Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Planning legislation is unrelated to the implementation and requirement of Building Regulations. Paragraph 2.8 mentions that the requirements of draft Policy DRM1 (Water Efficiency) will be implemented through the Building Regulations. As such, the need for the Policy in a development management and land use Local Plan is not necessary or justified and should therefore, be deleted.

Section 3 relates to 'communities' and in particular community facilities, some of which are listed in paragraph 3.1 and draft Policy DC01 seeks the 'Retention of Sites of Social or Economic Value'. While the draft Policy is clear in its intention to retain community facilities, it also appears to cover all existing sites and buildings that are in (or were last in) employment use i.e. those predominantly falling within Class B1 or B8 use or potential sui generis uses, whether located within or outside settlements with Development Boundaries.

As such, it unnecessarily duplicates other Policies such as EC3 of the Core Strategy and Draft Policy DEC3 of the draft Plan. The Policy should therefore, be amended and refined to cover the Council's position in relation to safeguarding 'communities facilities' rather than including all employment uses. If the Policy is retained in its existing form however, then a cross-reference should also refer to draft Policy DEC3.

The Policy should also be amended to relate to potential opportunities (perhaps using existing brownfield land associated with the community use) for achieving enabling development that could then give rise to funding the improvement or secure the retention of community facilities (with such cross-funding secured via a planning obligation.

Paragraph 4.7 explains that in light of national affordable housing thresholds that post-date the adoption of Core Strategy Policy LHN2 (Affordable Housing), paragraph 4.12 confirms that the wording of Core Strategy Policy LHN2 should be treated as being amended in part (b) to require affordable housing for schemes of 10 or more dwellings (or 0.3 hectares or more) and this is then reflected in Draft Policy DHG1 at parts (ii),(iii) and (iv)(b).

While paragraph 63 of the NPPF (2018) states that the "Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments" and, notwithstanding that the glossary in Annex 2 states that 'major developments' relates to 10 or more homes (or a site area of 0.5 hectares or more), the National Planning Policy and Guidance (at Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 236-031-2016116) confirms that national policy is that "contributions should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less and which have a maximum gross floor space of no more then 1,000 sq m (gross internal area). Paragraph 4.12 and draft Policy DHG3 should therefore, be mended to take account of the affordable housing thresholds set out in the National Planning Policy and Guidance.

Paragraph 4.14 explains that where 'part' of an affordable housing unit will be required to meet draft Policy DHG1, this should be in the form of "an in-lieu contribution equivalent to the cost of providing that part of the unit on-site" and an example of the method of calculation is given. In order to be both effective and justified, the paragraph should be expanded to explain:

i) How the in-lieu contribution would be arrived at as a financial calculation;

ii) What mechanism the Council has in place (or will put in place) to safeguard and ring-fence such affordable funding contributions and

iii) Where, how and when such affordable housing will be delivered through such a pool of 'in-lieu' financial contributions.

Old Lydd Road is the main access road to Camber Sands, which is an important recreation facility for both local residents and for visitors and tourists from which many of the small businesses depend upon in terms of generating an income. Old Lydd Road is however, notoriously busy during summer months and suffers generally from a lack of off-street public parking space.

It is therefore, quite extraordinary and without justification that the Council should seek to allocate two of the most important public car parks for redevelopment as proposed in Policies CAM1 and CAM2. This would result in the unacceptable loss of 70 pay and display parking spaces on the site the subject of Policy CAM1 and a massive 170 pay and display parking spaces on the site the subject of Policy CAM2, resulting in the very significant loss of 40 public parking spaces.

While reference is made to the use of an "existing overflow car park", this is wholly inadequate and would result in unjustified reduction in public parking provision. The fact that the central car park site is Council owned should not be a factor in allocating the land for redevelopment. Both these Policies should be deleted and the Council should instead consider opportunities to extend much needed public parking in the area to help relieve pressures for unauthorised roadside parking in Old Lydd Road, particularly during peak summer months.

Old Lydd Road is the main access road to Camber Sands, which is an important recreation facility for both local residents and for visitors and tourists from which many of the small businesses depend upon in terms of generating an income. Old Lydd Road is however, notoriously busy during summer months and suffers generally from a lack of off-street public parking space.

It is therefore, quite extraordinary and without justification that the Council should seek to allocate two of the most important public car parks for redevelopment as proposed in Policies CAM1 and CAM2. This would result in the unacceptable loss of 70 pay and display parking spaces on the site the subject of Policy CAM1 and a massive 170 pay and display parking spaces on the site the subject of Policy CAM2, resulting in the very significant loss of 40 public parking spaces.

While reference is made to the use of an "existing overflow car park", this is wholly inadequate and would result in unjustified reduction in public parking provision. The fact that the central car park site is Council owned should not be a factor in allocating the land for redevelopment. Both these Policies should be deleted and the Council should instead consider opportunities to extend much needed public parking in the area to help relieve pressures for unauthorised roadside parking in Old Lydd Road, particularly during peak summer months.

Paragraph 6.11 states that "Valued landscapes... clearly include AONBs and their settings". Case law confirms however, that such designated landscapes do not necessarily amount to "valued landscapes" having regard to Paragraph 170 of the NPPF (2018) and its previous incarnation in Paragraph 109 of the 2012 version. The HWAONB washes over 82% of the District and some parts will have more important or special characteristics that make them 'valued landscapes' compared to other parts of the AONB. Paragraph 6.11 should therefore, be amended to delete this reference to valued landscapes.

Paragraph 6.11 also refers to the scale of development with the AONB, and draft Policy DEN2 states that development should be "small-scale", but provides no further definition as to what might be regarded as small-scale or considered large scale. This is important given that the AONB designation washes over major settlements such as Battle, which might well be capable of accommodating large scale development without harming the AONB. The Policy should therefore, either be amended to delete the words "small-scale" or alternatively, this should be clearly defined.

Paragraph 4.57 states that "having regard to current overall likely demand, it will be expected that reasonably-sized housing schemes of 20+ dwellings, include a proportion of self and custom-build plots, being at least 5% and this then appears as a requirement in Policy DHG6 (Self-build and custom housing). There is no such requirement with the NPPF (2018) and such a requirement could prejudice large sites of 20 or more units coming forward, especially if the delivery of the scheme were to be delayed to provide for relevant marketing of 'service plots for self and custom housebuilders' for a period of "at least 12 months".

It is also difficult to envisage how a site of 20 or more dwellings can be properly laid out and for any visual impact to be assessed if part of a site is left as 'serviced plots for self and custom housebuilders'. There is no evidence that the introduction of a 'design code' (for which there is no Policy commitment) would satisfactorily overcome this issue. The draft Policy should be amended to include only the first paragraph.

Although the DaSA sets out detailed policy considerations for new housing development including External Residential Areas (Policy DHG7), Extensions to Residential Gardens (Policy DHG8), Extensions, Alterations and Outbuildings (Policy DHG9), Annexes (Policy DHG10) and Accesses and Drives (Policy DHG12), no policy guidance is provided for those who might wish to construct a replacement dwelling and in particular, within countryside location outside development boundaries.

A new Policy should be introduced to provide suitable detailed guidance for those intending to construct replacement dwellings.

Paragraph 1.5 states that the DaSA needs to be read in conjunction with Neighbourhood Plans "that are in force" and does not cover parts of the District where a Neighbourhood Plan is proposed but has not yet been 'made'. So far only two Neighbourhood Plans (NP) have been made (Salehurst and Robertsbridge Parish NP and Sedlescombe NP), but there are 8 other designated NP areas where they have yet to be made covering a significant extent of the District at Battle (and Netherfield), Burwash, Crowhurst, Etchingham, Fairlight, Hurst Green, Rye and Ticehurst. The DaSA excluding parts of the District covered by (or to be covered by) a NP means that as a Policy document, it is seriously flawed in that;

i) the DaSA does not provide comprehensive Development Management or Site Allocation Policies for the entire District.
ii) there is no confirmation that the proposed Development Management Policies will apply within areas to covered by NPs, so there will be large parts of the District where these policies do not apply.
iii) the DaSA cannot be certain to deliver the amount of housing and employment land required by the Core Strategy as it does not cover a significant extent of the District where such development is required by strategic policies such as at Battle and Rye within rural settlements.
iv) Until such time as NPs are made, the Council propose to rely on outdated, saved Policies of the Rother Local Plan adopted over 12 years ago in July 2006 for those parts of the District to be covered by NPs.
v) The DaSA makes no contingency arrangement in the event that a NP is not proceeded with or remains unmade for the duration of the DaSA period.

The neighbouring Authority of Wealden District has taken an entirely different approach in order to ensure that development management policies will cover the entire extent of their area and to ensure the delivery of housing and employment land by proposing allocations within areas where NPs have been made or proposed.

The Proposed Submission Draft of the Wealden Local Plan (August 2018) states "There are Neighbourhood Development Plans being produced in Wealden District. If a Neighbourhood Development Plan is adopted prior to the submission/adoption of the Wealden Local Plan, the relevant policies may be removed from the Wealden Local Plan. If the Neighbourhood Development Plan is adopted after the Wealden Local Plan, then the Neighbourhood Development Plan policies will supersede relevant Wealden Local Plan policies" (paragraph 1.18). Within Wealden District there are three Neighbourhood Plans, but only one has reached a referendum stage.

Given the holes in the Local Plan coverage due to the extent of the District proposed to be covered by NPs, the DaSA cannot be considered sound in being positively prepared, justified or effective and as such, is not consistent with national policy (paragraph 35 of the NPPF - 2018). Due to the flawed approach in not providing for policy coverage and site allocations in areas covered by NPs, there are no modifications that could be readily made available to remedy this concern and the proposed submission of the DaSA should be suspended to address this and to review paragraphs 1.5, 1.11 (regards employment provision at Battle), 1.14, 1.30 (in relation to new Inset Maps that would be required for NP areas), 5.37 (items (g), (k), (l) and (n) and 5.39, Policy DIM2 - Figure 14, 8.1 (Battle and Rye), 89 and 8.10 and Policy OVE1.