Introduction
Our clients, Countryside Properties, control land between London Road and Rawreth Lane to the west of Rayleigh, and are committed to the delivery of a high quality sustainable urban extension in this location, in accordance with the Adopted Core Strategy. They are in the process of drawing up their Masterplan proposals for the site.
We support much of the Site Allocations DPD as it relates to site SER1, and the Council's broad vision for the area is essentially the same at the vision that Countryside Properties has for the area. However, there are specific elements of the site allocation and the Concept statement with which we disagree. In particular, and as discussed further below, we do not agree that the western extents of the proposed allocated area for a logical boundary to the development, provides the necessary flexibility that the Masterplan requires (as per our representations elsewhere), or provides an appropriate long term Green Belt boundary, having regard to paragraph 85 of the NPPF.
Representations
Paragraphs 3.17, 3.19, 3.20 and Figure 6 - Site Capacity, Reserve Land/Flexibility and Green Belt Boundary
We agree that the quantum of development and list of land uses identified in the Concept Statement is capable of delivery within the area of land shown in Figure 6. We do not seek to suggest that the quantum of land proposed for allocation is, per se, insufficient for the stated purposes.
However, we do not consider that the boundary shown for the proposed allocation (which in effect defines the new boundary to the Green Belt) is the most appropriate (and therefore Justified), will enable the full requirements of the Core Strategy to be delivered (Effective/Positively Prepared), or that it is consistent with the objectives for the long-term protection of the Green Belt (compliant with National Policy). We consider these matters further below.
Paragraph 85 of the NPPF sets out 6 requirements for LPAs when defining boundaries, and we consider these each in turn, and in the context of the above:
(i) Ensure consistency with the Local Plan Strategy for meeting identified requirements.
Figure 6 is labelled "residential area pre 2021" and in so far as the Core Strategy requires development of 550 homes in this area by 2021, it is consistent with the Core Strategy.
However, as previously discussed, the Core Strategy requires flexibility from the growth locations so that they can potentially accommodate additional development, to make up for shortfall elsewhere. Unnecessarily constraining the development area removes the flexibility that the Core Strategy requires, and therefore the allocation is not consistent with the LP strategy, as adopted in the CS.
Furthermore, the Core Strategy itself only covered a 13 year period to 2025, and, in advance of the promised Core Strategy review, there can be no certainty at this stage as to where further development may be accommodated in the medium term (i.e. beyond the remaining 12 years covered by the Core Strategy).
(ii) Not include land which is it unnecessary to keep permanently open.
It will be evident that the boundary shown on Figure 6 on the western side of the proposed allocation is arbitrary in nature. Since the pylons are likely to remain, the Council has broadly used this as a boundary to the western extent of the development, and in the Concept statement, the Council refers to a need for a 'green buffer' on the western side of the development. It will be seen that towards the southern half of the site, the pylon line is used as the extent of the development, whereas to the north of the area, the development edge is set back some 60m from the Pylon line. Following the terminology used in the NPPF it is difficult to see why this thin strip of land between the pylons and the edge of the development is "necessary to be kept permanently open" on the north side of the site, whereas on the south side of the site there appears to be no such need. Taking in to account also that there will remain a substantial area open, undeveloped land to the west of the Pylon line, the 'necessity' for retaining this strip of land is further diminished.
A common application of logic to the definition of the Green Belt boundary would be that, if the pylon line is to be used as the physical marker for the Green Belt boundary, that marker is used consistently for the western edge.
There is no definitive guidance on appropriate off-set distances from power lines. From a Masterplan and from a marketing perspective, Countryside Properties are proposing to leave a separation of around 30 metres. There is no justification that we are aware of for a 60m off-set.
(iii) Where necessary, identify in their plans areas of 'safeguarded land' between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period.
For the reasons given elsewhere in our submissions i.e. this is an instance where the Site Allocations only has a relatively short time horizon (up to 2025), and where it is acknowledged that an early review of the Core Strategy is required in order to extend the life of the plan and render it NPPF-compliant in terms of housing requirement, this is a situation whereby the LPA should be looking to identify safeguarded land to ensure that Green Belt boundaries set now will endure beyond the length of the Plan period.
Indeed, in this instance, the setting of a Green Belt boundary to 2021 (which is what Figure 6 is stated to be) ignores the fact that additional land may well be required to be brought forward within the lifetime of this Plan, in order to meet a likely lack of delivery elsewhere in the area.
(iv) Make clear that safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time.
A simple alteration to the Concept Statement could make clear that any safeguarded land is not allocated for development.
(v) Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period.
For the reasons given above, there can be no certainty that the Green Belt boundary as proposed might not need to be altered within the current Plan period to cater for lack of delivery elsewhere, since the 5% flexibility allowance is insufficient, let alone certainty that it would not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
(vi) Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
We accept that the lack of substantial boundaries on the ground does represent a challenge to defining the Green Belt boundary in this location, but the NPPF nevertheless states that this should be achieved.
As stated above, if the pylons are to be used as the new Green Belt boundary, then this should be applied consistently, and the off-set on the northern side, which follows no feature whatsoever, removed and the line redrawn westwards to the pylons.
However, there are physical features on the ground that could be used in this instance, and taking in to account also the need for some flexibility in the site area, and the need to define a Green Belt boundary that may endure, a more appropriate (and therefore Justified) Green Belt boundary can be set, which would also then be consistent with National Policy.
In accordance with our comments above, at the very least, if the pylon line is to be used as a physical marker for the Green Belt boundary, then it should be applied consistently, and the arbitrary 60m off-set for part of its length removed, such that the Green Belt boundary/allocated site would be as shown on the plan at Figure 1 overleaf:

Figure 1 - Green Belt boundary using pylon line.
However, to properly comply with the NPPF and the adopted Core Strategy, then as per our submissions above the Green Belt boundary should be defined for the long-term, taking account of physical features, and provide the flexibility necessary to ensure that the requirements of the Core Strategy can be met. The proposed alternative boundary is shown on Figure 2 overleaf.

Figure 2 - NPPF and Core Strategy compliant boundary.
Of course, it does not follow that the proposed housing itself would extend to the west of the Pylon line, even with the proposed revised boundary. The Concept Statement requires a green buffer to the west of the development, and even though excluded from the Green Belt, there is no reason why the land between the pylons and the revised boundary cannot stay open and used for such purposes.
However, the revision of the Green Belt boundary in the manor suggested will:
(a) accord with the criteria in the NPPF for definition of boundaries having regard to physical features and permanence;

(b) provide flexibility, should there be a need for additional development (whether as a result of a shortfall in housing, or, as per our separate objections to Policy NEL1, a shortfall in commercial land to meet the Core Strategy requirement);


(c) will ensure that all infrastructure associated with the development can be provided within the area excluded from the Green Belt (including the means of access from London Road, which is proposed west of the pylon line, and the link road between London Road and Rawreth Lane, which is also likely to run west of the pylons at least in part);

(d) would enable open spaces uses such as any relocated playing fields (and associated parking areas/buildings) to be provided within the excluded area; and

(e) will allow a comprehensive approach to Masterplanning which recognises at least the potential need to allow for flexibility, rather than relying on ad hoc additional releases in the event of a shortfall in delivery.