6.1

Policy DS1 addressed revoked South East Plan target 210 new houses/year (now 200. Stone Court 4 surplus).

HBC disregards Titles (20/06/2012, DCQ12/00651), "you should be aware that the Council does not have any records regarding land ownership. All land ownership records are held by the Land Registry [Tel.]. The Council is therefore unable to give an opinion as to what is covered by the title deed you refer to."

Even where Land Registry and Trigonometric survey attached confirms Olive Lodge 1892 Title boundary HBC purports "Land Registry records accord with the applicant's position". LR caveat/disclaimers contradicts Planning Officer,ie. Rubber-Stamped?

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.

The figure of 3400 new homes is yet to be found 'sound' within the Council's Planning Strategy.

We therefore maintain our long-standing objection that a requirement of 3,400 dwellings between 2011 and 2028 cannot be substantiated.

The level of housing contained in the Local Plan Strategy is based upon that which the Council can deliver and is not underpinned by evidence as required by the NPPF.

The NPPF is clear in respect of the way in which Local Authorities should plan for new housing. Paragraph 14 places a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of plan-making, giving clear guidance that Local Authorities should seek positive opportunities to meet the objectively assessed housing need. The robust method when determining a localised housing target is to identify need in the first instance, and then assess what level of the need can be met to provide the plan with flexibility but without adverse impact. In contrast, the Council's provision appears to have been derived through the reverse procedure, with a predicted achievable level of housing underpinning the target.

The submission DPD seeks to deliver an unjustified and inadequate level of housing and therefore is inconsistent with National Policy and not legally compliant. Until such time as the Planning Strategy has been found sound and a suitable housing target has been established the plan fails to meet the test of being 'justified' and 'effective' and therefore must be 'unsound'.

Further to this, the housing provision within the Local Plan strategy should be viewed as a minimum.

Our overall conclusion is that the Council has proceeded to the publication stage too prematurely ahead of the adoption of a sound strategic plan. To make the DPD robust greater evidence is required to justify excluding suitable and deliverable sites such as our client's land at Breadsell Lane.

We do not consider that the submission DPD is 'flexible'.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires Council's Local Plan to be able to flexibly adapt to rapid change. The site allocations currently proposed in the plan are required to implement the housing provision to be set out in the Local Planning Strategy. However, there are no mechanisms put in place within the submission DPD to allow the Council to respond to the non-delivery of sites. In this respect, there continues to be a reliance on historic Local Plan allocations that have been identified to provide housing in the past and sites that have been granted planning permission but have never implemented.

This non-delivery has been a regular occurrence during strong economic periods, so even greater uncertainty remains during in a period of weakness in the national economy.

The failure to provide a 'flexible' Plan renders the submission DPD 'ineffective' and therefore unsound.

We consider that the inclusion of a housing allocation for land at Breadsell Lane as either a reserve site or as an allocation in the latter stages of the plan would remedy these concerns and make the DPD effective.

There is a lack of evidence to support the re-inclusion of previous Local Plan allocations and non-implemented historic planning permission sites.

Those site allocations that have not come forward since 2004 should be rigorously re-assessed and robust evidence should be provided to demonstrate that these sites remain viable and reliable for this plan period.

Taking into consideration the uncertainty of these elements, we question the robustness of the Council's ability to achieve its housing requirement. We therefore consider the DPD fails the test of being 'justified' as it is not built upon a proportionate evidence base. It is therefore 'unsound'.

The inclusion of a housing allocation for land at Breadsell Lane as either a reserve site or as an allocation in the latter stages of the plan would overcome these concerns and provide greater certainty that the plan is 'justified'.

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For plan-making this means that LPAs should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or conflict with specific policies in the NPPF.

Further to this, paragraph 52 states that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities.

In essence, we consider that the cumulative adverse impact of developing lots of smaller sites significantly outweighs any adverse impact of developing Breadsell Lane.

The sites proposed within the submission Plan have an over reliance on greenfield land in urban areas, which play a vastly more important community and environmental role than surplus agricultural land at Breadsell Lane. Urban greenfield areas are finite resources that form important components of a wider green infrastructure network and the setting of built up areas.

Further adverse impact will arise in respect of the loss of recreation ground land and playing fields, which are to the detriment of the health and well being of residents of the Borough. No commentary is provided in the submission Plan in respect of Sport England's views on loss of playing fields or what efforts have been made by the Council to bring these back into a viable community use.

There are also proposed sites that have the potential to adversely impact upon important Heritage Assets.

The cumulative impact of building on many constrained sites results in far greater harm than that of building on former agricultural land at Breadsell Lane. For this reasons we consider that the DPD is based on the least appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, and therefore fails the test of being 'justified'. The plan is therefore unsound.

The substitution of the most constrained sites, in favour of the allocation of land at Breadsell Lane for housing could potentially remedy this position.

We object to the exclusion of land at Breadsell Lane as a housing allocation.

The Core Strategy 'Preferred Approaches' Document (2008) identified Mr Simmons' land at Breadsell Lane as part of a major Greenfield site that had genuine prospects to provide new dwellings during the Local Plan period. Within this Preferred Approaches Consultation Document there was an unambiguous acknowledgement by the Council that a development of this land would provide the very best opportunities for providing essential infrastructure, such as improved transport, community and recreational facilities. It was also acknowledged that a large site would provide opportunities for higher standards of sustainable design and construction, which would assist in combating climate change during the plan period.

However, as a result of a Natural England objection, the Council abandoned its stance, deleted Breadsell Lane as a potential allocation and reduced the overall housing provision to compensate for the loss. We maintain our view that the removal of the site due to Natural England's objection has not been justified in evidence. Neither has a balancing exercise been undertaken to compare the undoubted benefits of a new residential development against the unknown risk facing the bryophyte population. This renders the emerging DPD 'unjustified' and therefore unsound.

It should also be noted that a significant number of the proposed allocation sites are subject to a caveat that Natural England's approval is required. It is therefore unclear why our client's site is being considered in an inconsistent manner and has been dismissed based solely on a need for future baseline hydrological information.

Land at Breadsell Lane is the only large greenfield opportunity that is not located within a protected Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In this respect, paragraph 110 of the NPPF is clear that in preparing to meet development needs, plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value. The prudent use of land at Breadsell Lane will be consistent with this aspect of the NPPF and will reduce the pressure to develop smaller urban sites that offer more to the local community. This matter is not in dispute, as documented by the fact that the site was well supported by the Council prior to the objection from Natural England.

In conclusion, we consider that the Council's decision to exclude land at Breadsell Lane from the Site Allocations DPD without robust evidence has rendered the Plan unsound, as it no longer follows the most appropriate approach when compared with the reasonable alternative of a large Greenfield allocation.

This, along with further failures in respect of not addressing the objectively assessed housing need for the area, and a non robust housing land supply (see supporting representations), results in a strategy that is neither positively prepared or in accordance with National planning policy.

Notwithstanding the above, we consider that the plan could be made sound through the reintroduction of land at Breadsell Lane as a housing allocation, or at the very least as a future reserve site. The inclusion of such an allocation will provide flexibility and ensure that the DPD is effective.

An indicative masterplan has previously been produced to provide an indication of the broad level of development that could be accommodated Mr Simmons' land. A copy of this masterplan is included as an attachment. In order to provide a reasonable mix of dwelling types and tenures, we consider that the land could accommodate up to 450 units within Hastings Borough and provide access to further land immediately south over the longer term. Notwithstanding this capacity assessment, the number of dwellings could be phased over a much longer period, for instance with approximately 100 to 150 new units coming forward on the northern part of the site during this current plan period.

See attached.

Name: East Sussex County Council
Submission received 12.04.13 covering Reps: 5578-5587