Policy BFR4 (and supporting text) - Rawreth Industrial Estate
Introduction
In these representations, we raise a number of concerns regarding the delivery of the proposed allocation at Rawreth Industrial Estate, and the manner in which the proposed allocation is presented in the document.
By way of background, Countryside Properties objected to the proposed site allocation at the Core Strategy stage, on the basis that this existing industrial estate, which is in multiple ownership and with an even greater multitude of tenants, is highly unlikely to be delivered in the plan period, and there is no party other than the Council promoting the land for redevelopment.
The Site Allocations document provides no more information or detail on the matter of the practical delivery of the land, or the timetable within which that could be achieved, and therefore provides no new information that would suggest that the land is in fact either capable or feasible of comprehensive redevelopment.
The fact that this allocation is consistent with the Core Strategy does not of itself make the allocation deliverable, and we would suggest that its inclusion within the Site Allocations still needs to be justified on the basis of positive evidence that the site can in fact be developed as suggested.
Representations
Deliverability
Following on from the above, our first representation in respect of this matter is that Policy BFR4 is unsound since there is no evidence to suggest that the policy proposals are deliverable, and hence the policy is neither Justified nor Effective.
Paragraphs 2.82, 2.88, 2.94, 2.106, and 2.113 of the DPD all provide evidence as to why this site is unlikely to be delivered i.e. because it has a range of existing commercial uses; is likely to require remediation as a result of previous contamination; cannot be delivered until existing uses have been relocated, and development will require significant contributions to community, social, and highway infrastructure. Conversely, the supporting text to the Policy provides no evidence on the viability or feasibility of the site coming forward in the light of these constraints.
Missing from the draft text, but of equal if not greater significance, is the fact that the site is in multiple ownership, is not being promoted for development by the landowners, and in practice the site could only come forward on a comprehensive basis with all landowners involved. All of these factors support our contention that the Policy is Unsound.
Para 2.82 (Site Characteristics)
Following the above, we object specifically to the wording at paragraph 2.82, on the basis that to be Effective, the supporting text to the policy should explain that any redevelopment of the site will need to be on a comprehensive basis, in order to protect the amenity of new residents, and to ensure effective remediation and an appropriate form of development. Paragraph 2.82 should be amended as follows:

"There are a range of industrial buildings, structures and hardstanding on site. Decontamination of the site may be required prior to development. The site is in multiple ownership, and any redevelopment will need to be undertaken on a comprehensive basis in order to protect the amenity of new residential occupiers, to achieve an appropriate form of development having regard to the nature of the existing industrial users and their potential for disturbance, and to ensure effective remediation."

Para 2.85 - Density

The suggested density of up to 60 dph is excessive for this location. Whilst recognising that the site falls within the existing urban area, it is not within a town centre location, and the suggested density is excessive given the character of the area. The adjoining development at Stirling Close/Victoria Avenue immediately to the east is of a similar size (5.6 ha) and has 122 homes at a density of just under 22 dph. Even the more densely developed estate of Grosvenor Road/Brunswick Place has just 109 properties on around 2.9 hectares, giving a density of 37.5 dph.
In the context of the surrounding area, it is difficult to see that the suggested density of up to 60 dwellings per hectare is either feasible (since it would have to rely on a high degree of flatted properties, which the market would not want to deliver in a location such as this), or indeed appropriate. The suggested density is neither Justified nor, given the lack of market interest in developing at this density, Effective.
We would suggest that a density range of 30-35 dph (net) is the most that could be achieve on this site, particularly given the constraints identified elsewhere in the Concept Statement in terms of retaining TPO's and providing on-site open space.
Paras 2.86, 2.87, 2.91 and 2.105 - Scale of development
The text in these paragraphs is confusing as to the scale of development that could be provided on the site. On the one hand it refers to an expectation of 222 dwellings as per the SHLAA (paras 2.87 and 2.91), and on the other hand the calculation of the quantum of open space is based on 89 dwellings (para 2.105), and the assessment at 2.86 would suggest that a yield of up to 140 is more likely based on a realistic density.
The lack of certainty over what the site can deliver stems in part from the fact that there is no party actively promoting or able to deliver the redevelopment of the site. Even so, it would be evident that at the higher development yield suggested, the open space contribution of the site would need to increase above and beyond that set at in the Concept Statement, which raises questions as to whether or not the higher yield suggested in the SHLAA is actually achievable. Even at the lower range of up to 140, the open space quoted for at para 2.105 would be insufficient.
Realistically, having netted off the open space and applied an appropriate density of around 30 dph, the yield from this site would be more likely to be in the region of the 140 units suggested at paragraph 2.86, leaving a 60-70 unit shortfall in the delivery of homes from Rayleigh (even if the site is developed at all).