Section 2 - Spatial Vision

Some explanation of how easy access to the A127 and A130 can be achieved would be more informative. Is it envisaged that this will only involve the improvement of existing links to the old A130 (eg A129, Rawreth Lane)? or is it the intention that new link roads directly to the A127 and/or the new A130, or the old A130, will be build? If new roads are envisaged, would this involve large scale residential development in the green belt to fund the new road(s)? I would find such development totally unacceptable. It seems to me that the council should concentrate on improving the rail service to London/Southend, which is used by a very considerable number of Rayleigh residents, rather than being obsessive about the road network (improvement of which will only increase the use of private cars, to the detriment of the environment).

Some explanation of how easy access to the A127 and A130 can be achieved would be more informative. Is it envisaged that this will only involve the improvement of existing links to the old A130 (eg A129, Rawreth Lane)? or is it the intention that new link roads directly to the A127 and/or the new A130, or the old A130, will be build? If new roads are envisaged, would this involve large scale residential development in the green belt to fund the new road(s)? I would find such development totally unacceptable. It seems to me that the council should concentrate on improving the rail service to London/Southend, which is used by a very considerable number of Rayleigh residents, rather than being obsessive about the road network (improvement of which will only increase the use of private cars, to the detriment of the environment).

This is the first I have seen about SERT. It appears to be a high-tech bus system used in the role of a tramway. If it is to deliver without serious degradation of existing traffic routes, it will require new lanes equivalent to road-widening for the A127, A129, A1015, and the Hockley Road amongst other routes. This will be difficult to achieve and very disruptive during construction.

Referring to your letter of 21st May and subsequent telephone exchange enquiring where I could view the above strategy, since as a pensioner I don't have the financial ability to own a computer. I thought that planning would have foreseen the need to incorporate this information in your letter of the 21 May.

I moved to Rayleigh in 1956, having been attracted to the Ancient Buildings in the High Street, alas "Planners" all but destroyed the old world charm that had existed by pulling down much of the old buildings and replacing them with modern monstrosities.

In 2003 Planners completely spoilt my wife and self's enjoyment of our retirement by granting planning permission for an extension to the rear of no 68 Hasbro Avenue, although I protested pointing out the loss of light that would be caused to my only living room my protest was ignored by planners, also a local Rayleigh Bylaw which restricted extensions from going beyond the existing building line was ignored. (my wife died some 14 months later, her dementia having been aggravated by both the noise and need to have the light permanently on).

Having read and tried to absorb the Core Strategy I must say it was long in wordage but short on fact such as when, where and how. I list below comments

2.6 A mix of housing and local facilities, (perhaps sewers, water, electricity and gas, or maybe the long awaited Rayleigh Swimming Bath) a swimming Bath for Rayleigh was promised in the early 60's but never reached the planning stage.

2.7 Cherry Orchard Jubilee Park now has a car park, great but no Bus service or is it only for the use of Rochford residents.

2.8 New terminal and rail station for Southend Airport great news but not of much interest to commuters who already have difficulty getting seats, an increase in travellers will be detrimental to Rayleigh people, as it is likely that seats will be filled prior to arrival at Rayleigh Station.

2.10 A new Health facility for Rayleigh, this is much needed, but will it be like the one that the developers were supposed to provide on the ASDA site off Rawreth Lane.

2.11 Traffic congestion in Rawreth Lane is already a nightmare at peak times by the time ASDA becomes operational there will be Gridlock, especially if the section from Rawreth Industrial Estate to the Traffic Lights is not widened.

2.13 There is no mention of affordable housing, this means that the youngsters whose education we have paid for will leave the area in search of affordable housing.

2.14 Why not include Rayleigh.

2.16 No disabled parking available.
2.20 Green for how long.

2.21-22 Not relevant to older people.

2.23 First mention of Senior Citizens, we are probably the major part of the electorate.

2.24 Surely council housing is the answer.

2.25 There does not appear to be much in this for Rayleigh, and north Rayleigh where all the latest development has taken place is ignored.

Section 3 this is for the most part theory.

Section 4 Why is the Upper Roach Valley a Core issue.

4.5.6 Bad neighbours surely this is for the police and social services to oversee.

4.6 Development, where is not mentioned is this to hide the fact that more Greenbelt land is to be taken. Rayleigh is to have a further 1800 units where in Rayleigh is not stated but will almost certainly be north Rayleigh where we currently have power cuts due to overloads caused by the 400 or so extra units built off Rawreth Lane. Sewage is on the limit of the sewage works to handle. Roads as mentioned previously are reaching saturation point in this area particularly during school runs and market day.

4.6 Sustainable development is at odds with the infrastructures ability to cope.

4.12 Energy conservation - for my part I do the best that finances permit being disabled I use a diesel car with very low emission rate and high mpg, I turn the gas on once a day to heat my water, and the central heating is only turned on in winter when extra clothes fail to keep me warm.

5.1 Thames Gateway is to be mainly built on the Thames flood plain and this will be disastrous when the promised sea levels rise. What is Rochford planning to do about flood protection, at least Rayleigh is mostly above the projected sea level rise, whereas Rochford is not neither are Paglesham, Wakering, Fambridge south or Hullbridge and Battlesbridge.

Essex Wildlife Trust offers its support to two specific parts of the Spatial Vision:
1. To promote a green and sustainable environment; and
2. To improve the quality of life for people in the District.
It is clear that Rochford DC takes the protection of green space in the District very seriously - this is to be commended. EWT is pleased to note that Thames Gateway Green Grid strategy (2.5) and the Wallasea Wetlands Project (2.7) are cited in the text of Section 2.
Essex Wildlife Trust is pleased to note that the protection and enhancement of green space of value to wildlife is promoted through the Spatial Vision for the District.

Paragraph 2.8 includes a reasonable view of the Airport in 5 years time and likewise paragraph 2.15 for ten years hence. Paragraph 2.27 says that travel times to and from the Airport are increasing although there no evidence for this is presented. The Airport will become an increasingly attractive arrival and departure Gateway for many types of flights, not just low cost passenger.

The Spatial Vision for the District does not set out concisely the role and content of this Preferred Options document. It fails to recognise that there are real and difficult decisions to be made arising out of the requirements of the Regional Spatial Strategy and PPS3 on Housing. The Core Strategy should provide a Strategic Framework for the delivery of spatial options in relation to the broad scale, distribution and location of future growth in Rochford District in relation to housing, employment, retail and other development. However, it fails to recognise that there are issues relating to the scale, location and deliverability of housing for the District having regard to the requirements of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The Council will need to decide upon a growth strategy that is robust enough to deliver anticipated housing growth in the short and particularly the medium term to deliver anticipated housing growth to meet East of England Plan delivery targets.

Following my discussion with Samuel Hollingworth, in accordance with advice and the difficulties in submitting online please find attached our representations on behalf of Mr B Coker & H.R Philpot & Sons (Barleylands) Ltd in respect of the above

Section 1 Spatial Portrait

Page 2 Clause 1.7 Does not mention the supermarket now under construction at the Park School site.

Section 2 Spatial Vision

Clause 2.5 This appears to be at variance with proposals later in the document for large amounts of new residential development, which will of necessity mean releasing large areas of green space.

Clause 2.10 There is no evidence to support this assertion. Judging on past performance and lack of drive from the local P.C.T this can only be described as a "wish list" and cannot be substantiated by firm proposals

Section 3 Relationship of Documents

Clause 3.9 The key diagram forming part of this document is very difficult to follow due to the lack of easily identifiable features and has been the subject of adverse comment by members of the public who have seen it. It would benefit from the addition of main roads, the railway line etc.

It appears that the objective of avoiding duplication (3.10) has resulted in the proliferation of a multitude of documents at considerable cost in time and effort to the Council, which could be rendered obsolete overnight at the whim of Central Government.

Section 4 Core Strategy Issues

Clause 4.2.2 Policies SS1 and SS7 of the East of England Plan confirm the need to maintain the Green Belt boundary. However, the proposals later in the document to site a further 1800 dwellings in Rayleigh will require a relaxation and the use of areas of Green Belt.

Development in the Rawreth Lane area is already up to the Green belt boundary and there appears to be no other substantial areas identified in the town capable of absorbing this number of new dwellings.

Clause 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 The strategic buffer between Rayleigh and Rawreth would obviously be in Rawreth Parish and any further development in the area would, in fact, have to take place in the parish of Rawreth unless the boundaries are redrawn.

Clause 4.3.8 It needs to be emphasised that the country park is at the eastern boundary of the district.

Clause 4.4.5.iii States that the area is remote and undeveloped. This is not true of the area around Battlesbridge at the western boundary of the district

Clause 4.4.9 This does not appear to be included on the key diagram

Clause 4.4.14 Would it be appropriate to indicate which of these sites are open for public access?

Clause 4.5.4 Windfall sites should be taken into account since they contribute to a reduction in pressure on the Green Belt

Clause 4.5.5 Central Government has stated that Thames Gateway development will be housing led and it follows from this that it is not possible to rely on infrastructure improvements

Clause 4.5.6 This is a very laudable aim. However, a similar statement was removed from the Replacement Local Plan prior to adoption. It is considered essential to retain this.

Clause 4.5.9. It is true that the Council has no control over the total number of dwellings. However, the East of England Plan does not specify their distribution. This is something that the Council has complete control over and this should be made clear.

Clause 4.5.11 The second bullet point is not specific enough, densities should be set out in this document.

Clause 4.5.12. Windfall development should not be ignored.

Clause 4.6.3. Though these areas have a good range of services they are under extreme pressure and are not able to accommodate further increases in population without considerable upgrading.

Clause 4.6.4. These areas should be brought up to a standard which would make them suitable to take a fairer share of increased development.

Clause 4.6.9. It is incorrect to state that all settlements have had more than their fair share of housing .There is one area that has had more than any other:- WESTERN RAYLEIGH

Clause 4.6.10 It is considered that the allocation must take into account the fact that Rayleigh has taken the lions' share of development in the district to date.

It is unacceptable that the majority of the proposed future development should fall in Rayleigh. The split must be reviewed.

Clause 4.6.18. This is at variance with the fact that the A127 is not anymore considered by the Government to be the main road distributor for S.E.Essex. This is proven by the fact that the A13 is now the main trunk road connecting to London and the A127 has been demoted to a mere County route.

Clause 4.6.20 This is no worse than the daily congestion in Rawreth Lane which is due to get worse on completion of the ASDA superstore.

Clause 4.6.21 Mentions protection of Rochford's Conservation Area. There is no similar statement about Rayleigh's Conservation Area

Clause 4.6.23 Believe the figures are flawed and unbalanced

Clause 4.6.23 This statement needs to be far more robust with greater emphasis on transport infrastructure etc. improvements preceding housing development

Clause 4.7.10 Much affordable housing appears to be being purchased on a "buy to let" basis for profit. The policy needs to contain means for discouraging this practice.

Clause 4.8 Employment. For the forseeable future the main employment pattern is likely to be commuting to London. Until higher salary employment is the norm. in the district it will be difficult if not impossible to meet these targets.

Clause 4.9.9 Generally agree though 25% appears to be a rather low figure.

Clause 4.10.3. Corporate identities etc. have often in the past been used as excuses to ignore Conservation Area requirements, particularly with shop fronts and signage. This statement needs to be made more robust.

Clause 4.10.8. Should be reworded to contain specific reference to Conservation Areas

Clause 4.14.3. This is impractical:-Where hotels don't already exist in town centre locations there is not much possibility of hotel development due to lack of suitable sites

Section 5 Implementation & Monitoring

Clause 5.4 Rochford and Castle Point PCT no longer exists as a separate entity.
Also the steering group should include secular groups as well as faith groups eg: Essex Humanists (who are affiliated to The British Humanist Association)

These representations are made by Iceni Projects on behalf of Seaside Limited. Seaside is seeking to promote and ultimately deliver a private infrastructure-backed major regeneration opportunity to the south east of Rochford and on the northern edge of Southend-on-Sea, encompassing land both within Southend and Rochford District. Working in consultation with major landowners and key stakeholders, Seaside is looking to pursue the following:

* The delivery of comprehensive new highway infrastructure in order to provide a long-term solution to Rochford and Southend's traffic congestion and access difficulties;
* A willingness to incorporate high quality public transport and new technology, including the development of hybrid bus/tram systems, and a focus on improving connectivity between Rochford's railway station and the town centre;
* Working in tandem with Regional Airports Limited to help the expansion and function of London Southend Airport, and in particular, to help promote Rochford and Southend as dynamic employment locations within Essex Thames Gateway;
* A commitment to reverse out-commuting, and the growing dependence of London as an employment destination;
* A detailed assessment of town centre opportunity sites within Rochford as part of a comprehensive development framework master planning exercise;
* A strategic approach to accommodating a proportion of both Rochford and Southend's East of England Plan employment and housing growth targets;
* A commitment to the implementation of the South Essex Green Grid Strategy in respect of Rochford and Southend, including the provision of 'green-lungs' as part of a comprehensive review of the Green Belt boundary;
* The creation of a new district neighbourhood with supporting public infrastructure an services;
* The delivery of a wide range of residential accommodation, including a headline commitment to 40% affordable housing;
* A focus on the delivery of high quality employment land within close proximity of London Southend Airport, as well as a commitment to provide incentivised employment space for high-worth employment companies;
* A positive obligation to deliver sustainable means of construction, with the objective of providing a carbon-neutral development;
* Improvements to local education and healthcare facilities;
* A specific focus on quality urban design, acknowledging the importance of the Essex Design Initiative and Rochford's distinctive urban fabric;

A fundamental tenet of Seaside's proposals is the commitment to deliver employment-led, infrastructure driven development, financed by way of the strategic release of land from the Green Belt. This issue, together with the perceived benefits identified above, sets the context against which these representations have been prepared.

There are a number of factors that should additionally be highlighted at the outset of these representations:

* Seaside has received the findings of its web-based consultation exercise, which was undertaken by Resolex following the launch of 'South Essex Tomorrow' in November 2005. A full copy of the report will shortly be issued to all relevant stakeholders. Findings of importance include the fact that:

o More than 50% of respondents liked the Seaside vision, and less than 25% did not approve; the remainder were undecided;
o More than 70% of respondents thought that public transport needs to be improved in Southend/Rochford;
o More than 70% of respondents thought that better transport links would attract business to the area;
o Only 5% thought that traffic in Southend is free-flowing, while 80% reported a problem with traffic queuing;
o Only 13% of respondents found public transport to be satisfactory;
o More than 50% of respondents thought that Southend should be the capital of the Thames Gateway; and
o The proposals for the extension of the A127 were reasonably well-received overall.

In the recent publication 'Local Development Frameworks: Lessons Learnt Examining Development Plan Documents' produced by the Planning Inspectorate (July 2007), it is clearly stated that 'The aim of the Core Strategy should be to articulate what the area should be like in the future and how this is to be achieved' (Paragraph 3.10). In respect of this, the following representations are made on the Draft DPD and are intended to be a positive contribution to the Local Development Framework process. The representations made follow the order of the Draft DPD.

a) Section 1: A Spatial Portrait of the Rochford District

Para 1.9

Seaside acknowledges that road infrastructure within the district is poor. A key element of Seaside's proposals is to provide improved access into the urban areas of Rochford and Southend from the A127, with a view to specifically enhancing surface access to London Southend Airport.

Para 1.10

Equally, public transport access is poor. Seaside is promoting the introduction of a new park and ride facility to the west of the Airport, which will assist in removing vehicles from the road network as soon as possible. This could provide links to Rochford Town Centre, Southend Town Centre and London Southend Airport. A series of new bus services could be introduced, to take advantage of the role of Rochford Railway station as a transport hub. The opportunity could also be taken to introduce, when operational, South Essex Rapid Transit, providing connectivity throughout the urban area of Rochford and Southend

Para 1.11

Seaside is working with the Airport to try and assist with the delivery of a new surface access strategy, and indeed on a wider scale, to provide the circumstances in which the Airport can flourish as an important regional airport and economic centre.

Para 1.12

Seaside supports the allocation of additional employment land within close proximity of the Airport, particularly where this can provide direct access to the runway and apron.

b) Section 2: Spatial Vision for the District

Para 2.6

Seaside supports the vision for the future of Rochford, and in particular the intention to focus development on a number of large sites. Seaside's proposals could potentially accommodate a large proportion of Rochford's housing and employment allocation, but for the avoidance of doubt, Seaside would not wish to preclude a reasonable amount of development in other locations across the District. Seaside's proposals provide the means to extract the maximum benefit from Green Belt land release, but if follows that the other major urban areas should also experience a level of growth in order to maintain shops and community facilities, including health and education.

Para 2.11

Seaside welcomes the Borough Council's commitment to tackle traffic congestion and the support for integrated public transport. These are significant elements of Seaside's proposals.

c) Section 3: The Relationship of Documents in the Local Development Framework

Para 3.9

In addition to a Joint Area Action Plan for land to the west of Rochford, Seaside contend that Joint Area Action Plan should be produced for land to the east of Southend Airport in Seaside Phase 1. A Joint Area Action Plan will help deliver the private infrastructure-backed major regeneration that is being promoted and provide readily available land for airport related uses.

d) Section 4: Core Strategy Issues

Para 4.2.2

Seaside questions the contention that the strategic review will not be required until 2021. This strategic review will occur during the East of England Plan Review stage and could emerge as early as 2008. Consequently, the implications of further growth should be built into the choice of options for the Core Strategy, as clearly this plan should be capable of modification in order to cater for potentially greater growth requirements.

Para 4.2.5

Seaside encourages the prioritisation of previously developed sites and the Council's recognition that the scope of achieving this aim is severely limited as many of the major sites have already been developed.

Para 4.2.6

Seaside supports the provision of high density development to minimise necessary land take but, equally acknowledges it will be important to rule out town cramming. Seaside considers that the scale of the District's existing urban areas, particularly Rochford, are not sustainable for major growth due to the lack of associated infrastructure.

Para 4.2.7

Seaside conclude that the Council's preferred options for the Green Belt are contradictory in nature stating their continued support for the restrictive suite of policies for development of the Green Belt whilst further stating that there will be some relaxation for major developed sites, green tourism and renewable energy proposals. This point should be amended for clarity.

Para 4.2.8

Seaside believe the alternative options for the Green Belt have failed to consider the option of formal Green Belt release tied to infrastructure improvements. Seaside have concerns about this omission in view of its ambitions to provide major infrastructure-backed regeneration and would question why such an option has been ruled out on the grounds of sustainability.

4.3.3

Seaside acknowledges the need for improved access, in any strategy, to focus economic growth around the Airport but would specifically encourage the Joint Area Action Plan to include land to the east of the Airport.

Para 4.5.1

Seaside supports the allocation of specific sites for housing need in the Allocations DPD.

Para 4.5.2

Seaside commends the clarity in which the previous Draft DPD dealt with the Borough's housing allocation, which can often be complicated by different start dates and completions. The Draft DPD made clear that Rochford's outstanding housing allocation was 3,699 units over the period 31st March 2006 to 2021. Seaside would encourage the District Council to update this figure to take account of developments in the interim period, and through subsequent LDF documents as and when developments are completed.

Para 4.5.4

Seaside welcomes the common sense approach that the Draft DPD takes to windfall sites, as well as the acknowledgment that intensification is not always a positive outcome for existing communities.

Para 4.5.5

Seaside further supports the Draft DPD's strategy to rely on Greenfield sites to deliver the maximum possible benefits in infrastructure provision.

Para 4.5.6

Seaside encourages the Council to consider the relocation of existing sites which are considered to be bad neighbours but is concerned that there is no mention within the Draft DPD as to where these bad neighbour uses can be relocated to. The positive release of dated industrial sites is supported but there must be due consideration to the relocation of such uses in advance of the adoption of a definite policy approach.

Para 4.5.7

Seaside supports the Council approach to specifying the locations of proposed development in detail in the Allocations DPD.

Para 4.5.8

Seaside fully supports the intention of the Draft DPD to plan development in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner. Seaside would propose to finance the delivery of wider social infrastructure including retail and community facilities, health and education, and public open space.

Para 4.5.10

Seaside supports the claim that further intensification of the existing urban areas is not a popular strategy for future growth. To allocate the majority of additional growth onto the back of Rayleigh and Rochford will overload existing settlements of insufficient scale leading to unsustainable and inappropriate expansion of the District's main settlements.

Para 4.6.2

Seaside supports the Borough Council's intention to oppose the development of sites that are liable to flood. Virtually all of Seaside's land holding falls outside of the floodplain, and indeed marks the proposals out from virtually all others within the Essex Thames Gateway.

Para 4.6.6

Seaside partially supports the Draft DPD's intention to focus 90% of the Borough's housing allocation within the vicinity of the existing main settlements, albeit Seaside would contend that the majority of the allocation should be focused on land to the south east of Rochford, and tied to the provision of employment land within close proximity of London Southend Airport. Seaside's proposals clearly seek to accommodate some of both Rochford and Southend's housing and employment allocations (across both administrative areas), and it is considered that the critical mass of this approach provides the best means of delivering a step change in road and public transport infrastructure.

With the above in mind, Seaside are conscious that one of the possible options identified is a new settlement. Seaside do not believe that its proposals constitute a new settlement, albeit there are elements of its proposals - particularly the scale of growth proposed - that reflects some of the attributes of a new settlement. In particular Seaside's proposals will be linked to the provision of public transport, and new community facilities, but unlike a stand alone community, Seaside is intent on linking these benefits to Rochford railway station and Rochford town centre, thereby strengthening the role and function of the town in a sustainable and manageable manner.

Para 4.6.9

Seaside believe the results of its initial consultation should be fully considered. It is not sustainable to concentrate additional growth in and around existing settlement areas. Seaside contend that the most appropriate area for growth and expansion is to the south east of Rochford focussed around the new Rochford railway station.

Para 4.6.10

Seaside disagree with the housing allocation figures set out in this section of the Core Strategy. Specifically by focussing 1000 units around Rochford/Ashingdon and 1800 units at Rayleigh, sustainable growth will not be achieved. This approach to development will overload the existing settlements, which are of insufficient scale and will not provide the additional benefits in terms of infrastructure improvements that the Seaside Phase 1 development can deliver.

Para 4.6.11 and 4.6.12

Seaside consider that the proposed Core Strategy is unsound in dismissing the expansion of one settlement to create a significant urban expansion on the grounds of it being unsustainable. As previously mentioned, concentration of growth around existing settlements will overload these areas.

Seaside's proposals seek to take in some of both Rochford and Southend's housing and employment allocations (across both administrative areas), and it is considered that the critical mass of this strategic approach provides the best means of delivering a step change in road and public transport infrastructure. Provision of growth in a significant urban expansion, as proposed in Seaside Phase1, far from being unsustainable, creates the critical mass and economies of scale which allow an integrated form of development providing significant transport and community facilities whilst still maintaining active links to Rochford railway station and the existing town centre. It would also maintain the form and function of Rochford, more so than a piecemeal extension as proposed by the Core Strategy.

Para 4.6.16

Seaside acknowledge that top tier settlements are better located in relation to the existing highway network but argue that the concentration of growth around these existing settlements will not deliver the necessary infrastructure improvements which are needed in the Borough. A comprehensive new development focussed around the growth and expansion of the south east of Rochford will provide greater infrastructure improvements and a more appropriate form of development.

Para 4.6.20 and 4.6.21

Seaside recognise that Rochford/Ashingdon are heavily congested areas in practice and physical restraints exist to future infrastructure expansion. As well as physical constraints, there is a need to protect the conservation area around Rochford Town Centre. Focussing future housing growth in the proposed Seaside Phase 1 development will provide the benefits of delivering essential infrastructure provision as well as reducing the impact upon the environmental designations and conservation area. Relying on future growth around existing built up areas will unacceptably overload these areas and will not deliver the desired infrastructure improvements.

Para 4.6.23

Seaside Phase 1 redevelopment can come forward in the immediate term and will provide the necessary infrastructure to provide sustainable levels of future growth over the specified plan period.

Para 4.7.5

Seaside does not support the proposed affordable housing threshold of 25 units at a rate of 30%. Setting a higher threshold and lower rate of delivery than the Regional target will never provide a reasonable level of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough. It is not considered that the Council has produced a sustained enough evidence base to justify this lower threshold and accordingly the Core Strategy is considered to be unsound in this regard. Non compliance with Regional guidance will not deliver satisfactory levels of affordable housing and a headline target of a least 35% for schemes of 15 units or more is needed to make the Core Strategy sound and ensure sustainable future growth of the Borough.

Para 4.7.11 and 4.7.12

Seaside consider the discounting of a 40% provision of affordable housing on all sites of 15 or more units to be unsound and not supported by a robust evidence base. Seaside would encourage the Local Authority to reconsider this preferred option in accordance with Planning Inspectorate guidance 'It should be clear to consultees at preferred options stage that it remains open for them to express a preference for any option, including those the LPA suggest be rejected and that response may lead to the LPA to re-think the option pursued at submission stage' (Local Development Frameworks: Lessons Learnt Examining Development Plan Documents, Para 1.6). The current approach to affordable housing is considered unsound and impacts upon the soundness of the entire Core Strategy.

Para 4.8.5

Whilst Seaside supports the Council's backing for London Southend Airport, the employment generating potential of the Airport is dependent on a number of significant factors, including a runway extension, significant improvements to surface access, including a road closure, the construction and operation of a new railway and terminus, and scope for on-site employment expansion. Seaside will be working with the Airport to bring forward these proposals, and recognises that the Airport has the potential to form a significant component of its employment-led growth proposals. However, it also follows that even if the Airport and Rochford Business Park are as successful as the Draft DPD anticipates, there will still be a requirement to identify opportunities for a further 1,000 jobs. Seaside is seeking to bring forward additional employment land to the east of the Airport, and this provides the opportunity to develop out a state of the art employment park.

Para 4.8.6

Seaside supports the Council's approach to reviewing the condition and location of existing industrial estates and where appropriate considering the creation of new employment areas in more sustainable locations. Seaside Phase 1 will provide significant employment numbers in appropriate locations.

Para 4.9.9

Seaside believe the preferred options for good design and design statements should include additional information on eco excellent standards and carbon neutral practices.

c) Conclusion

Seaside fully supports the long term regeneration and growth of Rochford, and wishes to work with the District Council to make this common objective a reality.

In consideration of these representations, reference has been made to the recent guidance published by the Planning Inspectorate 'Local Development Frameworks: Lessons Learnt Examining Development Plan Documents' (July 2007). In conclusion, I wish to draw your attention to a number of paragraphs of this guidance specifically:

Paragraph 3.11: 'Many of the early Core Stratagies are somewhat general and contain "policies" that are in reality aspirations' - The Rochford core strategy must not fall within this trap and Seaside would argue that the current Core Strategy proposals run the risk of doing exactly this in their approach to future housing growth. The proposed concentration of growth in and around the existing urban areas is extremely ambitious and largely an aspiration of the Council. There is no specific mention as to exactly where this growth will go and the Council's approach is unsustainable in this regard.

Paragraph 5.1: 'The Core Strategy should provide a clear guide for the preparation of the subsequent DPDs or provide a base against which those DPDs can be assessed' - At present, the Core Strategy incorporates a number of principles which will not support the sustainable and balanced future growth of the District. The proposed strategy of focussing growth around the existing urban areas will not provide a clear base for the preparation and assessment of future DPDs, namely the Site Allocations documents.

Paragraph 5.2: 'Taking housing as an example, the Core Strategy must not leave the question of the general allocation of the level of housing to settlements open on the grounds that this can only be done once housing sites have been identified in a housing or Site allocations DPD. The strategy should be driving the allocation of sites not the other way around' - In view of this advice, Seaside argue that the current approach of the Core Strategy is unsustainable in focussing future growth around existing settlements. This approach will overload existing settlements and will not ensure the sustainable future growth of the Borough. A more appropriate and sustainable approach to future growth is to focus growth to the south east of Rochford around London Southend Airport in Seaside Phase 1. Future Growth around this area will ensure a highly sustainable form of development with associated infrastructure improvements.

The guidance also refers to the need for Local Development Frameworks to build in flexibility to DPDs and address the issues that could arise if the chosen option cannot be delivered when required. The Core Strategy does not presently allow for flexibility around the preferred options for future growth and should look to adopt a more flexible approach. In considering land to the south east of Rochford, significant flexibility is built into the system allowing a responsive DPD capable of reacting to future changes in policy.

In addition to these representations, please find enclosed a map of Seaside's proposals, illustrating the specific area of land which is being promoted to accommodate the future growth of the Borough.

Should you wish to discuss any aspect of these representations, or alternatively arrange a meeting to understand more fully how Seaside can contribute to the Council's growth and regeneration objectives, please do not hesitate to contract me.

1.1 To give a more informed idea of the size of the District, we suggest that the length of 26.5 miles east - west and that it covers 42,000 acres is inserted here.

1.4 As over 2/3rds of the working population work outside the District, it would be helpful to know what contribution the RDC makes to other LPA's infrastructure costs.

1.9 We agree. However, we were led to believe that the Ashingdon Road, Brays Lane to Wallasea Island road was a Heavy Lorry Route.

2.11 It is often claimed that RDC is not the Highway Authority. We welcome any encouragement to Essex CC and Southend BC to tackle the problems of traffic congestion as an urgent and ongoing process. Even if residents are offered public transport alternatives, the majority of traffic is "white van" type service vehicles and commercial users. This will not decrease and is not compatible with switching to public transport.

2.13 Visions. Whilst these time related visions may be useful progress markers, in respect of 2.25 planning needs to begin soon to achieve this road improvement, and should be brought forward to relieve existing pressures on Ashingdon Road and Bradley Way. This also would cover 4.6.20.

4.6.10 We agree with the Council's Preferred Option in respect of larger sites being able to deliver greater infrastructure improvements.

As regards Housing Allocations by area, we neither agree nor disagree without studying site availability across the District.

4.7.10 We cannot agree that per se affordable houses in rural areas are always more sustainable than non-affordable homes. The rural areas are scattered with "family homes", which contribute to the general wealth of the District. These home owners may provide many of the business and employment opportunities in the District and neighbouring LPA areas.

We note that there is no consideration for the conversion of redundant farm buildings in the Core Strategy to non-agricultural uses in line with PPG7.

4.8.1 Employment. The Core Strategy appears to concentrate on the creation of new jobs, at the expense of retaining existing ones and encouraging company growth particularly for retail businesses in town centres. Too often we see companies achieve a certain level of activity and leave the District due to poor communications and road links. As the Chamber stated as its first comment, the District is 26 miles long. Although Rayleigh might be easily accessible, the eastern end of the District is certainly not, and depends on Southend BC for its road facilities.

4.8.6 Whilst the Core Strategy gives indications of where housing allocations might broadly be located, there appears to be no guidance on new industrial sites, if the concept of building on "tired" estates is promoted. Owing to the fragmented nature of tenancies and ownership of industrial areas, the issue of site deliverability at the next Site Allocation stage could be doubtful.

4.12. We would expect the RDC to promote timber framed houses to meet HMG guidelines for sustainable house construction.

4.13.7. Agree but suggest RDC uses best practice comparisons from other LPAs, rather than spending time "re-inventing the wheel".

4.14.3. Hotels in Town Centres. This policy is too restrictive and does not appreciate the contribution to the District that rural - located hotels can make to the District's tourism offer. The District is the Thames Gateway South Essex's centre for tourism, yet has currently no hotels to attract weekend visitors or those wanting to stay for longer periods. These hotels are commonly situated around the country, and there seems no reason why Rochford should be the exception.

1.1 To give a more informed idea of the size of the District, we suggest that the length of 26.5 miles east - west and that it covers 42,000 acres is inserted here.

1.4 As over 2/3rds of the working population work outside the District, it would be helpful to know what contribution the RDC makes to other LPA's infrastructure costs.

1.9 We agree. However, we were led to believe that the Ashingdon Road, Brays Lane to Wallasea Island road was a Heavy Lorry Route.

2.11 It is often claimed that RDC is not the Highway Authority. We welcome any encouragement to Essex CC and Southend BC to tackle the problems of traffic congestion as an urgent and ongoing process. Even if residents are offered public transport alternatives, the majority of traffic is "white van" type service vehicles and commercial users. This will not decrease and is not compatible with switching to public transport.

2.13 Visions. Whilst these time related visions may be useful progress markers, in respect of 2.25 planning needs to begin soon to achieve this road improvement, and should be brought forward to relieve existing pressures on Ashingdon Road and Bradley Way. This also would cover 4.6.20.

4.6.10 We agree with the Council's Preferred Option in respect of larger sites being able to deliver greater infrastructure improvements.

As regards Housing Allocations by area, we neither agree nor disagree without studying site availability across the District.

4.7.10 We cannot agree that per se affordable houses in rural areas are always more sustainable than non-affordable homes. The rural areas are scattered with "family homes", which contribute to the general wealth of the District. These home owners may provide many of the business and employment opportunities in the District and neighbouring LPA areas.

We note that there is no consideration for the conversion of redundant farm buildings in the Core Strategy to non-agricultural uses in line with PPG7.

4.8.1 Employment. The Core Strategy appears to concentrate on the creation of new jobs, at the expense of retaining existing ones and encouraging company growth particularly for retail businesses in town centres. Too often we see companies achieve a certain level of activity and leave the District due to poor communications and road links. As the Chamber stated as its first comment, the District is 26 miles long. Although Rayleigh might be easily accessible, the eastern end of the District is certainly not, and depends on Southend BC for its road facilities.

4.8.6 Whilst the Core Strategy gives indications of where housing allocations might broadly be located, there appears to be no guidance on new industrial sites, if the concept of building on "tired" estates is promoted. Owing to the fragmented nature of tenancies and ownership of industrial areas, the issue of site deliverability at the next Site Allocation stage could be doubtful.

4.12. We would expect the RDC to promote timber framed houses to meet HMG guidelines for sustainable house construction.

4.13.7. Agree but suggest RDC uses best practice comparisons from other LPAs, rather than spending time "re-inventing the wheel".

4.14.3. Hotels in Town Centres. This policy is too restrictive and does not appreciate the contribution to the District that rural - located hotels can make to the District's tourism offer. The District is the Thames Gateway South Essex's centre for tourism, yet has currently no hotels to attract weekend visitors or those wanting to stay for longer periods. These hotels are commonly situated around the country, and there seems no reason why Rochford should be the exception.

Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options

Thank you for consulting the Home Builders Federation (HBF) on the above, particularly given that you seemingly failed to do so at the Issues and Options stage.


Background:

The Council must carefully consider the extent to which the objectives and content of the draft document are consistent with the latest national Government and other important policy guidance.

PPS1

There have been many recent substantive changes in government policy including the proposed supplement to PPS1 'Planning and Climate Change'.

PPS3

PPS3 (November 2006) requires local authorities to balance the need to provide affordable housing in association with new development against the need to ensure that housing requirements are met. It advocates making provision for housing over at least a 15-year time period.

It also emphasises the importance of the role of Strategic Housing Market Assessments in the evidence base for DPD policies. The Council will need to ensure that policies are underpinned by a sound and up to date evidence including such an Assessment. It will also need to have sound housing trajectories to show when the overall housing numbers are likely to be delivered.

The Council will need to:

* have a flexible responsive supply of land managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including the re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate;

* be market responsive;

* work collaboratively with stakeholders (such as the HBF);

* take account of the need to deliver low-cost market housing as part of the housing mix;

* set separate targets for social-rented and intermediate housing;

* take into account any physical, environmental, land ownership, land-use, investment constraints or risks associated with broad locations or specific sites, such as physical access restrictions, contamination, stability, flood risk, the need to protect natural resources e.g. water and biodiversity and complex land ownership issues;

* undertake a Sustainability Appraisal to develop and test various options, considering, for each, the social, economic and environmental implications, including costs, benefits and risks;

* include housing and local previously-developed land targets and trajectories, and strategies for bringing previously-developed land into housing use;

* identify broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption, taking account of the minimum level of housing provision stipulated in the RSS;

* identify deliverable sites to deliver at least 5 years supply that are - available, suitable and achievable;

* identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;

* exclude sites granted planning permission unless it can be demonstrated that they are developable and likely to contribute to housing supply within the appropriate timescale;

* exclude allowances for windfalls in the first 10 years of land supply; and

* set out a housing implementation strategy.

The new Policy Statement heralds several new changes, these are:

* The requirement for a robust evidence base;

* A partnership between local authorities, developers, and other stakeholders to establish a more transparent assessment;

* An emphasis upon sustainable locations; rather than just the prioritisation of previously developed sites, or sequential test; and

* The identification of constraints (physical and housing market) on sites, and considering how these might be overcome during the plan period.

It will be necessary for both brownfield and greenfield sites to be released in good time if the overall housing requirement is to be met.

The Council will need to demonstrate in its Core Strategy that its assumptions with regard to the future housing supply in its new housing trajectories are accurate and realistic, and that identified sites are readily available for development.

The Council will need to ensure that it provides a suitable range of housing localities to meet the needs of their current and future residents. It should make decisions based upon a sound evidence base. A SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment) will be a very important source of information.

Annex C of PPS3 states, "a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:

- Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.

- Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed-use developments.

- Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.

- Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.

- Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.

- Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
- Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites".
PPS12

Regard will need to be had to PPS12 in terms of ensuring that planning documents produced fully comply with national planning policy statements in their content and preparation.

PPS12 test of soundness vii requires DPD policies to represent the most appropriate in all the circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and that they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base. The Council will have to balance the need for any planning gains against the financial implications of any policy requirement on development viability.

PPS25

PPS25 sets out policies for planning authorities to ensure flood risk is properly taken into account at all stages in the planning process; prevent inappropriate development in areas at high risk of flooding and direct development away from areas at highest risk. It is accompanied by Circular 04/2006.

The East of England Plan

The Proposed Changes to the Draft RSS make it clear that local authority housing requirements must be treated as an absolute floor, rather than ceiling figures. Therefore, the Council's dwelling requirement must be fully recognised as being an absolute minimum housing provision figure.

PINS

The Planning Inspectorate published 'Local Development Frameworks: Lessons Learnt Examining Development Plan Documents (June 2007)'. It makes a number of very important points that Local Authorities need to have very careful regard to, it states:

1.11 "...Evidence should be complete on submission. LPAs should be clear that evidence should inform the Plan and not be put together after submission to justify what is already in the submitted document.

1.12 PINS expectation is that the LPA will provide a full and comprehensive evidence base with the submitted DPD. Given that the options should also be informed by evidence, we would expect the evidence base to be substantially completed at preferred options stage. The "Evidence" boxes on pages 15-21 of the Planning Inspectorate's guide "Development Plan Examinations - A Guide to the Process of Assessing the Soundness of Development Plan Documents"6 (PINS DPD guide) suggests the range of evidence which may be required, depending on the type of DPD and nature of the area. It will be difficult for an LPA to argue the plan is based on evidence which was not available when the plan was submitted - the implication will be that the evidence has not informed the content, but rather has been produced to retrospectively justify the content.

1.13 All material to be relied upon by the LPA needs to be in the submission evidence base. .....As the LPA is expected to submit a "sound" document it is not appropriate for the plan making authority to provide additional unasked for material in this way.......

1.14 .....LPAs should recognise that the submitted plan should be the last word of the authority (Section 20(2)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Act and paragraph 4.15 of Planning Policy Statement 12). Post-submission changes should be the exception8 (box under paragraph 4.18 PPS12).

1.19 LPAs which rely on making considerable post-submission changes, even if relatively minor, should bear in mind that a document may be found to be unsound if it requires so many changes that the final document no longer closely resembles the submitted version......

3.10 From the material that we have seen it is clear that there remains some lack of appreciation of the need for a radically different approach to plan making. LDFs are not meant to be LP/UDPs in new clothes. Some LPAs seem to be finding it difficult to move from an approach which seeks to produce a document that will allow development control decisions to be taken (the negative regulatory approach) rather than starting with the concept of providing a picture of how the area will develop spatially over the plan period and providing a policy framework that will deliver it (the positive delivery approach). The aim of the Core Strategy should be to articulate what the area should be like in the future and how this is to be achieved.

3.11 Core Strategies should be focussed on spatial policies that are very specifically aimed at addressing the issues identified as relevant to that area. They should also, where appropriate, refer to specific 'strategic' sites (i.e. those which are key to the delivery of the overall strategy). DPDs are intended to be about delivery and hence need to be rooted in what can be achieved and how this is to occur. Many of the early Core Strategies are somewhat general and contain "policies" that are in reality aspirations. For example many Core Strategies contain general "good design policies" but are silent on how the LPA is going to implement and monitor this "policy".

3.12 There is a widespread failure to appreciate that Core Strategy policies need to add a local dimension to national or regional guidance/policy. If there is no specific local dimension there is no need for the national/regional policy to be repeated. ....

3.14 ..The Inspector will not be able to recommend changes in a binding report unless he/she can be sure the plan as changed would not be vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that the proper procedures had not been followed [in particular the SA process and proper community involvement].
4.4 ...Core strategies are where tough decisions need to be made: strategic decisions cannot be left to subsequent DPDs.

5.2 Taking housing as an example, the Core Strategy must not leave the question of the general allocation of the level of housing to settlements open on the grounds that this can only be done once housing sites have been identified in a housing or Site Allocation DPD. The strategy should be driving the allocation of sites not the other way around. In this way, where it is clear that there are certain sites, key to the delivery of the overall strategy, whose location is not open to extensive debate (either because of existence of barriers to growth elsewhere or because of overwhelming positive qualities of the site), then it is entirely appropriate for such sites to be mentioned in the Core Strategy.

5.4 ...The Planning Advisory Service published "Core Strategy Guidance"14 in December 2006 which aims to assist LPAs by providing an idea of what parts of a Core Strategy might look and feel like.....

5.7 Core Strategies should not contain bland general policies that are little more than public relations statements. For example "Housing development must contribute to the creation of sustainable and mixed communities. Proposals must provide housing types and tenures that address local housing needs".....

5.8 ....Inspectors need to establish whether the plan will achieve what is intended by being able to measure the policies/proposals. Derivation of targets should be properly explained. There should also be a clear evidence base for specific numbers and percentages.

5.9 DPDs should be firmly focused on delivery. Thus the implementation and monitoring section of a DPD is of equal importance as the policies in the DPD. A number of Core Strategies seen to date have been particularly weak on implementation and monitoring. It is not adequate to deal with monitoring in a Core Strategy by simply saying that it will be dealt with in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). The Core Strategy needs to set the framework for the AMR by identifying key targets and indicators against which the LPA can measure the effectiveness of the strategy/policies and proposals.

5.12 For Core Strategies, Site Allocation DPDs and perhaps some Area Action Plans, this potential for change does make it more difficult to offer consultees certainty about the precise implications of developing plans. In these circumstances, it may be appropriate to set out how the DPD, once adopted, would be used to manage the changing circumstances. So a Core Strategy might describe the general approach to meeting need for additional housing provision based on current RSS requirements. It could also explain how the approach could be adjusted in practical terms if housing provision needed to change or be phased differently once the RSS review has concluded. In other words, that it is not constrained by one set of figures for housing development in the area or by political rather than planning considerations.
5.13 Flexibility is also about considering "what if" scenarios, e.g. if the strategy is heavily reliant on a specific type of infrastructure or a major site. The plan should address the issues that could arise if the chosen option cannot be delivered when required.


General:

Whilst there may well be local support for the re-use of brownfield sites, it is essential that where any such sites are identified and allocated, they are readily and realistically available for housing development. The over-riding objective must be to comply with the overall housing requirement. Consequently, in order to so do the Council will realistically need to ensure a range of both brownfield and Greenfield sites are available.

Furthermore, the Council must seek to ensure that a range of different types of housing are provided in different forms and in different localities in order to meet the various needs of its population. To this end a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is likely to be an essential tool and evidence base.

It is crucial that any planning gain requirements are fully considered in relation to site viability. Whilst the public inevitably wants developers to fund all sorts of facilities and services in their areas, it must be remembered that developers can only be asked to fund these where need directly relates to new development. Furthermore, if planning gain requirements are unrealistic then landowners won't sell their sites, and developers won't find them profitable enough to develop. As a direct consequence, the Council would then be likely to struggle to meet its housing supply requirements.

With regard to affordable housing provision, proper and full regard must be had to the overall viability of schemes in setting any requirements. It should be remembered that in order to make housing more affordable, there needs to be more housing built in total. There should also be a flexible approach to the delivery of any affordable housing requirement, taking on board whether or not public grant funding is available. If not, then an alternative approach/requirement has to be properly considered.

It must be remembered that affordable housing requirements must not be so onerous that they threaten the delivery of the Council's overall housing requirement.

The Council should also ensure that a proper Strategic Housing Market Assessment is undertaken with the full involvement of the property industry so as to underpin the evidence base for any policies and requirements.

In order that the LDF is sound and consistent in approach as well as monitorable and deliverable, there will need to be a link between the housing policies in the Core Strategy and the individual housing allocations. In other words, the allocations must contain some indication of the numbers of dwellings the Council anticipates are capable and likely to be delivered from each site. Either that or there should be a table in the core strategy which summarises all the housing allocations giving their site name and reference and an indicative dwelling total. Or both.

Only with this information can the robustness of the Core Strategy's approach to housing delivery be properly tested.

Sustainability standards are already being set by Building Regulations, and are being supported in the new Code for Sustainable Homes, the Council's planning policies should not seek to directly replicate or replace these (as PPS1 makes clear).


Options & Vision:

Many of the various options identified seem to often list the Council's future actions and aspirations, rather than identify in specific spatial strategy details.


Specific matters:

4.2.7

The Council needs to ensure that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and a Strategic Housing Market Assessment are undertaken.

PPS3 now requires the production of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments, again with key input from key stakeholders such as the development industry. These are far more vigorous in their approach, and make it clear that existing commitments will only be able to counted, where there is evidence that they will actually be deliverable.

Consequently, the overall housing requirement figure to be found may be higher than the one that the Council envisage. Therefore, the HBF does not consider that the Council can necessarily delay the green belt review to after 2021. It believes that the overall housing requirement will necessitate sites in the green belt being allocated as housing allocations. It should also be recognised that green belts can by their very nature promote much greater carbon emissions as people are forced to travel further between their homes and work.

Additionally, the precise role and purpose of 'green wedges' acting as strategic buffers is unclear. The HBF objects to them as they could limit growth options.

4.5.2

The text fails to make any reference to the fact that provision will need to be made for a supply of at least 15 year's housing supply from the Plan's adoption date. Therefore, such provision will need to be identified beyond the year 2021. Consequently, a higher housing number will need to be identified.

4.5.3

The Council states an Urban Capacity Study is currently being undertaken. The HBF is surprised that as an important stakeholder it has not been consulted in respect of the content of this document.

However, the Council now needs to ensure that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and a Strategic Housing Market Assessment are also undertaken.

PPS3 now requires the production of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments, again with key input from key stakeholders such as the development industry. These are far more vigorous in their approach, and make it clear that existing commitments will only be able to counted, where there is evidence that they will actually be deliverable.

4.5.4

The Council states that it will take into account the number of housing units granted planning permission. However, it will only be able to include those that meet the tests set out in PPS3 (i.e. deliverable and available).

4.5.7

The text fails to make any reference to the fact that provision will need to be made for a supply of at least 15 year's housing supply from the Plan's adoption date. Therefore, such provision will need to be identified beyond the year 2021. Consequently, a higher housing number will need to be identified.

Phasing should only be used where necessary in order to allow for infrastructure provision e.t.c., the main focus must be upon ensuring that the overall housing requirement is delivered.

4.5.11

It is unclear what the Council means in terms of the 'cascaded' figure for homes from the East of England Plan.

Phasing should only be used where necessary in order to allow for infrastructure provision e.t.c., the main focus must be upon ensuring that the overall housing requirement is delivered.

Reference is made to the expected phasing of development being slightly increased from 2009-2021. However, the Council must remember that the housing requirement is a minimum figure, and that it is behind in delivery. Consequently, supply will need to be significantly increased from recent numbers if the overall delivery requirement is to be met.
4.6.10

The strategy is neither underpinned by a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, or a Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It is also unclear as to the implications of making no housing allocations in a number of settlements.

The Council will need to ensure that suitable housing provision is made to meet a range of different housing needs (including for family housing), this will require a variety of different types of sites in different localities. Given that the housing requirement is based upon a minimum figure, the Council should place its efforts on ensuring that this is achieved. It should not seek to overly control and manage housing delivery where there are not direct infrastructure issues or problems that first need resolving.

4.7.4

The Council has set an arbitrary 30% affordable housing requirement for the district. Yet this is not underpinned by either any recent Housing Needs Study or Strategic Housing Market Assessment to provide the necessary evidence base.

4.7.6

Reference is made to the Allocations DPD setting minimum figures for the number of affordable units to be completed on each of the sites specified. However, the precise number that can be delivered will be dependent upon site viability, the availability (or not) of grant funding, and other competing planning gain requirements.

4.7.10

The Council has set an arbitrary 30% affordable housing requirement for the district. Yet this is not underpinned by either any recent Housing Needs Study or Strategic Housing Market Assessment to provide the necessary evidence base. However, the precise number that can be delivered will be dependent upon site viability, the availability (or not) of grant funding, and other competing planning gain requirements. Thus the wording of the preferred option is contrary to PPS3 as it fails to take such factors into account.

4.9.9

design briefs - the HBF would query whether the Council can require a detailed design brief in advance of the submission of all major planning applications (rather than alongside the application for instance). It is not clear what the Council considers to constitute a 'major' application.

lifetime homes - The lifetime homes standard has no status as far as town and country planning legislation is concerned. PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development states in paragraph 30 that "...planning policies should not replicate, cut across, or detrimentally affect matters within the scope of other legislative requirements, such as those set out in Building Regulations for energy efficiency". PPS12: Local Development Frameworks states in paragraph 1.8 that "...planning policies should not replicate, cut across, or detrimentally affect matters within the scope of other legislative requirements..".

The HBF considers that this is largely a matter already dealt with by way of Part M of the building regulations. Developers must, as a matter of law comply with the Building Regulations and they are subject to frequent change and update unlike local plans. The purpose of these references in the two Planning Policy Statements is to avoid confusion and potentially conflicting advice being given by different regulating authorities.

Thus whilst it may be appropriate for planning authorities to seek to negotiate with developers for a proportion of dwellings to be built to lifetime homes standards, it is considered excessive and unwarranted to require a specific percentage to be built to such standards.

I would draw your attention to an appeal decision concerning a reference to the provision of lifetime homes on land at former RAF Quedgeley, Gloucester. In paragraph 27 of the decision notice (see attached copy) the Secretary of State said that "it is not appropriate to include this matter, for the reason that the internal layout of buildings is not normally material to the consideration of planning permission. PPG3 gives advice about the assessment of need for housing for specific groups including the elderly and disabled".

No evidence base is put forward in order to justify the 25% lifetimes homes standard requirement.

Code for Sustainable Homes - The relationship between the Code for Sustainable Homes and planning policies being interpreted in an inconsistent way throughout England (and, indeed, Wales) is becoming increasingly problematic for the house building industry. In their attempt to be seen to be rising to meet the challenges set by climate change many regions, sub regions and local authorities are taking it upon themselves to try to move faster than the timetable attached to the Code for carbon reduction.

It is similarly curious as to how, or why, regional or local planning bodies could, or should, set their own carbon emission targets for the performance of buildings. The national application of the Code for Sustainable Homes quite clearly sets targets and milestones that together are a national trajectory, culminating in zero carbon homes by 2016.

Following on from the HBF summit on zero carbon homes, a Task Force was set up co-chaired by Yvette Cooper MP and Stewart Baseley (HBF Executive Chairman). It met for the first time on 31 January 2007. Alongside the HBF and DCLG, membership includes the Construction Products Association, the DTI, John Callcutt (in respect of his new housing review), WWF, the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy and the Local Government Association.

Members of the Task Force will focus on work in relevant areas. HBF will lead on research issues, including those relating to housing and urban design. Our short-term objective is to reach agreement on a Concordat between the main parties, which can be published in the summer alongside the Government's final policy proposals on the timeframe and approach to zero carbon homes.

The HBF is extremely concerned that regions and local authorities are seeking to amend and shorten the agreed zero-carbon timeframe. It has written to Yvette Cooper MP reaffirming the point that multiple targets will critically undermine our prospects of achieving the Government's overall objective. It is crucial that this fact is taken on board. The 2016 Taskforce will, inevitably, want to address this issue as well since it is considered to be unhelpful and unnecessary for each region to set its own targets for implementation of the Code.

Fundamentally the Industry has signed up to a deal with the Government to achieve Carbon Neutrality within the next ten years. Local Authorities should also sign up to this objective in order for consistency and certainty with regard to long-term investment in new technologies and skills that will be essential in order to deliver Carbon Neutrality in the 10 year time-span envisaged.

Furthermore, Carbon Neutrality is best achieved through Building Regulations and not via unsubstantiated planning policies. In this regard the Code for Sustainable Homes has largely somewhat overtaken the Council's previous commitment to producing an Energy Efficiency SPD.

Technological innovation is moving rapidly in the sector of energy generation. It is, therefore, the HBF's view that planning policies should not try to "back winners" by specifying one type of technology over another in terms of types of energy generation or types of renewable energy generation.

Emerging practice is becoming confusing, in part due to a lack of sufficient clear guidance by central government in the context of energy policy. We have thus seen the emergence of myriad definitions used to calculate energy use of development proposals.

Planning policy should not be a tool to define and control what are essentially energy generation considerations. That is the role of national energy policy and regulation and the role of planning is to facilitate the delivery of the energy supply solutions that stem from national energy policy.

The debate over the benefits (and pitfalls) of on site, local, regional or national energy generation is still ongoing, as are the issues surrounding the long-term costs/benefits of individual renewable energy technologies. We believe the key in this field is a national strategic vision of how we can achieve an efficient low carbon energy supply for the country. Local authorities should not seek to second guess such thinking through adopting prescriptive local policies on energy supply. We also consider that the expert capacity to determine such matters is, in any case, not something that currently exists, especially within LPA planning departments.

It is, therefore, considered that planning policy should be concerned solely with removing barriers to the siting or development of new innovations such as wind turbines, CHP plants and other energy generation development. It should not seek to control the use of power within dwellings (since this would, in any event, be unenforceable) or be concerned with the fabric of the building, which is covered adequately by the Code for Sustainable Homes as discussed above.

There are many examples of such confusion arising in attempts by local authorities seeking to set and implement "Merton Rule" style policies for a proportion of "on site" renewable energy. Indeed, even Merton Borough Council relies solely on independent consultants reports to assess energy use of dwellings to calculate compliance with their 10% target for on site renewable energy. It is quite obvious that this issue is not one that can be adequately controlled through planning measures and is an example of how planning is being used to inadequately address issues that are better dealt with through other legislation and controls.

Planning does, of course, have a role to play in allocating sites suitable for the establishment of renewable technologies for energy generation, both in themselves (such as sites for large wind farms and district CHP plants) and in areas that may benefit from access to renewable sources for on site generation, such as sites near to biomass generation sites.

However, the debate over whether wind turbines are more or less efficient than photo voltaic cells, whether ground source heat pumps are more effective than solar heat transfer technology or other similar discussions should not an issue for consideration under planning powers available to local authorities.

In such a fast moving field of technological innovation planners and the planning system should be open to discussion about the most appropriate issues and solutions on a site by site basis rendering any blanket proportional target unnecessary and, indeed, potentially restrictive on emerging new solutions.

The HBF has very strong views on this subject matter. The Code for Sustainable Homes sets clear standards, and dates by which they need to be reached. It is therefore clearly inappropriate for Councils to seek to set their own alternative standards and requirements. It is especially inappropriate to do so via SPD rather than through the statutory process.

Planning and Climate Change (December 2006) has recently been published as a draft supplement to PPS1. The document supports the HBF's viewpoint that the draft PPS should clearly recognise the need for planning policy not to duplicate the role of national building regulations. It states in paragraphs 27-39 that in determining planning applications LPA's should ensure they are consistent with the PPS and avoid placing inconsistent requirements on applicants. Paragraph 30 says that with regard to the environmental performance of new development, planning authorities should "engage constructively and imaginatively with developers to encourage the delivery of sustainable buildings. They should be supportive of innovation".

Paragraph 31 of the aforementioned draft document states that "LPA's should not need to devise their own standards for the environmental performance of individual buildings as these are set out nationally through the Building Regulations".

Furthermore, it must be recognised that if carbon emissions are to be properly tackled then there needs to be a concerted effort to reduce carbon emissions from the existing housing stock, which is far less environmentally friendly than any modern housing now being built.

The Federation does not consider it appropriate for the Council to set its own sustainability standards for new development as these are set out within the Code for Sustainable Homes and Building Regulations. It is inappropriate for local authorities to replace national targets with there own particular standards. To do so is likely to hinder the delivery of more sustainable development, rather than help it. There will be no certainty or economies of scale for companies to take the investment steps necessary in order to ensure that new technologies can be developed and delivered to meet the targets outlined.

It is unclear as to why the Council should seek to require compliance with the minimum standards set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes via a spatial policy. The Code lies outside of planning legislation, and developers already have regard to it, as well as to Building Regulations.

4.11.6

The Council states that it wishes to push landscaping details to the fore of the planning application process and make them a prerequisite for determination for certain application types. It is unclear as to why the Council believes that it is no longer acceptable to deal with any landscaping issues by planning condition to be agreed after planning permission is granted. The appropriateness of such an approach in a Core Strategy is strongly questioned.

4.12.11

It is unclear as to why the Council should seek to require compliance with the minimum standards set out in the Code for Sustainable Homes via a spatial policy. The Code lies outside of planning legislation, and developers already have regard to it, as well as to Building Regulations.

It is stated that the Council will produce policies that require all new homes to be carbon neutral. There is no evidence as to how it will seek do this, or by when.

The Council also seeks to produce all sorts of other policies that seem incapable of being implemented given that they are seeking to control matters outside of the planning system, and or which are covered by other regulatory regimes.

5.

The section on monitoring fails to provide any detail on how it will be used to actually implement the Core Strategy so as to ensure that delivery is achieved. The Core Strategy needs to set the framework for the AMR by identifying key targets and indicators against which the LPA can measure the effectiveness of the strategy/policies and proposals.



Consultation

I look forward to being consulted on all future relevant DPD and SPD consultation documents (and any relevant background documents and studies) in the future, and would appreciate being notified in writing wherever these documents are being either submitted to the Secretary of State, or being Adopted.


I also look forward to the acknowledgement of these comments in due course.

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 26) Consultation Response

In response to the council's invitation for consultation comment on the Regulation 26 draft of the Core Strategy Preferred Options, I attach my views on some of the issues raised within the consultation document. I have also delivered a hard copy of this response to the council's offices this afternoon.

My comments are not a comprehensive critique of the consultation document and are limited to those issues that I either have an understanding of, or which I feel are most closely related to issues that are important to me at this point in time. Broadly speaking, there are no items to which I object and I consider that the Regulation 26 draft is comprehensive and well rounded. My comments are merely to either suggest some additional considerations on a few points or to fully support the council's preferred options on others.

With Andrew Meddle's departure, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself to you and clarify the reason for my participation in the LDF consultation process. We met at the first of the Core Strategy 'Roadshow' exhibitions at Hockley Parish Hall. I am one of two owners of a site to the south of Sutton Court Drive and to the east of Southend Road/Warner's Bridge Chase, and I have been promoting the site for release from the green belt for residential development on the grounds of sustainability. I have taken the liberty of attaching (with my consultation response) a copy of the submission that I made to the council in February this year in response to the Allocations Development Plan Document questionnaire. I also attach a copy of the site plan that I submitted at that time.

I would be obliged if you would acknowledge receipt of this consultation response in due course.

I trust that my enclosed consultation response is of use to the council and if I may be of any further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Plesae find attached our representations on behalf of Trinity College in respect of the Core Strategy (Reg 26) Preferred Options Draft Consultation.

Thank you for inviting us to comment on your Preferred Options Report. We have scrutinised the document with a view to assessing its robustness as a basis for moving towards the submission stage, bearing in mind the tests of 'soundness' set out in paragraph 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Development Frameworks.

There is further information on assessing soundness on the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/local_dev/index.htm. As experience of the new system grows there is also an expanding body of advice and good practice available, notably the Inspectorate's 'Lessons Learnt' document (June 2007 - available via the same web link) and the Core Strategy guidance produced by the Planning Advisory Service: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/31034.

Although this material does not constitute government policy or guidance it will be helpful in considering the adequacy of the work undertaken to date and the further work required prior to submission. Indeed the Inspectorate recommends that authorities undertake a self-assessment of the soundness of their draft DPDs as they prepare their submission versions, and to make this available when they formally submit these documents.

While we welcome the steps that your Council has made in progressing the Core Strategy to the preferred options stage, our assessment suggests that significant further work is required prior to producing a submission document, if the Council is to minimise the risk of the Core Strategy being judged unsound following the examination.

For this reason our letter focuses on general issues that need to be addressed rather than detailed observations on the various options that have been set out. Nonetheless we would like these comments to be considered as formal representations, and have related them where possible to the tests of soundness set out in PPS12.

Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment (soundness test iii)

We are aware that some sustainability appraisal work has been undertaken already in support of the previous round of consultation. It is surprising that no further information appears to be available at this stage, and that the results of the sustainability appraisal are not used to support and justify the choice of preferred options. It would have been helpful for the Preferred Options Report to include a summary of the sustainability effects of each the different options, drawing upon the appraisal process. This is a potentially serious omission. At examination the authority will need to demonstrate a clear trail of options generation, appraisal, selection or rejection and the role that SA has played in this process. In our view the present consultation exercise fails to provide this trail of evidence.

You are also reminded that Local Planning Authorities are now obliged to consider whether 'Appropriate Assessment' is required during plan production, to assess the potential impacts on sites of European importance for nature conservation. Ideally the need for AA should be gauged during the Sustainability Appraisal scoping stage, with the assessment itself (if required) undertaken alongside the development and testing of options. There appears to be no evidence from the consultation material that these steps have been taken, and we would urge you to address this before moving to submission stage. Draft guidance is available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502244

A spatial plan consistent with national policy and other strategies (test iv)
The Core Strategy should be a strategic document which sets out a vision and framework for guiding the future development of the area, taking into account other plans and strategies and the spatial requirements of different service areas. As Maydo Pitt explained in her letter of 16 November last year, we would expect the process of developing preferred options to consider and present alternative scenarios for the future of the district, covering matters such as the broad distribution of development, particular directions of growth and the approach to managing key issues such as the rural environment, local economy and town centres.

While the Preferred Options Report contains a reasonable basis for an overall spatial vision, it fails to translate this into a clear set of objectives and a spatial strategy to guide the future of the district. This is evident in a number of ways:
* There is insufficient detail about the approach to be taken to the location of key uses and the future of important areas (e.g. employment, town centres);
* Many of the 'preferred options' are procedural in nature (policies will be prepared on... etc.) rather than indicating the substance of the approach to be taken;
* There is little indication of the way in which the implications of other plans and strategies (listed in the box on page 2) are to be addressed;
* Some of the policy areas suggest matters that are more appropriately dealt with through the proposed Development Control Policies DPD, although it is difficult to be specific given the lack of detail in the preferred options that are set out.

In our view significant further work needs to be undertaken in order to provide the basis for a spatial plan, and to allow stakeholders to have a say on the broad spatial choices facing the district. Given Rochford's coastal location we find it particularly surprising that there is no indication of how the strategy and policy approaches are intended to address climate change and flood risk.

We are also concerned that some of the preferred options are inconsistent with national policy, and that the report fails to provide adequate justification for these departures. In particular:
* The proposals for local landscape designations (strategic buffers, special landscape areas, area of historic landscape), which require particular justification in the context of PPS7;
* The proposed approach to the environmental performance of buildings (page 35) which fails to accord with emerging policy in Planning and Climate Change (draft supplement to PPS1).

At the same time you are reminded that policies in the Core Strategy (and elsewhere in the LDF) should not repeat statements of national policy or policies contained in the RSS. There are suggestions in some of the preferred policy approaches that such repetition could occur, although it is difficult to be specific due to the lack of detail in the document.

Regard paid to the community strategy (test v)

Although the document identifies some general influences stemming from the Community Strategy (page 9) it could do more to explain how these are carried through into the spatial strategy and preferred policy approaches.

Whether the proposals are the most appropriate in the circumstances (test viii)

In our view the Preferred Options Report does not do enough to explain and justify the proposals that it contains, posing a significant risk that a submission document flowing from it could be found unsound unless further work is done:
* It is unclear how the spatial vision (pages 4-7) links to the identified issues (page 11), or how those issues derive from the spatial portrait (pages 1-3) and evidence base. It is not sufficient simply to state that "The Council considers that the following are the key Core Strategy issues" (page 11). The spatial portrait itself appears rather superficial, fails to cross-refer to the supporting evidence base and contains some irrelevant material (e.g. the Council's corporate performance ratings);
* There is insufficient information about the way in which many of the policies will be framed (e.g. what does "some relaxation" of green belt policies for major sites, green tourism and renewable energy schemes - page 13 - actually mean?);
* Where specific details are presented, there is frequently a lack of evidence and explanation underpinning the approaches being adopted. For example: the intended distribution of housing development across the settlement hierarchy (and specific urban extensions named in para. 4.6.8); the suggested approach to accommodating gypsy and traveller needs (wholly as part of mainstream housing allocations?); the proposed requirement for 25% of housing units to meet lifetime homes standards; and the suggested target and threshold for affordable housing contributions.
* As a related point, there is often insufficient consideration or explanation of alternative options (such as those for the settlement hierarchy), and a failure to justify why alternatives have been rejected: the standard wording which appears throughout ("These alternatives have been discounted because they fail to meet sustainable development objectives, the Corporate vision and Principle Aims") is inadequate. At the same time alternative options should not be invented where no reasonable alternatives can be shown to exist; in many cases the alternatives that are presented in the Preferred Options Report are not realistic (e.g. those relating to landscape protection on page 20, or relying on windfalls/urban intensification to meet housing needs - page 22) .

Hence we consider that much more effort needs to go into identifying, justifying and assessing options. It also needs to be clear to consultees at the preferred options stage that they can still express a preference for those options that the authority proposes to reject; it is not evident to us that the present consultation satisfies this requirement.



Clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring (test viii)

In our comments at your issues & options stage (Maydo Pitt's letter of 16 November) we noted that the implementation and monitoring framework would need to be developed further as work on the Core Strategy progressed. It is disappointing to see that no progress has been made in this respect.

The Core Strategy will need to go much further than it currently does in setting out the responsibilities, timescales and risks involved in delivering the vision, objectives and policy approaches, including key infrastructure requirements, inter-dependencies and contingency measures.

Other matters

There are a number of errors in the document. The Foreword implies that this is an issues & options consultation, not the preferred options. Supplementary Planning Documents (page 10) are not DPDs. References to the draft East of England Plan are out of date following publication of the Proposed Changes in December last year. Similarly the references to national renewable energy targets (para. 4.12.5) will need updating in the light of the recent Energy White Paper.

The key diagram remains insufficiently clear. This should be a key tool in communicating the spatial strategy, but fails to set out clearly the main settlements, key infrastructure networks, directions of growth and strategic links with neighbouring areas.

Conclusion

It is very apparent that the Preferred Options Report is no more than a minor re-working of the Regulation 25 version, with preferred options now set out in place of the 'possible' and 'probable' options presented previously. Most of the remaining text remains unchanged. As our representations in this letter make clear this is an inadequate basis for moving forward to the submission stage. We find it particularly disappointing that many of the observations contained in our letter of 16 November have not been addressed.

We are conscious of the resource constraints facing the authority but consider that significant further work on options development, testing and consultation is necessary. This will inevitably require a further round of consultation on the preferred options in due course.




Please contact me should you wish to discuss anything contained in this letter, or work in relation to your LDF more generally. We would welcome early sight of any further material that you produce in due course so that informal feedback can be provided.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

These simplified responses will tend to refer to areas of concern rather than items such as the proposals for the extension of protection of the Roach Valley and the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Park, which the Parish Council welcome and support.


Spatial Vision

* 2.6 The PC sees the delivery of mixed dwelling types and affordable accommodation as essential, as through its planning comments it has repeatedly expressed concern over the loss of mixed accommodation within Hockley.
* 2.8 Given progress to date there is serious concern as to whether completion at the airport will be achieved within the next five years.
* 2.24 Again given progress to date there is concern that should be made an absolute priority.


Core Strategy Issues

* 4.2.6 The PC would wish to know whether sites such as Pond Chase Nurseries, or other sites in and around Hockley, would come in this category.
* 4.3.3 Will RDC increase spending and man power to achieve this?
* 4.4.9 The PC would remind RDC of recent efforts to get the very important historical area around the parish church of SS Peter and Paul included in an appropriate protection designation.
* 4.5.4 The PC continues to be concerned over the effect of infilling, Particularly "windfall Sites". on the infrastructure.
* 4.5.6 Again, would this affect sites such as Pond Chase Nurseries?
* 4.5.8 Logically Infrastructure and services should be in place before development to avoid strain or disruption on those existing.
* 4.5.10 The PC would wish to be advised of any such proposals for Hockley.
* 4.6.23 There is indeed a current need to improve public transport, particularly busses. Over the years the PC has received requests for the extension of a bus service, at least to Apex corner in Plumberow Avenue.

Affordable Housing

* As a general comment the PC considers this the highest priority. It is also concerned that infilling will contribute little to this. The authorities views on this would be welcomed.


Employment

* Again a general comment. It is to be hoped that the authority is working closely and directly with local school and not just the County Authority.




Good design and Design Statements

* The PC's Planning Committee has been seriously concerned over the contrasting quality of many single and small developments in Hockley. Of particular concern has been the very poor design of many rooms in the roof. The PC welcomes clear and enforceable policies that require a high standard of good design.
* Irrespective of any listing the PC would wish the authority to have regard for the preservation of buildings of quality, historic interest and character when considering redevelopment. ( For example the old doctor's ouse, Southend Road, now demolished.)

Community, Leisure & Tourism Facilities

* There is an urgent need for improvements to youth facilities, particularly unstructured leisure.

On Behalf of The Hockley Parish Council
Cllr R Vingoe.

I refer to your draft Core Strategy document. The following are my comments based on the extracts taken.

The first 2 paragrpahs, in describing the District are explaining why a network of Public Rights of Way and cycle tracks are an important element to enable the population at large to enjoy the area of Rochford Distrct.

Paragraph 1.19 enforces why it is important to have an off-road network for non-vehicular users.

Paragraph 1.10 would suggest that cycle tracks could assist in giving travellers, especially commuters, an alternative means of achieving their journeys.

The subsequent comments relating to

The Council's principle aims
Enjoyment of the Thames Gateway Green Grid
Developing the area for leisure, recreation and tourism
The consequential growth in the local economy
Healthier lifestyles

all point to the need for Rochford to give a high priority to improviding the Rights of Way network along with a network of cycle tracks in order to attain the aspirations and aims set out in the core strategy and to facilitate its delivery.

I trust these comments are of assistance.

2.25 As a company, we would like to see efforts made to bring forward improvements to the infrastructure possibly within 5 years, but certainly no longer than 10 years.

Policy Content

The main comments concerning the content of the published consultation document are as follows:

1. To satisfy government guidance, the Core Strategy Preferred Options stage should have moved significantly on from the previous Issues and Options stage in terms of scope, content, and process as outlined below.

2. The evidence base should be substantially expanded and rolled forward to ultimately justify the selection of the Preferred Option. In particular, further evidence involving urban capacity, strategic housing market assessment, strategic housing land availability, town centres & retailing, employment land review, and transport studies is required. The whole evidence base should also be extended and rolled-forward well beyond 2021 so as to comply with PPS3 Housing guidance (namely that adopted DPDs should look forward at least 15 years' ahead at the date of their adoption).

3. Rochford district has significant functional economic relationships with Southend, Basildon, and other parts of Essex Thames Gateway, as well as parts of Greater London. The evolving Core Strategy should consider how these relationships might change and develop up to 2021, and what the practical implications might be for job/home alignment, commuting patterns, transport, and patterns of development provision.

4. The urban capacity study needs urgent updating before the broad direction of any Preferred Options can be confirmed. It also needs to be linked into a strategic housing market assessment and strategic housing land availability assessment in accordance with PPS3. In this way, the re-use of previously-developed land (PDL) and the consequential need for any greenfield site releases in the district can be properly clarified. At present there is inadequate information about this issue to inform discussion of Preferred Options.

5. The Preferred Options stage should also investigate the spatial planning implications of the RSS jobs figure. It should identify where the net jobs increase will come from within different economic sectors, and what the corresponding land-use implications might be for B1 employment uses, office development, retail and services, tourism, and the public sector (such as education and health). The District Council should undertake an employment land review to assess the extent to which existing employment areas will remain suitable and which new or existing locations would best support the future economic strategy of the district. This should then feed into the consideration of the future accessibility of employment sites to housing locations.

6. The Preferred Options should contain policy guidance regarding the preferred strategy for the district's town centres. This should include discussion of strategic options and choices for the amount and location of retail provision and other town centre uses. The policy approach towards out-of-centre development should also be explored and clarified.

7. The range of alternative options for the development strategy should be explained much more explicitly. This includes identifying and quantifying how much new housing should to be provided on PDL and greenfield sites, respectively; and the development provision required for employment, offices, town centre and retail uses, and other major development. Having established the broad quantum of new development required in the district, the Preferred Options stage should set out the reasonable alternatives for the location of new development in terms of its spatial pattern. This includes both the numeric distribution between individual key settlements and the broad locations for any major development. The latter would include identifying the geographical sectors on the edge of major settlements. The reasoned justification for any preferred option(s) should also be set out explicitly by drawing on the results of technical studies, SEA and sustainability appraisal, transport studies, and the results of public consultation at previous stages.

8. The practicality and desirability of designating 'buffers' in policy terms within the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) is unclear. The stated purposes of the MGB already include preventing the coalescence of existing settlements plan situated within the MGB, so the proposed use of 'buffers' represents a duplication of existing policy. Alternatively, if the proposed 'buffers' are to perform a different policy role this is not adequately explained. Since greenfield land releases may be required in the district up to 2021 and beyond, it is unclear whether the proposed use of 'buffers' would be incompatible with such an approach or not.

9. The approach towards the provision of new affordable housing is based upon specific local size thresholds in terms of site size. However, the proposed local thresholds are different from those set out in PPS3 Housing. The use of local thresholds departing from national guidance requires special justification, but this is not provided. It is also unclear whether the proposed affordable housing could be delivered in the absence of clear mechanisms for its delivery.

10. The Preferred Options should set out much greater consideration of the elements of a sustainable transport strategy to support the 5, 10 and 15 year visions. The County Council would be willing to assist Rochford District Council in preparing this material to support its Core Strategy DPD submission.

11. The Core Strategy will require more consideration of implementation and monitoring in accordance with government guidance. In particular, the actions necessary for delivery, any absolute dependencies on infrastructure, and the timescale should be identified. The recent White Paper (Planning for a Sustainable Future, May 2007) is proposing that detailed implementation plans should be prepared alongside Core Strategy DPD preparation.


Future Process

In view of the above comments, Rochford District Council is recommended to:

a) Commission additional technical studies to support and supplement the evidence base, and extend the base well beyond 2021;

b) Give more explicit guidance about the range of future development options in the district for different types of new development, including a more fuller reasoned justification at arriving at any preferred option(s);

c) Carry out further public consultation on (a) and (b) before proceeding to the preparation of a Core Strategy DPD for submission to the Secretary of State.


2. MORE DETAILED COMMENTS

Spatial Portrait
Para 1.9 The sentence "Within the district road infrastructure is poor" should be deleted, as there is no evidence that Rochford's roads are particularly poor.

Para 1.9 The sentence "There are no designated Heavy Lorry Routes in the District and many routes are unfit for their current level of use" should be amended to "The district's road network is under pressure from increasing private car and commercial traffic."

Spatial Vision

Para 2.6 After second sentence add, "The larger new development sites will have been designed with priority access to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists in mind".

Para 2.14 Add "The South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) project, enhancing the use and attractiveness of public transport in the Thames Gateway area, will have entered the District."
Para 2.24 Amend "Public transport is well used and has been enhanced by the completion of the South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT), which serves most of the population of the district." to "Public Transport is well used and has been enhanced by further South Essex Rapid Transit services."

Para 2.27 The phrase "Despite travel times to and from the airport increasing " should either be explained or deleted.

Green Belt

Para 4.2.7 The expansion of King Edmund School would require extra land in the Green Belt. Therefore, it may be helpful to include community facilities in the consideration of relaxation of policy.

General development locations

Para 4.6.2 The Rochford Core Strategy should have regard to the existing Brickearth Consultation Area when identifying new locations for development.

Para 4.6.1 Add at end: "embodying priority access by sustainable transportation modes consistent with Local Transport Plan policies as far as practicable where appropriate. Development will also be progressed with regard to highway development control policies to be defined in detail within the Development Control policies set of documents outlined in paragraph 3.9."

Para 4.6.3 While schools are included in the 'good range of facilities' alluded to, these settlements are only 'capable of sustaining some expansion' if the number of school places is increased. The document needs to be clear that there are insufficient surplus places to accommodate 3,900 additional homes.

Para 4.6.10 Significant additional schools capacity will be needed as set out below. In addition, Early Years and Childcare facilities will need to be provided in each case. Financial and land contributions from developers will be needed to deliver this infrastructure. The allocation of 300 more units than proposed to Hockley and 300 less to Rayleigh would provide a better fit in terms of maximising the use of current schools' capacity. Rochford/Ashingdon:- 1,000 UnitsThe capacity of Doggetts Primary can potentially be expanded to meet the needs of up to 1,000 new homes. If the sites are poorly located for this school, a new single form entry primary school would be needed (site area required 1.1 hectares). At secondary, King Edmund is already accommodating significantly more pupils than is recommended by the DfES for their site area. The school is forecast to remain oversubscribed. To expand, the school will need to obtain additional land. Land to the north and east of the school is open. The school has access difficulties with significant vehicle / pedestrian conflict and congestion at the start and end of the day. Incorporation of land to the north into the school site would allow the school to expand to serve new housing while at the same time providing improved access via Brat's Lane. The plan should allocate a minimum of 2.7 hectares of land for this purpose based on 1,000 new homes. RDC will need to consult with the School as to the precise piece of land needed. Hockley/Hawkwell: - 400 UnitsDemand for both primary and secondary places in the area is forecast to fall, which should allow this number of new dwellings to be accommodated without the need for significant additional capacity. Rayleigh: - 1,800 UnitsThis quantum of new development is likely to require an additional two forms of entry to be added to permanent capacity across the town at both primary and secondary levels. Half of this requirement at primary level can be met by expanding existing schools. The allocation of a single housing site of around 700 units would be needed to deliver a new single form entry primary school (1.1 hectares) to make up the anticipated shortfall. Limited expansion of Fitzwimarc and/or Sweyne Park can probably be achieved with careful planning/ negotiation with the schools. Smaller settlements: - 500 UnitsThe allocation of units to smaller settlements could help sustain rural primary schools within the District but would impose long term school transport costs upon the County Council that should be mitigated through developer contributions. Specific locations will require careful consideration.

Para 4.6.18 Reference to public transport should be added, as Rayleigh has excellent access by rail both towards London and Southend.

Employment

Para 4.8.8 Regional Employment Strategy should be amended to Regional Economic Strategy.

Good design & design statements

Para 4.9.9 Architects and developers should be required to design their new developments with the use of recycled and alternative materials in mind, as efforts to increase recycling will only be worthwhile if there is a local market for recycled products.

Character of place & the historic environment

Para 4.10.8 The policy bullet points should include reference to historic heritage (e.g. historic landscape and archaeology), not just identity and buildings.

Energy & water conservation & renewable energy

Section 4.12 It is considered the Core Strategy for Rochford should provide the basis of policy guidance for accommodating waste management facilities within the District in order to be consistent with the RSS and PPS10. Policies should address the following:

- Resource reduction, re-use and recycling during construction of new developments as a way of driving waste up the waste hierarchy. This should be a primary objective.

- Use of renewable resources from sustainable sources.

- Impact of development on the environment and local amenity.

- Appropriate layout and design of buildings, external spaces and roads to allow for waste storage and collection and to facilitate waste separation and recycling. PPS10 contains guidance with regard to what facilities should be incorporated into non-waste related development.

- The recommendations on pages 91 - 94 of The Essex Design Guide Urban Place Supplement, which is being adopted by Rochford District Council as a Supplementary Planning Document.

4.12.11 The first bullet point relates to much wider issues than the energy conservation heading under which it appears. It should be a core policy in its own right, and include aspects such as safe routes to schools.

Compulsory purchase & planning obligations

4.13.7 Add education to list of justifications for compulsory purchase. As stated above, The King Edmund School needs to secure additional land.

Policy Content

The main comments concerning the content of the published consultation document are as follows:

1. To satisfy government guidance, the Core Strategy Preferred Options stage should have moved significantly on from the previous Issues and Options stage in terms of scope, content, and process as outlined below.

2. The evidence base should be substantially expanded and rolled forward to ultimately justify the selection of the Preferred Option. In particular, further evidence involving urban capacity, strategic housing market assessment, strategic housing land availability, town centres & retailing, employment land review, and transport studies is required. The whole evidence base should also be extended and rolled-forward well beyond 2021 so as to comply with PPS3 Housing guidance (namely that adopted DPDs should look forward at least 15 years' ahead at the date of their adoption).

3. Rochford district has significant functional economic relationships with Southend, Basildon, and other parts of Essex Thames Gateway, as well as parts of Greater London. The evolving Core Strategy should consider how these relationships might change and develop up to 2021, and what the practical implications might be for job/home alignment, commuting patterns, transport, and patterns of development provision.

4. The urban capacity study needs urgent updating before the broad direction of any Preferred Options can be confirmed. It also needs to be linked into a strategic housing market assessment and strategic housing land availability assessment in accordance with PPS3. In this way, the re-use of previously-developed land (PDL) and the consequential need for any greenfield site releases in the district can be properly clarified. At present there is inadequate information about this issue to inform discussion of Preferred Options.

5. The Preferred Options stage should also investigate the spatial planning implications of the RSS jobs figure. It should identify where the net jobs increase will come from within different economic sectors, and what the corresponding land-use implications might be for B1 employment uses, office development, retail and services, tourism, and the public sector (such as education and health). The District Council should undertake an employment land review to assess the extent to which existing employment areas will remain suitable and which new or existing locations would best support the future economic strategy of the district. This should then feed into the consideration of the future accessibility of employment sites to housing locations.

6. The Preferred Options should contain policy guidance regarding the preferred strategy for the district's town centres. This should include discussion of strategic options and choices for the amount and location of retail provision and other town centre uses. The policy approach towards out-of-centre development should also be explored and clarified.

7. The range of alternative options for the development strategy should be explained much more explicitly. This includes identifying and quantifying how much new housing should to be provided on PDL and greenfield sites, respectively; and the development provision required for employment, offices, town centre and retail uses, and other major development. Having established the broad quantum of new development required in the district, the Preferred Options stage should set out the reasonable alternatives for the location of new development in terms of its spatial pattern. This includes both the numeric distribution between individual key settlements and the broad locations for any major development. The latter would include identifying the geographical sectors on the edge of major settlements. The reasoned justification for any preferred option(s) should also be set out explicitly by drawing on the results of technical studies, SEA and sustainability appraisal, transport studies, and the results of public consultation at previous stages.

8. The practicality and desirability of designating 'buffers' in policy terms within the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) is unclear. The stated purposes of the MGB already include preventing the coalescence of existing settlements plan situated within the MGB, so the proposed use of 'buffers' represents a duplication of existing policy. Alternatively, if the proposed 'buffers' are to perform a different policy role this is not adequately explained. Since greenfield land releases may be required in the district up to 2021 and beyond, it is unclear whether the proposed use of 'buffers' would be incompatible with such an approach or not.

9. The approach towards the provision of new affordable housing is based upon specific local size thresholds in terms of site size. However, the proposed local thresholds are different from those set out in PPS3 Housing. The use of local thresholds departing from national guidance requires special justification, but this is not provided. It is also unclear whether the proposed affordable housing could be delivered in the absence of clear mechanisms for its delivery.

10. The Preferred Options should set out much greater consideration of the elements of a sustainable transport strategy to support the 5, 10 and 15 year visions. The County Council would be willing to assist Rochford District Council in preparing this material to support its Core Strategy DPD submission.

11. The Core Strategy will require more consideration of implementation and monitoring in accordance with government guidance. In particular, the actions necessary for delivery, any absolute dependencies on infrastructure, and the timescale should be identified. The recent White Paper (Planning for a Sustainable Future, May 2007) is proposing that detailed implementation plans should be prepared alongside Core Strategy DPD preparation.


Future Process

In view of the above comments, Rochford District Council is recommended to:

a) Commission additional technical studies to support and supplement the evidence base, and extend the base well beyond 2021;

b) Give more explicit guidance about the range of future development options in the district for different types of new development, including a more fuller reasoned justification at arriving at any preferred option(s);

c) Carry out further public consultation on (a) and (b) before proceeding to the preparation of a Core Strategy DPD for submission to the Secretary of State.


2. MORE DETAILED COMMENTS

Spatial Portrait
Para 1.9 The sentence "Within the district road infrastructure is poor" should be deleted, as there is no evidence that Rochford's roads are particularly poor.

Para 1.9 The sentence "There are no designated Heavy Lorry Routes in the District and many routes are unfit for their current level of use" should be amended to "The district's road network is under pressure from increasing private car and commercial traffic."

Spatial Vision

Para 2.6 After second sentence add, "The larger new development sites will have been designed with priority access to public transport, pedestrians and cyclists in mind".

Para 2.14 Add "The South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) project, enhancing the use and attractiveness of public transport in the Thames Gateway area, will have entered the District."
Para 2.24 Amend "Public transport is well used and has been enhanced by the completion of the South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT), which serves most of the population of the district." to "Public Transport is well used and has been enhanced by further South Essex Rapid Transit services."

Para 2.27 The phrase "Despite travel times to and from the airport increasing " should either be explained or deleted.

Green Belt

Para 4.2.7 The expansion of King Edmund School would require extra land in the Green Belt. Therefore, it may be helpful to include community facilities in the consideration of relaxation of policy.

General development locations

Para 4.6.2 The Rochford Core Strategy should have regard to the existing Brickearth Consultation Area when identifying new locations for development.

Para 4.6.1 Add at end: "embodying priority access by sustainable transportation modes consistent with Local Transport Plan policies as far as practicable where appropriate. Development will also be progressed with regard to highway development control policies to be defined in detail within the Development Control policies set of documents outlined in paragraph 3.9."

Para 4.6.3 While schools are included in the 'good range of facilities' alluded to, these settlements are only 'capable of sustaining some expansion' if the number of school places is increased. The document needs to be clear that there are insufficient surplus places to accommodate 3,900 additional homes.

Para 4.6.10 Significant additional schools capacity will be needed as set out below. In addition, Early Years and Childcare facilities will need to be provided in each case. Financial and land contributions from developers will be needed to deliver this infrastructure. The allocation of 300 more units than proposed to Hockley and 300 less to Rayleigh would provide a better fit in terms of maximising the use of current schools' capacity. Rochford/Ashingdon:- 1,000 UnitsThe capacity of Doggetts Primary can potentially be expanded to meet the needs of up to 1,000 new homes. If the sites are poorly located for this school, a new single form entry primary school would be needed (site area required 1.1 hectares). At secondary, King Edmund is already accommodating significantly more pupils than is recommended by the DfES for their site area. The school is forecast to remain oversubscribed. To expand, the school will need to obtain additional land. Land to the north and east of the school is open. The school has access difficulties with significant vehicle / pedestrian conflict and congestion at the start and end of the day. Incorporation of land to the north into the school site would allow the school to expand to serve new housing while at the same time providing improved access via Brat's Lane. The plan should allocate a minimum of 2.7 hectares of land for this purpose based on 1,000 new homes. RDC will need to consult with the School as to the precise piece of land needed. Hockley/Hawkwell: - 400 UnitsDemand for both primary and secondary places in the area is forecast to fall, which should allow this number of new dwellings to be accommodated without the need for significant additional capacity. Rayleigh: - 1,800 UnitsThis quantum of new development is likely to require an additional two forms of entry to be added to permanent capacity across the town at both primary and secondary levels. Half of this requirement at primary level can be met by expanding existing schools. The allocation of a single housing site of around 700 units would be needed to deliver a new single form entry primary school (1.1 hectares) to make up the anticipated shortfall. Limited expansion of Fitzwimarc and/or Sweyne Park can probably be achieved with careful planning/ negotiation with the schools. Smaller settlements: - 500 UnitsThe allocation of units to smaller settlements could help sustain rural primary schools within the District but would impose long term school transport costs upon the County Council that should be mitigated through developer contributions. Specific locations will require careful consideration.

Para 4.6.18 Reference to public transport should be added, as Rayleigh has excellent access by rail both towards London and Southend.

Employment

Para 4.8.8 Regional Employment Strategy should be amended to Regional Economic Strategy.

Good design & design statements

Para 4.9.9 Architects and developers should be required to design their new developments with the use of recycled and alternative materials in mind, as efforts to increase recycling will only be worthwhile if there is a local market for recycled products.

Character of place & the historic environment

Para 4.10.8 The policy bullet points should include reference to historic heritage (e.g. historic landscape and archaeology), not just identity and buildings.

Energy & water conservation & renewable energy

Section 4.12 It is considered the Core Strategy for Rochford should provide the basis of policy guidance for accommodating waste management facilities within the District in order to be consistent with the RSS and PPS10. Policies should address the following:

- Resource reduction, re-use and recycling during construction of new developments as a way of driving waste up the waste hierarchy. This should be a primary objective.

- Use of renewable resources from sustainable sources.

- Impact of development on the environment and local amenity.

- Appropriate layout and design of buildings, external spaces and roads to allow for waste storage and collection and to facilitate waste separation and recycling. PPS10 contains guidance with regard to what facilities should be incorporated into non-waste related development.

- The recommendations on pages 91 - 94 of The Essex Design Guide Urban Place Supplement, which is being adopted by Rochford District Council as a Supplementary Planning Document.

4.12.11 The first bullet point relates to much wider issues than the energy conservation heading under which it appears. It should be a core policy in its own right, and include aspects such as safe routes to schools.

Compulsory purchase & planning obligations

4.13.7 Add education to list of justifications for compulsory purchase. As stated above, The King Edmund School needs to secure additional land.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 26) Draft:
Consultation Development Plan Document (DPD)

I refer to your recent statutory consultation on the above Development Plan Document
and subsequent telephone conversation with Bob Preston about Southend's delay in
making formal representations.

Please find attached Southend Borough Council's representations on your Core Strategy
Preferred Options Draft and trust that they will be given due consideration.

For your information, these comments at this time are still subject to approval by
members. I will confirm the Council's agreed position after their Cabinet meeting on 25th
September 2007.

I trust this is in order.

Main Points

1.1 The Rochford District Core Strategy should address:
* The expansion plans for London Southend Airport and related development. There should be a Core Strategy Policy stating clearly that a Joint Airport Area Action Plan (JAAAP) is being developed with Southend on Sea Borough Council. The policy would need to be clear about the potential for change within the area covered by the Area Action Plan. This should include Airport expansion plans, the development potential for additional employment land and the implications in terms of rolling back the green belt boundary in this area. The broad location of the JAAAP should be shown on the Key Diagram;
* transportation and accessibility issues including strategic road and rail links and address associated cross boundary issues such as SERT. For example the core strategy should identify potential locations for a Park and Ride Scheme on the A127 as part of 'SERT' and surface access improvements to London Southend Airport, including the new railway station. These elements should also be shown on the Key Diagram;
* the proposal within the Southend on Sea Core Strategy Core Policy CP7 to support development of a new Country Park facility located between Great Wakering and Shoeburyness and show the broad extent of the proposed Country Park on the Key Diagram.

Specific Comments

1. A Spatial Portrait of the Rochford District

para 1.4 The spatial portrait of Rochford provides an insight to the district and provides a context in which planning policy in the Core Strategy needs to be developed. As such it would be helpful if there was more detailed information about where the district's residents work and their mode of travel as well as commuting patterns into the district if significant. Further description could then follow about the district's role and connectivity with London, Essex Thames Gateway and the rest of the region. This would link with the discussion about transport infrastructure in paragraphs 1.9 to 1.11.

para 1.9 In light of the above comments it would also be helpful to set out, in the paragraphs about transport infrastructure, key linkages with areas outside the district such as London and Thames Gateway South Essex and Chelmsford. Clearly the A127 and A130 and the Southend Liverpool Street railway line are strategic transport linkages to London and the rest of the Gateway. These, together with national and regional cycle routes, should be identified on the Key Diagram.

Paras 1.11
& 1.12 Also significant to transport linkages is London Southend Airport which lies within the district. Whilst it is mentioned here, both its current and future significance, through expansion plans, for both transport (including surface access) employment generation, and the Green Belt is not addressed fully. Clearly the Core Strategy will need to consider these issues and establish a policy context within which the Joint Airport Area Action Plan can be developed. It would be helpful therefore for this section to fully develop the context in which London Southend Airport sits.

2. Spatial Vision for the District

Paras 2.7
& 2.17 The Southend on Sea Core Strategy DPD Policy CP7: 'Sport, Recreation and Open Space' supports the development of a new Country Park facility, as part of the development of a Green Grid of open spaces and associated linkages throughout Essex Thames Gateway. This is nominally located towards the north east of the borough, with potential to cross the border into Rochford district and shown on the Key Diagram. Southend Borough Council considers that such a proposal aligns with Rochford Council's objective of preventing coalescence in the area between Southend/Shoeburyness and Great Wakering and reinforces the visitor recreation and leisure role that Rochford uniquely holds both for its own residents and those of Southend. It would be helpful, therefore, if the spatial vision in either the 5 or 10 year periods reflected the proposal for a Country Park between Southend/Shoeburyness and Great Wakering.

3. The relationship of documents in the Local Development Framework

Para 3.9 In the text box detailing the set of Development Plan Documents there is reference to a 'Joint Area Action Plan covering land to the west of Rochford'. It is unclear whether this refers to the Joint Airport Area Action Plan or not. It would be helpful if this is the case that the word 'Airport' is included within the title of this AAP. If it is not, then clearly the Joint Airport Area Action Plan should be included within this section, particularly as there has been a formal resolution by both Councils. In addition, it is considered essential that the broad locations of the proposed Area Action Plans are shown on the Key Diagram.

4. Core Strategy Issues

Para 4.1 Rochford District contains an Airport and strategic road and rail links with demanding cross boundary issues that need to be addressed. The spatial portrait also highlights issues of congestion and accessibility both in terms of the road infrastructure and the inadequacies of public transport. Southend Borough Council considers it essential that 'transport infrastructure and accessibility' should be a key policy area within the Core Strategy and it should address strategic issues such as support for the Airport expansion and surface access solutions, SERT, public transport improvements and cycling and walking.

It is noted in paragraph 3.10 that the Core Strategy intends to avoid duplication between local and National policies particularly in relation to green belt and development in flood risk areas. However, flood risk and climate change are key challenges for all LPAs particularly in this area and the Core Strategy should specifically refer to how it will address flood risk locally.

There also appears to be a lack of consideration of sports and recreation provision outside the management of protected open spaces which are intrinsically attractive because they are natural habitats.

4.2 The Green Belt & Strategic buffers between settlements

Para 4.2.1 Southend Council agrees that as a matter of principle, Green Belt land should be protected, and where possible brownfield land should be given priority for development. It is also noted that a Strategic Review of the green belt boundary is not considered appropriate at this stage in line with RSS Proposed Changes Policy SS7 and that the preferred option is to continue its restrictive suite of policies for development within the Green Belt.

Para 4.2.7 However, the preferred option indicates that there may be some relaxation for major developed sites, green tourism and renewable energy proposals. Southend Borough Council considers it essential that the Core Strategy specifically addresses the need to review the Green Belt boundary within the proposed boundary of the Joint Airport Area Action Plan. The preparation of this AAP has been agreed by both Councils and work is underway on developing the plan. It would be inconsistent therefore not to address Green Belt boundary review in this area within the Core Strategy both in policy terms and on the Key Diagram.

Para 4.2.4 In addition, Southend Borough Council is unclear as to the need for another tier of protection to land already identified as Green Belt, as implied by the proposed designation of Strategic Buffers, particularly as these areas are subject to a continued application of Green Belt policy. However, should they be areas where particular enhancements or management for recreation were needed then this Council would recommend that the proposed Strategic Buffer between Great Wakering and North Shoebury be proposed as a Country Park to complement Policy CP7 in the Southend on Sea Core Strategy DPD.

4.8 Employment

para 4.8.3 The recognition of the potential of London Southend Airport to be a catalyst for employment generating uses providing jobs for local people is welcomed.

Para 4.8.5 This paragraph indicates that additional jobs growth in the district will be accommodated within, London Southend Airport, Rochford Business Park, and various locations throughout the district. These locations should be shown on the key diagram. In addition
Southend Borough Council consider that the Core Strategy Policy dealing with employment should state clearly that a Joint Airport Area Action Plan is being developed with Southend on Sea Borough Council and both show the broad area that the AAP will cover on the Key Diagram and be clear within the policy about the proposal in terms of the expansion of the Airport, the development potential for additional employment land etc and the implications in terms of rolling back the green belt boundary in this area.

4.14 Community, leisure & tourism facilities

The approach to the provision of community (which should include education, health and social care facilities) and leisure facilities appears to be criteria based approach for dealing with planning applications for such uses in an appropriate manner. Whilst this is necessary, it would also be helpful to have an overview as to the locational requirements of other agencies dealing with health and social care provision.