Schedule of Additional Modifications

While we recognise that this modification is justified in relation to reason provided the approach taken, we would question the soundness of the reason, as highlighted by Mr Pyrah and Ms Watters to the inspector during the Examination Hearings. The figures within the DASA should be described as illustrative.

Figure 15 should not be prescriptive. In particular policy BEX1 should not use figure 15 to incorporate requirements such as the extensive landscape buffers shown on the figure when the LPA acknowledged that it has undertaken no assessment of the impact of such extensive requirement on the deliverability of the employment land requirements of the district. The severe shortage of such space across the district that has been brought to light by figures recently presented by the Rother District Council consultants which would suggest a supply of less than 48 days industrial space is currently available within the district.

The plan should be modified to confirm that landscape buffers will be considered appropriate where they conform to statutory guidance and that viability and deliverability will be taken into account when considering the design of landscape buffers. This would ensure to ensure that the plan is compliant with NPPF (2012) Paragraph 160 in term of the obligation to work closely with the business community, to understand their changing needs and identify and address barriers to investment, including a lack of housing, infrastructure or viability.

We would also suggest that any obligations placed upon employment allocations are reviewed once the ongoing review of demand has been completed and tested to ensure that the scale of obligations and policy burdens does not threaten development viability in accordance with NPPF (2012) paragraph 173. This is an exercise that has not been undertaken within the preparation of this plan. The district has ongoing issues with employment space viability, and it must ensure the delivery of such space in accordance with NPPF (2012) paragraph 154.

While we welcome the removal of the "prior to occupation" element of this policy and the recognition that the policy should take account of the conditions of the existing planning permission RR/2017/2181/P we do not consider this modification is enough to make the policy sound.

We are of the opinion that this policy still places considerable policy burdens on an employment site. While Sea Change Sussex, as a not for profit regeneration partner, is able to deliver space in more marginal development viability conditions than commercial counterparts, the policy should be designed to encourage the return of market led development and ensure that the scale of obligations and policy burdens placed on allocations do not threaten their ability to be developed or their viability in accordance with NPPF (2012) paragraph 173.

In addition to this amendment we would suggest that the LPA give consideration to dropping other planning burdens introduced by policy BEX1 that will act as a substantial barrier to the ability to secure investment in the area and the delivery of development on the site. We consider the following policy burdens should be removed from the policy to ensure that a suitable quantum of development is brought forward on this site and remove unrealistic aspirations contrary to NPPF (2012) paragraph 154 at a time when development is desperately needed within the district;

1. Master planning - In our experience such an approach is highly limiting to the range of potential interest and particularly damaging to the prospect of attracting considerable inward investment. As identified in the brief comments on employment viability made by the LPA's consultant's in the preparation of the viability assessment supporting the proposed DASA demand in the area is driven by occupiers as such it is unrealistic to assume that a flexible occupier requirement led approach will not be required on this site to secure delivery. It is also unrealistic on an employment site of this scale in the current market to assume that a masterplan could be carried out with vaguely realistic assumptions on demand, with the most likely outcome being that the site would be blighted by the exercise in securing interest in later phases were one to be imposed.
We would also highlight that the existing planning permission RR/2017/2181/P contains no such obligations and we are advised that it would be extremely difficult for the LPA to justify such obligation on future consents should the current outline planning permission expire due to changes in national planning policy and the approach taken by the LPA in granting this planning permission initially. We therefore consider this policy burden unsound and unenforceable.

2. In relation to criterion v, if this were retained along with the LPA's current stance on site density of less than 30% there would be a need to allocate considerable additional land as the buffers shown are not in compliance with proposals under the existing planning permission RR/2017/2181/P and are in excess of 30 metres on the NBAR frontage. The retention of this criterion would impose a considerable development constraint and be a very costly burden to place on a low density employment allocation such as this. Our estimate is that, if adopted, this would take deliverable area back down to 26,000sqm based on the areas shown. This policy should at a minimum be amended to ensure that policy burdens do not preclude the delivery of the 33,500 sqm of development that presently has outline planning permission on the site.

3. Policy criterion vi is unprecedented as Southern Water have a statutory obligation to deliver this infrastructure and no other allocation has been placed under such a policy burden. There is also no evidence to suggest that an employment allocation within an area where the market is known to struggle in terms of viability, could bear the burden of contributing to such a scheme. Such a policy burden clearly conflicts with NPPF (2012) paragraph 173. We would suggest that this burden is removed from the proposed DASA in entirety as it only serves to deter investment and introduce complications into the planning system unnecessarily as this is a matter for regulation by OFWAT and not the LPA.

While we welcome the inclusion of NBAR within the proposed DASA, the highway boundary shown is incorrect and reflects the previously proposed s38 boundaries which have since been narrowed by the highways authority. The plan should be amended to reflect the correct boundaries and development boundaries altered to take into account the highway boundary.

On a procedural matter we would suggest that changes to the policy map of this nature should require consultation with the inspector.

While we welcome the inclusion of NBAR within the proposed DaSA the highway alignment is inconsistent with the alignment shown within PMM1. The roads alignment should be marked accurately on proposed policy plans.

The road shown on this plan is also inaccurate as it omits the connections to Watermill Lane northbound for cars and southbound from the Pegasus crossing for equestrian and pedestrian traffic. The inclusion of these features will necessitate narrowing the access shown for the proposed traveller pitches, which as advised previously by the engineers responsible for the construction of the North Bexhill Access Road, we consider unsuitable. We would suggest that a suitable location with access is selected as this site will not be delivered as it is not deliverable without the co-operation of adjoining land owners, we have explored this option and been unable to identify a willing adjoining land owner on a procedural matter we would suggest that changes to the policy map of this nature should require consultation with the inspector.