances. It would also extend the visual impact of the development eastwards into more open countryside.

Further to the above I find that the landscape assessment used to determine suitability for development was flawed & biased from the start, see enclosed supporting document, unable to make full representation here due to poor limitations on content of submissions.

There is not currently a "hard urban edge" but there would be if this development is allowed.

Flood risk map from Environment Agency, the watercourses around the site are all subject to seasonal flooding under current conditions, further development which reduces permeability will increase the risk, this will also have effect on coastal erosion. SuDS will not alleviate this issue, they will have a limited capacity which will prove insufficient during heavy rainfall.

map supplied: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31129

11.109
Your plan says that "the site is within AONB and it is visually enclosed and the impact on the AONB would be limited" This is not so for the people living around it. The AONB is very visible and the reason many of those people bought their homes. Such a site will be extremely visible.

It does not represent a "logical extension to the built up area", nor does it "relate well to existing developments on Waites Lane and Pett level road" This site would sit immediately at the edge of our back gardens along Pett level road. The buildings would not be in keeping with the dwellings or their layouts in this road.

11.119
Background evidence that helped support the current plan was taken from the defunct Neighbourhood plan. 815 surveys were distributed for that plan and only 120 were completed. (A few of these proposed the East field to be built on only as a last measure). None of this is a representative sample for such a plan to be made.

Where did the requirement for 30 more dwellings to be built in Fairlight come from?
Rother has a need to build more homes in line with government requirements but this does not have to be in Fairlight. Your report acknowledges there already is " a limited range of services in Fairlight despite a larger population than many other Rother villages".

Why bring in more people? What about the Queensway empty site?

Other issues for opposing the site:

Surface water is a continual problem in our gardens in Pett level road and in the road itself.

An entrance on a virtually blind corner of Pett level road would be extremely dangerous especially for elderly people going in and out.

There will already be added traffic from the Market Garden site and the pub when it reopens, on our country "lanes" which are overstretched as it is.

letter from Emma Challenger, Strutt & Parker:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Rother District Council DaSA Publication Stage (Regulation 19) Consultation
Comments in relation to Policy FAC2: Land at Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove

Strutt & Parker's Planning Department are instructed to respond to the DaSA Publication Stage (Regulation 19) consultation on behalf of Welbeck Strategic Land III in respect of its interest in Land South of Pett Level Road, Fairlight Cove (referred to as sites FC2 and FC2a in the Sustainability Appraisal).

Our representations support the allocation of land for (predominantly) residential development in Policy FAC2, but we do not support the area of land being allocated, nor do we support the proposed capacity for the site.

Namely, we do not agree with the Assessment of Site Policy Options (ASPO) set out in Sustainability Appraisal Volume 3 for Fairlight Cove (pp 111-113), which is used to justify the allocated area, nor do we consider the background document entitled Landscape Assessment of Wakeham's Farm, Fairlight Cove to have properly considered the development potential for the western part of area FC2a. The evidence is flawed and has resulted in an inaccurate assessment of the site. We submit our own evidence to justify this objection, including: a report by landscape consultants Allen Pyke Associates (ref. 2763-RE-04); a Highway Boundary plan by transport consultants Pell Frischmann (drawing no. 101466-T-003); and an Illustrative Landscape Masterplan of sites FC2 and FC2a combined (drawing no. 2763-LA-03).

We also submit a Sketch Layout (drawing no. SK12) prepared by ECE Architecture for the area allocated in Policy FAC2. This is based on technical background work and includes a policy-compliant mix of dwellings (40% affordable). To make efficient use of land, the drawing shows that 45 dwellings could be achieved instead of the estimated 30 dwellings in area FC2 of Policy FAC2.
As it stands, we do not consider the allocated area of Policy FAC2 to be justified by the evidence, nor is it consistent with the NPPF 2018 in relation to making effective use of land and achieving well-designed places.

Background

Strutt & Parker submitted a planning application for Land South of Pett Level Road ('the Site') in October 2018, which is due to be determined in February 2019. The Site measures 12.75ha overall.

The application was made in outline form (including details of access) for development of up to 150 dwellings (including 40% affordable), a new mini-supermarket (372sqm), and a new doctor's surgery, together with the provision of around half of the Site for public open space. The proposal includes both sites FC2 and FC2a, but only the western and central parts of the Site are proposed for built development. These areas were identified following detailed assessment of views towards the Site and the impact that development could have on the AONB. The western part of the Site (i.e. site FC2) was noted as having high capacity for development. The central part of the Site was assessed as having moderate capacity for development, with a recommendation for a lower density development than the western part. The remaining, eastern part of the site was not considered to be capable of accommodating any built development and was therefore proposed for AONB-appropriate uses, which promote recreation and biodiversity gain.

The drawing below is taken from the accompanying Allen Pyke report and shows the proposed developable area as areas A and B:

(http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31150)

This work led the Project Team to develop an illustrative masterplan which included residential development on areas A and B, and public open space on Area C. The locations for the proposed doctor's surgery and mini-supermarket have also been given careful thought - the doctor's surgery is adjacent to the open space and allotments in order to promote health and wellbeing; and the mini-supermarket has been located behind existing screening from the Poplar trees along Pett Level Road, and in a location that will provide easy access for the entire community.
The proposal was subject to a detailed Landscape Visual Impact Assessment by Allen Pyke, of which key points have been extracted and inserted into their report (which accompanies these representations).

We have also enclosed the Illustrative Landscape Masterplan from the submitted planning application to show how a larger development would provide a sensible rounding off of the settlement boundary, whilst providing significant community benefits that could not otherwise be achieved in area FC2 alone. Importantly, a larger development would only have a localised harm on the AONB, which could be mitigated through appropriate landscaping.

To be clear, it is Area B which is in contention. The following section discusses the Council's justification for the allocation of Area A in the DaSA, and the reasons why Area B has not been allocated.

Proposed Site Allocation Boundary

The justification provided by the Council for the part of the Site which is proposed for allocation in Policy FAC2 is set out in the Sustainability Appraisal Volume 3 for Fairlight Cove (pp 111-113). The Site is assessed in two parts - FC2 (which corresponds to Area A above), and FC2a (which corresponds to Area B and Area C). There is no separate assessment of Area B, however FC2a has been assessed on the basis of the proposed planning application for the Site (i.e. the developable area comprising Area A and Area B only), which is helpful. Site FC2 has been assessed on the basis of it including solely residential development, as well as it including: residential development, a doctor's surgery and open space.

We have discussed the provision of a doctor's surgery with Dr Craig Namvar, who would be the person delivering it. Dr Namvar runs the Hastings Old Town Surgery and Guestling surgery, and has confirmed that he would support the provision of a new surgery on FC2 or FC2a, but notes the additional benefits to patients provided by the extensive area of open space and allotments which could be provided adjacent to the surgery on FC2a. Therefore, whilst a surgery could potentially be provided on either site, it should be assessed as being more beneficial if provided alongside the public open space offered on FC2a.

The provision of open space on FC2 (as noted in Policy FAC2) cannot, however, be supported as something that would be substantial enough in size to benefit the occupiers of the new dwellings, and it would certainly not benefit the wider community due to its limited size, location on the site, and lack of parking. What would be achieved would be more akin to a wide landscape buffer with limited recreational value (particularly along the eastern boundary), and the benefits of this should be assessed against the need to make effective use of land. This is discussed further in the next section but, for the purposes of assessing FC2 in the Sustainability Appraisal, we afford limited weight to the provision of open space. The open space provided on FC2a would, in contrast, provide recreational benefits for the entire village, along with the added provision of allotments (which FC2 could not provide).

Of additional consideration when reviewing the ASPO on page 112 of the Sustainability Appraisal, is the reliance on the Landscape Assessment of Wakeham's Farm, Fairlight Cove background paper (hereon referred to as LAWF) when assessing the impact of FC2a on the AONB under SA Objective 15. This has been reviewed by Allen Pyke in their accompanying report, which makes the following observations [Please note that the LAWF refers to areas FC2 and FC2a as Area B1 and Area B2 respectively, but we will not use those references here in order to avoid potential confusion]:

1. There is no description of the type or amount of development considered by the LAWF in determining capacity at each landscape character area. This means that capacity should only be considered as a starting point and cannot be used to determine the acceptability (or not) of a specific development. Incorrect assumptions have been made about the density of development, and it has not been considered how adjustments made to this, including building heights, could mitigate the visual impact. The LAWF is not akin to an LVIA, which assesses the landscape and visual effects of a specific development. The stated aim of the LAWF is to assess capacity to accommodate varying scales of development, however it is unclear what scale of development has been considered. This is fine if the intention of the report is to be broad brush, but not if it is to be relied upon when making decisions about whether or not to allocate land.

2. The LAWF considers new planting as potential mitigation measures, but fails to consider embedded mitigation measures which may be incorporated into a proposed development, such as consideration of landscape features within the layout; good design; appropriateness of materials; and so on.

3. Area FC2a is assessed as a whole developable area. The LAWF does not distinguish between Area B and Area C identified above. The views that are assessed focus on the impact of Area C, and there is no specific mention of the western part of FC2a. This suggests that views of the site are focused on Area C, which we agree with. However, the entire FC2a has been assessed on this basis, resulting in a conclusion that the area is of 'high visual sensitivity', resulting in a low to none capacity for development. This contrasts quite significantly with the assessment for Area A, with only a gappy hedge separating the two, and it would therefore be more accurate to acknowledge a gradual transition between the west of the site and the more open countryside to the east.

It is important to note that the LAWF was produced before our planning application was submitted, and that it does not assess the proposed development on FC2a in the same way that Allen Pyke's LVIA does. This is important because the LAWF has been used as a background document to the DaSA, to justify the exclusion of FC2a from the allocated area in Policy FAC2. It is fine for the LAWF to be broad brush, but not if it is to be relied upon when making decisions about whether or not to allocate land.

The ASPO table for Fairlight Cove, which presumably relies on the LAWF in its assessment of criteria 15 'Protect and enhance the high quality natural and built environment', indicates a 'x' under site FC2a. This is the most negative score that could be achieved, indicating 'potentially significant adverse effects'. We are not clear how this assessment has been made - if it is based on the LAWF, then the corresponding score for the site should be a '(x)', which means that the site 'appears to conflict with the objective on balance and may result in minor adverse effects'. There are other sites in the LAWF which have received a worse score than FC2a, which suggests that FC2a should not be awarded the worst score in the Sustainability Appraisal. This would seem to be a sensible starting point for the ASPO, although we do not agree with the score given to the site in the LAWF and we therefore dispute whether the site should be awarded a negative score at all under criteria 15 in the ASPO.

The appraisal for FC2a (referred to as Area B2) in Appendix 3 of the LAWF contains amber colours for the following categories: 'physical character'; 'natural character'; 'perceptual experience and qualities'; and 'historic character'. Generally, this means that the site does not make special contribution to these qualities of the AONB, and these would therefore not be reasons to exclude the site from allocation.

The 'settlement setting, form and edge' category was awarded a red colour, which generally means that this quality is particularly sensitive. The assessment for FC2a states that the southern boundary of the site is distinctive because it is characterised by large wooded plots, and that the wooded edge forms a very well defined and soft transition from the built up area to the wider AONB. We do not dispute this, but the assessment assumes that the entire site would be developed and that the wooded ghyll would no longer be visible. This is not the case if the site is developed as per our current planning application. The assessment for site FC2 has a yellow colour in contrast, which is because the western boundary of the site, where it joins the settlement edge, is not considered to be particularly distinctive. Extending the developable area beyond FC2, partly into FC2a, would also not impact on this settlement edge. Had the LAWF considered a reduced developable area within FC2a, along with embedded mitigation, the resulting score for 'Settlement setting, form and edge' would likely have been more positive.

The only other category awarded a red colour for site FC2a is 'visual character'. Allen Pyke critiques this in their report (paragraph 2.18), noting that the LAWF does not acknowledge the varying levels of visibility within the site. The eastern and northern part of FC2a are elevated and more prominent from public viewpoints to the east and from Hastings Country Park. The southern part of the area, adjacent to the watercourse, is largely obscured by topography and intervening vegetation and buildings. The LAWF refers to the site as being very open, with a lack of vegetation to break up views across the area, but they have not considered the existing hedgerows in the western part of FC2a which break up views. Allen Pyke consider the western part of FC2a to be more enclosed and cluttered than the more open, eastern part, resulting in it having a greater capacity for development (subject to appropriate mitigation).

For the above reasons, we do not agree with the score of 'x' for criteria 15 in the ASPO. In terms of impact on the settlement edge, the proposed development of Area A and Area B would not impact on views of the wooded ghyll to the south of the site. Development on FC2a (within Area B only) would have no worse impact on the settlement edge formed by properties along Waites Lane, than the development of FC2 only. In terms of visual character, the development of FC2a (again, within Area B only) would not adversely effects views across the AONB - subject to mitigation measures, including sensitive design, density, and landscaping. We believe that mitigation should be taken into account in the ASPO, and that the score for criteria 15 should be awarded a '(tick)' or a '~' to ensure consistency with the assessment for FC2.

There are additional SA Objectives which we do not agree with. Criteria 6, which refers to sustaining economic growth and competitiveness, has been assessed neutrally for both FC2 and FC2a, but we consider the provision of a new mini-supermarket on FC2a to justify a more positive assessment here.

Criteria 7 refers to improving accessibility to services and facilities for all ages across the District, but no consideration appears to have been given to the provision of a shop on FC2a and how this would benefit both existing and new communities. There would be a continuous footway from the village centre to the new shop, which would provide access to all age groups. The extensive area of public open space would also be available for the existing community to use, with the potential for dedicated paths for wheelchairs to be provided. We believe that there is justification here also for a more positive assessment of FC2a under criteria 7.
Criteria 12 (minimising flood risk) has been awarded a (x) for both sites FC2 and FC2a, but in both cases the development of the site would enable surface water to be collected and drained in a controlled way to ensure off-site flooding does not occur. The village currently suffers from flooding, and the development of FC2a would be able to improve this.

Criteria 15 refers to protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Through the normal determination of planning applications, ecological surveys would ensure that species are adequately protected during the construction phase, and some biodiversity gain would be expected afterwards. However, taking into account the low ecological value agricultural land within the site, and the extensive area of open space being proposed in FC2a, it is surprising that a neutral score has been provided. If providing ponds, wildflower meadows, and new trees/shrubs does not enhance the natural environment, we question what does. We are unclear why FC2a has been awarded the worst score in this criteria, whist FC2 has been awarded the best score.

When taking into account the economic benefits of the development proposed for FC2a, the environmental and recreational benefits of the proposed public open space, and the minimal harm caused to the AONB, the assessment of FC2a should be more positive than as assessed by the Council. In our view, there are no insurmountable reasons why FC2a should not be allocated along with FC2 for 150 dwellings, a GP surgery, shop and public open space, in the form proposed in our planning application. In fact, when assessing the sustainability objectives, the offering of a shop and extensive area of open space should, overall, result in a more positive assessment that FC2.

Also of concern when considering the proposed area for allocation, is the access road. We have sought advice from transport consultants Pell Frischmann, who have prepared a drawing (no. 101466-T-003) which shows the design of a junction if it were to be restricted to the allocation boundary (edged red). Such an access would not technically be feasible due to the angle of the junction at the point it meets Pett Level Road, which would not achieve the required sight lines. Furthermore, an access junction in that location would require the removal of trees which are considered to be important to the character of Pett Level Road. The drawing shows in grey the location of the access junction designed for the planning application, which is located in a gap within the tree line, and which successfully achieves required sight lines. An access coming into the site in that location would require a large bend into the site, resulting in a larger site area. This drawing has been superimposed onto the accompanying Sketch Layout (drawing no. SK12 by ECE Architecture), showing the area required to be included within a site allocation if safe access is to be achieved.

Such a long access with no frontage development would not only raise viability concerns for a housebuilder, but would appear as an incongruous feature in the countryside. It would also not comply with the LAWF, which recommends that the road is kept as short as possible so that it does not detract from the quality or character of the AONB (part (d) under the 'Mitigation' section on page 17).

Policy FAC2 proposes a tree lined avenue along this access road, but Allen Pyke note in their report that this is not a feature that is associated with the High Weald AONB, where most rural roads are lined by hedges and occasional mature trees or skirt edges of woodland. A tree-lined avenue would not be an appropriate solution for the site, and the intrusion of the road into the central part of the field would arguably cause some harm to that part of the site, such that the resulting contribution it would make to the qualities and character of the AONB should be questioned. If the character of this part of the site is to be affected by the development of FC2 because of the new access road and resulting landscaping either side (in whatever form), we would argue that the presence of housing would not add significantly to that harmful impact. Furthermore, for reasons of viability, good design, and safety (through natural surveillance), there is a strong case for the site allocation to include housing either side of the access road. If it is the agricultural field that is desirable in views from Pett Level Road, to have a residential road running through the central/northern field would prevent viable agricultural activities from continuing in this area. The use of the adjacent land in this area therefore needs to be considered, as does its impact on the landscape.

Proposed Site Capacity

Policy FAC2, in its current form, proposes to allocate site FC2 for approximately 30 dwellings, of which 40% are affordable. We support the 40% affordable requirement, but the number of dwellings that can be achieved on the site has only been guestimated. A masterplan has not, to date, been prepared for the site, and we think that this is an important exercise to do in order to establish site capacity. We have therefore commissioned this work, and enclose a Sketch Layout (drawing no. SK12) for the Council's consideration.

The Sketch Layout shows the footprint of a GP surgery, to the specification required by Dr. Namvar, along with 16 parking spaces. This requires a smaller area than shown on Figure 50 (Policy FAC2 Detail Map), which frees up more land for housing.

The Sketch Layout also shows the area required for a SuDS attenuation pond along the southern boundary, which has been based on surface water drainage calculations. This area could be enjoyed by the new residents, both in outlook and recreation (although the recreational benefits would be limited when compared with what could be offered on a larger site allocation). This would accord with recommendation (b) in the LAWF under the heading of 'Mitigation' (page 17).
The drawing incudes generous landscaped buffers along the western, northern and eastern site boundaries, to mitigate the visual impact of the development from adjacent properties, and from the wider landscape. The eastern landscape buffer is of a sufficient depth to reinforce the existing treed hedgerow, as recommended in the LAWF (part (a) under 'Mitigation'). There is no benefit in having additional planting beyond what is shown on the drawing - to provide additional trees could tantamount to the planting of 'woodland', which the LAWF recognises as being inappropriate for the site.

Once the location and size of the GP surgery, landscaping and SuDS have been established, what is left is the developable area for housing. ECE Architects have used a policy-compliant mix, including a large proportion of detached bungalows, to establish how many dwellings could satisfactorily be achieved on the site. The resulting Sketch Layout shows capacity for 45 dwellings at a reasonably low density of 21 dwellings per hectare. To go below this density would not make effective use of the land and would therefore not comply with the NPPF. A lower density within the same developable area would inevitably result in dwellings on larger plots, which in turn would make them more expensive to buy. This would defeat the point of providing a mix of dwellings (with the aim of achieving a balanced community) as required by the NPPF.

Notwithstanding our view that the access into the site would cause problems in terms of visual impact, safety, design and viability, Policy FAC2 in its current form proposes underdevelopment of the site and an approximate capacity of 45 dwellings would be more appropriate.

Other Matters

Policy FAC2 requires at least 50% of the dwellings to comprise appropriately-designed, age restricted housing for older persons. It is assumed that this applies to the overall number of dwellings provided, and would therefore apply to the affordable and market dwellings. This needs to be clarified in the policy wording. Whilst we support the provision of dwellings which have been designed specifically to address a need for housing for older persons in the District, we question the deliverability and viability of imposing age restrictions on those units. We explored this option for the current planning application, and could find no examples of sites which include age restricted units without a level of extra care being provided. Properties with age restrictions are usually within retirement villages or flatted schemes in urban areas, where older persons can live together and enjoy communal facilities as well as benefiting from a level of care. This cannot be provided on the site, and restricting properties to a certain age group would only serve to devalue the property, resulting in viability problems for the developer. To group the age restricted dwellings together equally would not be desirable as it would conflict with the overall aim of achieving mixed and balanced communities.

To address this problem, our planning application provides around 50% of the overall mix as dwellings suitable for older persons - for those wishing to downsize (through the provision of 1-bed or 2-bed ground floor apartments) as well as a large proportion of bungalows. Furthermore, all dwellings are proposed to be built to Part M4(2) adaptable homes standards, with a proportion of Part M4(3) wheelchair units. A similar approach could be used in the wording of the policy, instead of requiring dwellings to specifically be age restricted.

The provision of the doctor's surgery could only be viable if it is provided as a serviced plot. This should be reflected in the wording of the policy, which is currently ambiguous. The local GP who would deliver the surgery has sufficient funds to do so, and the development proceeds would be better spent on delivering the required 40% affordable housing requirement, which might otherwise suffer following viability testing.

Conclusions

The LAWF and ASPO for site FC2a should be reviewed in light of the above information and evidence provided by Allen Pyke Associates. As it stands, we do not consider there to be proper justification for the exclusion of FC2a from the allocated area. The approach taken in the LAWF is not tantamount to an LVIA and therefore cannot be used in the consideration of FC2a in the ASPO, where our proposal is assessed in more detail. Furthermore, we do not agree with the ASPO because it does not give due credit to the social and economic benefits of the proposed shop and extensive area of public open space. The harm attributed to the impact the proposal would have on the AONB is overly strict, and not justified by the evidence, and, along with a more positive assessment of the social and economic impacts of the scheme, FC2a should in fact score better overall than FC2 (in either of the two scenarios presented).

We propose that the site allocation in Policy FAC2 is amended to include FC2 and all of FC2a, with the developable area reduced to the western and central/northern parts of the Site. The eastern/southern parts should be designated as public open space for the entire community's benefit, to be maintained in perpetuity. A GP surgery and shop should also be included.

The wording of the policy should also be amended to reflect:

* a more appropriate site density;
* provision of older persons' accommodation but not age restricted;
* a serviced plot for a new doctor's surgery;
* a serviced plot for a shop at the site's entrance;
* public open space in the eastern part of the site;
* vehicular access located in the gap between trees on Pett Level Road; and
* buildings overlooking the access road to ensure effective use of land and natural surveillance.

Parts (v), (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Policy FAC2 are supported.

We are currently concerned that there are significant flaws in the proposed allocation for Land East of Waites Lane and we trust that our representations will be taken into account. Given that our planning application is a fundamental piece of evidence to the site allocation, and currently remains undetermined, we consider it important that we participate in the relevant hearing sessions.

We look forward to reviewing your Authority's response to these representations in due course.

Allen Pyke report:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The report has been prepared by Allen Pyke Associates, a registered practice of the Landscape Institute and member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, on behalf of Welbeck Land.

1.2. The purpose of this document is to review the findings of the Landscape Assessment of Wakeham's Farm, Fairlight Cove (LAWF, May 2018), which forms part of the evidence base for the emerging Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (DaSA), published for consultation by Rother District Council in October 2018. The DaSA implements the development strategy and core policies set out in the adopted Core Strategy (adopted September 2014), and allocates sites for specific uses, such as housing.

1.3. An outline planning application for up to 150 residential units, mini-supermarket and GP surgery together with associated open space and infrastructure was submitted by Welbeck Strategic Land in October 2018 (ref:RR/2018/2726/P), hereafter referred to as 'the Welbeck planning application'. The site is located on greenfield land on the northeast edge of Fairlight Cove, and is part of the High Weald AONB. The application site has been assessed by the LAWF for the DaSA and as a result, part of the site has been identified as a suitable location for approximately 30 dwellings and new doctor's surgery in the draft Plan. The allocation is set out in Policy FAC2: Land east of Waites Lane, Fairlight Cove. The remainder of the application site was not allocated, but we do not believe this has been adequately justified.

(The Policy allocation plan is given below: http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31153)

3. REVIEW OF THE LAWF

Scope and Limitations

2.1. The stated aim of the LAWF is to 'define the relative capacity of the landscape of the site area (refer to Map 3 Site Context at the rear of this document) to accommodate varying scales of development. The assessment will have regard to the scope for mitigation of potential development without detracting from the existing intrinsic character of the landscape'.

2.2. To inform the LAWF the study included:

a) Detailed analysis of the landscape character and visual baseline of the site and surrounding area.

b) An assessment of the landscape sensitivity and capacity of the area to accommodate change.

c) Opportunities will be identified for mitigation which would provide landscape enhancement.

2.3. The landscape capacity varies according to the type and nature of change being proposed. The type and amount change is crucial to determining the capacity. For example, a site may be capable of accommodating a small change to part of the area, but would not be able to accommodate the same type of change over a larger portion of its area. There is no description of the type or amount of development considered by the LAWF in determining capacity of each landscape character area. This means that the capacity should only be considered a starting point and cannot be used to determinate the acceptability (or not) of a specific proposed development.

2.4. The methodology given in the LAWF is in accordance with the latest version of Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3). This guidance also formed the basis for the methodology applied for the Landscape and Visual chapter of the Environmental Statement prepared for the Welbeck planning application. Although there are some variations in the definition of evaluation criteria.

2.5. Landscape capacity is determined using a formula which combines landscape character sensitivity, visual sensitivity and landscape value to give a score of high, medium, low or none. The score is not a reflection of the scale of potential development but an indication of whether or not any development would be acceptable. This means proposed development in an area with high capacity is more likely to be approved than in an area of low capacity, but is not guaranteed approval. Conversely, proposed development in an area of low capacity should not automatically be assumed to be unacceptable, but would be expected to require greater mitigation than the same development in an area of high capacity.

2.6. The LAWF does not assess a specific proposal and must therefore be considered at a high level only. The assessment of effects on landscape and visual effect of a specific development is considered by Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and which may draw different conclusions as to the acceptability of development within an area.

2.7. The following outline mitigation measures are considered by the LAWF:

* Retention and management of existing significant landscape features.
* New woodland planting to link with existing
* New tree belts to link with existing
* Creation of multifunctional green networks as planting, open space or recreational corridors.

2.8. This list is not comprehensive and fails to acknowledge embedded mitigation measures which may be incorporated into a proposed development, such as consideration of landscape factors with the layout, good design, appropriateness of materials and so on.

Review of Landscape Capacity of Area B

2.9. The LAWF refers to published Landscape Character Assessments at national, county and local level. These character areas were also reviewed in the Environmental Statement for the Welbeck planning application.

2.10. A detailed analysis by the LAWF of the landscape character and visual baseline identified five local character areas (Areas A-E). The area covered by the Welbeck planning application is identified as Area B. This area is sub-divided into Areas B1 and B2.

2.11. The site (Area B) comprises two arable fields. The west field (Area B1) is rectangular in shape. The west and north boundaries are defined by rear garden boundary treatments of properties on Waites Lane and Pett Level Road respectively. Its south boundary is formed by a ghyll stream and woodland which form the garden boundary of adjacent properties.

2.12. The east field (Area B2) is approximately four times larger than the west. It is triangular in shape and framed by Pett Level Road to the north and the watercourse to the south. There are two incomplete hedges in the northern part the field, which is used to grow small areas of different crops and for agricultural storage. The land becomes more open to the east. An overhead power line supported by timber poles runs along the south edge of the site and there is a water monitor station enclosed by a timber post and rail fence adjacent to the watercourse. These detracting elements are not identified in the sensitivity description of Areas B1 or B2.

2.13. The description of Settlement setting, form and edge and Historic character for Areas B1 and B2 are very similar, however the assessment of sensitivity is notably higher for Area B2 than for Area B1. This is not justified and raises the overall sensitivity of B2 to medium to high, resulting in a low to none capacity. With the exception of Visual Character, where B2 is more visible and open than
B1 and therefore more sensitive, the two areas are broadly similar in terms of other assessment criterion. The boundary between Areas B1 and B2 is defined by an existing gappy hedgerow, however it would be more accurate to acknowledge a gradual transition between the west edge of the site which is adjacent to the settlement boundary and the more open countryside to the east.

2.14. The LAWF assesses Area B1 as being of low to medium landscape and visual sensitivity and medium to high value, resulting in a medium capacity. In paragraph 4.3.2 it is suggested that Area B1 has capacity for 'some well-designed, high quality development of an appropriate density and scale'. This finding is consistent with our conclusions.

2.15. Area B2 is assessed by the LAWF as being of high value, and medium to high character sensitivity and high visual sensitivity, resulting in a low to no landscape capacity. The Environmental Statement also concluded that the site (Area B1 and B2 combined) was of high landscape and visual sensitivity and that the proposed development would have a temporary adverse effect on landscape character and visual amenity, but that these adverse effects could be successfully mitigated through the sensitive arrangement of proposed dwellings and retention of openness to the east. This implies that there is some capacity for well-designed development of an appropriate density and scale within Area B2 as well.

2.16. The LAWF states that due to the 'historically open in character [of Area B2] it would not be appropriate to introduce large scale woodland to screen or mitigate any proposed development. Proposals for landscape mitigation would not be effective in screening potential development from the very sensitive elevated viewpoints in the surrounding AONB'. We agree that the introduction of large scale woodland would not be appropriate in Area B2 and that views towards new development from some public viewpoints to the east could not be completely screened. Successful mitigation is not solely based on not being able to see the development, and other methods may be employed to ensure a new development fits well within its setting and can, in some cases, positively contribute to the landscape character, including restricting the developable area and providing open space within more sensitive parts of the site.

2.17. The stated aim of the LAWF is to assess capacity to accommodate varying scales of development, however it is not clear what scale of development has been considered.

2.18. The LAWF assesses the visual sensitivity of Area B2, but does not acknowledge the varying levels of visibility and character within the area. Given the detailed, local, level of the LAWF, this might have been expected. The eastern and northern part of Area B2, are elevated and more prominent from public viewpoints to the east and from Hastings Country Park. The southern part of the area, adjacent to the watercourse is largely obscured by topography and intervening vegetation and buildings. The western part of Area B2, is partially enclosed by existing hedgerows (which are not given any value in the LAWF) and views are diminished by distance. Furthermore, the character of the western part of Area B2 is more enclosed and cluttered than the more open, eastern part. We would argue that the western part of Area B2 is less sensitive than the eastern part and has greater capacity for development, subject to appropriate mitigation.

2.19. The scale of development proposed by the Welbeck planning application was informed by an assessment of landscape character and visual sensitivity and, as a result of the findings, developable area was limited to only around half of the whole site area (i.e Area B1 and the western part of Area B2). The findings are illustrated by 2763-AS-01 Figure 1-3 in Appendix A at the rear of this document. The scheme proposals seek to create a large area of open space with some tree planting to the east, which will maintain a sense of separation between the development and most sensitive local landscape character area (Area E), but does not seek to block views of the proposed new buildings, which will be well designed and appropriate to the local vernacular. The LAWF acknowledges that existing properties on the edge of settlement are visible in views from the west. The introduction of new properties which address the open space in a more positive manner would be beneficial to these views in the long term.

Recommended Mitigation

2.20. The LAWF concludes that, of the local character areas identified, only Areas B1 and D (which is already developed and is an established part of Fairlight Cove) have medium capacity for development. Areas A, B2, C and E were identified as low or low to none. The report recommends the following for development in B1:

a) the treed hedgerow which clearly defines and separates Area B1 from Area B2 could be reinforced with native woodland planting of trees and understory shrubs. This would clearly define the new village edge and create a defensible built up area boundary. This would not detract from the character of the local area and it would reinforce the transition from built up area to countryside.

Comment: The existing hedge would benefit from being gapped up to improve structure, however it would not be considered appropriate to widen this feature into a semi-woodland. The hedge is an historic field boundary (as noted by the LAWF) and should not be significantly changed. As noted by the LAWF, when considering Area B2, the introduction of large scale woodland would not be appropriate as it would detract from the openness of the area.

b) A landscape buffer should be provided between the ghyll stream on the southern boundary of the site and any potential development. This should be open in character and could incorporate public open space in association with SUDS features.

Comment: We support this recommendation.

c) A density of development which is in keeping with the existing built up areas and similar sized gardens. High quality design for buildings, access roads and open spaces which would reflect the High Weald local vernacular.

Comment: A high quality scheme is supported but to provide similar sized gardens and large detached dwellings to reflect adjoining areas would not make efficient use of the land and would not provide a mixed and balanced community.

d) An access arising from Pett Level Road which would not detract from the quality or character of the High Weald Landscape. This would need to be as short as possible depending on highway safety requirements for the junction with Pett Level Road.

Comment: Access from Pett Level Road would require a route through part of Area B2. The introduction of a road with no development on either side could appear out of character and be a detracting element within Area B2. Due to highway safety requirements, it would not be possible for the road to be constructed as indicated by the Policy FAC2 Detail Map if it were to serve only the western field. A longer route and wider angled junction off Pett Level Road would be required, meaning the road would extend beyond the boundary of the allocated area.

e) An avenue of tree planting along both sides of the site access road.

Comment: A treelined avenue would be an incongruous element within the landscape which comprises of mainly hedgerow vegetation. There are no tree lined avenues outside of settlement boundaries within the vicinity and this is not a feature associated with the High Weald AONB, where most rural roads are lined by hedges and occasional mature trees or skirt the edge of woodland. The road would be the only vehicular and pedestrian route into the new development but would not be overlooked (unless some appropriate development is allowed in B2). Treatment to the sides of the road must ensure there is good visibility and safety for all users, while not appearing too intrusive on the adjacent landscape.

f) Tree planting in public areas within the development to break up the overall mass of the development.

Comment: We support this recommendation.

4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM LVIA

3.1. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Allen Pyke Associates made the following conclusions in relation to the landscape and visual sensitivity of the site (Areas B1 and B2) and the susceptibility to change:

* The East Sussex County Landscape Assessment locates the site in the High Wealden Coast Character Area. The site makes a small portion of the rural character adjacent to the Fairlight Cove settlement edge, which is described by the ESCLA as being modern and suburban.

* The site falls within the High Weald AONB but forms an insignificant part of the overall designation. While the site was assessed as being part of a high value landscape, its position on the edge of Fairlight detracts from the character which is not tranquil or remote. The position of the site reduces its sensitivity and the LVIA found that it has some potential to accommodate change without substantial harm to the landscape character surrounding the site and provide an attractive and appropriate transition between the AONB and newly extended settlement boundary.

* The site is visible from a small number of publically accessible locations and from some private residential properties surrounding the site boundary. The effects on views from private properties were considered and it was concluded that, while there would be an adverse effect on a small number of private individuals, the properties would not become unattractive places to live and there would be no detriment to public interest as a result of changes to private views.

* Restricting the proposed development area to the west part of the site (i.e. Area B1 and western part of Area B2) considering the orientation of properties, provision open space would mitigate the most significant adverse effects on visual amenity around the development and over time would contribute positively to views and integration of the site into the urban setting.

* Opportunities to mitigate effects on visual amenity and landscape character, maintain and enhance landscape character and to protect important views are present. Restriction of development in the most sensitive part of the site would significantly reduce the impact on landscape character and visual amenity and offer opportunities for recreation and to increase wildlife benefits.

3.2. The LVIA concluded that the site has capacity to accommodate a larger developable area than that identified by the draft Local Plan policy. With careful design and management a proposed development within the site could create an attractive transition between the suburban edge of Fairlight Cove and the wider countryside and a lasting settlement edge.

4. CONCLUSIONS

4.1. The LAWF follows the latest guidance for assessment for landscape character and landscape capacity assessments. The LAWF seeks to define the relative capacity of the landscape of the site area to accommodate varying scales of development, however due to the limitations of the scope of the assessment, only a conclusion as to whether any development is appropriate can be reached. There is no consideration of varying scales of development within the site, which is essential given resulting varying impacts.

4.2. The assessment divided the study area into five local character areas, one of which (Area B) was further sub-divided. Area B comprises the application area of the Welbeck planning application. The division of this area into two character areas appears arbitrary based on an existing hedgeline and does not properly reflect the gradual transition between the two areas. The LAWF found that Area B1, the western field had medium capacity and that B2 has low to no capacity. As a result Area B1 has been allocated in the DaSA for up to only 30 dwellings and a GP surgery and no development is allocated in Area B2. We contest these conclusions.

4.3. The mitigation measures recommended by the LAWF to ensure development of Area B1 would be acceptable are limited in scope and are not considered appropriate in some cases, particularly in relation to the treatment of the access road and wide landscape buffer along the eastern boundary. It is acknowledged that the scope of the LAWF does not require comprehensive or fully resolved mitigation measures to be provided, but this is important when assessing the site's potential for housing development.

4.4. Area B2 was assessed as having low or no capacity by the LAWF as it would not be possible to screen a development within this area. This is felt to be an oversimplification as it does not fully consider the scope for embedded mitigation, such as restricting the extent of the development area and providing good principles design to create an appropriate edge to the development.

4.5. The LVIA carried out by Allen Pyke Associates found that the site had capacity for a larger developable area than that given in the draft Local Plan policy. An appropriate development would consider the changing sensitivity of the site with medium density development proposed in the least sensitive areas to the west, reducing to low density in the east, where a greater sensitivity has been identified. The most sensitive part of the site, i.e. the eastern part of Area B2, would remain undeveloped and become public open space. The provision of open space would be improve access to the countryside, in line with aspirations of the AONB and would not be harmful to public views.

4.6. It is considered that development which is appropriate in scale and sensitive to views and the character of the AONB could be accommodated in both Areas B1 and B2 where suitable embedded mitigation measures are implemented.

APPENDIX A

Allen Pyke Report
(http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=32471)

MAP 3 Site Context from LAWF(http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31148

2763-AS-01: Figure 1 Landscape Attributes - Opportunities and Constraints (http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31149

Figure 2 Landscape Capacity (http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31150

Figure 3 Initial Landscape Concept (http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31151

Landscape Masterplan from the Welbeck planning application (http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31147)

Western Field Only - Sk12
(http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=32472)

Indicative Access Drawing
(http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=32473)

Fairlight Cove

11.128 (fig 50) Whilst this site for a "comprehensive scheme" may be justifiable, the poor road network should be noted and it must not set a precedent for further development into the AONB countryside in this locality.

The information on the website includes references to the, now defunct, Fairlight Neighbourhood plan and its associated survey which is quoted to support the arguments for developing the site. In particular figures are cited such as "the majority of respondents supported the development of a mix of housing types in the parish.." However this is disingenuous, to say the least. If the Neighbourhood Plan survey is used to support the case there should be honesty about its findings. Firstly 815 surveys were distributed but only 120 were returned, a response rate of a mere 15%. "A majority of responses" is therefore only 61 people. Drawing any conclusions from such a small sample is irresponsible.

Even if the survey response is relevant it is dishonest to use its contents selectively. For example nowhere is quoted a key finding from the survey that:

"A majority of respondents have indicated no desire for supporting development in the Parish".

The issue here is not really whether the Neighbourhood Plan survey can be used to support the development or not. Rather it is about the integrity of the case. The selective use and manipulation of evidence to suit a case does not lend itself to future trust in the proposals.

The site is a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and building upon it would seriously degrade the natural environment in the area.

The plan states that Fairlight already has a larger population than other villages but with relatively fewer services and less infrastructure. The local infrastructure is barely adequate for the current population and would be strained further by an additional 30 houses. Schools are not available for the new resident children, the narrow local roads are currently difficult to negotiate at times due to traffic, the bus service is minimal. The proposed development will inevitably lead to increased car traffic with the attendant noise, air pollution and congestion.

There are serious drainage issues on the proposed site, that have precluded development in the past, and the capacity of the local waste water and sewerage services to cope with 30 extra dwellings is doubtful.

Infrastructure enhancements are generally a welcome addition to a community. A new GP surgery, with rehabilitation beds etc, is a key element of the development and sounds like a very good idea. I have been professionally involved with developments such as these for many years, including the most successful one in the country, a national exemplar and "Vanguard Site" on the North Kent coast. The majority of these proposals fail to materialise, or take a number of years to become operational. The reasons are several and varied and include:

* the inability to attract the necessary number of GPs and even more critically, the support staff and specialisms needed (This area has a particularly bad record at attracting staff).
* the need for the facilities to be properly commissioned by the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group and be supported by other healthcare providers such as local GPs, hospitals and other services who will be affected either because their provision overlaps with the new proposals, or because funds will need to be diverted to finance the new facilities
* the need for any such developments to be included in the long-term planning arrangements of the NHS which will require the preparation of a detailed business case and agreement across the NHS planning footprint