We write to the publication of the Schedule of Amendments to the Core Strategy to set out representations on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP (CLLLP).

These representations have been prepared in direct response to the Schedule of Amendments to the Core Strategy. However, they draw from representations submitted on behalf of CLLLP to previous consultations on the Core Strategy, which have ultimately let to the preparation of the Schedule of Amendments. These consultations have been numerous, but the central message contained within these representations is that the Core Strategy remains unsound.

The current Schedule of Amendments to the Core Strategy does not change the view of CLLLP that the Core Strategy is unsound. Furthermore, they support the contentions made within the representations of CLLLP to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Addendum June 2011 that the exercise was merely an ex post facto decision to justify a predetermined strategy. The retrospective application by Rochford District Council of the Sustainability Appraisal came too late in the DPD process to enable it to have made comparative value judgements between alternative growth areas.

Indeed, within the tabulated schedule of amendments, the justification for the change made to paragraph 1.29 of the Core Strategy states that the SA Addendum June 2011 was produced '... in light of the development in case law on Strategic Environmental Assessments.' The representations of CLLLP to the SA Addendum June 2011 specifically noted concern that the document referred in paragraph 1.3 to '... new case law arising from this ruling', which in itself confirmed that the consultant engaged to undertake the SA Addendum and previous versions of the SA neither understood nor applied the requirements of the SEA Directive. It must be implied from the justification included for the change to paragraph 1.29 that the Council has suffered a similar failure regarding the requirements of the SEA Directive.

It is also relevant to note at this stage that the submitted version of the SA Addendum July 2011 (as submitted to the Inspector on 26 July 2011 following a short consultation between 13 June and 11 July) contained only very minor changes to the text as a result of the consultation. Of particular interest is the change to paragraph 2.6 of the submitted SA Addendum, which confirms that:

'... whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the LDF, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; planning and feasibility factors play a key role in the decision-making process.'

This clarifies that it is not just the findings of the SA process that fed into the decisions taken by the Council regarding the broad locations for growth. However there remains a disconnect in the decision making process as the Council has been unable to produce evidence of processes that resulted in the rejection of East Rochford as a broad location for housing growth. The evidence of the decision making processes that led to the selection of the broad locations for housing growth has not been made publicly available, so despite clarifying that the SA was only part of the process, and in itself a flawed part in the process (for reasons set out in the representations of CLLLP to the SA Addendum dated 8 July 2011), it is unable to confirm that the broad locations for housing growth and all reasonable alternatives were objectively assessed against a number of key indicators, including their effect on highways, landscape and the Green Belt.

Another minor change to the SA Addendum confirms the curious differences contained within the assessment of the housing development options for Rochford/Ashingdon. The addition of the text '... therefore it won't project out into open landscape' with reference to Location 5, SA Objective 8 is not accompanied by comparable changes to the assessment of SA Objective 8 for Locations 1 and 3. Were the assessment of Location 1 and 3 to have been undertaken in a truly objective and robust manner, Location 1 would have been marked down for constituting a very significant incursion into the open countryside and Location 3 would have been marked up to reflect its connection with the urban form and the level of surrounding development.

These matters provide further evidence to justify the contention of CLLLP that the exercise as a whole was an ex post facto decision to justify a predetermined strategy.

Appendix CSSMA 1 confirms that the plan period will not cover a 15 year period in accordance with the requirements of existing and emerging national policy requirements. Whilst this matter has been referred to in correspondence between the Inspector and the Council, it remains the case that PPS12 requires the plan to cover a period of at least 15 years, more if necessary.

In the context of the accepted need for Green Belt release to accommodate housing growth in Rochford, the proposed adoption of a plan that covers a period of less than 15 years is considered to be unsound and contrary to national planning policy. The guidance on the identification of Green Belt boundaries contained within PPG2 and the emerging National Planning Policy Framework confirms the importance that the plan considers the intended performance of Green Belt boundaries in the long term. They should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period and Local Planning Authorities should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period.

The Core Strategy fails each of these aims by proposing a short term plan that fails to establish Green Belt boundaries that are capable of enduring in the long term.

All of the above must also be placed in the context of the quote from the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Transportation regarding the need for further Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy on the Core Strategy Examination page of the Council's website, which states:

'You will know that the process surrounding the development and adoption of our Core Strategy has been significantly delayed due to factors beyond this Council's control, such as 'Cala vs. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government', the High Court Judgement which ruled against the Secretary of State's instruction to disregard the Regional Spatial Strategy.

There has been a more recent court ruling relating to 'The Forest Heath Core Strategy' and their Sustainability Appraisal. We intend to ensure that we conform to the findings and ruling of this court judgement, and as such there will need to be a review of our own sustainability appraisal; unfortunately this will inevitably lead to a further short delay.

Whilst this is frustrating, it will have the advantage of ensuring that our core strategy coincides with the Royal assent of the Coalition Government's Localism Bill thus revoking the Regional Spatial Strategy once and for all.

It it high time that this lengthy saga was brought to a satisfactory conclusion; this will remove doubt, cease speculation and provide a surety of knowledge as to precisely how our District will develop up to and including 2031' [our emphasis].

This statement confirms that the Council has an ulterior motive in producing this additional work. It implies that the Council has no intention of progressing the Core Strategy in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. Rather it implies that the Council will, at the earliest opportunity, seek to scale back housing provision targets significantly.

The recent actions of the Council have confirmed that the Core Strategy has been prepared against a body of evidence that was not subject to robust or compliant SA. This has fundamentally affected the ability of the Council to make property informed and thereby valid strategic judgements regarding important aspects of housing growth and provision - matters that go to the heart of the Core Strategy DPD.

Finally, we confirm that we reserve the right to show correspondence relating to the matters raised by this letter to the Court at a subsequent date.