Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

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.

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

The proposed doctors surgery is not financially profitable for a developer to deliver within the scale of this development, the Wellbeck/Wakehams application ref: RR/2018/2726/P is a demonstration of the scale required to satisfy developer profits. Along with the required road access works & any attempts at mitigating draining issues, which are unlikely to succeed.

This plan would prompt proposals for larger scale development to finance the infrastructure costs 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.

If a GP Practice felt having a full time surgery in Fairlight was required then they would have purchased one of the many houses available & made use of that building. Many rural practice operate from house, even the main Harold Road surgery is run from a converted house.

There has been no case for justification of these "outstanding" 21 dwellings.
The landscape assessment used to justify building on this land has been badly carried out with a predisposed bias towards finding suitability for a development, the open statement makes that clear.

1.1 Study Aims

1.1.1 The Landscape Group of East Sussex County Council was commissioned in May 2018 by Rather District Council to carry out a landscape assessment of Wakeham's Farm, as specified in the project brief (Appendix 1).

1.1.2 The aim of the study is to define the relative capacity of the landscape of the site area 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.

The study aim is already biased toward some form of development, rather that defining the Landscape & Visual
Sensitivity per-se, the focus is on what level of development could be sited here, therefore placing the report writer under some pressure to find in favour of development.

Had the Landscape assessment been carried out with a neutral perspective, the outcome would be somewhat different, how is the visual impact low when the site can be seen from more than half of Fairlight Cove village, both from roads & houses, from the National Trust land & from "upper" Fairlight. Landscape sensitivity would be Medium-High not medium-low, Landscape Value is correct at High, this would make the landscape capacity "Low" hence not suitable for any development.

The primary purpose of AONB is to "Conserver & Enhance natural beauty" '"Natural Beauty" is not just the look of the landscape, but includes landform and geology, plants and animals, landscape features and the rich history of human settlement over the centuries'. More recently the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 clarified that land used for agriculture, woodlands, parkland or with physiographical features partly the product of human intervention in the landscape, is not prevented from being treated as an area of 'natural beauty'.

Nowhere in this plan is it indicated how this proposed development will conserve & enhance natural beauty, if anything the reverse is true & so it is unsound.

Section 3.2.2 mentions the "virtually continuous ribbon development from Hastings to Cliff end", 3 gaps of 1/2 mile hardly fall into the continuous category.

Section 4.3.4 Landscape Assessment area B2 "The wooded ghyll stream to the south of this site is a key component of the character of which could be affected if this part of the site were to be developed", that same stream runs all the way down from the country park through area B1, how will developing B1 not affect the wooded ghyll in the same way? The stream is not "mainly culverted" it is in fact mainly open save for where it is crossed by a road. The back gardens of Broadway form only a small part of the southern boundary as the road pulls away from the field after a short distance.

"Natural Character" 2 of the major field boundaries are mentioned, then the writer goes on to say the field boundaries are lost? Which is it?

The OS map of 1883 shows the same boundaries as today with the addition of the houses built along Pett Level road & Waites Lane, the former boundaries being the roads themselves, the other 2 boundaries (Ghyll stream & hedgerow) remain unchanged. Area B1 was separated from B2 by the still existing hedgerow, it is B2 that has lost its divisional hedge.

The development boundary excludes this site, I think you mean intended changes to the development boundary.

The justification for doing so is seriously flawed, as per my earlier submissions, 11. 101-11.107 no need to repeat.

The consultation process was not duly followed, there is NO proven demand from the locality for additional housing.

How is this quantity reached?

It is not a research led decision, any research would have shown that there is no requirement for 37 houses in Fairlight, currently there are 29 properties for sale, priced between £120,000 & £1. 1, 000,000, if we include the wider parish then this figure grows to around 55 properties, if there were a shortage then we would see much quicker sale times.

This is a case of RDC trying to offload people from other areas, not a case of local requirements.

"Fairlight Parish, which also includes Fairlight Cove and Friar's Hill, exhibits a level of housing need typical of rural Rather. It also has a typical level of social housing within the existing stock, but a relatively low level of demand from the housing register." (RDC local development framework) The parish has just 5 people/households seeking social housing, the Market Garden Site FC1 will provide more than enough affordable housing to cater for those on the list, is it just take the total for RDC & split it?

Furthermore, if there IS a demand for these houses then why after being allocated for over 12 years has the Market Garden Site still not been developed, were there really such a shortage then the developer would rush to complete the build & bank the profits. Fairlight parish has a steady flow of houses, of all types & sizes coming to market due to the demise or health decline of older residents, these never sell quickly, further indication of lack of demand.

Should RDC choose to allocate development here & move people away from their current social & family connections, it will further disadvantage them as the disconnection will isolate them. Without a car it is easy to become completely cut off. Many older people who don't drive rely on friends/family to take them shopping & to the doctors or hospital, as the bus service is both inadequate & infrequent. People without local connections will become isolated & could suffer associated hardships financial, psychological & emotional, leading to depression or other health related issues putting further pressure on strained NHS services. This is a case of building to satisfy politics & policies with disregard to the people involved or the effects on their lives, planners & developers need to build houses in the right places not just anywhere that is offered for development, have no lessons been learned from the past.

Coastal Erosion

Whilst the proposed development site is currently about 500m from the cliff edge the additional surface water runoff will impact on the 3 watercourses surrounding the site & in turn make its way towards the cliff edge at Haddocks Gap a known archaeological fault line., the watercourses are not well maintained, often congested with garden debris & rotting vegetation, it appears that no official body manages & maintains them. As we already have issues with Tout water drainage in parts of Fairlight & watercourses often overflow all this will be aggravated by additional connections. The Shoreland Management Policy indicates that without any additional surface water run off the cliff will still recede, with Lower Waites Lane beginning to disappear in less than 100 years. The ghylls already overflow with autumn/winter rains so this will worsen the situation & advance the landslip & erosion.

Given that RDC agree on the issues of coastal erosion, surface water drainage & run off, why are you even considering worsening the current situation?

It renders this proposal unsustainable as not only will the new properties be at risk in the mid to long term, but the existing houses near the convergence point will suffer flooding & advancement of the sea.

This is in contravention of PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 25 supplement practice guide|Development and Coastal Change