East Ashingdon

1. We support a residential allocation in the location known by the Council as 'East Ashingdon'. We act on behalf of all of the landowners who own the agricultural land which adjoins the urban area to the north and south of Brays Lane (see attached land ownership plan ref: 010036/05).

2. This broad location is sustainably located, in close proximity to many valuable amenities. A parade of shops, known as the Golden Cross Shops, contains a range of uses and is within five minutes walking distance. For a wider range of services, Rochford town centre is 1.5 miles from the site and only a 4 minute bus ride away. The nearest bus stops are a short distance from the site at the junction of Ashingdon Road and Brays Lane, providing convenient access by public transport to the centre of Rochford, the train station and other centres in the area.

3. This land has been historically promoted through the planning process, with the Local Plan Inspector recognising in 2006 that:

"The site has advantages in its location on the edge of the existing settlement and in close proximity to shops, schools and other facilities and public transport links. Development could support the open space proposed in Brays Lane and the provision of improved access to the school."

However at that time there was no need to allocate this land as housing requirements could be met on brownfield sites.

4. Technical studies have been carried out in relation to our clients' land. These have revealed that there are no constraints which could prevent development from contributing towards the Council's five year housing land supply. Furthermore, development in this location can offer considerable community benefits, particularly to the King Edmund secondary school, which is located to the south of the representation site.

5. It is noted that the Council has identified three potential sites for development in this broad location.

i. Site EA1: to the south of Brays Lane
ii. Site EA2: to the north of Brays Lane
iii. Site EA3: to the north and south of Brays Lane

6. All of these three sites fall within our clients' ownership. We submit that a site which extends slightly further north than EA3 would represent the most appropriate option. For ease of reference, we call our preferred option EA4. A site plan showing this area is attached (ref: 010036/06).

7. It is our intention to submit an outline planning application for this site. Most of the technical studies and surveys and other supporting information have now been completed and detailed discussions have been held with Council officers which have helped to shape the proposals. It is anticipated that an application will be submitted to the Council in the next few weeks.

8. The application will cover a site area of around 10 ha and will primarily comprise residential development (up to 150 dwellings), reserve land for the secondary school and an access and bus turning circle for the school. The density of the development is 30 dwellings per hectare, which has been carefully assessed and is considered to be appropriate in this location, given the low density development in the vicinity and the location of the site on the edge of the urban area and the Council's standards and requirements in terms of housing layout. The illustrative masterplan attached (ref: 010036/03) shows how this can be achieved.

9. The Core Strategy identifies East Ashingdon as a broad location for housing at policy H2 and although it identifies that the site should deliver 100 dwellings by 2015, it does recognise that "the detailed location and quantum of development will be articulated within the Allocations Development Plan Document."

10. It should be noted that whilst the three options for this site identified by the Council consider different site areas (or locations) they do not consider quantum. Option EA3 encompasses both of the sites for Option EA1 and EA2 and yet the quantum for this larger site area remains fixed at 100 dwellings. It is assumed that the quantums and site areas have not been assessed in detail by the Council at this early stage in the process and that the exact site areas and quantums will be established through the development plan process. Notwithstanding this, we have given detailed consideration to the three options presented by the Council. Our evaluation of each of these options is set out below.

OPTION EA1

11. As this land immediately adjoins the King Edmund Secondary School, it is ideally placed to deliver the educational and highway improvements for the school. We have held discussions with both Blaise Gammie from School Organisation and Planning at Essex County Council and Mr Abel, the Headmaster of the school. There is agreement that this land, immediately to the north of the school in the most appropriate location for these improvements. Although the Core Strategy identifies that 3ha of land needs to be reserved for future educational requirements, it has been agreed that the school's requirements in terms of both the reserve land and the highways improvements can be accommodated within 3ha. Although this revised configuration allows for a larger residential land parcel (2.53 ha) this could only accommodate around 60 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Even at a higher density of 40 dwellings per hectare only around 80 dwellings could be achieved. Whilst achieving a greater number of units such a scheme would neither meet the Council's requirements of 100 units, nor would it reflect the character of the area. Furthermore, financial viability would be put into question given the significant infrastructure contributions required.

OPTION EA2

12. Whilst development in this location is supported, it should not come forward in isolation as it cannot deliver the improvements to King Edmund School. Further, this site area (2.91 ha) could only accommodate around 63 dwellings, which is considerably lower than the quantum set out in the Core Strategy.

OPTION EA3

13. This is the most suitable of the three options identified by the Council as it includes sufficient land for the school improvements, with the site being able to accommodate a larger area for residential development. However, we believe that the site area is not sufficient to deliver a high quality scheme, which meets parking and amenity standards and provides for all of the wider requirements of the Core Strategy. The site area should therefore be amended to include additional land to the north, for reasons set out below.

14. We note that the Council considers that "the site to the north would not provide a defensible green belt boundary". A Preliminary Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been undertaken to examine this. This report reveals that although the area of countryside is within the Green Belt, its intrinsic value and sensitivity of the landscape is low. The land parcel to the south of Brays Lane is well enclosed and has little relationship with the outlying countryside. The southern third of the northern parcel also has no publicly appreciable relationship or visual link to the outlying countryside and development here would not affect the character and the openness of the remaining Green Belt land. Further north the site does have some visual link with the Green Belt, however influences are highly limited. Development would not bring significant changes to the scene that cannot be mitigated. It is also possible that good design of the development edge could result in an enhanced urban edge. This option has a total site area of 5.44 ha and is capable of accommodating around 123 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Given that extending the site boundary further to the north has limited impacts in terms of landscape and visual amenity, it is submitted that any harm will be outweighed by the positive contribution to housing supply in a sustainable location.

15. In considering detailed proposals for this broad location a scheme was sought that met a number of criteria. These included meeting the objectives of the Core Strategy, providing a viable scheme given the substantial contributions required and ensuring that the proposals would be technically acceptable and that the impact on the Green Belt and landscape would be kept to a minimum.

16. As stated above, we put forward a preferred option, EA4, which is shown on the attached plan (ref. 010036/06). This option is considered in greater detail below.


OPTION EA4

17. This option can offer the following:

 Up to 150 dwellings, including affordable homes with a mix of types and tenures;
 Improved access and bus turning circle for the King Edmund School;
 Reserve school land to meet future requirements;
 Public open space;
 Potential to accommodate community/youth facilities if necessary;
 Contributions towards transportation improvements, if required; and
 Appropriate landscaping.

18. This option accords with the Core Strategy, providing development in an area which has been identified at policy H2 as a broad location for housing. It also accords with policy CLT3 by providing an improved access and bus turning circle and reserve land for the King Edmund School.

19. Although Option EA4 provides a greater quantum of development than the 100 dwellings identified in the Core Strategy, it is recognised at policy H2 that it will be the Site Allocations DPD through which quantums will be established. The Council recognises that this site is capable of accommodating more than 100 dwellings in their SHLAA and it is understood that the Core Strategy contains conservative estimates for Green Belt sites to ensure that targets are met.

20. Our detailed analysis has revealed that 150 dwellings can be accommodated on this site, making a valuable contribution towards housing land supply.

21. In conclusion, it is submitted that a revised site area in accordance with our Option EA4 should be identified as the Council's Preferred Option.