Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

We have put together representations in the following documents:

1. Representations to Rother District Council Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan: Land at Cherry Tree Field, Land at Steellands Rise and Former Agricultural Buildings at Steellands Farm, Ticehurst prepared by Bell Cornwell LLP dated December 2018

2. Indicative Layout Drawing prepared by FIBONACCI-ARCHITECTS (drawing number 6104 P60)

Within these documents we set out our representations for why the DaSA Local Plan is not sound on the basis that the evidence base that has been used for the DaSA is not considered up to date, and does not address the issues of housing under delivery and under-provision in the district. We believe that an all-encompassing review of the Development Plan is required rather than this staged approach. The DaSA is already out-of-date at Regulation 19 stage and as a standalone updated local plan document in its current state, is not able to meet the development needs of the LPA.

It is therefore considered that as the housing need for the district is not in line with the OAN and does not address the under delivery of housing that it must be considered to fail all the tests of soundness set out in NPPF paragraph 35.

This form does not allow the opportunity to clearly note the specific policies we wish to make comments on. For clarity they are:

OVE1- Housing supply and delivery pending plans
DIM2- Development Boundaries


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 On behalf of our clients, the Stapylton-Smith Family, who are landowners of three sites in Ticehurst, we wish to submit representations to the Rother District Council Development and Site Allocations Local Plan: Proposed Submission (DaSA).

1.2 Rother District Council is carrying out a Regulation 19 consultation on the DaSA and these representations focus on the tests of soundness and legal compliance as is required at this part of the process.

1.3 We wish to promote these sites for residential-led development. Due to the proposed Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan (TNP), which is currently being consulted on at Regulation 16 stage, the DaSA does not address the development boundaries and other designations within the village of Ticehurst. However, the DaSA addresses strategic housing targets and sets out overarching planning policies which are proposed to form part of the Local Planning Authority's (LPA) Development Plan, we wish to make representations on the Council's processes including their approach to meeting housing need, and the need for additional housing to be added to the Plan for flexibility.

1.4 These representations should be read alongside: (map attached - Indicative Layout prepared by Fibonacci Architects drawing number 6104 P60: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31141)
1.5 This document should be examined against the most recent publication of the National
Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and the
most up-to-date policy framework.

1.6 As part of these representations, we wish to address whether the proposals meet the test of soundness set out in Paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Plans are considered sound if they are:

* Positively prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
* Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
* Effective - deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
* Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework

2 SITE BACKGROUND
2.1 The sites consist of three plots of land in the north-eastern end of the village of Ticehurst.

2.2 The three sites are identified within the Indicative Layout drawing prepared by Fibonacci Architects. The plots of land are known as:
* Plot 1- Cherry Tree Field
* Plot 2- Agricultural Buildings at Steellands Farm
* Plot 3- Land at Steellands Rise

2.3 As previously mentioned, these plots of land are owned by one family. Plot 1 is used as an agricultural field and measures 1.46ha in area. Plot 1 is bounded by Steellands Rise to the south, the B2087 road and the Cherry Tree Inn to the east, an agricultural field to the north and the Steellands Farm to the west. The northern and western boundaries are bounded by trees and hedgerows.

2.4 Plot 2 is currently occupied by five disused and redundant farm buildings which do not make a valuable contribution to the rural area. This plot measures 1.65ha in area including the access route. This plot is accessed through a long drive-way which is accessed through Steellands Rise. To the north of the plot is a disused Thames Water pumping station which is used by people to take drugs and other anti-social behaviour.

2.5 Plot 3 is a plot of overgrown land and measures 0.14ha. The site is bounded by Steellands Rise on the north, east and west of the site, and to the south is an unadopted footpath which connects Lower Platts to the western portion of Steellands Rise, by the Ticehurst and Filmwell Church of England School (the School).

2.6 All three plots are in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

2.7 The proposals for each of the plots is to develop them for residential development. As part of these representations we have set out the individual capacity for development on each plot.

table included: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31142
2.8 Due to the location of the Plots within the AONB and that it currently sits outside the currently adopted development boundaries, there are two options relating to the allocation of sites. Should the provision of residential development be allocated to Plot 1, our client is willing to allocate, subject to viability, a higher level of affordable housing provision in Plot 2. Should it be considered that Plot 1 is unallocated, Plot 2 will include a smaller proportion of affordable, subject to viability assessments.

2.9 It is considered that Plot 3, due to its location and size makes limited contribution to the character of the AONB and is a suitable location for residential development. This is a small site which can contribute to meeting the housing reequipment. It is considered that through the development plan, under NPPF paragraph 68 (a), that it should be designated for residential development.

2.10 In terms of deliverability the Stapylton-Smith Family were landowners who acquired outline planning permission on Banky Field for residential led development and have maintained contact with the developer who purchased the site ever since. It is considered that in terms of deliverability of the sites, there is scope for further work with the developer and it is believed that there is an opportunity to work with them again to deliver these proposed homes.

3 TICEHURST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

3.1 As set out above the Plots are located within Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan Area which was designated in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, in October 2015. The TNP is currently undergoing Regulation 16 consultation managed by the LPA. This consultation, which shares similarities to the Regulation 19 consultation which is being undertaken by for the DaSA concludes on 21 December 2018.

3.2 The TNP will form part of the Development Plan once adopted and sit alongside the DaSA. The TNP and DaSA should support the strategic development needs set out in the Local Plan and positively plan to support local development.

3.3 Furthermore, as a significant amount of Background Evidence which has been used in the preparation of the TNP, particularly relating to housing numbers and the lack of Fiver Year Land Supply, that should the LPA find the DaSA to be unsound, that the TNP should also be considered to not conform with the proposed development plan and therefore the TNP would have to be modified as part of the Examination or be reviewed immediately with an updated housing delivery figure calculated.

4 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Our representations will be based on the proposed policies set out in the DaSA and the evidence base which is used to support it.

POLICY OVE1: HOUSING SUPPLY AND DELIVERY PENDING PLANS

4.2 To assess the strategic development needs of the LPA, all of the policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence as required by NPPF paragraph 31. NPPF Paragraph 31 continues to say that the evidence should be focused tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned and take into account relevant market signals.

4.3 Due to the manner of which the LPA has chosen to update their Local Plan by allowing the DaSA to be consulted on the basis of it addressing the strategic aims of the already adopted Core Strategy, It is not considered that this is the most positive and effective way of preparing new local plan documents.

4.4 The DaSA seeks to deliver the housing requirement set out in the Core Strategy. This sets out that the housing development target for the District as a whole is for at least 5,700 new homes to be built over the plan period, which runs from 2011-2028. This figure was based on the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update from June 2013.

4.5 This document set out that the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN) was 6,180 (363 dwellings per annum (dpa)) dwellings by 2028. The LPA decided that due to environmental concerns that they would have to reduce this number. The OAN is out of date and based on the data published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 14 September 2017 the LPA has an indicative housing need of 469dpa. Figures from the House Builders Federation set out that, based on the standard methodology, set out that the LPA need to deliver up to 690dpa.

4.6 As the LPA clearly are supplying a significant amount of dwellings below their OAN and based on the new figures from the standard methodology, it is considered that the LPA would be required to have an early review, as required by NPPF paragraph 33, as the housing need has changed significantly. In the Local Plan Monitoring Report published in April 2018, the LPA there was an under delivery of housing and amounts to a persistent under-delivery of housing (Paragraph 2.25 of Rother District Council- Housing Land Supply as at 1 April 2018 incorporating Housing Trajectory and Self-build and Custom House building headline data, June 2018). Since the update to the Planning Policy Guidance in the summer of 2018, failure to comply to a threshold of 85% delivery against assessed need means that an authority is guilty of 'persistent under-delivery' of housing over a three-year period and has only delivered 65.65% between 2015-2018. This is significantly below the new Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) definition of persistent under-delivery which sets out that if Local Planning Authorities fail to delivery 85% of the Objectively-Assessed Need (OAN). This means that the LPA must include a 20% buffer into its Five-Year Housing Land Supply.

4.7 As set out in table 17 the residual requirement for Ticehurst is zero. In terms of housing it is considered that the provision of housing needs to significantly increase based on the new Housing Delivery Test. This will need to increase in all settlements across the district. Furthermore, the LPA will be required to supply a 20% buffer onto its Five-Year Housing Land supply which, under the current Core Strategy and the proposed DaSA, it is failing to do.

4.8 As such it is considered that Policy OVE1 is unsound on in terms of NPPF paragraph 35 on the basis that it has not been positively prepared to meet the identified development need of the LPA; that the evidence base and facts are out-of-date and is inconsistent with National Policy.

POLICY DIM2: DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

4.9 While the development boundaries have been adopted under Core Strategy Policy OSS2, the policy within the DaSA does not provide scope for any alteration to development boundaries.

4.10 It is considered that the process of preparing the DaSA as a Local Plan document which addresses the strategic policies of an out-of-date Core Strategy is clearly unsound and is not a justified approach. It is considered that the development boundaries, which are based on this evidence, should be reviewed as they currently limit the scope of the LPA to provide enough land to provide the significant increase in housing number which is clearly required. The development boundaries are already out of date as the housing number has increased. Unless they are reviewed at this stage of the process, this is going to lead to confusion and inconsistency through the development management process.

4.11 Given that the Council's current level of supply is below that required using the standard methodology any policies relating to the delivery of housing and locations of development will be out of date.

4.12 Decision making on applications must be based in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in line with the NPPF. The PPG states that this is undertaken to "enable the development of alternative sites to meet the policy requirement". This suggests that where there are policies that restrict development, but which are not highlighted in foot note 7 of paragraph 11 then these should be ignored.

4.13 It is therefore considered that the development boundaries across the whole district should be reviewed as the current policy and proposed DaSA is unsound based on the plan has not been positively prepared, has not been justified, is not effective, and is inconsistent with National Policy. It therefore fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

5 CONCLUSIONS

OVERARCHING COMMENTS ON DASA

5.1 As set out above, the evidence base that has been used for the DaSA is not considered up to date, and does not address the issues of housing under delivery and under provision in the district. We believe that an all-encompassing review of the Development Plan is required rather than this staged approach. The DaSA is already out-of-date at Regulation 19 stage and as a standalone updated local plan document in its current state, is not able to meet the development needs of the LPA.

5.2 It is considered that all documents which are currently under consultation, including the TNP, need to be considered against accurate and up-to-date evidence to be considered sound and needs to address the assessed development needs of the district.

5.3 The three plots our client wishes to put forward supply up to 37 new homes for the district, without harming the character of the district. The plots can be brought forward with the help of a willing developer who has experience in Ticehurst.

5.4 It is therefore considered that as the housing need for the district is not in line with the OAN and does not address the under delivery of housing that it must be considered to fail all the tests of soundness set out in NPPF paragraph 35.

5.5 We hope that the above comments and assessment is useful. We are more than happy to work with the Council and members of the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Steering Committee on addressing the issues raised. We confirm that we wish to appear at the Local Plan Examination in this regard.

POLICY DIM2: DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

4.9 While the development boundaries have been adopted under Core Strategy Policy OSS2, the policy within the DaSA does not provide scope for any alteration to development boundaries.

4.10 It is considered that the process of preparing the DaSA as a Local Plan document which addresses the strategic policies of an out-of-date Core Strategy is clearly unsound and is not a justified approach. It is considered that the development boundaries, which are based on this evidence, should be reviewed as they currently limit the scope of the LPA to provide enough land to provide the significant increase in housing number which is clearly required. The development boundaries are already out of date as the housing number has increased. Unless they are reviewed at this stage of the process, this is going to lead to confusion and inconsistency through the development management process.

4.11 Given that the Council's current level of supply is below that required using the standard methodology any policies relating to the delivery of housing and locations of development will be out of date.

4.12 Decision making on applications must be based in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in line with the NPPF. The PPG states that this is undertaken to "enable the development of alternative sites to meet the policy requirement". This suggests that where there are policies that restrict development, but which are not highlighted in foot note 7 of paragraph 11 then these should be ignored.

4.13 It is therefore considered that the development boundaries across the whole district should be reviewed as the current policy and proposed DaSA is unsound based on the plan has not been positively prepared, has not been justified, is not effective, and is inconsistent with National Policy. It therefore fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.