Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm

The comments below are made in relation to Policy BEX2: Land at Preston Hall Farm, Sidley.

Land at Preston Hall Farm was allocated for residential development in the Rother Local Plan 2006 under Policy BX3 as part of the wider urban extension to North East Bexhill. The DaSA proposes to continue to allocate the land at Preston Hall for residential development under Policy BEX2. The new policy would supersede the allocation in the 2006 plan, once adopted.

Proposed Policy BEX2 allocates Preston Hall Farm for "a comprehensive scheme comprising residential development and amenity open space." The policy contains six conditions that development proposals are required to meet. Comments are made on each below:

i) Approximately 135 dwellings are provided, of which 30% are affordable

The number of dwellings the site can deliver is dependent on a number of different factors including changes in affordable housing tenure requirements and the potential introduction of the nationally described space standards and requirements for accessible and adaptable homes (as proposed in Policies DHG1 and DHG2 in the DaSA).

PHSE supports the policy requirement for the delivery of approximately 135 dwellings on site provided that, in practice, the policy provides sufficient flexibility to take into account potential changes in total dwelling numbers resulting from external influences. We request the supporting text to the policy is amended to recognise that whilst approximately 135 units is the target site capacity, a number of factors will influence the final number of dwellings delivered.

The adopted Rother Core Strategy establishes the requirement for 30% affordable housing on development sites within Bexhill. The respondent does not seek to challenge this policy. However, it is considered that the requirement in relation to Preston Hall Farm should allow some flexibility of approach.

The viability of residential development is a key component when determining the appropriate obligations required upon the grant of planning permission. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states "To ensure viability, the costs of any requirement likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for Affordable Housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking into account the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable" (Paragraph 173).

Planning Policy Guidance (Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 23b-006-20140306) further clarifies that "where local planning authorities are requiring affordable housing obligations or tariff style contributions to infrastructure, they should be flexible in their requirements." Furthermore, "policy should be clear that such planning obligations will take into account specific site circumstances."
This is taken through in Policy LHN2 (Affordable Housing) of Rother District Council's Core Strategy 2014 which states "Where it can be demonstrated that these requirements would either render otherwise suitable development unviable, or where the local need for affordable housing would no longer justify the above levels, the Council will respectively expect the proportion of affordable housing to be the most that does not undermine viability, or is needed locally."

Circumstances that impact development viability are subject to change, especially in times that are potentially more politically volatile. Policy BEX2 should therefore be amended to allow flexibility of affordable housing provision should evidence be demonstrated in support of an alternative approach. This amendment would be in accord with both national and local planning policy in respect of affordable housing.

The following policy text is recommended for part (i) so that it accords with Policy LHN2 of the Core Strategy:

* "Approximately 135 dwellings are provided, of which 30% are affordable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not viable to do so, in which case an appropriate affordable housing percentage will be agreed between the Council and applicant."

ii) The development provides an amenity open space centred on the existing pond. The layout of the site will be such that the green will be afforded passive surveillance from adjacent residential properties

The respondent supports this point. The existing trees and pond to the centre of the site are considered an important biodiversity and amenity asset and could feasibly be incorporated into the final scheme design. It should be noted, however, with reference to part (i) above on housing numbers, that the amenity open space represents a constraint to the total number of dwellings that can be delivered at the site.

iii) A new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access is achieved off Watergate, together with cycle and pedestrian access through the site to the adjacent employment allocation (Policy BEX1); upgrading of the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary; and cycle and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent urban extension (Policy BEX3)

Considering the two elements of this condition separately:

a) "A new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access is achieved off Watergate together with cycle and pedestrian access through the site to the adjacent employment allocation (Policy BEX1)":

The respondent supports the main pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access being taken off Watergate. A plan is provided in Appendix A illustrating the proposed alterations to Watergate that would facilitate the site access. It shows the road as it enters the site at 5.5 metres wide, which is considered an appropriate width to allow both cars and bicycles to safely enter and exit the site. Furthermore, Watergate is currently a quiet road and transport modelling undertaken to support an application illustrates the volume of traffic would not significantly increase. Cyclists would therefore be able to use the road safely to access the development.

Cyclists would also be able to safely use the internal site road to access the employment land (subject to Policy BEX1) through a pedestrian and cycle only connection on the eastern site boundary.

PHSE is aware of The Council's previous aspirations for a new dedicated cycle lane from the junction between Watermill Lane and Watergate and through the Preston Hall site to the employment allocation (Policy BEX1) as part of a wider cycling strategy for Bexhill.

PHSE's transport consultants do not consider it possible to safely install a dedicated cycle lane on Watergate as it is now. The changes to parking along Watergate (agreed with East Sussex County Council Highway Authority) required as part of any future development at Preston Hall Farm, would further reduce the width of the road and render it impossible to deliver a dedicated cycle path on Watergate. Furthermore, whilst it might be possible to provide a dedicated cycle path within the Preston Hall Site (which would necessitate the loss of some public open space at the site access to allow for a sufficiently wide road), it is not reasonable to impose this as part of Policy BEX2 given there is no guarantee the cycle path would be joined up at either Watergate or within the BEX1 employment allocation.

b) "Upgrading of the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary and cycle and pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent urban extension (Policy BEX3)"

The requirement for an upgrade of the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary was not included as part of the 2006 local plan policy. The majority of the footpath in question is a Public Right of Way (PROW), partly located along a vehicular track, linking existing residential development to the south with Watermill Lane to the north. The footpath runs along the eastern boundary of the site before heading north after Preston Hall Farm.

Rother District Council's adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 123 list states that Rights of Way Improvements are funded by CIL. Planning Practice Guidance states that "Where the regulation 123 list includes a generic type of infrastructure", which would include Rights of Way improvements, "section 106 contributions should not be sought on any specific projects in that category"
(Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 25-097-20140612).

The supporting text to Policy BEX2 makes reference to linkages with Sidley and creating an "attractive pedestrian/cycle route from the proposed employment allocation in the east (Policy BEX1) and pedestrian cycle connection to the linear park and new housing of Policy BEX3 (North Bexhill)."

Upgrading cycle and pedestrian connectivity is also covered by CIL. The Regulation 123 List states "Improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure to ensure connectivity and accessibility of new development into existing networks, communities, town and secondary centres, employment & social infrastructure in accordance with Rother's Cycling and Walking Strategy" will be funded by CIL.

CIL contributions are considered appropriate for delivery of this infrastructure. It is clearly set out on the adopted Regulation 123 list and would ensure that the cost is fairly apportioned between all the development sites (including at BEX1 and BEX3) which would benefit from improved off-site infrastructure improvements.

The requirement for these upgrades to be provided by the developers of BEX2 alone is not supported. Paragraph 204 of the NPPF requires site-specific planning obligations to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Upgrades to the footpath would have a wider benefit to the employment allocation at BEX1 and the urban extension to the north at BEX3. Neither of these sites are currently proposed to be required to contribute to upgrading this footpath. The financial burden of upgrading the footpath and providing cycle and pedestrian connectivity should not fall on Preston Hall Farm alone (if at all) and seeking obligations in this way would not meet the tests of reasonableness set out in the NPPF.

The requirement to upgrade the footpath to Watermill Lane on the eastern boundary should therefore be removed from the policy text.

Taking the above into account, PHSE suggests part (iii) of BEX2 be reworded to:

* "A vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access is achieved off Watergate, together with
cycle and pedestrian connections between the site and the adjacent employment allocation (Policy BEX1)"

iv) Existing landscaped boundaries around the site are maintained and reinforced;

The existing landscape boundaries are a mix of Ancient Woodland (to the northern and southern boundaries) and trees and hedgerow to the eastern and western boundaries. The respondent supports the maintenance of these boundaries and would seek to reinforce them where appropriate. This would include provision of buffers to the Ancient Woodland in accordance with Natural England guidelines.

v) Care is taken to respect the amenity value and setting of adjoining properties on the eastern boundary

The amenity and setting of the properties on the eastern boundary, including the Grade II listed Preston Hall and cottage to the east of Preston Hall, would be respected by the proposed development.

vi) Development contributions towards improvements to the A269/Holliers Hill /A2036 Wrestwood Road/ London Road junctions and towards primary and nursery school education provision at NE Bexhill.

The development contributions contained in part (vi) above are not covered by the Council's CIL Regulation 123 list and therefore could be sought via S106 contributions, if supported by the County Council. As noted above, the respondent would consider S106 planning obligations when they meet the tests set out in the Paragraph 204 of the NPPF.

In relation to the general policy text, the respondents are pleased to note the separation of the housing allocation from the proposed employment land north east of Preston Hall Farm (Policy BEX1). This reflects changed local circumstances in the area compared to 2006 now that Sea Change is independently bringing forward both employment and supporting infrastructure in the surrounding area, including the local access roads which connect to Coombe Valley Way (Bexhill Hastings Link Road).

It is also noted that "Pebsham Hall and cottage "is referred to in the main Policy text. This should be amended to 'Preston Hall and the cottage to the east'.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28092

DHG1: Residential Internal Space Standards

The comments below are made in relation to Policy DHG1, which proposes the adoption of the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS).

Planning Policy Guidance sets out clear criteria which Councils must satisfy in order to adopt optional NDSSs over and above the requirements of Building Regulations.
"Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

* need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.
* viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger
dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.
* timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions."

The guidance effectively sets out three stages which must be overcome to ensure the NDSSs are only applied where needed and impacts are fully considered. We have considered Policy DHG1 below with these policy hurdles firmly in mind:

Need
A local authority must demonstrate clearly evidenced need to require the NDSSs. Paragraph 8.21 of the DaSA references an 'Access to Housing and Housing Standards' background paper. However, this hasn't been provided as part of the background evidence and we have not therefore had the opportunity to review. Without sight of the background evidence it is not possible to determine whether the Council has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate need for the
optional enhanced housing standard above what is established as nationally suitable in Building Regulations. PHSE therefore reserves the right to comment further once the background evidence is available. It is worth noting that discussion during the Housing Standards Review led to the conclusion that the enhanced space standard should not be applied across the board and should only be adopted where needed locally.

All new housing must comply with Building Regulations which allows flexibility in terms of footprint, room size, circulation space etc. This can be considered carefully by the housing market in determining product choice to meet the needs and demands of customers. This in turn allows for build refinement in relation to internal fit out. Finally, this results in a whole range of supply chain and construction efficiencies which are crucial to reducing cost, driving affordability and reducing build time to increase production. It is not clear whether any of this has been considered by the Council.

The house building industry is of the view that current sales rates confirm that current product range is fully suitable for those wanting to buy properties. The industry knows its customers and what they want - firms would not sell homes below the enhanced standard size if they did not appeal to the market. Sales rates in the South East are strong and some of the greatest demand is for first time buyer products. If customers were not happy with the market offer then they would
have the option to purchase from the second hand market - however demand remains high indicating customer satisfaction. By means of a national measure, the House Builders Federation (HBF) annual customer satisfaction survey of 'new home' buyers identified that 92% of respondents were happy with the internal layout.

Viability

Paragraph 8.25 of the DaSA states "In terms of viability, the Government's own impact assessment details the likely cost impacts to development in adopting the optional standards. These are relatively low and, also considering the consequential impact on sale values, should not detract from the overall viability of developments. This will be further tested prior to the submission version of the Plan alongside other planning-related costs."

Adoption of the NDSS on 100% of housing will have a significant impact on sites which were previously considered to be borderline viable. This increased cost is transferred onto the landowner, therefore adoption of the NDSS will further compound challenges in meeting minimum benchmark land values. Increased housing sizes will also result in less efficient use of land and thus a relative increase in infrastructure burden per plot.

Timing

PHSE note that the plan-making process will provide time to prepare for the imposition of NDSSs. It should also provide the Council time to release its evidence and further test the impact of NDSSs on viability, a process in which the house building industry should be involved. The Council should also be minded to consider including a transitional period in the policy which would allow developers to factor in the additional cost associated with this policy into future land deals.

The policy is also vague as to how regard will be given to the standard when allocating housing sites, as is stated in the Policy Option Tests. PSHE would like clarification as to how the potential requirement for NDSSs will be considered against allocations carried forward from the previous plan, such as Preston Hall Farm.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28092