Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16161

Received: 02/11/2009

Respondent: West Rochford Action Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Unsound as policy is not the most appropriate strategy for meeting the objectives of prioritising housing on brownfield sites.

See supporting document, Council ref AE28

Full text:

****
This submission is made on behalf of the West Rochford Action Group and its members. Further details sent under separate cover: email and by hand.
****

H1 Efficient use of land for housing.

Only 4 brownfield sites have been identified in this policy for redevelopment Star Lane Industrial estate, Stambridge Mills, Eldon Way Industrial Estates and Rawreth Lane Industrial estate, Rayleigh. However there are others which have not been included despite the statement that the Council will prioritise the use of previously developed land. The Brickfields site off Cherry Orchard Way is not mentioned and would provide an additional site and be more appropriate in land use terms. On the Rochford Town Centre Plan further sites are being considered namely the Rose and Crown Car Park and adjoining shops, Whittinghams garage. There are further sites which were previously being considered by the Council in 2007 which are not mentioned - these should all be assessed and utilised in preference to green belt sites.

PPG3 on housing requires Local authorities to promote more sustainable patterns of development and make better use of previously developed land the focus for additional housing should be existing towns and cities. PPG3 requires LAs to build in ways which exploit and deliver accessibility by public transport to jobs education and health facilities shopping and local services.

The Core Strategy does not provide for a proper annual monitoring and review of brownfield sites or a policy which states that as brownfield sites come forward the proposed green belt sites will be abandoned. There is no reason why such a policy should not be adopted.

See supporting document, Council ref AE28