I agree that there is a requirement to some green belt land to build the housing that is required. I do not agree that the core strategy represents the best way of acheiving this. George Orwell himself could not have created a finer example of double speak in action. Preffered locations, deemed as the most sustainable, regardless of the fact that vast amounts of concrete are to be laid onto the green belt before a single home is provided, regardless of the fact that other green belt sites exist where this would not be the case. Large financial investment will be required for the "preffered locations" to make them suitable (providing essential services, removing pylons, making good flood plains etc) rather than considering sites where existing infrastructure can be re-used without the need for this massive (largely unquantified) investment. Productive agricultural land is deemed as the most suitable location, as opposed to gardens in the built area. A low number of massive expansions to the residential envelope of our towns are preffered but this supposedly does not result in additional urban sprawl, will not result in the merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth, is prefferable to using a larger number of smaller "green belt" sites around the edge of settlements. They exist, I know because I submitted one for RDC's consideration. The planning department decided to visit it 1 day AFTER the draft strategy was released for public consultation. Hows that for evidence that all alternate options have been explored!
The emperor has no clothes. The secrets out. Job well done!