Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not effective (not deliverable/not flexible) (iii) not justified

(1) PPS 3 requires that the local planning authority demonstrate an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable sites. Para 52 confirms the Government's objective to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land and requires local planning authorities to develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure sufficient, suitable land is available to achieve their housing and previously developed land delivery objectives. Paragraph 54 gives clear guidance on the assessment of sites to deliver housing in the first 5 years.

We do not consider that there is enough clear evidence to demonstrate that the council will be able to meet this requirement and provide an adequate 5 year land supply.

The RSS identified build rate for plan period is 250 pa.

For a number of years the rate of delivery of new dwellings in Rochford has been well below that now required to meet the minimum requirements of the RSS. From April 2001 to March 2006, a total of 810 units were built at 160 units per annum (pa). For this period, Rochford had one of the lowest build rates in Essex. Whilst there was an increase in build rates for 2006/2007, this would appear to be the exception to the rule, and we would contest that without an increase in site availability/allocated sites, Rochford will continue to deliver below the required rates. In fact the housing trajectory shown on page 55 of the Core Strategy indicates that between 2008/2009 and 2012/13 1191 units will be built, equating to approx 238 pa.

Whilst the projected build rate for 2010 to 2015 appears to meet the 250 pa requirement, we seriously doubt that this level of delivery anticipated can be achieved relying upon the brownfield sites identified to help meet this target.

Referring to the SHLAA summary of sites and the table at page 39/40 of the Core Strategy, it is clear that the council rely heavily on brownfield sites which do not have the benefit of planning permission, and are either subject to pre-application discussions or identified as a possible/appropriate site for development in the SHLAA. There must be serious doubt that many of these sites will come forward for development within the timescales identified. It is usual to expect a number of brownfield sites to take time to deliver due to various deliverability constraints and/or viability issues, and there is often lengthy lead in times before planning permission is granted and construction commenced/completed.

For example, we note that for the years 2010/11 to 2011/12, 250 units are planned for the Stambridge Mills site, but we are aware that this site has flood risk issues which need resolving and also poor access which again may require solutions which take time to deliver. We doubt that the site will be delivered to the timescales identified.

We argue therefore that some of the greenfield sites identified for 2015 onwards should already be brought forward to ensure national/regional targets or annual targets are met. Whilst we recognize that the council "will maintain a flexible approach with regards to the timing of the release of land for residential development to ensure a five year supply" (Policy H2, see our separate representations), we consider that there is enough evidence at this time to bring forward one or more of the Greenfield sites now.

This would not, we believe, prejudice the aim of developing brownfield/previously developed land as such land will come forward as a result of interest in such sites/the market, notwithstanding the development of Greenfield sites.

The council is behind in terms of delivery rates specified in the East of England Plan (RSS), and there is therefore a need to speed up delivery now. This should in itself justify the need for Strategic Greenfield sites to come forward early in the plan period. We take the view that it will be difficult to achieve the annual build rate for the relevant 5 year period, without the release of a (or several) strategic greenfield development site(s).

We can bring forward the site we promote, land north of London Road, Rayleigh, earlier than the identified 2015. We cover this matter further in our representations to Policy H2.

(2) Furthermore, we consider that the amount of brownfield land identified as coming forward within the (overall) plan period is extremely optimistic.

We have serious doubts for example that the Rawreth Industrial Estate (identified for 220 units 2017/18 to 2019/20) will come forward for residential development. As we understand it, there are a considerable number of different landownerships involved. There are also many different tenants/occupiers. This suggests that land assembly, to enable a comprehensive development (the only way, we suggest, that development of this estate could take place) will be more than problematic and will take a considerable number of years to achieve (if at all). Even if other/an alternative site/land is identified for the possible relocation of existing occupiers, there is no guarantee that occupiers would want to relocate, with the possibility of incurring greater costs in new premises. Occupiers may be happy to stay where they are unless they wish to expand or upgrade premises.

We also think that there could be serious contamination issues at this site, further affecting delivery of a housing scheme/affecting development costs.

We are not aware that the council would have the will or the finances to undertake compulsory purchase to enable the sites redevelopment.

We are not aware that the council has contacted all or any of these landowners or occupiers to ascertain the potential to assemble land and deliver the redevelopment of this site.

Whilst we understand that the site gives rise to amenity nuisance to local residents, we are surprised that the council want to redevelop a successful commercial site that provides many jobs. The Employment Land Study (Oct 08) clearly states that buildings on this site are generally of good quality and that there is no vacant land or buildings at the time of survey. This indicates much success, and its proposed redevelopment could therefore result in the loss of important jobs.

This is just one example where we believe delivery of housing numbers on brownfield sites will be affected by land assembly or other constraints. The proposed redevelopment of the Hockley Trading Centre (Eldon Way) 150 units we also suggest will take a longer time period to deliver than the trajectory suggests (2019/20 to 2020/21), being part of a wider town centre development scheme with land assembly and infrastructure issues involved.

The council needs to demonstrate the deliverability of those housing sites identified as either local plan allocations or brownfield sites identified in the SHLAA.

We argue therefore that as well as bringing one or more of the identified Greenfield sites forward, one or more of the Greenfield sites needs to provide a greater number of housing units than that allocated in policy H2, to ensure that required housing targets are met. We consider that the land we promote, north of London Road, Rayleigh, can accommodate a greater number of housing units than that specified in Policy H2. We cover this matter further in our representations to policy H2.

(3) Finally we refer to the infrastructure requirements set out in Appendix H1, and referred to in this policy.

It should be made explicit that the level of infrastructure to be provided with a development will be reasonably related to the impact of that development. Circular 5/05 and the emerging/published DCLG guidance on the use of CIL, makes it clear that new developments/contributions from new development can not be used to resolve existing deficiencies (only, proportionally, those deficiencies made worse by new development).

Whilst some infrastructure requirements will be required to adhere to other council policies, it should be made clear that the majority of infrastructure requirements for each development site listed in Appendix H1 will be specified in future master plans/planning permissions when the precise impacts of the development are understood and assessed. It would be inappropriate to specify infrastructure requirements at this time when the precise scale and nature of development is not determined.