Policy H2 - Extensions to residential envelopes and planning

Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. The general locations identified in the Core Strategy (CS) are supported. However, the respondent has prepared an indicative master plan illustrating an option for the broad locations in Ashingdon. This demonstrates that the site known as East Ashingdon could accommodate more than 150 dwellings and it must be recognised that to deliver enhancements to King Edmund School and remain viable, these sites will need to deliver this quantum of development. There is no justification for the phasing of the residential site and therefore policies H2 and H3 should be combined. In addition, the means by which the sites are identified are too vague and the general locations are not consistent with the key diagram.

Full text: The purpose of providing the Illustrative Master plan (drawing ref: 97069/07) is to demonstrate that there is sufficient land available within the locations to accommodate the growth; in fact, the area could take more. The master plan is designed to be illustrative to show what could be achieved and is by no means the only layout option. In addition, the master plan illustrates a workable and tested improvement to the access to King Edmund School and shows a possible location for the 3.0 hectare expansion of the school, required by policy CLT 3. It is understood that it may be more viable to build a new school either on the existing site or on adjacent land. The master plan option caters for such an eventuality as well as providing options for the layout of housing and public open space. The respondent has commissioned a Highway Access Strategy, which considers the optimum location of access points to serve the land parcels.
The land parcel in the broad location identified in the Core Strategy as East Ashingdon is largely free of constraint and both developable and deliverable in the first five years of the plan period. Sufficient housing land is available to exceed the allocations set out in Policies H2 and there are many advantages to the location, which would allow for additional growth. The respondent owns approximately 28 hectares of land in the general vicinity of the broad locations of "East" and "South-East" Ashingdon abutting the urban area, which would accommodate up to 1000 residential units at 40 dwellings per hectare, as well as providing an additional 3.0 hectares for expansion of the school. The land is available and developable in the short term. It has the following advantages in terms of developability:

* the site contains a main sewer complete with existing manholes;
* un-contaminated land in arable use;
* falls within flood zone 1;
* abuts the urban area;
* is accessible and within walking distance of a secondary and three primary schools, shops, services and public transport;
* accessible to main drainage facilities and utilities;
* within agricultural land classification 3;
* located in an area free of special or important landscape or biodiversity designations; and
* does not contain any important ecological or sensitive habitat areas.

In relation to the Green Belt and the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt:
* the land parcels would round off or infill the urban edge;
* there is no possibility of coalescence, the nearest settlement is several miles to the east;
* the urban extensions will not encroach into the countryside, much beyond the existing urban edge; and
* the location does not interfere or impact on the setting or special character of a historic town or settlement.

The land parcels are capable of exceeding the allocations set out in the Core Strategy whilst enhancing the access and size of King Edmund School, a vital component in the District's infrastructure. The development will result in only limited harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and as such, the Council should give greater consideration to the production of more detailed assessment through the Site Allocations DPD and an early planning application.

1. Land at East Ashingdon is capable of accommodating a higher level of development
As identified above, and demonstrated by the accompanying masterplan, land at East Ashingdon is actually capable of accommodating approximately around 150 dwellings and this should be reflected in Policy H2.

The allocations in Policy H2 should also allow for flexibility in the number of units possible on any given allocation. A clear statement should be included in the policy, which identifies that the allocations assigned to each location are minimum requirements reflecting advice in KSS14 and would be reliant on the developability of individual sites. Whilst the Council has been reluctant to be specific on the land parcels involved, it has chosen to be specific on the number of units it expects from each of the broad locations. On further analysis, it could be quite possible that a lack of constraints in a particular area might prompt the possibility, or even the desirability, of providing additional units in any given location. The policy does not appear to allow for this and should be amended to explain that the numbers assigned to any given area are not fixed and that further consideration will be given to the eventual number of units on a site by site basis, through the Allocations DPD. If land such as the site at Stambridge Mill does not come forward, the policy as currently drafted provides no flexibility to ensure that alternative sites come forward.

2. There is no justification for the phasing of development

The Council's limited reasoning for phasing set out in the Core Strategy is not justified. It is also contradicted by the statement found in policies H2 and H3 which states;

"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".

The phasing is either necessary for a material reason set out in the document or the allocation of land will be flexible to ensure a continuous five year supply is maintained. If the phasing is to remain, more detailed explanation is required. In the absence of any reasoned justification, it appears that the main reason for the phasing is to stagger the release of land over the plan period. Staggering development in this way is not necessary if the authority is maintaining a constant 5 year supply. RSS14 advocates that the allocations it provides the districts are minimums and that authorities should not see them as ceilings. The CS is presented in such a way as to imply that the Council could suspend development, if demand exceeds any particular phase. Such an approach, of applying the brakes to keep in line with the phasing of the plan, would be completely at odds with RSS14 and the Government's approach to housing delivery. The Core Strategy does not provide for the possibility of the market delivering more than the RSS minimum allocation or at a faster rate than the phasing allows; this is inflexible and contrary to PPS3, paragraph 52 which recognises the importance of a flexible supply of land for housing. This comment is made without prejudice to our client's land at East Ashingdon as this land can be delivered in the early part of the plan period in accordance with the policy.

3. The means by which the sites are identified is too vague.

Whilst the respondent supports the general locations identified in the CS, the means by which the land is identified is considered too vague. The respondent does not agree with the Council's opening statement in this section of the Strategy, which states:

"It is not the purpose of the Core Strategy to set out precise locations for new development - this is done through the Allocations Development Plan Document".

Whilst it may not be necessary in Rochford to identify the exact boundaries of strategic sites, the information that is given is too vague. The advice in Planning Policy Statement 12, Local Spatial Strategy (PPS 17, 2008) is that:
"Core Strategies may allocate strategic sites for development. The Core Strategy looks to the long term. It may be beneficial to delivery of its objectives for details of key sites to be included in it, where these sites are central to the achievement of the strategy and where investment requires a long lead-in"
Further, at paragraph 4.3, it states:
"it is essential that the core strategy makes clear spatial choices about where developments should go in broad terms. This strong direction will mean that the work involved in the preparation of any subsequent DPDs is reduced. It also means that decisions on planning applications can be given a clear steer immediately."

There can be little dispute, that the greenfield locations identified in the Core Strategy are essential to the delivery of the spatial strategy. At present, the district cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, as required by PPS3. The lack of a 5 year supply may result in a rash of early planning applications coming forward on greenfield land, which could undermine the Council's spatial strategy and the preparation of the Allocations DPD. To guard against this and to channel development towards the most appropriate locations, the Council has the option of being more site specific in its Core Strategy. This option would in principle be supported by PPS12 and could apply to the delivery of one or more of the Ashingdon locations identified in Policy H2 and thus assist the Council in demonstrating a five year supply of housing land.

It is acknowledged in Policy H2 that the Council will be flexible with regard to the timing of the release of land to ensure a five year supply of land. Therefore, there is no reason not to be site specific on sufficient land that will bring forward development to meet the Council's current 5 year shortfall. The respondent feels that the land north and south of Brays Lane would be one such location, which could be specifically allocated in the Core Strategy. The land has been broadly identified by the Core Strategy and its early release would ensure a continuous five year supply, assist in the delivery of public open space, a long held aspiration of the Local Plan and more importantly, resolve a long standing and the pressing need to improve access to King Edmund School.

4. The names of the allocations are misleading and are not consistent with the Key Diagram
Whilst the respondent supports the allocations described as East and South-East Ashingdon and the locations indicated on the Key Diagram, the names given to the allocations causes' unnecessary confusion.

The Key Diagram does not have symbols identifying the extensions to the residential envelope at geographical locations, which correspond with land that would be understood as East and South-East Ashingdon. The Ashingdon parish boundary terminates along Brays Lane. The land south of Oxford Road is thus fully within Rochford. We submit that the allocation under policy H2 covering land north and south of Brays Lane should be described as South Ashingdon. The land south of Oxford Road should be described as North East Rochford.

The infrastructure requirements set out in Appendix H1 appear to be linked to the individual greenfield release of land and therefore the provision of site specific contributions, not district wide off-site provision. The infrastructure required for each release set out in Appendix H1 can be adequately secured through Planning Obligations attached to the planning consents relating to the individual releases of land. The obligations would then ensure that the infrastructure for the site took place ahead of occupation.
Proposed Amendment to Policy H2: In order to maximise the development potential and delivery of sites and make the policy sound, the following changes should be made to the policy:
* Combine policies H2 and H3 and delete reference to the different time periods;
* Amend "East Ashingdon" to read "South Ashingdon" and "South-East Ashingdon" to read "North-East Rochford"; and
* Amend the capacity of the site identified as East Ashingdon (i.e. north and south of Brays Lane) to 150 dwellings.

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22