Housing

(13) Introduction

It is important that planning ensures the provision of sufficient, good quality new homes in suitable locations.

The East of England Plan allocates Rochford District a minimum of 4600 dwellings to be located in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy (2025) and, in so doing, assume that the average annual requirement of 250 units will continue beyond 2021.

Rochford's allocation is based on meeting current and future need. Current need encompasses the number of people in the District who are living within a household wanting to move to their own accommodation and form a separate household but are unable to do so (e.g. adult children). Projected need is derived from the supposition that the population is projected to increase from 81,300 in 2007 to 87,000 by 2021.

The East of England Plan notes the provision of housing within local authorities between 2001 and 2006, and states the remaining provision between 2006 and 2021.

We monitor and record projected future residential completions based on planning permissions and known sites and publish this information as part of our Annual Monitoring Report. In addition, in 2007 we produced an Urban Capacity Study for the District.

The Urban Capacity Study identified a capacity of 1301 units. This figure was based on extant planning permissions, existing allocated sites not yet developed, projected residential development above ground-floor retail units, projected sub-division, and re-development of deliverable and appropriate brownfield sites.

The remaining balance to be allocated is 2489.

The components from which this figure is derived is summarised in the following table.

RSS min requirement 2001-2021	4600
Completions 2001-2006	810
RSS minimum requirement 2006-2021	3790
Projected housing completions and urban capacity at 31st March 2006	1301
Remaining minimum balance 2006-2021	2489
RSS minimum requirement 2021-2025	1000
Total remaining minimum balance 2006-2025	3489

The Core Strategy's role is to set out the general locations for housing development and approach to delivery. The precise boundaries of housing sites will be detailed in the Allocations Development Plan Document.

Decisions regarding the location, type and timing of housing development must be based on sound evidence and principals of sustainable planning. This will involve weighing up issues of need/demand with the social, environmental and economic impacts of development.

It is not intended that all of this development should come forward together. Sites will be phased having regard to the resources, infrastructure etc required to enable development, whilst ensuring that there is a constant adequate five-year supply of housing to meet need.

(21) Distribution

In order to fulfil the requirements of the East of England Plan and to meet the housing need of the District, we will allocate land for housing development in the general locations shown in the key diagram.

We recognise the importance of making best use of urban land, and the Urban Capacity Study completed in 2007 identifies a realistic and deliverable level of provision. Of this figure of 1301, the majority - 805 - is anticipated to be completed by 2015, with the remainder by 2021.

However, we are concerned about the impact 'town cramming' is having on the attractiveness and character of many neighbourhoods across the district. It is therefore concluded that the government's target of providing 60% of new housing development on previously developed land has become unrealistic for Rochford.

It is proposed, taking account of the findings of the Urban Capacity Study 2007 and concerns about town cramming, that 30% of new housing development be provided on previously developed land and 70% be on green field sites as sustainable extensions to existing settlements within the plan period 2001-2021.

(48) H1 Distribution - Preferred Option We will prioritise the reuse of previously developed land identified as being appropriate as part of our Urban Capacity Study, having regard to the need to protect sites of ecological importance. Areas coming forward for residential development identified within the Urban Capacity Study will be required to conform to all policies within the Core Strategy, particularly in relation to infrastructure, and larger sites will be required to be comprehensively planned. In order to protect the character of existing settlements, we will resist the intensification of smaller sites within residential areas. Limited infilling will be acceptable if it corresponds to the existing street pattern and density of the locality. We will encourage an appropriate level of residential intensification within town centre areas, where higher density schemes (60+ dwellings per hectare) may be appropriate. The remaining housing requirement will be met through the allocation of land on the edge of existing settlements as outlined in H2.

(7) H1 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
Resist the development of previously developed land on larger sites in urban areas for housing, and instead seek alternative uses for such land.	This will require greater areas of Metropolitan Green Belt to be released for housing development.
Seek to intensify smaller sites, including through the use of compulsory purchase powers.	The intensification of smaller sites will be harmful to the character of the District. It may also require widespread use of compulsory purchase powers to achieve, resulting in harm to communities.

(26) General Locations

It is not the purpose of the Core Strategy to set out the precise locations for new development - this is done through the Allocations Development Plan Document. Instead, the Core Strategy will set out the general approach for the Allocations document.

The concept of sustainable development is at the heart of any decisions with regards to the location of housing. The primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure (along with opportunities to deliver future infrastructure); access to services; facilities; housing demand / need; deliverability; public transport / possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints.

As described in the Characteristics chapter of this document, the District's settlements can be divided into four tiers, with the settlements in the higher tiers being generally more suitable to accommodate additional housing development for the reasons described above. The settlement hierarchy is as follows:

Tier	Settlements
1	Rayleigh; Rochford / Ashingdon; Hockley / Hawkwell
2	Hullbridge; Great Wakering
3	Canewdon
4	All other settlements

Our strategy for the location of housing development is a balance between focussing development on the higher tier settlements, whilst allocating a proportion of the housing development to the lower tier settlements (with the exception of the fourth tier, where additional development is considered unsustainable) to ensure these established communities can be sustained and that rural services continue to be supported.

The strategy for the location of housing also involves a balance between directing additional housing to areas with a close relationship to Southend, and those with a closer relationship to Chelmsford and Basildon.

In short, our approach to the location of housing development can be described as a balanced strategy.

None of the preferred options within this document should be read in isolation from one another and this is very much the case when looking at the preferred distribution of housing. The preferred distribution is based not simply on which areas are the most sustainable at present, but also on how residential development can contribute to, and marry with, other strategies - particularly in relation to town centre vitality, environmental issues and employment - to ensure long term sustainable development within the District.

Development coming forward within these areas will have to conform to other strategies outlined within the Core Strategy, notably those discussed in the Transport and Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism chapters.

The remaining allocation of dwellings that cannot be provided through the reuse of appropriate brownfield land, as discussed in H1 will be accommodated within the general locations as described in H2 and illustrated on the Key Diagram, with detailed locations determined through the Allocations Development Plan Document.

It is neither possible, nor desirable, for all sites that are ultimately allocated for housing to be delivered simultaneously. A number of factors have been considered when drawing up the proposed general phasing of development, including the availability of infrastructure and deliverability of potential sites within the areas.

It is also important that, where necessary and appropriate, alternative land is available for any employment uses displaced by residential redevelopment.

A further consideration in phasing is the requirement to maintain a five-year supply of housing land.

The required annual average for Rochford District is 250. Phasing as stipulated in H2, and taking account of the Urban Capacity Study, will deliver an annual average of 261.7 units 2006-2015, and 249 units 2015-2021. These figures do not make allowance for the contribution that is, based on historical trends, still likely to come forward through windfall despite a more restrictive approach to intensification.

(400) H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option We will extend the residential envelope of existing settlements for the purposes of residential development in the following areas to deliver the following approximate number of units by 2015 or between 2015 and 2021, as stipulated below and indicated on the Key Diagram.
Area	No. of units by 2015	No. units 2015- 2021
North of London Road, Rayleigh	450	200
South West Rayleigh	100	0
West Rochford	300	100
West Hockley	50	0
South Hawkwell	100	100
East Ashingdon	120	0
South East Ashingdon	120	0
South West Hullbridge	0	450
South West Great Wakering	100	100
West Great Wakering	50	100
South Canewdon	60	0
Total	1450	1050
The detailed location and quantum of development will be articulated within the Allocations Development Plan Document. Development within the above areas will be required to be comprehensively planned. A range of other uses and infrastructure (including off-site infrastructure), having regard to the requirements of the Core Strategy, will be required to be developed and implemented in a timely manner alongside housing. H Appendix 1 outlines the infrastructure that will be required for each residential area, and should be read in conjunction with Preferred Option CLT1. We will maintain a flexible approach with regards to the timing of the release of land for residential development to ensure a constant five-year supply of land.

(23) H2 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
Greater number of dwellings to be accommodated in and around Rayleigh.	Although the largest settlement in the District with the best access to services, we have had regard to recent levels of development within Rayleigh and the location of significant proposed employment growth and town centre enhancement elsewhere in the District in determining the figure for Rayleigh.
Less development within smaller settlements - focus more on District's towns.	We believe it is important to provide housing within smaller settlements as well as the District's towns to ensure that village communities continue to thrive. In addition, less development within smaller settlements would necessitate greater development with larger settlements to compensate. This approach has the potential to harm the character of towns and put undue burden on their infrastructure.
North Rayleigh as alternative to other Rayleigh locations	An additional release of green belt land in this area would result in undue encroachment into open countryside, and result in residential areas distant from the town centre. In addition, there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rayleigh with Hullbridge.
Additional housing to South West Rayleigh as alternative to other Rayleigh locations	This location benefits from being in relative proximity to Rayleigh town centre. However, the topography of the land in the location would hinder development. In addition, a highway access to the west is not viable, and is constrained to the east by existing development, making greater quantities of housing development to that proposed unviable.
East Rayleigh as alternative to other Rayleigh locations	Possible development to the east of Rayleigh is constrained by special landscape areas and the need to avoid coalescence with the neighbouring settlement of Hockley.
South / South East Rayleigh as alternative to other Rayleigh locations	In order to protect the town's identity, there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rayleigh with Southend. Development to the south of Rayleigh has the potential to undermine this approach. In addition, it is considered that north of London Road is a more suitable location in terms of accessibility.
South Rochford as alternative to other Rochford locations	Areas of development to the south are constrained by areas of flood risk together with the need to avoid coalescence with Southend in order to protect Rochford's identity. It is considered that west Rochford is a more suitable location given its proximity to the train station, town centre and its relationship with area of significant employment growth potential at and around the airport.
East Rochford as alternative to other Rochford locations	It is considered that west Rochford is a more suitable location given its proximity to the train station, town centre and its relationship with area of significant employment growth potential at London Southend Airport and its environs. Traffic flows from new development to the east of Rochford would be predominantly be through the centre of the town centre resulting in significant congestion.
North Ashingdon as alternative to other Ashingdon locations	North of Ashingdon is located away from services and facilities, and, as such, is not considered as sustainable a location for residential development as other areas.
North East Hockley as alternative to other Hockley / Hawkwell locations	Whilst in relative proximity to the town centre and train station, the impact on the highway network from traffic heading through Hockley, or out of Hockley and subsequently along Ashingdon Road, is considered to render the location unviable. Development to the south of Hawkwell is considered better placed in relation to the highway network and the proposed employment growth around London Southend Airport.
Greater quantum of development in Rochford, less in Ashingdon	We believe there are opportunities for development to go ahead in Ashingdon that would bring wider community benefits, particularly in relation to King Edmund School.
Alternative timing of development as outlined.	The proposed timing of development is based on the need to ensure adequate infrastructure, employment and other services, as outlined in other sections of the Core Strategy, are in place in a timely manner relative to residential development.

(4) General locations post-2021

We are required to ensure there is an adequate 15-year housing supply. As such, it is necessary for the Core Strategy to consider appropriate areas for development between 2021 and 2025.

In considering the general development locations for post 2021 development, we have had regard to same issues as in >In considering the general development locations for post 2021 development, we have had regard to the same issues as in H2 above but have included areas which may not be immediately deliverable, or where the situation vis-�-vis infrastructure and the impact on existing communities is such that their delivery earlier would not be appropriate.

The figures, with an annual average of 250 units, meet the East of England Plan's minimum in the period 2021-2025 and do not make allowance for any contribution through windfall. The figures are approximates at this stage. The exact figures will need to be determined through the Allocations Development Plan Document process or, where appropriate, Area Action Plans at a later date. Sites for post-2021 development will not be delineated within the next Allocations Development Plan Document, but will be examined in a future review.

As with the pre-2021 development areas, it is important to note that development coming forward within the areas outlined in H3 will have to conform to the other policies within the Core Strategy.

 

(38) H3 General Locations Post-2021 - Preferred Option Post-2021, we will extend the residential envelope of existing settlements for the purposes of residential development in the following areas (as indicated on the Key Diagram) to deliver the following approximate number of units post-2021. Prior to this time, Green Belt land within such areas will be safeguarded with the exception of release as per H2.
Area	No. of units post-2021
West Rochford	150
South Hawkwell	130
South East Ashingdon	380
South West Hullbridge	90
South West Great Wakering	160
South Canewdon	90
Total	1000

 

The detailed location and development will be articulated within the Allocations Development Plan Document and, where appropriate, Area Action Plans.

Development within the above areas will be required to be comprehensively planned. A range of other uses and infrastructure (including off-site infrastructure), having regard to the requirements of the Core Strategy, will be required to be developed and implemented in a timely manner alongside housing. Appendix H1 outlines the infrastructure that will be required for each residential area, and should be read in conjunction with Preferred Option CLT1.

We will maintain a flexible approach with regards to the timing of the release of land for residential development to ensure a constant five-year supply of land.

(3) H3 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
Bring forward development in such areas prior to 2021	To bring forward development in the above locations would give rise to the potential of an over-supply of housing, particularly as alternative post-2021 areas would still have to be found. We wish to ensure that adequate infrastructure, employment and other services, as outlined in other sections of the Core Strategy, are in place in a timely manner relative to residential development.

(9) Affordable Housing

Affordable housing is defined in Planning Policy Statement 3 - Housing (PPS3) as follows:

"Affordable housing includes social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Affordable housing should:

• Meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices.
• Include provision for the home to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or, if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision."

We currently negotiate with developers for a provision of affordable housing to accompany new residential developments, secured through the imposition of a legal agreement. The Annual Monitoring Report shows, however, that this approach will still not deliver enough affordable dwellings to meet the needs of local communities.

Local authorities within Thames Gateway South Essex commissioned a Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the area. This found an acute need for affordable housing within Rochford District, equating to 131 net additional affordable dwellings per year. This amounts to 52% of Rochford's annual target. However, it is important that viability is considered - we recognise the need to not set a requirement that would prevent the provision of housing. As such, 35%, being the indicative aim for the region as a whole as set out in the East of England Plan is considered appropriate as a local requirement. We recognise that thresholds in the past have been set too high and have hindered the delivery of affordable housing.

 

(22) H4 Affordable Housing - Preferred Option

At least 35% of dwellings on all developments of 15 or more units, or on sites greater than 0.5 hectares, shall be affordable. These affordable dwellings shall be spread ("pepper potted") throughout larger developments. Affordable dwellings shall be required to remain affordable in perpetuity - this will be secured through legal agreements. This requirement will only be relaxed in highly exceptional circumstances, for example where constraints make on-site provision impossible or where the developer is able to definitely demonstrate that 35% provision will be economically unviable, rendering the site undeliverable. In such cases we will negotiate the proportion of affordable dwellings based on the economic viability calculations. It is expected that affordable housing will be provided on each development site; in rare cases, taking account of particular site characteristics, the affordable housing contribution may be provided by way of a commuted sum towards off-site affordable housing.

(1) H4 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
Higher percentage, with a higher threshold to ensure that overall provision remains approximately 35%.	This would lead to an uncertain provision of affordable housing. In addition, it may prove overly onerous on developers of large sites making development undeliverable, leading to a shortfall in housing.
No threshold - 35% of all residential developments must be affordable dwellings.	This would place an unfair burden on small developments and may discourage intensification in appropriate places.
The need for affordable housing is so great in Rochford District that the percentage developers are required to provide should be greater.	Although there is a significant need for affordable housing in the District, if the requirement is set at greater than 35% development may become undeliverable, leading to a shortfall in housing provision. In addition, this approach would be detrimental to creating mixed communities.
Different affordable housing percentages applied to different areas throughout the District, particularly to rural settlements, to reflect demand.	This approach would make development less viable in certain areas, possibly leading to uneven development across the District and an overall shortfall of housing.

(2) Dwelling Types

It is not enough that housing development meets projected need simply in terms of the pure numbers of dwellings provided. The type of dwellings provided is also important.

Historically, the mix of house types in the District has tended to have been dominated by larger houses at the higher end of the market. Whilst this has contributed to the character of the District as it is today, the concern is that if such a pattern were to continue it would not meet the needs of the whole community, particularly as the trend is for smaller household sizes due to social and demographic changes.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that although the majority of household demand growth is expected to result from increasing single person households, a high proportion of these are existing older households who already have housing and are unlikely to downsize.

However, there is a high demand locally for three-bedroom properties for families and it should be noted that the demand for house types can change over relatively short periods of time due to a variety of circumstances, and may vary across the District. As such we will keep the District's housing need under constant review.

It is important that a mix of house types is provided on larger sites coming forward to deliver mixed communities, as opposed to developments which cater entirely for only one demographic group.

(13) H5 Dwelling Types - Preferred Option

New developments shall contain a mix of dwelling types to ensure they cater for all people within the community, whatever their housing needs. The development of both affordable and market housing should have regard to local need by, for example, referring to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. A proportion of the affordable housing provision within developments will be required to be in the form of three-bedroom dwellings. Developers should consult with our Strategic Housing Team in order to determine the required mix of house types prior to submitting planning applications.

(1) H5 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
Future residential developments continue to provide larger housing at the higher end of the market, with Rochford District providing housing for the higher end of the market within the sub-region.	This option will be harmful to the District's communities, as local people's housing needs will not be met.
Future developments seek to redress the balance of dwellings in the District by providing only smaller accommodation.	This will create developments which will only cater for one section of the community. Such developments will not meet everyone's needs or engender mixed communities.

The housing allocation for Rochford District is based on meeting the current and future needs of the local population, but the development to meet this need must be sustainable not just socially, but also environmentally. The environmental issues that will apply to new housing, in addition to other forms of development are set out in the Environmental Issues chapter of this document. Character is also important and is discussed in the Character of Place section.

Lifetime Homes

The ageing population of the District is an issue that is particularly pertinent to the subject of housing provision. It is important that housing is designed to be flexible to changes in people's circumstances.

Lifetime homes are homes designed for people to remain in for as much of their life as possible and to this end are adaptable to the differing needs of different stages of their life cycle. Building Regulations now require new dwellings to have access and facilities for disabled people and in being so designed they are expected to help people with reducing mobility to remain longer in their homes. The Lifetimes Homes Standards promoted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation go further to provide housing that is more flexible and adaptable than that required by Part M of the Building Regulations and so are more suitable for older and disabled people.

By requiring homes to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard we are not simply applying a "one size fits all" approach, or forcing all homes to be the same - the Lifetime Homes Standard is about ensuring homes can be easily adapted to meet changing needs, for example, by having staircases that are wide enough to accommodate a chairlift, or doorways wide enough for wheelchairs.

Lifetime Homes are suitable for people throughout their lives and by ensuring that homes meet this standard, residents will be able to remain independent as they get lder, or develop physical disabilities.

It is little more difficult at the design stage to achieve the Lifetime Homes Standard over the requirements of the Building Regulations, and whilst it may be more expensive to implement, costs should reduce as the standard becomes widely accepted.

 

(7) H6 Lifetime Homes - Preferred Option

We will normally require all new housing developments to comply with the Lifetime Homes Standard from 2010. Exceptions will be made where such a requirement threatens the viability of developments, in which case we will seek a proportion of units to comply with the standard.

H6 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
We will require a proportion of housing development to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard within all new housing developments. This proportion will be determined on a case-by-case basis having regard to local trends.	All residents will age and anyone's circumstances can change. It would not be appropriate for only a proportion of new housing development to be flexible to meet people's changing circumstances.

(2) Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation

Planning should meet the accommodation needs of all communities, including Gypsies and Travellers. The need and demand for Gypsy and Traveller sites in the District has, historically, been very low, especially when compared with other areas of Essex. However, we have struggled to meet this need in the past - this has been reflected in appeal decisions on unauthorised sites in recent years.

It is important that appropriate locations are identified for sites in order to meet Gypsy and Traveller needs as well as to enable action to be taken against unauthorised sites in inappropriate locations.

The East of England Regional Assembly have prepared a single-issue review on Gypsy and Travellers accommodation that has resulted in the allocation within the East of England Plan of 15 pitches to be provided in Rochford District by 2011. There is concern amongst authorities in Essex that the method used to ascertain the required provision was overly simplistic, that relying on simple mathematical formulas to assume the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers may not provide an accurate assessment. As such, authorities in Essex are in the process of preparing a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for the county to try and determine an accurate figure for requirements.

Notwithstanding this, we take the view that it would be appropriate to accept the allocation of 15 pitches at this stage in the Local Development Framework process, but will review this figure following the results of the GTAA and the outcome of the examination into the Regional Spatial Strategy, in particular with regards to the post-2011 provision.

(9) H7 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation - Preferred Option

We will allocate 15 pitches by 2011, as per the East of England Regional Assembly's single-issue review. We will review this figure having regard to the outcome of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and the inquiry into the Regional Spatial Strategy. In allocating pitches we will examine the potential of current unauthorised sites to meet this need and will consider granting them planning consent subject to advice in Circular 1/2006 - Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites, in particular consideration will include: The promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community; The wider benefits of easier access to GP and other health services; Children attending school on a regular basis; The provision of a settled base that reduces the need for long-distance travelling and possible environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment on alternative sites and, Not locating sites in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans.

(1) H7 - Alternative Options
Option	Why is it not preferred?
With regard to the concerns over the accuracy of the current projections on need, not to specify the number of allocations until the outcome of the inquiry into the Regional Spatial Strategy.	This will not necessarily meet the need for sites.
Continue enforcement action against unauthorised sites, and look to allocate alternative sites.	By excluding unauthorised sites from consideration, we may miss an opportunity to deliver sites that are potentially in appropriate locations.

(24) H Appendix 1

The following outlines the infrastructure that will be required to accompany residential development as proposed in Preferred Option H2 and H3. The list is not exclusive or exhaustive, and should be read in conjunction with the Core Strategy as a whole, in particular the Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism section. This list only relates to location specific infrastructure requirements. CLT1 and CLT Appendix 1 detail infrastructure required at a wider level. The results of stakeholder consultation and community involvement (both on the Core Strategy and other appropriate Development Plan Documents) will be used to refine and detail the infrastructure requirements for individual locations.

General location	Parish	Infrastructure required
North of London Road, Rayleigh	Rawreth	Primary school Primary Care Centre Link to Green Grid Greenway No.13 Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public park land to provide buffer between built environment and agricultural land to the west Play space Youth facilities Community facilities
South West Rayleigh	Rayleigh	Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities
West Rochford	Rochford Hawkwell	Primary school Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities Link to cycle network
West Hockley	Hockley	Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Link to cycle network
South Hawkwell	Hawkwell	Link to cycle network Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Play space Youth facilities Community facilities Public open space
East Ashingdon	Rochford	Public transport enhancements Access to King Edmund School Land made available for the expansion of King Edmund School Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities Leisure facilities
South East Ashingdon	Rochford	Public transport enhancements Land made available for the expansion of King Edmund School Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities
South West Hullbridge	Hullbridge Rawreth	Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities Leisure facilities Link to cycle network
South West Great Wakering*	Great Wakering	Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities
West Great Wakering*	Great Wakering Barling Magna	Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space Youth facilities Community facilities
South Canewdon	Canewdon	Public transport enhancements Sustainable drainage systems Public open space Play space

*In the case of South West Great Wakering and West Great Wakering it is possible that some community infrastructure requirements arising from the development of both locations will be met by development at a single location, e.g. community facilities and youth facilities.