Comment

Representation ID: 696

Received: 02/07/2007

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (Essex)

Agent: RPS Planning and Development

Paragraphs 4.2.1- 4.2.9
We object to the inclusion of strategic buffers between settlements within the District, as their role would be an unnecessary replication of Green Belt policy. Government guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 on Green Belts is very well established and provides for a "presumption against" inappropriate development (Para. 31). PPG2 also carries far more statutory weight than any locally approved green wedges policy. We therefore refute the notion that these strategic buffers will offer, "enhanced protection" and consider them to be an unnecessary and unhelpful duplication of national planning policy guidance.

The role of Local Development Documents should not be to replicate national policy and in this instance the designation of green wedges would do precisely that.

This approach appears to stem from evidence contained within Rochford's Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal report. This document supports an approach recommended under Option D, which incorporates the concept of green wedges. However, it is unclear as to how Option D will provide sustainability benefits over and above those that could be achieved through Option C.

We therefore support in principle the alternative option set out in Paragraph 4.2.8, which recommends "a continuation of the existing restrictive suite of policies, based around Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, but omitting the green wedges concept".