ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS
(REGULATION 26 DRAFT)

My name is Dudley Ball. I have set out my personal response to the LDF document below. The views expressed are entirely my own but are being submitted by my Agents, Edward Gittins & Associates, Planning & Development Consultants, The Mount, Huxtables Lane, Fordham Heath, Colchester Essex, CO3 9TJ.

RESPONSE STATEMENT

PREFACE

"For the last 14 years Rochford District Council have wilfully promoted the idea that the Green Belt for this part of the District was first introduced in 1964 and thus post dated the planning permission for the additional 2 dwellings obtained by my father in 1962 on the whole of the disputed part of Westview, Church Road, Hockley.

Their version of the planning history is patently untrue as proved by their past Local Plans. The true account is that in 1964 this was merely an approved review of a green belt situation that had already been imposed in 1961 and as supported by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government in at least one local planning appeal.

Therefore the planning permission in the Green Belt granted in 1962 for the 2 dwellings proves beyond reasonable doubt that that part of Westview was never intended to form part of the Green Belt. The placing of the Green Belt boundary in a bisecting position in 1964 was and is quite clearly a gross error that has been sought to be concealed by RDC by their promotion of the misleading falsehood of dates that they have consistently repeated to numerous planning Public Inquiries on Westview and that have been accepted by those Inspectors to my severe detriment.

It will be shown that these statements were wilfully made by the production of documentary Council produced evidence.

Therefore all policy issues arising in the LDF process are subordinated to the overriding issue of the LPA promoting a false history to support their policy position to cope with the threat I evidently pose to them after all this time.

It is high time that this injustice to me is righted and the full development rights be reinstated for the northern half of Westview. This evidence forcefully underlines the following case for the release of the said land.

The planning permission granted in the Green Belt in 1962 for 2 houses and past Local Plans all say that the Provisional Green Belt was imposed in 1961 and supported by the then MHLG in planning appeals. It was informing/directing the planning development process at the local level.

Perhaps then in this LDF process the LPA can explain why they have felt it necessary to promote their version of crucial historical events that have led to so many of my past planning appeals being dismissed on those precise Green Belt grounds?

RDC have been notified on two specific occasions to rebut these direct allegations of mine in 2005 and so far have failed to do so. Thus the inception of this latest process gives them the fullest opportunity to explain themselves given the crucially direct bearing this matter has in the consideration of the future of the remainder of Westview.

Thus following the above accusation and claim supported by documentary evidence I set out my observations on two key areas of the Core Strategy, namely The Green Belt and then Housing."

1.0 THE GREEN BELT

1.1 The briefing note that accompanies the Core Strategy document refers to the fact that the Green Belt (GB) and the
strategic buffers it will provide will "have their precise boundaries determined during the Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD)".

1.2 It is notable that the north side of Hockley where Westview lies is the only part not identified to have strategic buffers. Thus the issue of the future location of the GB boundary at Westview can be of no importance or threat to that declared strategy. Thus the appropriateness of the GB boundary randomly bisecting the site can be comfortably reconsidered in the light of the matters raised in the above preamble.

1.3 I submit that even in isolation from the disturbing evidence I set out in my Preface, the land does not genuinely and credibly fulfil any true GB function as set out in the five purposes of the GB that are specifically recited in the Core Strategy Document (CSD).

1.4 How has the partial Green Belt designation of Westview practically and directly served any of the stated local objectives? I would draw attention to the CSD para 4.2.1 that, after declaring its GB policy a success, sets out some protective effects that arise from this policy.

1.5 Thus:-
i) It claims it has protected the historic fabric of the District. There is at Westview no historic fabric to protect and thus this GB function is not served.

ii) There is no countryside abutting Westview that could be encroached upon. This GB function is not served.

iii) As no recreational countryside abuts Westview and none is under threat if the remainder were to be residentially developed, this GB function is not served.

iv) As a number of recent surveys have repetitively confirmed there are no protected species on site and there are no special habitats identified on site, this GB function is not served.

1.6 I now deal with para 4.2.2 where further general objectives are raised. Thus:-

v) It refers to diverting population away from rural areas to existing urban areas. This part of Hockley is not" rural" but medium to low density "urban", and has been confirmed as a sustainable location by appeal decisions and recent permissions for partial redevelopment. This GB function is not served.

vi) Whilst GB boundaries are sought to be maintained, this does not preclude their review along with any other local planning issue. The correction of errors and omissions cannot reasonably be staved off till a strategic review promised in 2021.

1.7 Moving to paragraph 4.2.4 Here the Council raise the concept of strategic buffers and concomitantly invoke a principal reason for Green Belts "- the prevention of coalescence -":

vii) Firstly, as this site is not identified as being within a 'strategic buffer', the GB designation of this part of Westview does not serve GB purposes.

viii) Secondly, the location of this part of the site precludes its release leading to any coalescence whatsoever. It is surrounded by contiguous urban development and again the site does not serve GB purposes.

1.8 Para 4.2.5 raises the issue of Previously Developed Land and its claimed contribution to defending GB land. The whole planning unit including this site has on previous Appeal been declared PDL ,has been accepted in the Council's oral evidence at Appeal as PDL, and has been confirmed as PDL by an Appeal Inspector.

ix) The release of the remainder of this site that happens to be GB will not be piecemeal as it is residentially allocated and half is already being redeveloped. In fact, because it is PDL , the Council's own text in this para means that its release will contribute to restricting "the need for GB land to be released in a piecemeal fashion".

x) The 1988 plan was heavily criticised by the 1995 Local Plan Inspector that GB boundaries were drawn too tightly causing a row to erupt in correspondence between the Regional Planning Office and RDC Members and Officers who did not like being accused by Inspector Platts of "being dazzled by the green belt" by not properly allowing for future housing land releases and that their excessively tightly drawn boundaries would instead ensure that such land was unacceptably only available on a "hand to mouth basis". This para. signals their intent to continue with this previously criticised approach.

xi) All urban garden land is PDL yet as we shall see in the next section the Council seek to establish an exempt sub category of the lesser large gardens being excluded from redevelopment, a source up to now they have been happy to see exploited. This site, as PDL, serves that worthy purpose they identify of minimising the need to release open countryside.

xii) There is no ministerial support for their stated objective here "to prioritise the use of previously developed site" that implies they will rank them for release and use that for reasons of refusal. There is no required or proven need for PDL release prioritisation.

1.9 Finally in para 4.2.7, the capacity to review the GB status of sites is admittedly allowed where it says, "The Council will also consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil GB objectives." The use of the word 'consider' reserves their position to release any land rather than this sentence being a positive assertion that they will. The use of this word means no guarantee is being given that the Council will identify any candidates whilst still appearing to be open minded.

1.10 It can be seen in the light of the preceding and the well established 5 purposes of the GB that this site does not serve any of those purposes, is according to the owner held there on a false premise, and therefore should be released from GB designation forthwith.

2.0 HOUSING NUMBERS & PHASING

2.1 Even allowing for the deductions from the total of 4,600 units set for RDC the 3,699 remaining is nevertheless a significant number as set out in their para 4.5.1.

2.2 In order to achieve their stated priority of protecting open countryside (which this site is not) they need to follow their own counsel and look to all that PDL source of sites that will continue to contribute a worthwhile number of dwellings as a valuable part of the new housing land supply.

2.3 I am concerned that the public is being asked to endorse Draft Preferred Options in advance of the Council setting out the estimated figures for windfall sites which will be an important determinant in the scale of future allocations.

2.4 The PDL sites of single dwellings being replaced with a number of new ones are now criticised as causing harm to their surroundings and yet it is acknowledged they contribute to reducing open GB land-take. As this form of redevelopment was and is encouraged by Central Government, is a rejection of National Guidance proposed here? Good design and good development control policies should ensure that this resource is brought forward and used efficiently, not proposed to be excluded as is hinted here.

2.5 The next para at 4.5.5 seeks to compound this reinterpretation for where are the bigger urban sites; surely such sites have all gone - certainly this is true in Hockley. This is a stealth policy to prevent any further urban PDL redevelopment in Hockley such as is happening beneficially at Westview. It seems if the GB policy " doesn't get" this owner, then the new 'small PDL exclusion' category will. This is negative planning and blatant status quo protectionism of Hockley to the exclusion of the rest of the District, as can be seen in a later para at 4.6.19 where Hockley is portrayed in a less favourable sustainability light than the other two main settlements.

2.6 With regard to para 4.5.8, the evidence that this site is a well located and sustainable one for release is the fact that - within the same planning unit - the southern half along with its neighbouring property is currently being redeveloped. Sustainability is not a reason to stop this site's release from the GB.

2.7 This para. places the GB part of Westview in the forefront for release as it is an 'inside of the edge of a settlement' location despite the erroneous zoning. One merely has to look at its surroundings of large detached urban dwellings to see that it is a prime candidate - regardless of the allegations I make about the Council's own version of its planning history promoted to bolster their case for preventing its past release.

2.8 None of the criteria listed at para4.6.2 are contravened by this site, whilst para. 4.6.3 places Hockley in the top tier of settlements for preferred locations for new development; this is reinforced at para 4.6.6. It is only at para. 4.6.19 where the Hockley protectionism drifts back in and it is set in a slightly less favourable light to the other two - creating a sub-hierarchy.

CONCLUSION

It is overwhelmingly evident that this site is PDL in a sustainable location in one of the three settlements favoured by the Council and in a settlement specifically earmarked for 400 new dwellings. This site if released will contribute 6 or 7 more to those already under construction. It is abundantly clear it fulfils none of the stated 5 purposes of the GB, nor any of the others raised by the Council in their consultation document and dealt with in this response.

This site and others like it should be identified as high priority for release on the grounds that they accord with the Council's stated objectives for finding such land for the additional housing it is required to provide.


DUDLEY BALL
JULY 2007