Development And Site Allocations Local Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) Site Allocations - Land off Spindlewood Drive - Objection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

The two sites allocations closest to Pevensey Levels (BEX9 and BEX10) state that proposals will be permitted where "an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the Habitats Regulations demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels Special Area of Conservation/RAMSAR site". For consistency and protection of the integrity of the Pevensey Levels, the requirement to carry out an AA, that demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels should be applied to the other three site allocations including; Policies BEX6, BEX7 and CAT1.

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.