Conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework

The Development Management Plan (DMP) is considered to be unsound due to its inability to effectively deliver the housing needs of the Borough and its inconsistent approach to the allocation of Greenfield land for future development. This is by reason of the DMP's inflexibility in ensuring that sufficient and suitable sites can be brought forward to meet the projected housing needs of the Borough (and its failure in the allocation of land on the Hastings/ Rother fringe in order to deliver environmental benefits to the wider community through the allocation of land for housing). Through the insufficient allocation of land the plan does not demonstrate that it has been positively prepared or that it is sufficiently flexible to effectively deliver the objectively assessed housing need in accordance with the aspirations of paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The plan does therefore not accord with the national tests of soundness as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

Positively Prepared

Following the Hasting Borough Local Plan Examination in Public, the Inspector wrote to the Council to address his concerns that following the revocation of the South East Plan (SEP) the Duty to Co-operate with neighbouring local authorities is now even more important. With specific reference to housing figures, the Inspector notes that the plan is not clear in identifying that it can meet the Borough's objectively assessed housing need. He goes on to suggest that in order for the plan to be positively prepared HBC must 'explore whether, through the Duty to Co-operate, Rother District Council can assist by accommodating part or all of the unmet needs' (paragraph 13 of letter ID/9 dated 19.02.2013 refers - attached as Appendix 1).

As detailed in Savills representations made to the Hastings Planning Strategy (reference:299 attached as Appendix 2), Policy DS1 of the Planning Strategy identifies that to enable the identified housing figure to be met over the plan period, sites will be allocated in the DMP to meet this target. If the Annual Monitoring Report identifies that the five year housing land supply plus 20% cannot be met, the Council will take action to increase the supply of deliverable sites by way of a series of criteria set out within the policy text. It is known from the Council's own housing trajectory that it would exceed its housing requirements by as little as 31 dwellings over the plan period if all of the dwellings were to come forward. As identified within the Inspector's letter (attached as Appendix 1), it is evident that additional sites will need to be found in order to meet the housing requirement within the Borough to meet the trend based requirement which demonstrates a requirement of 7,493 dwellings over the plan period 2011-2028 (Inspectors letter 28 February13 ID/10 (g)).

Effective

The Hastings Local Plan as drafted, recognises that windfall sites will come forward for development over the plan period, but seeks to reduce the reliance on windfall sites through the DMP and future reviews of the SHLAA. Whilst the DMP identifies a schedule of sites for development, this schedule is based on an additional 31 units over the housing target. In order to rely primarily on allocated sites for development, the additional units being brought forward should be far higher to ensure the required delivery of housing development based upon general conformity with the SEP and trend based housing projections. Hastings Borough Council needs to consider how it is going to achieve its housing need as advised by the Inspector. It is suggested that the Council explores the potential to allocate further sites, such as Land at Rock Lane to increase the amount of land available to meet housing need.

Should the anticipated number of dwellings within the Hastings Local Plan not come forward, it is considered that the list of criteria set out in policy DS1 is inflexible in ensuring that sufficient and suitable development sites can be brought forward to meet the projected housing need of the Borough. This is by reason of the failure of the Planning Strategy and the DMP to identify opportunities relating to the use of greenfield land/ revisions to the settlement boundary to meet the housing shortfall where further benefits to the wider community, or further developments, could be forthcoming.



The Planning Strategy's aspiration to reduce reliance on windfalls sites, coupled with projected housing targets that are unlikely to be met on the basis of the sites allocated within the DMP as currently drafted, indicates that the borough will be unable to meet its objectively assessed housing need over the plan period. The plan is therefore ineffective and fails to meet the requirements of paragraph 159 of the NPPF.

Justified

Mr Lyons' land at Rock Lane (HBC ref: 299) has been considered by Hastings Borough Council but excluded from the SHLAA as a potential housing site and allocation in the DMP due to its location in the AONB. Securing an appropriate amount of development along the frontage of Rock Lane would be consistent with the potential development on my client's land to the north within the administrative boundary of Rother, which has been identified for potential development within the Rother District Council SHLAA (Map 13, site reference HF6 Rother District Council SHLAA and policy HF1 (ii) and (vi) of the Rother Core Strategy).

Hastings Borough Council and Rother District Council have adopted a joined up approach to promote development on our client's land to facilitate environmental and access improvements in the locality which is in our client's private land ownership. However, whilst Hastings Borough Council endorses residential development on our client's land within Rother District, it does not consider development should occur on land within their own administrative boundary, having excluded it from being assessed in their own SHLAA and the DMP. This differing approach to land allocation on the Hastings Fringe is inconsistent and demonstrates that the plan has not been positively prepared to meet the objectively assessed housing need.

The allocation of our client's land for residential development within both Rother and Hastings administrative area would achieve a comprehensive form of development by contributing towards the borough's housing need and through the creation of opportunities to facilitate environmental and access improvements into the AONB, which is not currently publicly accessible. Development of the land would present a modest change to the current settlement boundary and AONB. It would allow the long term management and maintenance of the site without having a detrimental or harmful impact on the landscape or the environment of the wider AONB in accordance with paragraphs 114- 116 of the NPPF.



The conflicting approach to the allocation of land between Hastings Borough Council and Rother District Council will restrict the potential for Hastings Borough Council to meet the aspirations of policy FA5 (a) and (g) Hastings Local Plan which seeks to take a 'joined up approach with Rother District Council to the use and management of land between Ivyhouse and Rock Lane to secure environmental and access improvements in association with development in the locality', as well as the Council's wider aspirations to manage and enhance the green network.

Rother and Hastings Councils have prepared joint background evidence papers to inform housing supply figures and land allocation on the Hastings Fringe. However, the approach to land allocation and policy aspirations as a result of this work is not consistent and therefore the authorities have not effectively co-operated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts as required by paragraph 181 and 182 of the NPPF.

Furthermore, the Council's more recent consideration of the potential for development of land at Breadsell Lane, and a nearby site at Winchelsea Lane in the AONB (part of the Focused Consultation stage of the DMP), is indicative of the need for the Council to look beyond the use of brownfield land and allocate greenfield land to meet its development needs. The previous consideration of the allocation of Greenfield land suggests that Hasting Borough Council is aware that the current proposed allocation of land is not effective in meeting future housing need contrary to paragraph 47 of the NPPF. By discounting Greenfield land including land on the Hastings Fringe, Hastings Borough Council has not fully assessed all of its potential development sites.

In a letter dated the 14 March 2013 (from Inspector Laura Graham to Rother District Council attached as Appendix 3) the Inspector identifies that the revocation of the SEP represents a 'significant change in circumstances' and suggests that even greater weight should be attached to meeting the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing as required by the NPPF. This approach to housing needs is reflected in the Inspector's letter to Hastings Borough Council ref: ID/10 dated 28.02.2013 (Appendix 1) in which the Inspector advises the Council to further explore the trend based housing projection to be subject to discussions between Hastings and Rother Council's. The Inspector goes further in suggesting that such discussions should be accompanied by a request to Rother to see if it can assist by accommodating part of all of Hastings unmet needs, as indicated by the trend based projection. Such advice indicates that there is a clear need for additional housing land to be identified for development to ensure the plan is positively prepared and consistent with national planning policy. The allocation of Mr Lyons' land will make a small but important contribution towards achieving the borough's housing need.