Consultation on the New Local Plan: Spatial Options
Reponses to Questions 20, 22, 23 and 25
Representations made on behalf of Star UK Rayleigh Propco Limited
These representations are submitted on behalf of our client and owner of the Michelin Farm site, Star
UK Rayleigh Propco Limited, following publication of the New Local Plan: Spatial Options (Regulation
18) Consultation Document. This follows our previous submissions to Rochford District Council’s
(RDC) Planning Policy (correspondence dated 8th June 2021, 18th June 2021, and 1st September
2021) copies of which appear at Document 1.
By way of background, Quod has been involved in the Michelins Farm site since January 2018, acting
as planning consultant to the current landowner – who acquired the site in September 2020, the
previous landowner – who acquired the site in 2018 and the development manager, Equation
Properties, who facilitated the acquisition of the land.
Star UK Rayleigh Propco Limited’s freehold ownership extends to c. 11 hectares and broadly
encompasses the land identified under Policy NEL1 (West of the A1245, Rayleigh) and Policy GT1
(Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation) of the Rochford District Council – Local Development
Frameworks Allocation Document (adopted February 2014). A Site Location Plan indicating the extent
of Star UK Rayleigh Propco Limited’s ownership appears as Document 2.
It is in this context that the representations have been prepared.
1 Michelin Farm
As the Council will be aware, the land in question has been the subject of numerous planning
applications over the past 3 years.
Outline planning permission for c. 45,000 square metres of Classes B1(c), B2 and B8 floorspace was
granted on 14th July 2020 (ref. 18/01022/OUT). This permission related to land broadly identified under
Policy NEL1. Phase 1 of this development for c. 11,500 square metres of industrial warehouse
floorspace is currently under construction.
An application for full planning was also submitted on part of the site in December 2020 (ref.
20/01196/FUL). The proposed development extends from Star UK Rayleigh Propco Limited’s
landholding to the land allocated under GT1. The application is pending determination and proposes
the development of a single warehouse building of c. 30,000 square metres. At the time of writing, the
planning application remains undetermined. The application seeks to provide a high-quality industrial
development for which a significant need has been identified. It is estimated that the development – if
approved – will generate between 500 and 920 full-time equivalent jobs.
The intentions of the current and previous landowner, along with the development manager, have
been consistent over the past three and a half years, namely, to promote all the land at Michelins
Farm for employment development. As will be outlined in this representation, Star UK Rayleigh Propco
Limited have not developed the land allocated under Policy GT1 for Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation for clear commercial reasons. Furthermore, there is clear deliverability issues
preventing Gypsy and Traveller accommodation at the site.
The intention of the landowner is to continue to promote and develop the site for high-quality
employment floorspace.
2 Planning policy for traveller sites
It is important to summarise the relevant national policy framework for traveller sites, as set out in the
Department for Communities and Local Government August 2015 document, Planning policy for
traveller sites. This sets out (para. 3) that it is the Government’s overarching aim to ensure fair and
equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of
travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community. To help achieve this the
Government’s aims in respect of traveller sites are (para. 4):
a. “that local planning authorities should make their own assessment of need for the
purposes of planning
b. to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective
strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites
c. to encourage local planning authorities to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale
d. that plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate
development
e. to promote more private traveller site provision while recognising that there will always be
those travellers who cannot provide their own sites
f. that plan-making and decision-taking should aim to reduce the number of unauthorised
developments and encampments and make enforcement more effective
g. for local planning authorities to ensure that their Local Plan includes fair, realistic and
inclusive policies
h. to increase the number of traveller sites in appropriate locations with planning permission,
to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply
i. to reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning
decisions
j. to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellers can access
education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure
k. for local planning authorities to have due regard to the protection of local amenity and local
environment”
It goes on to set out when local planning authorities should do, in producing their Local Plan (para.
10):
a. “identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5
years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets
b. identify a supply of specific, developable sites, or broad locations for growth, for years 6
to 10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 5
c. consider production of joint development plans that set targets on a cross-authority basis,
to provide more flexibility in identifying sites, particularly if a local planning authority has
special or strict planning constraints across its area (local planning authorities have a duty
to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries)
d. relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location
of the site and the surrounding population’s size and density
e. protect local amenity and environment.”
The relevant Spatial Options should be viewed in this national policy context.
3 Issues and Options Document Consultation (Regulation 18)
Before we respond to the Regulation 18 Spatial Options Consultation it is first important to summarise
the representations we made to the Issues and Options consultation in March 2018 (our letter dated
7th March 2018) which appear as Document 3. Those representations were made on behalf of
4/15
Equation Properties (Equation) who were acting on behalf of then prospective purchaser of Michelin
Farm, Lash Capital. The representations focused on the part of the Michelin Farm site that is allocated
under Policy GT1 of the Site Allocations DPD, with Equation:
▪ Objecting to the retention of Michelins Farm for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation (SP1.5
Option B);
▪ Supporting the allocation a number of smaller Gypsy and Traveller pitches / sites to meet the
needs of the local area (SP1.5 Option C);
▪ Supporting the relocation of Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate for employment uses (SP1.8 Option
B);
▪ Supporting the continued allocation of Michelins Farm given the strong commercial interest in
developing the site for a range of employment uses (Classes B1(c), B2 and B8) (SP1.8 Option
C); and
▪ Supporting the allocation of new employment land to meet the identified demand for new
employment floorspace across the district (SP1.8 Option D).
Equation remaining the appointed Development Manager for the Michelin Farm employment
development, now acting on behalf of the current owner, Star UK Rayleigh Propco Limited. The views
of the DM and the new owner are completely aligned in respect of the Michelin Farm site including its
suitability for employment development and fundamental unsuitability for gypsy and traveller
accommodation given the significant constrains surrounding its delivery, as we will reiterate below.
4 Objectively Assessed Needs
The consultation document sets out the options for meeting the District’s objectively assessed needs.
Pertinent to our client’s landholding is the proposed strategy surrounding the District’s Gypsy and
Traveller accommodation needs. This is dealt with under the “Spatial Themes” heading of the
consultation document, forming part of “Housing for All”.
The evidence base (in the form of the GTAA1
) identifies a requirement for 19 pitches by 2033 (for
those meeting the policy definition of Gypsy or Traveller) but with the need significantly front- loaded.
There is also a requirement of 11 pitches for those who no longer travel. Of the required pitches, 25
are required in the period 2016-2021. The consultation document states:
“The Council’s current policy position on traveller needs is to prioritise the delivery of a new permanent
traveller site at Michelin Farm, which has capacity for 15 or more pitches, which would be sufficient to
meet most of Rochford’s needs. Feedback from the Issues & Options consultation was generally supportive of delivering a permanent site at Michelin Farm in preference to authorising or allocating
alternative sites. However, this site is not being delivered as expected and there now exists significant
doubt as to when or if the delivery of this site is likely to be possible.” (our emphasis)
First, it should also be highlighted from the outset that whilst feedback from the previous Issues &
Options consultation is identified as being “generally supportive” of delivering a permanent site at
Michelin Farm in preference to authorising or allocating alternative sites, as summarised above, our
representations were not supportive. Our representations requested that the site be de-allocated for
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and instead be allocated for employment development,
consistent with the adjacent NEL1 allocation.
Secondly, of the Spatial Options consulted upon, RDC have outlined the following options to assist in
meeting the objectively assessed need:
“Non-exclusive options for addressing permanent accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers
and Travelling Showpeople include:
1. Retaining the current policy position of delivering a permanent site at Michelin Farm, if it can
be established that this site is deliverable within the plan period.
2. Prioritising the regularisation of existing unauthorised sites where any environmental,
transport and amenity impacts of doing so are outweighed by the benefits.
3. Prioritising the regularisation and expansion of existing unauthorised sites where any
environmental, transport and amenity impacts of doing so are outweighed by the benefits.
4. Allocating new areas of land for permanent traveller sites, informed by a specific Call for Sites
and site assessment process for potential locations for new traveller sites.
5. Requiring new strategic housing allocation to set aside areas for permanent traveller sites
within the general boundary of any allocation.
6. Working with neighbouring authorities to meet permanent traveller accommodation needs in
other local authority areas if it is established that needs could be better met by permanent sites
located elsewhere.
The deliverability issues associated with the existing allocated Policy GT1 site have persuaded the
Council of the need to consider alternative options for meeting the assessed need which is supported.
However, as we will come on to discuss, there is no apparent consideration of the ability of the
allocated site to meet the increased need which the GTAA has identified or of the reasoning of several
inspectors2 who have recently questioned whether the Council’s approach could be justified by
reference to Government policy3
. Both these factors indicate that the Council needs to reconsider its
existing policy approach and that continuing with the present allocation either alone, or at all, may not
be an appropriate strategy. There also appears to date, to have been no consideration of how the
GT1 site would be accessed in the event that the threat of its development prejudices the further
development of the adjoining employment allocation (Policy NEL1), consistent with longstanding
concerns raised with current and previous landowners. As we will come on to discuss, both the
ownership and access constraints are significant issues indicating that the GT1 site not deliverable.
5 Current Policy Approach
The Council’s Allocations DPD was adopted on 25 February 2014. Policy GT1 was included because
of the assessed need to provide 15 pitches by 20184
. Any post 2018 pitch requirement was said to
be a matter for a subsequent review (Allocations Plan para. 3.296). The Local Plan thus anticipated
delivery of the allocated site by 2018 in order to meet the assessed needs. This has not happened.
This lack of delivery was in part anticipated in the Allocations Plan itself which identified that there
were constraints to be addressed, not least access which was dependent upon the adjacent
employment site coming forward (para. 3.307). Other issues included the potential need for
decontamination (para. 3.300) and the need to provide services to the site (paras.3.318 & 3.319).
It is also clear that the Allocations Plan did not anticipate that the allocated site would be either
appropriate or attractive for private pitch provision. The Council clearly saw the site as a solution to
the pressure for pitch provision elsewhere within its Green Belt and, in consequence, the Allocations
Plan provides:
“It is essential that the site is managed in a way that ensures it is open and accessible to the
traveller community. Specifically there will be a need to ensure that travellers in appropriate
circumstances, can be offered a pitch when required as part of the process of dealing with
unauthorised sites in the district. On that basis, the Council’s preference is for the creation
of a new municipal site that will be positively managed for the benefit of the traveller
community and will ensure that a pitch can be offered when required in a simple and
straightforward way. To this end the Council will seek to acquire this land will ensure that it
is appropriately managed by or on behalf of the Council” (para.3.306).”
Consistent with this, Chapter 10 of the Allocations Plan states that:
“The Council will seek to acquire the land and will ensure that it is appropriately managed by
or on behalf of the Council”.
The risk of no allocation is recognised in the same Chapter and the mitigation is said to be:
“The Council will work with landowners’ representatives, developers, local representative
groups and other stakeholders to ensure that the site is delivered”.
As a matter of fact, the Council has not worked with anyone in order to deliver the site by 2018 or at
all.
This is the current policy approach which has clearly failed to meet the needs of the travelling
community.
6 Relevant Appeals
RDC’s current policy approach – including its compatibility with national policy5
, has been the subject
of much debate on appeal, as summarised below. Copies of the appeal decisions are enclosed and
appear as Document 4.
Appeal 1 (ref. C/16/3162651)
The first appeal was allowed on 3rd November 2017 and related to land at a Pumping Station, Watery
Lane, Rawreth. The appeal was against an enforcement notice regarding the change of use of the
land for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site without planning permission.
The Inspector’s Report concluded that in relying wholly on the Policy GT1 land at Michelins Farm,
RDC provided nothing in the way of choice and were not promoting more private traveller site provision
as envisaged by national policy.
Appeal 2 (ref. C/17/3174424)
The second appeal was allowed on 28th February 2018 and related to land adjacent to Woodville,
Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh. The appeal was against a refused application (ref. 15/00448/FUL, refused
2
nd July 2015) which sought permission for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes.
The Inspector’s Report confirmed that the possible development of Michelins Farm has encountered
various difficulties, including tipping of waste and issues of land ownership. It was also confirmed that
development was yet to commence, and no planning permission for Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation had been granted. The Hearing was told that there was no programme for
development.
Appeal 3 (ref. C/18/3209439)
The third appeal was allowed on the 10th February 2021. This related to land adjacent to St. Theresa,
Pudsey Hall Lane, Canewdon. Part of the appeal was against a refused application (ref.
18/00318/FUL, refused 29th March 2018), which sought permission for a proposed Gypsy and
Traveller accommodation comprising two mobile homes.
The Inspector noted in the decision that it had been confirmed that the landowner of the Michelin Farm
site had secured a committee resolution from RDC to grant planning permission (ref. 18/01022/OUT)
for a business park on the adjacent land (ref. NEL1). The Appellants agent suggested that the
approved employment scheme meant that it was even less likely that the Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation was to come forward, given the general incompatibility of residential and general
industrial uses alongside each other. Significantly, RDC did not contest this point.
Furthermore, RDC recognised that they could not compel the landowner to bring forward a further
planning application for a Gypsy and Traveller site on Michelins Farm, nor can they compel the sale
of the land to a third party who might be willing to provide Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. RDC
also confirmed at the time of inquiry, that they were not intended to exercise their powers of
compulsory purchase and operate Michelin Farm as a public site.
RDC accepted that the delivery of Michelin Farm for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation had not
materialised in the manner they had anticipated and as a result, the Council have now decided that
the identified need would best be met through a comprehensive Local Plan (i.e. Option 4 of the Spatial
Options document).
The Inspector concluded that in placing reliance wholly upon the Michelin Farm allocation, RDC had
failed to promote private traveller site provision. The Inspector also confirmed that RDC had failed to
provide any choice for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and this had resulted in RDC failing to
meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community. These criticisms are consistent with the
conclusions of the Inspector in respect of Appeals 1 and 2.
In the 2017 and 2018 appeals, the respective Inspectors noted that there were issues surrounding the
deliverability and suitability of Michelin Farm for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. This view has
since been compounded by the recent decision at Pudsey Hall Lane where the Inspector made it clear
that Michelin Farm is not a suitable, available or deliverable site for Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation. This point was not contested by RDC throughout the inquiry. There has also been
consistent criticism that RDC’s current policy approach to meeting its objectively assessed gypsy and
traveller needs is inconsistent with national policy.
7 Reliance on Policy GT1
The Gypsy and Traveller Issues Paper (GTIP) – which was never formally published for consultation
due to Full Council intervention – stated in relation to the GT1 allocation:
“In practice, the delivery of the site has been challenging for a number of reasons, including
prohibitive site acquisition costs, lack of interest shown from the traveller community in
acquiring the site, a potential conflict with the emerging business uses on the remainder of
the site and the impacts of proposed highway improvements at the nearby Fairglen
interchange”.
Policy GT1 placed full reliance on meeting the identified Gypsy and Traveller need in the Borough
through the allocation of Michelin Farm.
The Inspectors for the above referenced appeals (ref. C/16/3162651 and C/18/3209439) have
criticised the approach taken by Policy GT1 as being inconsistent with Government policy in not
making provision for ‘private’ pitch provision or offering any choice to the Gypsy community. The
Government policy referred to is the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (2015) (PPTS).
The Inspectors considered that the in placing reliance wholly upon the Michelin Farm allocation in
Policy GT1, RDC has failed to promote more private traveller site provision in accordance with the
Government’s aim in Paragraph 4(e) of the PPTS. It is also considered by the Inspectors that in placing
full reliance on GT1, there is insufficient choice particularly as there are no specific criteria based
development policies that allow for unallocated gypsy and traveller sites to come forward.
Option 1 of the Spatial Options document places full reliance on the delivery of Michelin Farm for
Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. This option does not promote private traveller site provision and
as such, it is considered that the proposed option is a departure from the PPTS and should not be
taken forward.
8 Responses to Questions 20 and 22
The key questions relating to Gypsy and Traveller need within the District are set out below.
Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most
appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs.
Option 1
6
is wholly inappropriate. The existing allocation under Allocations Plan Policy GT1 is not
deliverable.
Notwithstanding most of the assessed need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs to be
provided before 2021, Option 1 clearly states that a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site at Michelin
Farm is dependent on the site’s deliverability.
There are clear issues relating to the site’s deliverability for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.
Since the site’s allocation in 2014, it has not been delivered for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.
Furthermore, no formal attempt has been made by RDC or any other party in terms of attempting to
bring it forward to meet the identified need, as set out above.
As outlined in our letter dated 1st September 2021 (Document 1), there are clear issues in terms of
current service and utilities provision at the GT1 site. The following documents have been prepared
by Goodrich Consulting LLP and accompany this representation to assist RDC’s understanding.
▪ Michelin Farm GTS Land – Note on Utilities, prepared by Goodrich Consulting LLP;
▪ GTS Land Service Costs – Budget Costs; and
▪ Services & Utilities Constraints Plan – Consented Masterplan Overlay (RDC ref.
18/01022/OUT).
The Note on Utilities confirms that there are no existing services servicing the GT1 site. It also confirms
that there is no additional capacity on the wider site and any further development of the residual areas
(i.e. the Phase 2 land) will provide only the specific requirements of that development, given the
investment needed to bring forward those utilities. Further commentary is provided on future services
and utilities provision which we have summarised below.
▪ Electricity – the power on the site has been provided for the Phase 1 development, which has
already been completed and is fully allocated. To provide the power for Phase 1 new cables
were installed over a 4km distance. Those cables and transformers are sized for the reserved
power of the current proposed development and no further capacity is available. As such, any
additional power needed for GT1 may require the installation of further cables. This work would
not be funded by the landowner.
▪ Foul connections - the nearest available connection is 4km from the site. At present, only a foul
treatment plant has been installed for the Phase 1 development and this has been sized to
accommodate that development only. Any new foul connections on the GT1 site would either
need to connect to the available foul connection 4km away or would have to have its own foul
treatment plant installed.
▪ Water, gas, and telecommunication – despite services being available in the road, the capacity
and necessary reinforcement of the network to support any future development on the GT1 land
is unknown and would need to be assessed via an application to the relevant statutory authority.
In addition, the Constraints Plan further demonstrates the extremely limited area for accessing
services due to the existing services and below ground drainage systems which are already installed
as part of the Phase 1 works. Goodrich confirm that any available service routes will likely be reserved
and utilised during Phase 2 of the development.
The enclosed summary of Service Costs should be used by RDC as a reference and guide only. The
total estimated cost for service provision on the GT1 land is more than £1.3m. Any developer seeking
to bring forward the GT1 land would need to apply and obtain their own quotes for utility provision to
this section of the Site.
In line with the above, Option 1 should be removed as a spatial option for future Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation. Instead, RDC should proceed with a combination of Options 2 to 6 in order to meet
the objectively assessed need, including for private pitch provision and offering choice to the Gypsy
community, in accordance with national policy. This approach would directly address the criticisms
levied by inspectors in respect of recent appeals (see Document 4 - The Pumping Station, Rawreth
and Canewdon).
Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing
potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites.
The now revoked Good Practice Guidance on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (CLG, 2008)
provides specific guidance for designing Gypsy and Traveller sites for both permanent and transit
sites and also temporary stopping places. The guide considers that sites identified for Gypsies and
Travellers should not be in locations that would be inappropriate for ordinary residential dwellings. The
guide refers to a number of criteria which should be considered when selecting sites for Gypsies and
Travellers, these include:
▪ Good access to major roads and/or public transport services
▪ Good access to local services including employment, education, health and shopping facilities
▪ Co-existence between the site and community should be promoted
▪ Consideration should be made to the ground conditions and levels on the site
▪ Sites should provide visual and acoustic privacy for the residents
▪ Sites should not be located in areas of high flood risk
▪ Sites should not situated near refuse sites, industrial processes or other hazardous places
We would therefore advocate the following criteria based approach.
▪ Proximity to settlements with access to employment, education, health, shopping and other local
services and infrastructure
▪ Consideration can then be given to more rural locations, particularly where they are well located
in relation to major roads and/or public transport
▪ Avoidance of sites on or near Source Protection Zones, contaminated land and sites on or near
refuse tips
▪ Avoidance of Functional floodplains and Flood Zones 3a and 3b
▪ Avoidance of SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites and other nationally recognised designations
▪ Satisfactory means of vehicular access and the local road network is adequate
▪ Local environment and residential amenities will not be adversely affected
▪ No adverse impact on landscape character
▪ Level land
▪ Availability of services and site deliverability
▪ Suitability in terms noise/pollution/potentially incompatible use
▪ Site size
9 Need for Employment Floorspace
Whilst the need for Gypsy and Traveller is not contested, Option 1 is not a suitable choice in providing
future Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, given that Michelin Farm is not a deliverable or suitable
site for such uses. Conversely, the development of much needed employment floorspace is
deliverable and proposes a land use on the GT1 site that is compatible with the wider employment
allocation.
As previously outlined, the majority of the site benefits from an extant planning permission for
employment uses (ref. 18/01022/OUT). A Market Report prepared by CBRE accompanies this
representation and provides a holistic and commercial view of the demand across the sector, the
supply of existing and pipeline sites and achievable lease terms.
CBRE’s Market Report makes it clear that there is a compelling need for units of the size proposed in
accessible locations such as Arterial Park.
Given the above, Option 1 should be removed as a spatial option for future Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation and the site should instead be allocated for employment uses.
10 Response to Questions 23 and 25
The key questions relating to employment land need within the District are set out below.
Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can
best ensure that we meet our employment and skills need through the plan?
We consider that the Council should progress with a combination of the proposed options – particularly
Options 17
, 2 8
, 3
9 and 510
The Economic Development Topics Paper 2017 ‘combined scenario’ suggests that there is a need for
a minimum of 7 hectares of ‘new’ employment land between 2016 and 2036. This figure is also quoted
in the Spatial Options document. It is anticipated that over this period, there will be a reduced demand
for warehousing in the District and a greater demand for manufacturing / industrial (B1c/B2) uses on
6 hectares and higher office density (B1) developments on a further 1 hectare of land. This
requirement equates to a total employment creation of 1,242 jobs over the projection period (2016-
2036), which equates to job creation of approximately 62 jobs per year.
This additional requirement highlights that a combination of the options outlined in the Spatial Options
document should be progressed. In particular, the Council should allocate existing and new
employment sites for more general employment uses to allow flexibility. This will ensure that sites are
not constrained in terms of what uses can be provided, meaning that development can be maximised
on the site. Furthermore, the Council should look to prioritise the expansion of existing employment
sites, where adjacent plots can be easily developed. This will ensure a joined-up approach in terms
of land use.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there any opportunities for growth
to delivery new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities.
As previously outlined, the land currently allocated under Policy GT1 could be delivered to provide
new employment facilities. The redevelopment of the site would constitute a logical extension to the
existing employment development permitted at Michelin Farm (i.e. Phase 1).
The Spatial Options document makes it clear that one of the key findings from the Economic
Development Topics Paper (2017) and the South Essex Grow-On Space Feasibility Study (2020) is
that rental rates in Rochford District are below average, implying overall quality of stock in the District
is of secondary / poor quality. It also states that in recent years, the supply of vacant industrial and
office floorspace has fallen drastically across South Essex, due to rising business occupier demand,
but also due to pressure to redevelop existing employment land for housing. The redevelopment of
the GT1 site would result in the provision of high-quality, modern employment floorspace – as
illustrated through the scheme proposed as part of application ref. 20/01196/FUL. This would assist
Rochford District in improving their overall quality of employment stock.
Furthermore, the redevelopment of the site would result in a number of economic and social benefits
as well as supporting the aims of both local and national policy. Significantly, the redevelopment of
the site would help achieve the Council’s Strategy Policy of meeting the need for homes and jobs11
.
It is for the reasons outlined above that the GT1 site should be allocated for employment uses rather
than Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation.
11 Conclusion
The land allocated under Policy GT1 at Michelin Farm has long-standing deliverability issues. Those
issues, coupled by clear commercial aspirations of the previous and current landowner and the need
for employment land demonstrate why Option 1 of the spatial options for Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation should not be included as a Regulation 19 preferred option. Michelin Farm is not a
deliverable option as clearly illustrated from its allocation nearly 8 years ago.
We trust these representations will be taken into account when preparing the next version of the New
Local Plan.