This policy indicates the inclusion of Stambridge Mills as a site for very high density housing development.
No evidence is provided within the consultation package that the Sequential Test and Exception Test have been applied, as required by paragraphs 14-20 of Planning Policy Statement 25. This site lies wholly within Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone as defined in Table D1 of PPS25 and illustrated by the flood maps produced by the Environment Agency. The site is also situated adjacent to the tidal River Roach. It does benefit from some form of flood defence but no information has been provided as to the actual level of flood risk experienced at this site in the form of a PPS25 compliant Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The Thames Gateway South Essex SFRA provided in the evidence base was completed under the terms of PPG25 in 2006 and as such, the climate change allowances are now outdated. Also the 2006 SFRA does not include an assessment of flood risk at this site/in this general location. We therefore also cannot be certain that the site is capable of achieving the requirements of part c of the PPS25 Exception Test - this would make it undeliverable and undevelopable as defined by Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing.
Given the information above we deem the Core Strategy unsound on the grounds that it does not demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in that the Sequential Test has not been applied and there is no evidence that, should the Sequential test be passed, the proposed residential development at Stambridge Mills would be capable of passing part c of the Exception Test. Also the Core Strategy is not supported by an up-to-date SFRA as required by paragraph 12.
The lack of a PPS25 compliant SFRA and Sequential and Exception Tests document also means that we find the Core Strategy unsound on the grounds that it is not justified because it is not supported by relevant and up-to-date background evidence. We do note that that the (draft) SHLAA goes someway in attempting to justify the inclusion of the Stambridge Mills site, but in our opinion it does not go far enough.
The Core Strategy is also not consistent with national policy set out in PPS3 because Policy H1 might not be able to demonstrate the delivery of a flexible supply of land for housing if Stambridge Mills is found to be undeliverable and undevelopable. This is especially true as the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2009) Summary Schedule of Sites provided in the evidence base supporting this submission document shows the Stambridge site to be ideally developed between 2010-2012 and therefore within the five year housing supply required by PPS3.
In addition, we would argue that the Core Strategy is not sound because it is not effective. Should the Stambridge Mills site be found to be undevelopable, the Core Strategy does not explore alternatives to accommodate their required growth targets. We therefore cannot be certain that policy H1 represents the most appropriate policy because there is no clear comparison against alternatives.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the Core Strategy is supported by sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property. The general approach of giving priority to brownfield land is in line with national policy within PPS3, however PPS3 also recognises the need to take into account environmental constraints and risks, including flood risk, in setting out strategies for the planned location of new housing in order to achieve sustainable development objectives set out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and that some sites might not therefore be suitable for housing (see paragraphs 38 and 41). This ties in with the process of applying the PPS25 Sequential Test and Exception Test which places flood risk classification and the vulnerability of proposed developments as the primary concern, with the designation of land as brownfield as a secondary consideration when applying part b of the Exception Test. Given that the national target of 60% redevelopment of previously developed land (as required by PPS3) is deemed unrealistic in Rochford District (paragraph 4.15 of this Core Strategy) and that Policy H2 indicates that there will therefore be a need to release greenbelt land in order to accommodate required growth in nonconformity with Planning Policy Guidance note 2, there is no justification to support the assumption that developing the brownfield land in the high risk flood zone is the most appropriate course of action given the reasonable alternative of accommodating those housing figures in areas at lesser flood risk - either by releasing a minimal additional amount of greenbelt, or by slightly increasing density of development elsewhere.

In the absence of a PPS25 compliant SFRA and Sequential Test document the only option is to remove specific mention to Stambridge Mills from Policy H1 and Appendix H1 and build in flexibility to the plan in recognising the potential need to reallocate the balance of housing to more sustainable locations in Flood Zone 1, the low risk flood zone as defined by Table D.1 of PPS25 and illustrated by the Environment Agency's flood maps. This would make the proposed policy consistent with national policy as set out in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS25. It would also remove our other concerns under the two other tests of soundness. We also consider that it would still be consistent with Policy GB1 of this Core Strategy.

If this course of action is taken, we would suggest the removal of the fourth paragraph from the policy and the following rewording of the third paragraph:

"The council will seek the redevelopment of brownfield land, including under-utilised employment areas, for appropriate alternative uses, including residential development, subject to meeting the requirements of national policy as set out in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS25. Alternative employment land will be allocated in appropriate locations as identified in Policy ED4".

In making the above changes, we feel that an updated SFRA would not be required at this stage and that a Sequential Test document could also be avoided.


Should the LPA wish to retain reference to Stambridge Mills, we would expect this Core Strategy to be supported by a PPS25 compliant Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). This would provide clear evidence of the flood risk posed to the district upon which to base the application of the PPS25 Sequential Test. It would also provide the necessary evidence base on which to establish the likelihood that part c of the PPS25 Exception Test can be passed. Applying the PPS25 Sequential test will allow for all of the available alternatives to be properly assessed and would thereby provide clear and transparent justification of the LPAs decisions. It would also have to address the issue of prioritising brownfield development in areas of flood risk when some greenbelt land in areas of lesser flood risk is already being released. Some rewording of the policy might be necessary following the completion of these studies in order to deem policy H1 to be sound.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.