Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 27451

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

2. The vision sets out an appropriate aspiration, but it is not backed up by the policies in the local plan which fails to meet housing needs which in turn will have significant consequences for the local community. The opening statement for example is that the district will be a more affordable place to live with the needs of all the local community being met. However, the Council is not proposing to meet its housing needs and without an increase in supply the affordability of housing will not improve. As the Council will be aware the median house price is 12.84 times the median salary in Rother. It is also worth recognising that the situation will not be improved by improved housing delivery elsewhere with its neighbouring authorities in in East Sussex also proposing to fall short of meeting housing needs by circa 27,500 homes over the next 15 years. Such widespread shortfalls will mean house prices rising and affordability worsening. Building fewer homes will also mean building fewer affordable homes in an area where the need for such homes is high.

3. So, whilst the Council note that by 2040 bold solutions will have successfully addressed the housing crisis it is difficult to see how this will be the case given the restrictions that are being placed on housing supply. The HBF would also note that the other aspirations in the vision to address the climate and biodiversity emergences are also consistent with meeting housing needs in full. More homes that are built to the standard being proposed in the Future Homes Standard will mean more people living in homes that emit less carbon. More housing will deliver significant improvements in biodiversity with all development being required by law to deliver a 10% net gain. In brief building more homes to meet needs will be more likely to deliver against the Council’s proposed vision. So, whilst HBF do not disagree with the vision it is essential that the policies in the plan actually support what that vision says.

Comment

Representation ID: 27452

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

4. The HBF is concerned that there is a widespread failure to co-operate effectively across East Sussex when it comes to addressing unmet housing needs which, as set out above, currently stands at some 27,500 homes. Whilst limited evidence has been provided the council note in the Development Strategy Topic paper that agreements and memorandums of understanding have been reached and these are being implemented. However, the problem is that none of these agreements and MOUs appear to have reached any agreement as to how the chronic shortfalls in housing delivery that is expected across the county will be addressed. At present it appears that these will just be ignored. As such HBF do not consider the approach taken by the council and its neighbours to have maximised the effectiveness of plan making.

5. For co-operation to be effective, and for solutions to be found, Councils need to actively try and address the issue at hand. At present there appears to be an acceptance that housing needs will not be met and that the act of writing to other authorities is sufficient for the duty to be met. In effect consideration of unmet housing needs has become a tick box exercise. The HBF would question whether this co-operation meets the test set out in 33A(2)(a) of the PCPA which requires the LPA to engage constructively. For engagement to be constructive it needs to move beyond writing to each other and actively engage in identifying solutions. If no solution is forthcoming from any constructive engagement, with no authority willing to take action to help another with regard to housing needs, the Council need to consider the shortfall in housing across this area and feed this back into the Council’s decision-making process and the SA.

Comment

Representation ID: 27454

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

See points 6 to 23 of the attached full submission relating to Policy GTC1 addressing multiple points within the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 27455

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

24. The policy states that all development must meet the objectives of the East Sussex (including Brighton and Hove) Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS). It is inappropriate to require development to meet objectives in a document that is not a development plan document. Whilst the council can suggest that development have regard to the LNRS it is not consistent with national policy to require them to meet these objectives. It would also be perverse to require development to adhere to a set of objectives that the council itself only has a duty to have regard to in its decision-making processes. The HBF recommends this amended to state development will have regard to the objectives set out in the LNRS.

Comment

Representation ID: 27456

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

See points 25 to 34 of the attached submission regarding Policy GTC8 covering multiple points of the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 27457

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

35. The Council has concluded that the proposed spatial development strategy is a combination of the options put forward by the council in the Development Strategy Background Paper. The strategy on page 112 of the draft Local Plan states that this is a landscape-led spatial strategy that will deliver between 258 to 364 dwelling per annum (dpa) over the plan period. This is between 369 and 475 homes each year below what the minimum required by the standard method. The failure to meet needs in full also means that affordable housing delivery will be substantially below what is needed, and the Council will fail to meet its needs for more specialist accommodation.

36. HBF consider it essential that the Council recognises the significant impact that not meeting housing needs will have on its population and starts to take a more positive approach to meeting their needs. This will require the Council to consider a strategy that would meet needs in full and compare this against the chosen strategy. Whilst HBF recognise that there are a range of constraints in the Borough the NPPF is clear in paragraph 11 that these must provide strong reason for restricting growth and as part of these considerations the Council must also take full account of the social and economic impacts of not meeting needs not just the potential harm. At present HBF do not consider the council to have undertaken a balanced assessment with regard to the impacts of not meeting needs as part of the preparation of the plan so far, these concerns are set out in more detail below.

Comment

Representation ID: 27460

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Proposed growth in settlements:
43. The Council have undertaken a Settlement Study which sets out the overall sustainability of each settlement. What is notable from this this study is when the sustainability of each settlement compared with the proposed growth in figure 36 of the draft local plan is that some of the most sustainable settlements in Rother are taking very little growth. For example, Rye and Battle both considered to be two of the most sustainable communities yet respectively are considered able to take a maximum of just 200 and 485 new homes. These are both settlements with good access to essential services, contain a train station and a good bus service as well as offering good local employment opportunities. These settlements should be seen as being able to take a far greater level of growth whilst also ensuring that there is minimal impact on the local landscape.

44. The HBF is not actively promoting these settlements over others, but does suggest that it is clear that more must be done to deliver development in Rother in a manner that meets housing needs in full whilst respecting the local landscape. These are not mutually exclusive objectives, and the benefits of meeting need may well, if considered properly, far outweigh the minimal harm arising from such a strategy. However, as highlighted above the council have failed to undertake a proper and balanced assessment of a strategy that met needs in full and as such the proposed growth strategy cannot be considered sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 27462

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Plan period:
47. The Council’s Local Development Scheme notes that the Council expect to adopt the local pan in Q3 of 2026/27. This means that on adoption the local plan will look forward for less than 15 years which is inconsistent with paragraph 22 of the NPPF which requires local plan to look ahead for a minimum of 15 years from adoption. The Council must extend the plan period to at least 2041/42 assuming the plan is adopted as stated in the LDS. However, given the potential delays in plan making, the examination and adoption HBF would suggest that the plan period be extended to 2042/43. Given the Council is still at regulation 18 stage there should still be sufficient scope to ensure that the evidence base is consistent with such a timescale.

48. HBF would also question whether it is necessary for the plan period to start from 2020. Given that the plan will be adopted in 2027, delivery during the first seven years would have little to do with the remaining plan period and as such it is unnecessary for the plan period to go back so far. With regard to development needs it is also the case that the standard method will be based on the period 2025 to 2035 with the affordability ratio relating to income and house prices in 2024. This would suggest that the most appropriate start date for the plan period would be 2023/24, the likely point at which the local housing needs assessment will have been undertaken.

Comment

Representation ID: 27463

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

49. The Council suggest at paragraph 5.102 that the Councl would require a considerable step change in housing delivery in order to deliver a significant uplift to compared to current and historic delivery rates. As such it is suggested that a stepped trajectory is needed and that higher levels of housing delivery will be planned for later in the plan period. HBF disagree with this suggestion. The latest five-year land supply assessment sees average delivery average at 543 dpa – between 307 dpa and 807 dpa – and as such a stepped trajectory is not justified. The Council should be planning to ensure housing needs are met consistently across the plan period rather than delaying the delivery of the new homes the area clearly needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 27464

Received: 22/07/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

50. The HBF agree that it is important that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support development and that this is a key part of the local plan. This may require development to be phased in order to come forward in line with infrastructure that is required to support development.

51. However, the HBF is increasingly concerned that Councils are including development management policies in local plans that seek to prevent development coming forward unless they can show there will be sufficient infrastructure in place at the point of application despite the infrastructure provider making no objection to that development or suggesting
additional infrastructure is required through the preparation of the local plan. In particular
we are seeing this in relation to water and waste water infrastructure. Therefore, we are concerned that part A of the policy states that planning permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated, through the submission of appropriate evidence, that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity to meet all the necessary requirements arising from the development.

52. Policies in local plans relating to applicants having to show that there is sufficient capacity with regard infrastructure should not be for the developer to show at the application stage but for the council to address through plan making. If there is insufficient capacity in the infrastructure, then this is a point of soundness that must be addressed rather than deferring it to be considered on an application-by-application basis. In relation to utilities there is also a right to connect to those services. One example that appears to be the driver of such policies is the issue of water supply and wastewater service. As the Council are no doubt aware water companies are subject to statutory duties under S37 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA 1991). Section 37 of the Act imposes a statutory duty on all water companies to provide and maintain adequate infrastructure and potable water supplies.

53. The consequences of section 37 is that it is for the water company to plan for and then provide a sufficient supply of water whilst also considering its other obligations relating to wider environmental impacts such as those raised by Natural England. It is not for the developer to either anticipate those or to have to remedy this. Simply put the issue of water supply when considering planning applications is not a land use planning matter but one to be resolved by the water company in conjunction with the relevant statutory agencies. If the water company is unable to supply water to meet expected levels of development, this must be disclosed in the Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP). If unforeseen events occur after the WRMP is adopted, meaning that the water company is now unable to provide the water services required, then the local authority must reflect those problems in its local plan. HBF recognises that this could represent a significant barrier to the delivery of the local plan. It might even mean that the development requirements cannot be delivered, either in part or in their entirely.

54. If water services cannot be guaranteed, then the development requirements in the local plan cannot be delivered. Consequently, the local plan is unsound. The plan cannot be made sound in relation to matters of water through policies in that plan stipulating actions that applicants must take as they cannot provide the water services.

55. Whilst this relates to water the principle that infrastructure capacity should be considered addressed at plan making is relevant to all types of infrastructure. The Council must work with providers to understand what additional infrastructure capacity is required and how that will be addressed over the plan period. It is not for the applicant to assess. HBF would recommend that the opening paragraph is removed as it is inconsistent with the proper approach to plan making and infrastructure delivery.