Comment

Issues and Options Document

Representation ID: 37377

Received: 07/03/2018

Respondent: Whirledge & Nott

Representation Summary:

RE: Land south of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge

Point SP 2.2: How do we continue to support local facilities in our village and neighbourhood centres?

The development would support the village services including shops and public houses. The site would be within 800m to these services showing easy access to these.

'Core Strategy policy RTC3 seeks to protect retail uses within residential areas and will only permit the loss of such retail uses where it has been clearly demonstrated that a retail use in the location is not viable and that the proposed alternative use will still offer a service to the local community that meets day-to-day needs.'

The development of the site would further increase the demand and support the need for the village services in Hullbridge improving the sustainability of these services.

Given the above option A. should be adopted to retain the existing Core Strategy policy.

Full text:

RE: Land south of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge

Point SP 1.1 (Objectively Assessed Need.) We have a real and identified need for affordable homes in the district and an ageing population, so how do we sustainably meet our need for market and affordable homes, and homes for older people and adults with disabilities over the next 20 years?

Response:

Rochford District Council should provide the housing in the district as required by the Objectively Assessed Need of between 331 to 361 houses per annum. Rochford Council should not rely on neighbouring authorities Duty to Cooperate as these areas are also under pressure to supply housing. Neighbouring Authorities may also be relying on Rochford to meet their deficit in supply. Rochford District Council should ensure they have a supply to meet their minimum requirements, going further than the proposed option A. 'Seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within our area, as far as possible, given environmental and other constraints.' To achieve this the Council must consider releasing more land from the Green Belt, as detailed in the response to Point SP 5.1 below to meet the demands.

Point SP 1.3: How do we plan to facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next 20 years within the district?

Response:

Additional from that land already in the SHLAA the above land should be included in the local plan for future development to meet the target of supplying at least 331 houses per annum. For this reason option C. (Several Small extensions to the existing area) would be one good way to achieve the annual housing requirement in the Rochford District. This site would be considered a small extension to the existing residential area and help meet Rochford Councils requirements.

Point SP 2.2: How do we continue to support local facilities in our village and neighbourhood centres?

The development would support the village services including shops and public houses. The site would be within 800m to these services showing easy access to these.

'Core Strategy policy RTC3 seeks to protect retail uses within residential areas and will only permit the loss of such retail uses where it has been clearly demonstrated that a retail use in the location is not viable and that the proposed alternative use will still offer a service to the local community that meets day-to-day needs.'

The development of the site would further increase the demand and support the need for the village services in Hullbridge improving the sustainability of these services.

Given the above option A. should be adopted to retain the existing Core Strategy policy.

Point SP 5.1: How do we balance protection of the district's Green Belt that the meets the five Green Belt purposes, against the need to deliver new homes and jobs across the district and the wider South Essex area?

Response:

The principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas. The development of the Green Belt should only happen in exceptional circumstances, but as repeated by Government publications the plan-led system should review the existing Green Belt boundary to ensure development is always Sustainable.

The Five purposes of the Green Belt are:
1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and
5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

The Councils approach to the Green Belt is set out in the Core Strategy adopted in December 2011. The four objectives of the Core Strategy for the Green Belt are
1. Continue to protect the openness and character of the District's Green Belt
2. Ensure the minimum amount of Green Belt is allocated to meet the District's housing and employment needs, and that extensions to the residential envelope are in sustainable locations, which retain the individual identities of settlements and prevent coalescence
3. Ensure existing lawful businesses in the Green Belt are able to continue to function and contribute to the local economy, as appropriate, having regarding to the impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt.
4. Ensure appropriate forms of diversification are encouraged to support the local rural economy and help achieve the vision of developing green tourism in the District.

The above land should be considered, as it meets the requirements for new housing set out in points one and two above. There should also be an amendment to the current policy to release sustainable sites along with the above from the Green Belt easier and hence the support for option B. to amend the current Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy.