Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Summary
1. Our representations in respect of Policy OSS1 are that there is no adequate
justification for the overall level of housing provision proposed, and the Core
Strategy is both unjustified and inconsistent with emerging national policy in this
respect. In addition, this Core Strategy has been prepared on the premise that
RSS does not apply, and the process of production is therefore procedurally
flawed in the context of the Cala 2 decision.

Representations
2. Paragraphs 7.9-7.10 of the Core Strategy notes that the South-East Plan
established a target for Rother District of 5,600 new homes 2006-2026, a figure
that took account of a broad assessment of local, sub-regional and regional
housing needs, weighed against the suitability of the district to accommodate that
level of growth. The level of growth equated to 280 units per annum.

3. The South East Plan also provides that the majority of this growth should be
within the coastal zone (i.e. Bexhill), and the previous iteration of the Core
Strategy sought the provision of 3,100-3,300 units at Bexhill accordingly.

4. Having regard to the Council's technical evidence, we seek below to examine the factors that have led to the proposed reduction in provision below the RSS target in the current draft Core Strategy (the shortfall being manifest both in terms of the absolute level of housing provision being less than the RSS, and the fact that the plan period has been extended by 2 years compared to the RSS, but with no consequent increase in the number of homes).

5. It should however also be borne in mind that at the current time, and until the RSS is revoked, it remains the case that there is a legal requirement for general
conformity with the RSS, and the provisions of the Core Strategy in respect of
housing fail that legal requirement. At this stage, it is not known when the RSS will
be revoked.

6. Moreover, the fact that the Council openly acknowledges that in preparing this
submission Core Strategy it has taken account of the likely future revocation of
RSS means that it has fallen foul of one of the key findings of the Court of Appeal
R (Cala Homes South Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government [2011] wherein Sullivan LJ stated:

"It would be unlawful for a local planning authority preparing, or a Planning
Inspector examining, development plan documents to have regard to the
proposal to abolish regional strategies" (para 24).

7. The preparation of this Core Strategy on the presumption of future revocation is unlawful.

8. Leaving aside the issue of legality and turning to the issue of evidence, Section 2 of the Background Paper explains the evolution of the Core Strategy and
summarises the responses to consultation at previous stages. This section simply
provides a discussion on the content of previous documents, but it does not in any
way provide evidence to support the current change in direction.

9. Section 2 also explains at some length the reservations that it had regarding the level of housing provision set out in the South East Plan (Section 2 of that
document, pages 6-13), and in the expectation that the South East Plan will now
be revoked, it is evident that this history of reservation is now finding expression
in the lower housing figure now being proposed. The fact remains however that
whatever reservations the District may have had, it did support the South East
Plan's housing provisions (subject to the provision of the Bexhill Hastings Link
Road), as the final paragraph in Section 2 (para 2.33) makes clear.

10. Sections 4 and 5 of the Background Document sets out an account of the
demographic factors influencing housing need and the supply of market and
affordable housing. There are a number of important conclusions that we would
draw from the analysis presented (coupled with the findings of the SHMA), which
include:
(1) That even the South East Plan housing provision figures would act as a
constraint on the 'natural' population growth of the area - paragraph 4.7 of
the Background Paper makes clear that based purely on births, deaths
and migration, forecasts suggest that the population of the district would
rise to 104,600 by 2026, compared to a projected 92,174 by 2026 based
on the proposed level of new housing (although the graph at Figure 3 on
page 23 shows over 95,000 people by 2026, and it is not clear which figure
is correct). These increases are from a base of around 90,000 people in
2010.
It is evident therefore from these projections that the South East Plan
housing figure of 5,600 is actually only catering for a small proportion of
the population growth that would otherwise be occurring if housing
provision were not constrained, and clearly the lesser provision figure set
out in the draft Core Strategy will act as an even greater constraint against
an evidently high level of housing demand (which in turn will effect
affordability).

(2) The aging population profile means that the causes of housing need
primarily result from in-migration to the District. As the Government has
made clear, however (see "Planning for Growth" March 2011, and the draft
NPPF), accommodating migration pressures is part and parcel of planning
for new housing. There is a tendency amongst Local Planning Authorities
to view migration as somehow being an externality that it is within their
power to control, and that by adjusting housing provision to suit locally
arising needs (i.e. excluding migration) that this is somehow to the benefit
of local communities. The fact is that Local Planning Authorities have no
control over the occupation of property within their areas, and people are
free to move around the country as they wish. In areas where there is
pressure on housing from in-migrants, restricting supply simply means that in-migrants and locally arising households have to compete for a stock of
housing that is of insufficient size to cater for both groups, with the
inevitable result that house prices rise, and many local people will be
forced to move out of an area due to the lack of accommodation. Ironically,
planning to only meet locally arising housing needs in areas of high
demand for in-migrants actually acts against the stated objective of
housing local people. Migration is therefore part of the 'natural' change of
population within any given area, and is no more subject to local authority
control than births, deaths, or falling household size.

On that basis, the graph at Figure 10 on page 27 is of interest in terms of
showing the significance of migration as a factor in housing need, but is is
wholly irrelevant as a tool for policy formation, since zero net migration is
simply not a real-world scenario.

(3) It is relevant to note from Figures 5 and 6 that under the policy based
projection in Figure 5 (i.e. with the constraint of the South East Plan
housing figures), Rother District loses a higher proportion of the 35-49 age
group, and retains less of the 20-34 age group, than it would do under the
Trend-based projections (i.e. with no housing restriction) shown in Figure
6. In other words, restricting the supply of new homes appears to have a
negative effect on the Council's stated objective to maintain a balanced
population, because restricting housing supply doesn't affect the
proportion of older people, but does restrict the proportion of people of
working age.

(4) The SHMA confirms that based on household projections of 5,220 new
households between 2006-2026, the South East Plan proposed growth of
5,600 new homes over the same period is in fact appropriate (taking in to
account also that as a result of standard vacancy rates, the number of new
homes always exceeds the number of new households).

(5) The need for affordable housing significantly exceeds the supply of
affordable housing (paragraphs 5.9-5.10 of the Background Paper in
particular refer). Bexhill and the rural areas are the main areas of
affordable housing need.

(6) A significant proportion of need arises from the growth in single person
households, but as the Background Paper correctly points out at
paragraph 5.23, the size of home occupied is determined primarily by
income and wealth rather than need per se, and therefore single person
households do not necessarily occupy single person housing units.
(7) House prices in Rother are not significantly different to East Sussex as a
whole (Figure 14 of the Background Paper), albeit lower than the average
for the South East, which is obviously a factor of the relative peripherality
of the district to London compared to some of the home counties. As in all
parts of the country, housebuilding rates fluctuate on a year by year basis
(Figure 17), but the report notes that the housing market is somewhat
stronger in the inland rural areas (paragraph 5.6)

11. Section 6 of the Background Paper explains the relationship between new
housing and economic performance, and notes that economic performance
appears to be being constrained by a lack of suitable housing, in particular a lack
of affordable housing to help the economically active young stay in the area, and
a lack of housing generally which results in labour being drawn in from outside the
District (para 6.6 of the Background Paper).

12. Section 8 of the Background Paper sets out the various environmental
designations that apply to the District. The salient point to note here is that none
of these have changed since the South East Plan was adopted. Paragraph 11.11
in the conclusion confirms that the South East Plan's proposals for 280 units per
annum took account of strategic environmental constraints.

13. Section 9 considers Infrastructure Constraints, and concludes that, aside from the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, there are no other "showstoppers" to housing
provision. As set out elsewhere in our submissions, we strongly dispute any
suggestion that development at West Bexhill is dependent in any way on the
Bexhill-Hastings Link Road.

14. Section 10 considers housing delivery. It notes in the first instance that the scale of potentially suitable housing land equates to some 6,800 units according to the SHLAA, some 20% more than the South East Plan figure, thereby confirming that there is in fact no shortfall in suitable land to meet the SE Plan figure.

15. We turn then finally to the conclusions of the Background Paper in respect of the matter of the scale of housing growth, which are set out in paragraphs 11.16-
11.19.

16. At paragraph 11.17, the Background Paper says that the "further appraisals set out in the preceding sections in relation to sustainability and deliverability" of
development at Bexhill, Rye and the Hastings fringes lead to the view that the
scale of development "for those areas" should be reduced.

17. The problem here though is that, as per our analysis above shows, there is in fact nothing in the Background Paper (or the Sustainability Appraisal) to lead to that conclusion, even for the specific areas mentioned.

18. In fact, the evidence presented by the Council demonstrates the opposite:
housing need and demand remain high, there are identified shortfalls in affordable
housing provision, there are sufficient suitable sites to deliver a higher housing
requirement from the SHLAA, and the document itself admits that economic
performance is being hampered by a lack of suitable housing.

19. Reliance on lower house-building rates as a result of the recession as an excuse for a lower housing target is a policy of the "tail wagging the dog", and also runs the risk of becoming a self fulfilling prophesy - once targets are lowered, housebuilding will itself be constrained by a lack of allocated land;

20. There appear in fact to be only two main reasons underlying the reduction in the proposed number of news homes, and these are set out at paragraph 7.23 of the Core Strategy itself. Here the Core Strategy seeks to justify the reduced rate firstly on the delay of a few years in the projected opening of the Link Road, and
secondly on the fact that housing completions between 1991 and 2011 have run
at 241 units per annum, which is less than the 280 per annum proposed in the
South East Plan.

21. Both arguments are effectively covered by our comment above (i.e. that a
previous shortfall in housing completions should not be used as an argument for
perpetuating a shortfall), and neither of the two points raised by the Council at
7.23 should be accorded any significant weight accordingly, even if the assertions
are correct.

22. However, dealing with the two points in more detail, over the lifetime of the Plan to 2028, the delay in the opening of the Link Road is not a significant factor, and whilst it might affect the delivery of the Council's Masterplan for North-East Bexhill in the short-term, it should not materially affect delivery overall (particularly since West Bexhill is capable of delivering homes earlier in the Plan period to off-set any delay).

23. Secondly, in relation to average build rates from 1991, it was of course fairly
common across the South East region (which is generally a constrained area for
new building) that meeting the higher rates of growth set out in the South East
Plan meant increasing housing delivery over historic rates, by bringing more land
forward for development. Historic rates should not therefore be a guide to future
rates, and (as the PINS guidance states), nor should long-term Core Strategies
be prepared on the basis of the current recession, but on 'normal market
conditions'.

24. The scale of completions achieved in the last 5 years, which include significant
downturns in completion rates, in fact tend to suggest that 280 units per annum in
'normal market conditions' is very much achievable. From the latest Annual
Monitoring Report on the Council's website, we understand that completions
between 2006 and 2010 (i.e. the first four years of the Plan period) equated to
1135 units at a rate of around 283 per annum, including individual years at over
400 per annum. The 2011 Housing Land Supply paper includes a figure of 222
units for 2010/11, making the total five year supply 2006-2011 to be 1,357 units,
at a rate of 271 units per annum. Notwithstanding the current recession, there is
nothing to suggest that, with suitable and deliverable land available,
housebuilding rates could not meet or indeed exceed 280 per annum.

25. There is perhaps a simple explanation for lower rates of development from 1991. Firstly, the scale of development required as a result of the previous Structure Plan (the East Sussex and Brighten and Hove Structure Plan) was largely the same as the rate proposed in the South-East Plan, with a requirement of 5,500 units between 1991 and 2011 (275 per annum). In the event, that level of provision will not end up being provided, but this is essentially because 1,100
dwellings in the Local Plan were allocated to North-East Bexhill, to be developed
alongside the delivery of the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road, and on the basis that
these would be delivered by 2011.

26. The fact that North-East Bexhill has not even started, let alone been built out,
helps to explain the shortfall in completions in previous years, since a site for
some 1,000 units has remained idle through the Structure Plan period, and
therefore for a long time there has been a 1,000 unit 'hole' in the available land
supply, and the consequent shortfall in completions in the earlier part of the
Structure Plan period was never properly corrected at the time of the Local Plan
Inquiry (notwithstanding the concerns that we raised on this very point at that
time).

27. Ironically, the over-reliance on North-East Bexhill and the Link Road in this new Core Strategy suggests a strong chance of history repeating itself.

28. For all of the above reasons, we consider that the reduced scale of housing
provision compared to the South East Plan renders the Core Strategy:

(a) Legally unsound, both whilst the South East Plan remains, but irrespective
of revocation, unsound because decision making during the preparation of
the plan has taken in to account an unlawful consideration (as per the Cala
judgement);

(b) Unjustified, since there is no substantive evidence to support a reduced
housing figure, against substantive evidence to the contrary; and

(c) Not consistent with national policy (particularly PPS3, Planning for Growth,
and the emerging NPPF).

Proposed Amendments
29. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, and in the presence of substantive evidence supporting the housing provisions of the South East Plan, we consider that the housing requirement should be amended to reflect the South East Plan provision, extended to the end date of 2028 i.e. 5,600 units 2006-2026 plus 560 units 2026-2028 (280 per annum x 2) = 6,160.

Spatial Vision (Chapter 5, Page 23)

Summary
1. Our concern in respect of the Spatial Vision is that there is a lack of clarity as to
the Council's objective for new housing, which will render the Vision/Core Strategy ineffective.

Representations
2. The Vision makes no explicit recognition of the substantive need to deliver new
housing to meet local needs. The 5th paragraph refers to "Development and
change has contributed significantly to meeting local needs", but it is unclear as to
what "local needs" this particular paragraph is referring to, and there is no mention of meeting the need for housing (for all sections of the community) anywhere else in the Vision.

3. If paragraph 5 is intended to refer to or encompass meeting housing needs, then it is in any event extremely unclear as to what the Vision actually entails. The first part of the paragraph refers to "meeting local needs and aspirations", but the two are not necessarily the same thing, and in many cases the aspirations of some sections of the community can be very different to the needs of other sections of the community.

4. This paragraph goes on to state that meeting "local needs" will take account of
both "the district's circumstances, as well as to regional and sub-regional
imperatives". Again, on the face of it, this sentence is potentially contradictory in
nature, but essentially the problem is that the Vision is offering no clarity as to
what the Core Strategy is trying to achieve in terms of addressing 'local needs',
and therefore the result will be that the Core Strategy will be ineffectual and
undeliverable, because it has no clear Vision.

Proposed Amendments
5. The Spatial Vision needs to be revised to provide a clearer framework to enable the delivery of new housing to meet all sectors of the community.

Affordable Housing - Para 15.24 and Policy LHN2 (pages 118-119)

Summary
1. Delivering affordable housing is listed as the second "main issue" for the Core Strategy at paragraph 4.2 of the Draft CS (page 16). The Draft CS notes:

"The relative affordability of housing in Rother has been a significant issue for some time and is getting worse. Research in 2004 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed Rother ranked in the top 30 'least affordable' districts in Britain".

2. We do not doubt either the significance or the severity of the issue. Our representations are concerned with whether or not the Core Strategy provides the
most appropriate response to the issue of affordable housing delivery, having regard to that context. Our submissions are essentially twofold:

(1) The significant need for affordable housing delivery is not properly reflected in the wider strategy for the provision of new housing, with both the reduction in the overall level of planned growth and the manner in which that growth is proposed to be accommodated acting against the interests of affordable housing delivery; and

(2) That the proposed Affordable Housing Policy itself is not sufficiently robust
in terms of either the thresholds for affordable housing or the overall target.

Representations
3. The Core Strategy notes at paragraph 15.24 that, based on the 2005 Housing
Needs Survey, the requirement for new affordable housing (being the overall
need for affordable housing minus the available stock via re-lets) equates to 256
dwellings per annum. The paragraph goes on to state that providing sufficient new
development to deliver this would be "unsustainable" (no specific explanation is
given), and that therefore the Council has adopted a target of 50 dwellings per
annum i.e. a level of provision that equates for about 20% of the actual need.

4. New market housing remains the most likely means by which affordable housing will be delivered in the future, particularly given the constraints on RSL budgets.

5. According to the 2011 Affordable Housing Background Paper (Table 1, page 6),
of the 178 affordable housing units delivered between 2005 and 2009, 50% came
from s106 agreements on private housing schemes, and 50% came from RSL
schemes, but that percentage will be affected firstly by the downturn in private
housebuilding over that period, and secondly by future constraints on RSL grant,
which will increasingly reduce RSL-only schemes.

6. So the decision to reduce the overall scale of new housing provision in the District below the level proposed in the South East Plan, and then potentially to reduce provision still further in the event that the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road does not arise, is a conscious decision to deliver less affordable housing than would
otherwise be possible.

7. We understand the 'balanced scorecard' approach adopted in the AH Background Paper which explains how the various affordable housing percentages are derived (i.e. for Bexhill, the level of affordable housing provision takes in to account the viability of delivering both the affordable housing and other community benefits).

8. However, it is not clear from the Background Paper why the decision was taken to set the threshold for affordable housing at 15 units at Bexhill, when at paragraph 4.8, the Background Paper notes that there is no evidence that applying affordable housing quotas to sites smaller than 10 units would be any less viable than those at more than 10 units.

9. Similarly, there is no clear explanation as to where the target of 50 units per
annum referred to at paragraph 15.24 comes from (compared to, say, the current
Housing Strategy target of 70 units per annum).

10. We appreciate that raising the percentage of affordable housing required in new developments will be counter-productive if that simply makes the development unviable, and therefore we do not suggest altering the thresholds, since these have been properly assessed.

11. However, three relatively straightforward ways of increasing affordable housing delivery would be to:

(a) Lower the site size threshold in Bexhill (as the main urban area, Bexhill is
the primary source of supply of new housing, and many sites will be of a
smaller scale and hence there is a missed opportunity for supply);

(b) Maintain the level of new housing at the rate set by the South East Plan,
rather than trying to lower housing provision overall; and

(c) Facilitate the early delivery of the strategic growth locations identified in
the Core Strategy at Bexhill, since these will be the main sources of affordable housing supply.

12. Following on from the above, we consider that paragraph 15.24 and Policy LHN2 of the Core Strategy are unsound because:

(1) The affordable housing target has not been Justified;

(2) The site size threshold for Bexhill has not been Justified, and nor is the policy the most appropriate having regard to affordable housing delivery.

Proposed Amendments

13. In order to remedy the Core Strategy, the following amendments are required:

(1) Overall affordable housing target to be adjusted having regard to the
amended overall level of housing supply (set out in our representations to
OSS1) and having regard to revised and justified site thresholds;

(2) Policy LHN2 amended in respect of revised and justified site thresholds.

Affordable Housing - Para 15.24 and Policy LHN2 (pages 118-119)

Summary
1. Delivering affordable housing is listed as the second "main issue" for the Core Strategy at paragraph 4.2 of the Draft CS (page 16). The Draft CS notes:

"The relative affordability of housing in Rother has been a significant issue for some time and is getting worse. Research in 2004 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed Rother ranked in the top 30 'least affordable' districts in Britain".

2. We do not doubt either the significance or the severity of the issue. Our representations are concerned with whether or not the Core Strategy provides the
most appropriate response to the issue of affordable housing delivery, having regard to that context. Our submissions are essentially twofold:

(1) The significant need for affordable housing delivery is not properly reflected in the wider strategy for the provision of new housing, with both the reduction in the overall level of planned growth and the manner in which that growth is proposed to be accommodated acting against the interests of affordable housing delivery; and

(2) That the proposed Affordable Housing Policy itself is not sufficiently robust
in terms of either the thresholds for affordable housing or the overall target.

Representations
3. The Core Strategy notes at paragraph 15.24 that, based on the 2005 Housing
Needs Survey, the requirement for new affordable housing (being the overall
need for affordable housing minus the available stock via re-lets) equates to 256
dwellings per annum. The paragraph goes on to state that providing sufficient new
development to deliver this would be "unsustainable" (no specific explanation is
given), and that therefore the Council has adopted a target of 50 dwellings per
annum i.e. a level of provision that equates for about 20% of the actual need.

4. New market housing remains the most likely means by which affordable housing will be delivered in the future, particularly given the constraints on RSL budgets.

5. According to the 2011 Affordable Housing Background Paper (Table 1, page 6),
of the 178 affordable housing units delivered between 2005 and 2009, 50% came
from s106 agreements on private housing schemes, and 50% came from RSL
schemes, but that percentage will be affected firstly by the downturn in private
housebuilding over that period, and secondly by future constraints on RSL grant,
which will increasingly reduce RSL-only schemes.

6. So the decision to reduce the overall scale of new housing provision in the District below the level proposed in the South East Plan, and then potentially to reduce provision still further in the event that the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road does not arise, is a conscious decision to deliver less affordable housing than would
otherwise be possible.

7. We understand the 'balanced scorecard' approach adopted in the AH Background Paper which explains how the various affordable housing percentages are derived (i.e. for Bexhill, the level of affordable housing provision takes in to account the viability of delivering both the affordable housing and other community benefits).

8. However, it is not clear from the Background Paper why the decision was taken to set the threshold for affordable housing at 15 units at Bexhill, when at paragraph 4.8, the Background Paper notes that there is no evidence that applying affordable housing quotas to sites smaller than 10 units would be any less viable than those at more than 10 units.

9. Similarly, there is no clear explanation as to where the target of 50 units per
annum referred to at paragraph 15.24 comes from (compared to, say, the current
Housing Strategy target of 70 units per annum).

10. We appreciate that raising the percentage of affordable housing required in new developments will be counter-productive if that simply makes the development unviable, and therefore we do not suggest altering the thresholds, since these have been properly assessed.

11. However, three relatively straightforward ways of increasing affordable housing delivery would be to:

(a) Lower the site size threshold in Bexhill (as the main urban area, Bexhill is
the primary source of supply of new housing, and many sites will be of a
smaller scale and hence there is a missed opportunity for supply);

(b) Maintain the level of new housing at the rate set by the South East Plan,
rather than trying to lower housing provision overall; and

(c) Facilitate the early delivery of the strategic growth locations identified in
the Core Strategy at Bexhill, since these will be the main sources of affordable housing supply.

12. Following on from the above, we consider that paragraph 15.24 and Policy LHN2 of the Core Strategy are unsound because:

(1) The affordable housing target has not been Justified;

(2) The site size threshold for Bexhill has not been Justified, and nor is the policy the most appropriate having regard to affordable housing delivery.

Proposed Amendments

13. In order to remedy the Core Strategy, the following amendments are required:

(1) Overall affordable housing target to be adjusted having regard to the
amended overall level of housing supply (set out in our representations to
OSS1) and having regard to revised and justified site thresholds;

(2) Policy LHN2 amended in respect of revised and justified site thresholds.