Unsound: (i) not effective; not flexible

Whilst we understand the desire to allocate the minimum amount of green belt land necessary to meet the council's needs, the council must allow for the possibility that identified brownfield sites may/will not come forward at the anticipated rate, or may not come forward at all, therefore that more green belt release is required than currently identified. Drawing green belt boundaries tightly around what are perceived to be the minimum developable areas required to provide for the housing numbers identified in policies H2 and H3 for example, may lead to the need to review those boundaries again in the future, possibly several times, if there was found to be inadequate land supply.

This would add further to the uncertainty regarding the permanence of the green belt or the extent of development at these sites, and would not be good long term strategic planning.

Whilst we understand that revised green belt boundaries (or development boundaries for the identified urban extensions) will be determined via the Site Allocation DPD, this principle of minimum green belt release must be balanced against the issue we raise here.

Furthermore, we can confirm that as far as we are concerned, development of 550 units or more units (see our other representations) at land North of London Road, Rayleigh, can be accommodated without any coalescence to neighbouring villages or towns. There is a substantial gap between this site and the nearest town, Wickford, to the west, and we are committed to providing a strategic gap between any development and Rawreth Village. There would be more significant issues of coalescence to other parts of Rayleigh if urban extensions were considered there e.g. affecting Hullbridge to the north, Hockley to the north east, Eastwood to the east/south east, and Thundersley etc to the south.