Comment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 40397
Received: 22/09/2021
Respondent: Essex County Council
South Suffolk and Essex Shoreline Management Plan
It is recommended greater reference is made to the time periods within the Shoreline Management Plan, and that for Epochs 2 (2025 – 2055) and Epoch 3 (2055 – 2100), the proportion of frontage where the preferred management policy is either managed realignment or no active intervention, significantly increases so that awareness in communities living in these areas is raised and they realise that adaptation could become necessary.
Climate Change
ECC is mindful that the Government has signed up to the greenhouse gas emission targets set out in the Paris Agreement by 2050, and Rochford’s own ClimateCo2de and Sustainability Strategy. The ECAC is an independent cross-party commission drawn from a wide cross-section of academia, public and private sector, to provide expert advice and up-to-date recommendations for action on climate change mitigation and adaption, tailored for the county of Essex. The commission will run for two years initially and make recommendations about how we can improve the environment and the economy of Essex. The ECAC Report 2021 sets out recommendations on the actions needed to ensure Essex can meet net zero by 2050.
ECC recognise that action is needed now, to address the scale and magnitude of climate change and a holistic approach is necessary. It is also recognised that in developing the emerging Local Plan and addressing the need for growth within Essex and RDC, consideration and change needs to be included to ensure that climate change action is delivered by all. It is recognised that how we build future social and community infrastructure will need to consider mitigating future climate change.
It is noted and accepted that transport should be less reliant on cars and seek to focus on more active travel with increasing cycling and walking, as well as reducing the need to travel. ECC also appreciates the need for an understanding regarding alternative fuels for vehicles and the associated requirements to cater for this change.
Surface Water Management
It is important to ensure that further consideration is given to minimise impacts of flooding within new and existing developments. ECC is the LLFA for Essex and has the lead responsibility for reducing flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses working closely with other organisations under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
The ECAC Report 2021 recommends that there is stronger policy on sustainable urban drainage (SuDS) to ensure it is included as the default for new developments and that green SuDS is the accepted default in all new developments (buildings and infrastructure), as set out in the NPPF but needs implementation. Further assessment will also be required. There should also be further clarification as to who is taking on the ongoing and permanent maintenance of SuDS measures and schemes.
ECC welcomes joint working with RDC in the preparation of the emerging Local Plan to ensure that future growth and development seeks to minimise flood risk. In the early stages of Plan preparation, the LLFA would welcome engagement regarding a high level assessment of potential development sites in terms of our responsibilities outlined above, particularly their relationship to CDAs. CDA boundaries were historically defined by forming a boundary around a cluster of residential properties at risk of surface water flooding. However, this historical approach did not link the source of flooding to those actual residential properties at risk (i.e. a Receptor), so the LLFA decided to amend the countywide methodology to base the definition of a CDA on the ‘Hydraulic Catchment’ approach. Details have been provided on the Rochford Revised CDA’s and the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan – Action Plan to inform the new Local Plan (see below). It should be noted that whether or not a new development is located within a revised CDA, does not impact on the need for this to have a suitable SuDS strategy, that will need to be approved by the LLFA. This strategy will need to reduce site runoff to greenfield rates and maintain the existing water quality in accordance with the Essex SuDS Design Guide, 2020. This applies to all new major development coming forward for delivery in Essex, irrespective of whether it is in a CDA or not.
Appropriate mitigation should be included and set out in site allocation policies, or as a minimum a criteria requirement to ‘Implement sustainable drainage measures will be implemented to ensure no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties’. An overarching surface water management policy within the Local Plan (e.g. SuDS, and other surface water drainage that minimises flooding) would also be necessary and development locations should be avoided that would have a significant impact on the likelihood of future flooding. Consideration should also be given to where future flood alleviation schemes are to be located and the impact for future growth. ECC has prepared a range of guidance and resources that is available to assist developing the emerging Local Plan such as the Essex SuDs Design Guide , and further discussions are welcomed on an ongoing basis.
With respect to strategic option 1 (Urban Intensification) and 2 (Urban Extensions), ECC recommend exploring the need of new surface water infrastructures, on the basis that the majority of old town sewer systems are more likely to be supported by combined sewers. ECC would not recommend the new development surface water runoff is connected to existing combined sewers in the absence of surface water sewers in the vicinity. ECC has concerns regarding the additional demand and cost associated to treat surface water from combined sewers. The old drainage systems do not support ECC’s SuDS principles and ECC would not support proposals of “minimum SuDS onsite” because the discharge would be to combined sewers.
If the other site selection parameters support the development under Spatial Strategy Options option 1 and 2, consideration of the provision of separate surface water sewer to meet the development need would be required.
In addition to the above and in response to Question 9 ECC can advise:
• Sequential Test Approach - NPPF (2021) Paragraph 161 states that “All plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development – taking into account all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change – so as to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property.”. Paragraph 168 goes on to say that “Applications for some minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential or exception tests but should still meet the requirements for site-specific flood risk assessments set out in footnote 54.”
Further to this, the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification is now included within the NPPF under Annex 3, moving from guidance to policy. On this basis ECC would agree with a Sequential Test approach being taken to locate development away from areas at risk of flooding from both fluvial and costal flood risk, as this is compliant with National Planning Policy.
In respect of the Coastal Change, ECC support the use of a sequential test to provide a clear approach to manage coastal change in accordance with the revised NPPF. This should take into account Shoreline Management Plan and any subsequent amendments including proposals for Managed Retreat, to assist the management of coastal change in risk areas, to reduce the risk from coastal change and to avoid inappropriate development in vulnerable areas.
• Surface Water Management Infrastructure Capacity Review. In respect of options for Urban Intensification, ECC recommended that a review and capacity assessment of surface water management infrastructure is undertaken, within existing urban areas, to manage and mitigate the impacts of urban intensification including the provision of additional dedicated surface water management infrastructure.
• Rochford’s CDA’s and Spatial Strategy Growth Options / promoted sites
ECC has reviewed the spatial option consultation documents, and can advise that most of the promoted site locations fall within a revised CDA. ECC recommend that the RDC’s site selection parameter matrix should assess the proposed development against the need to manage existing surface water flood risk, in accordance with the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) modelling results and the South Essex District Level Action Plan (SWMP Action Plan) prepared by the LLFA. Please see Appendix A, for more details on the CDA’s and SWMP Action Plan to inform the sequential test and site assessment process.
ECC can advise that where new development is located within a CDA, opportunities should be taken to deliver betterment over existing Greenfield rates to reduce flood risk to existing residential properties where this is practical to do so. In accordance with the NPPF and Essex SuDs Design Guide . It is acknowledged that there is only a requirement to mitigate against the impacts of new development, however ECC encourage developers to work with the LLFA on identifying opportunities to identify all sources of flood risk, to reduce flood risk to existing communities and to seek advice from them on what grant funding might be available to do this.
ECC Response to Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation July 2021
Thank you for consulting Essex County Council (ECC) on the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation (SOC) published in July 2021. ECC has engaged with Rochford District Council (RDC) in the preparation of the new Local Plan, and our involvement to date has been proportionate at this early stage of plan preparation, building on the Issues and Options consultation in 2017/18. Once prepared, the new Local Plan will include the required strategies, policies and site proposals to guide future planning across the District, and will replace the current suite of adopted Development Plans up to 2040.
ECC welcomes the opportunity to review and comment on the emerging new Local Plan vision, strategic priorities and objectives, initial growth scenarios, spatial options, thematic themes and ‘Planning for Complete Communities’. As Plan preparation continues, ECC is committed to working with RDC through regular and on-going focussed collaborative discussions to prepare evidence that ensures the preferred spatial strategy, policies and site allocations are sound, viable and deliverable, where future development is aligned to the provision of required local and strategic infrastructure.
A Local Plan can provide a platform from which to secure a sustainable economic, social and environmental future to the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors. A robust long-term strategy will provide a reliable basis on which RDC, ECC and its partners may plan and provide the services and required infrastructure for which they are responsible. To this end, ECC will use its best endeavours to assist on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty to cooperate (Duty), including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance.
It is acknowledged that RDC has engaged ECC under the Duty, during the past year, in addition to the joint and regular meetings established with the South Essex authorities, through specific South Essex strategic planning duty to co-operate groups for Members and Officers respectively to explore strategic and cross boundary matters.
ECC interest in the Rochford New Local Plan – spatial options consultation
ECC aims to ensure that local policies and related strategies provide the greatest benefit to deliver a buoyant economy for the existing and future population that lives, works, visits not only in Rochford District, but Essex as a whole. This includes a balance of land-uses to create great places for all communities, and businesses across all sectors; and that the developer funding for the required infrastructure is clear and explicit. As a result, ECC is keen to understand, inform, support and help refine the formulation of the development strategy and policies delivered by LPAs within and adjoining Essex. Involvement is necessary and beneficial because of ECC’s roles as:
a. the highway and transport authority, including responsibility for the delivery of the Essex Local Transport Plan; the lead authority for education including early years and childcare (EYCC), Special Education Needs and Disabilities, and Post 16 education; Minerals and Waste Planning Authority; Lead Local Flood Authority; lead advisors on public health;
and adult social care in relation to the securing the right housing mix which takes account of the housing needs of older people and adults with disabilities;
b. an infrastructure funding partner, that seeks to ensure that development proposed is realistic and does not place an unnecessary (or unacceptable) cost burden on the public purse, and specifically ECC’s Capital Programme;
c. major provider and commissioner of a wide range of local government services throughout the county (and where potential cross boundary impacts need to be considered);
d. Advocate of the Essex Climate Action Commissioner’s (ECAC) Report 2021 Net Zero – Making Essex Carbon Neutral providing advice and recommendations for action on climate change mitigation and adaption including setting planning policies which minimise carbon. This work has been tailored for use in the county of Essex; and
e. involvement through the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and Opportunity South Essex Partnership (OSE), promoting economic development, regeneration, infrastructure delivery and new development throughout the County.
In accordance with the Duty, ECC will contribute cooperatively to the preparation of a new Rochford Local Plan, particularly within the following broad subject areas,
• Evidence base. Guidance with assembly and interpretation of the evidence base both for strategic/cross-boundary projects, for example, education provision and transport studies and modelling, and wider work across South Essex as part of the joint strategic plan.
• ECC assets and services. Where relevant, advice on the current status of assets and services and the likely impact and implications of proposals in the emerging Local Plan for the future operation and delivery of ECC services.
• Sub-regional and broader context. Assistance with identification of relevant information and its fit with broader strategic initiatives, and assessments of how emerging proposals for the District may impact on areas beyond and vice-versa.
• Policy development. Contributions on the relationship of the evidence base with the structure and content of emerging policies and proposals.
• Inter-relationship between Local Plans. Including the Essex Minerals Local Plan (2014) and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan (2017).
To achieve this, ECC seeks a formal structure for regular and ongoing engagement with RDC through the next stage of Plan preparation. Of critical importance is the additional evidence required for the site assessment process at both the individual and cumulative level to refine and develop the spatial strategy, which will be informed by the provision of sustainable and deliverable infrastructure and services at the right scale, location and time, for the existing and future residents of Rochford. There are also challenges arising from COVID-19 and how these can be addressed through the Local Plan and the future growth ambitions for London Southend Airport.
Key issues and messages of the ECC response
The ECC requirements are set within the context of national policy and ECC’s organisation plan proposals within “Everyone’s Essex” and commitments for “Renewal, Ambition and Equality” based on ECC’s strategies, policies, objectives and evidence base. The ECC response therefore identifies where we support emerging options and proposals, and where we recommend further work and engagement with ECC in order to refine and inform the “Preferred Options”, the next iteration of the local plan preparation, scheduled for consultation in Spring 2022. The key messages in ECC’s response are summarised below.
1. ECC support RDC preparing a new Local Plan and will assist with the preparation of sound evidence and policies, that plan for long term sustainable infrastructure delivery.
2. It is still too early for ECC to provide detailed comments on the impacts, opportunities and requirements for the full range of ECC infrastructure and services, and additional evidence is required on a range of matters to inform the selection of a preferred strategy and sites, together with supporting policies. It is acknowledged that ECC has engaged with RDC on the preparation of the transport evidence base to date, which has been proportionate to this stage of plan preparation.
3. The preferred strategy and site allocations will need to ensure that the requirements of ECC infrastructure and services are met to secure their sound, viable and sustainable delivery at the right scale, location and time, that is commensurate with housing needs and growth aspirations.
4. This will include engagement with preparing additional evidence, that will include, but is not limited to,
o Transportation modelling (including sustainable transport) to develop a strategy to realise modal shift including analysis of existing active and sustainable travel infrastructure (including bus network and services). In collaboration with ECC, it is recommended that RDC prepare a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).
o Scenario testing for education provision including early years and childcare and the approach to Special Education Needs with Disabilities provision.
o Minerals and waste policy compliant assessments.
o Flood and water management assessments through revised Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) and revisions to the South Essex Water Management Action Plan.
o Economic need and employment evidence including an up to date Economic Development Needs Assessment to refine the level of economic growth to be planned for.
o ECC will also contribute to the evidence in respect of skills, Adult Social Care, Public Health, climate change, and green and blue infrastructure to that can deliver safer, greener, healthier communities.
o There is also benefit in undertaking a Health Impact Assessment to ensure health and wellbeing is comprehensively considered and integrated into the Local Plan, including a strategic health and wellbeing policy, an area where ECC can advise and assist, and one successfully implemented and included in other plans across Essex.
5. RDC will need to engage and work closely with ECC to inform site selection and the range of preferred sites both individually and cumulatively, having regard to the evidence.
6. Spatial Growth Scenarios – the preferred scenario should meet national policy to deliver housing and other growth requirements; climate change resilience and adaptation; and environmental aspirations of RDC. As a minimum, the standard methodology should be met and any buffer to drive local economic growth or address unmet need from elsewhere is supported but will need to be based on sound evidence.
7. Spatial Strategy Options – the spatial strategy option to proportionately spread growth across the district would not deliver the necessary scale of growth to secure the viable and sustainable delivery of local or strategic infrastructure and services (most notably a secondary school) and would not be supported. Based on the information presented in the SOC, a preferable option is likely to see a combination of the options presented resulting in urban intensification, a focus on main towns, and concentrated growth in one or more locations (resulting in a new neighbourhood the size of a larger village or small town). The option will need to be informed by the evidence base and further site assessments.
8. ECC will need to be involved in any cross boundary development proposals. To this end, Option 3a would need to be delivered in the longer term given current constraints of the strategic road network (Fairglen Interchange) and have regard to emerging proposals and aspirations arising in Basildon and Castle Point Boroughs; and Option 3b will require close and formal working arrangements with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.
9. It is noted that several of ECC’s comments and observations made in response to the Issues and Options consultation from 2017/18 continue to apply, given the early stages of Plan preparation. We therefore reiterate where important our previous comments and additional points where this is necessary to do so.
The ECC response is set out in table from page 5 onwards and reflects the order of the SOC paper including responses to specific questions; the Integrated Impact Assessment; supporting Topic Papers; and Site Appraisal Paper.
[Due to tabular format of submission, please refer to attached documents for full submission]