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

(1) We consider it unsound as drafted, on the grounds that it fails to be consistent with policy set out in the East of England Plan. Policy H1 of the RSS expresses housing requirements as minimum levels to be achieved and directs planning authorities to similarly express requirements as minimal. To provide certainty that the RSS housing targets will be met (although see representations below), the housing numbers specified in this policy should be expressed as minimums.

(2) We consider that in addition to the need to state that dwelling numbers are minimums, wording should also be added which states that "the actual amount of development will be determined by environmental and infrastructure capacity considerations, and the detailed consideration of master plans for each site", and that "there may be a possible requirement for greater housing numbers on some sites should other sources of housing, such as that on identified appropriate brownfield sites, not come forward as anticipated". We believe this to be a sensible and flexible approach. This will allow for appropriate flexibility in the plan.

(3) We argue that one or more of the greenfield sites identified for 2015 onwards should be brought forward in this policy, 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" (bottom of Policy H2), we consider that there is enough evidence at this time to bring forward one or more of the Greenfield sites now.

Rather than repeat arguments put forward in our representations to Policy H1, we refer you to them in regard to our belief that required (RSS) 5 year housing targets will not be achieved because of an over reliance upon brownfield sites that we believe will not be delivered in the timescales anticipated by the council.

(4) Bearing in mind our representations regarding housing delivery rates and the over reliance placed upon and constraints associated with the development of identified brownfield sites (see policy H1 reps), we argue that as well as bringing forward one or more of the Greenfield sites identified in Policy H2 as 2015-2021, the number of units for one or more of the Greenfield sites be increased to make up for what we consider will be a shortfall in the delivery of housing on brownfield sites. We particularly recommend that because of the significant delivery constraints to the proposed redevelopment of the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, further housing units be identified for the land we promote, north of London Road, Rayleigh, as a replacement for the number of units identified for this industrial estate.

Again, rather than repeat arguments put forward in our representations to Policy H1 (see also Policy ED3 reps), we refer you to them in regard to our belief that required (RSS) housing targets will not be able to be achieved for the plan period because of an over reliance upon brownfield sites that we believe will either not be delivered in the timescales anticipated by the council, or may not come forward at all in the plan period.

(5) We refer to the infrastructure requirements for each site 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.

With regard to (2) to (4) above, we believe that the site we promote, with the addition of land under other ownership north of London Road (west of Rayleigh), can

A) Be delivered (in part) prior to 2015
B) Accommodate more than the identified 550 units

A) In terms of the land which we promote, there are no on or off-site hindrances to delivery that we are aware of in terms of infrastructure requirements e.g. no highway or service infrastructure constraints. The land we promote is in single ownership (to which we have an option), so there are no land assembly issues. Whilst other land ownerships north of London road could be included within the development of this area e.g. council owned sport pitch area, we are confident that there will not be any significant delay in bringing forward such land as part of a comprehensive development scheme for the area.

The site was in fact identified as being required by 2015 in the Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy, and we have received no justification from the council as to why it is now identified as being required for the period of 2015-2021.

We believe that development of our site could commence as soon as the site has a defined/adopted development allocation and boundary, and planning permission is granted. We are happy to discuss with the council the appropriate timing of submission of any planning application and how this would affect the timing of commencement of development/delivery of units. We are happy to fast track a planning application if the council consider this appropriate and would be required this to meet housing targets/needs.

We had set out a possible delivery timetable for the site we promote in our representations to the SHLAA consultation in April 2009. We suggested that for us to achieve the provision of 450 units (or a range of 400 to 500 units) by 2015 for example, planning permission would need to be granted by, at latest, early to mid 2012 (so an application submitted prior to the end of 2011). With time then required to achieve the submission and sign off of any pre-commencement requirements, and to account for a lead in time prior to commencement of infrastructure works, it is likely that development could then commence by early 2013 (first occupations prior to the end of that year).

We would currently envisage a build rate of between 200 to 250 housing units a year. This is of course dependant upon a number of factors, particularly regarding affordable housing delivery, such as the level of affordable housing grant available and location of such housing/pepper potting.

B) We believe that the land we have under option, on its own or with land north of London Road in other ownerships, can provide for more than 550 units.

In fact, 650 units were identified in the Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy. We have not been informed by the council (there is no explanation in the Core strategy) why the number identified for this area has been reduced. There is no reasoning/justification within the Core Strategy as to why the figure of 550 units has been chosen.

We consider the key factor in limiting the number of units is the issue of defining where the appropriate revised green belt boundary should to be set for the western edge of any development west of Rayleigh. We consider that there are a number of possible options for the green belt boundary, but a boundary could easily be drawn to enable enough land to be developed for a greater number of units, without further detriment to the landscape and character of the area, or without causing any coalescence with properties in Rawreth Village.

We are able, on the land under our option, to provide for a significant strategic gap or buffer between any new development and Rawreth village and the A1245. Significant green infrastructure could be incorporated into this space, and/or the land remain, in part, in agricultural use if considered appropriate. The nature and use of the strategic gap and location of open space will be determined through a master plan for the site.

We will work with the council to bring forward the strategic growth of land north of London Road as early as possible/appropriate to help ensure that the RSS targets are being met.

We consider that of the Greenfield sites identified in the plan, land north of London Road Rayleigh (land under our control) should accommodate greater numbers of dwellings.

The reasons for this is that Rayleigh, by far, is the most sustainable location for growth in Rochford, and land to the west of Rayleigh, north of London Road, the most appropriate, accessible and sustainable location for an urban extension to Rayleigh (as evidenced by its choice as the only urban extension to Rayleigh in the Core Strategy). Other possible sites considered for Rayleigh have serious policy, environmental or access/capacity constraints to delivery.

Rayleigh has the greatest variety and widest base of retail and other services of any settlement in Rochford. It also benefits from being the most accessible in terms of strategic highway links and capacity (particularly the western side of Rayleigh), and has the largest population and town centre. It has the highest housing waiting list demand and therefore probably the highest demand for affordable housing. With a new employment "park" also being identified for west of Rayleigh, a greater variety of job offers should also be available.

We are surprised that planned housing growth however, as set out in both policies H2 and H3, distribute numbers fairly evenly over first and second tier settlements, even though Rayleigh is clearly the largest and most sustainable town/location for development.

Combined (total) green belt allocations, set out in policies H2 & H3 lead to:

Tier 1
Rayleigh 550 units (2001 population 30,196)
Rochford/Ashingdon 1200 units (combined population 10,775)
Hockley/Hawkwell 225 units (combined population 20,140)

Tier 2
Hullbridge 500 units (pop 6,445)
Great Wakering 250 units (pop 5,512)

When you take into account that some of the larger identified brownfield development sites in Rayleigh are not likely to come forward in the plan period, particularly Rawreth Industrial Estate (220 units), there appears to be very little growth in Rayleigh when considered against other less sustainable towns/locations in Rochford. Whilst Rayleigh has experienced more growth in previous years than other towns, this is not a reason alone to direct larger development quantums to other, less sustainable locations.

Therefore, for the above reasons, we believe that the Core Strategy be amended to identify a larger allocation of dwelling numbers for land North of London Road, Rayleigh.