The evidence base for the localtion of RDC prefferred sites does not stand scrutiny. Despite representations made RDC has not been forthcoming in explaining why the selected preffered sites have been selected over other areas deemed as being not suitable. This was raised as a representation during the core strategy public consultation stage.
RDC has not properly considered all alternate options. I submitted a site under the call for sites exercise from RDC to support the production of the core strategy and DPD. These were not properly considered. RDC did not visit the site until a day after releasing the core strategy for public consultation. In the draft allocations document my site was not accurately reported, and the council had made unsubstantiated negative comment which they have still to provide an answer to.
RDC has not changed a single word of their core strategy document despite the hundreds of representations that have been made. Nor has it provided responses to representations made. In fact there is no evidence that RDC have considered representations at all.
Furthermore I think that it is foolish to signoff a core strategy given that changes likely with the advent of the Localism bill. I consider the development and adoption of RDC's core strategy and dpd to be counter to the localism bill. How will local residents have their say over the future development of their home area if RDC have already made arrangement for years into the future.
RDC have utilised a policy of identifying a limited number of relatively large sites. The reason for this predudice has not been explained in the evidence base. Why not smaller but more numerous sites around the edge of the current built area. Instead we have large development areas, few in number which will result in a largescale expanded sprawl to existing settlements. The RDC strategy will result in settlements merging (Rayleigh and Rawreth). True costs have not been defined to support the provision of the infrastructure necessary for RDC's strategy.
RDC strategy relies on development of productive farmland which is not necessary. RDC proposes to allow development in some areas where no or little current infrastructure exists, rather than re-using the infrastructure that is already in place. History has shown that some of the selected areas are prone to flooding and have flooded since the core strategy has been authored. These minor amandments do nothing to correct an undemocratic, flawed, undesireable, costly strategy which the residents of Rochford will be stuck with forever.
The core strategy cannot be justified, will not be effective, and is not consistent with national policy. This document is therefore the same. Rather than repeat the reasons (yet again) only for them to be ignored, I can only request that you revisit them and a proper response made. I see no evidence of any consideration. No one appears to have listened to any of the representations.