4.5 Housing Numbers & Phasing

I would refer to your letter of 21st May giving MOD the opportunity to comment on the above consultation.

To clarify the position of Defence Estates, I confirm that we are advisers for the MOD, and as such, undertake the estate management role for the Shoeburyness establishment.

You will be aware that the only reason MOD holds property is to provide for or support the front line military capability. Therefore as a general rule there will be a need to develop or enhance establishments to meet the new requirements of the Armed Forces. It is considered that where there is a site used for defence purposes, development should be permitted, so long as it is necessary for defence purposes and is in keeping with the character and appearance of the site.

General policies must not therefore restrict military use development of New Ranges, Shoeburyness.

The LDF should acknowledge the role of Defence Establishments and the need to facilitate the ongoing use and future development of the sites for military purposes.

It is hoped that the above comments are of assistance in developing the Local Development Framework.

4.5.10 Proposal to release land from edge of settlements might produce coalescence and many live on such boundaries.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I am trying without any success to find out exactly where you plan to build in Rayleigh, given the fact that we yet again are forced to take "the lion's share" of the expansion plans. 1800 new houses in Rayleigh are you kidding??

If you are a resident of Rayleigh you will know that there constant traffic queues in and out of the town as well as insufficient schools (Rochford Council having decided in their wisdom to knock down a senior school and build hundreds of extra homes on the school land. I have lived in Rayleigh for over forty years and find it astounding that you have managed to ruin a lovely market town with with lots of open green spaces.

Perhaps you are planning to build on King George's Park/Victoria Park or Rawreth grounds as you have managed to build on every other green space in the town - where are the children from the new houses going to be educated at a senior level given that you have only two senior schools or perhaps you are planning to knock down Fitzwimarc and Sweyne Schools to build the houses on?

Doctors/Dentists/Leisure facilities - oversubscribed now
trains - packed

I do however, find it very interesting that you manage to keep Ashingdon and Rochford fairly unblemished which is of interest given the acres of green space available to build on...

The majority of people in Rayleigh commute to work and I could not find any publication detailing the exhibition (ie. Rayleigh Times or Southend Standard) at Mill Hall earlier this month. Do you honestly think I can look at the exhibition on a Wednesday?

I look forward to receiving your insightful comments on how best to run my town or should I say run it down?

In disgust

Jane McClure

I have recently noticed on local websites and newsletters that their is a draft document outlining allocations for future development
of local green belt areas.

I have lived in the area for over five years and moved here in the first place because it was an area with surrounding fields, parks
and farmland. When I studied at University I remember a tutor quoting that green belt land was provided so it could never be built on.

In this country there is far too much unneccesary over development and the relevant 'belts' were introduced to put a halt to the urban spread.

Why now should 'England's green and pleasant land', to quote the hymn, be destroyed so that developers can squeeze more profit for themselves at the detriment of the local area. The extra housing is not wanted by the
people who live here and would further congest and pollute the already stretched road network. The local schools and doctors are already full
to capacity and have waiting lists, and these and other local services should not be required to take any additional pressure.

People choose to live in areas such as ours to enjoy the local countryside and environment - please do not take it away from us.

Brgds

Thank you for the consultation on the above document. At this stage we have outlined some general principles and key issues that we feel should be included and addressed in the Core Strategy.

I hope this information is of use to you. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Doctors surgeries only open now part-time, and further patients en-masse would make appointments difficult. Bed spaces in Southend Hospital would result in even longer waiting lists. Roads in Rayleigh peak periods and school times jammed solid now without increasing roads users. Schools are already packed out. Parking spces in town are difficult, and usually you have to drive around 2 or 3 times before you get one. It can take 15-20 minutes just to get up Crown Hill. You have no facilities now for children and teenagers. Increasing their numbers will evenutally result in further trouble. On any land available a public swimming pool or a decent running track or sports facilities would benefit the existing population. Nearest pools are Hawkwell and Wickford. Pavements in town need steam cleaning, and side roads renewing, not patched up. Refer also to the Police Stations. I believe both Wickford and Rayleigh have cut back and come under Pitsea. I may be wrong, but have you ever enquired as to their input on further mass housing? There is no room for improvement of the infrastructure to accommodate 1800 further properties in Rayleigh, or the minimum 1800 vehicles, 3000+ children/teenagers, or jobs.

It is alright to build and build and build new houses. Give a thought for people who have got to live in them and the residents nearby. There must be provision in the plans for schools, medical facilities, green open spaces, meeting places, roads and local shops.

Schools - Provision for school places is now near to critical. New homes = new families, where are children to be educated? Primary and secondary?

Medical Facilities - Southend hospital is bursting at the seams. Car parking costs aer high. Rayleigh is about 10 miles away. People needing these services are not able to get there easily. We need a medical centre, preferably with clinic, minor injuries and GP facilities. Preferably in town centre, also GP practises near new housing estates.

Meeting Places - Pubs and halls and churches.

Open Spaces - Small parks and play spaces, safe areas where children can run and play and ride bicycles.

Roads - The arterial and major through routes should be improved if gridlock is to be avoided.

Local Shops - Elderly and disabled and others who cannot for some reason or another drive or access public transport need to have local shops. The Victorians and even the local planners before World War II took into account the well being of the population. Do we today?

As you are aware, we have recently completed the analysis of the Hockley Parish Plan questionnaire, for which we had a 25% response, showing the enthusiasm of the residents to have their say in the future planning of Hockley.

Several questions were related to future development in and around Hockley, with particular reference to the proposed increase of 3700 new homes in the Rochford district. The related topics and the responses to questions on these topics can be summarised as follows:

1. Should Hockley remain as a distinct community?
It was unanimous with almost 100% of responses that Hockley should remain as a distinct community with clear boundaries and green spaces with no further infilling between Hockley and its neighbouring parishes.

2. Preferred methods of absorbing new homes
The most popular vote, with over 40% of responses, was that there should be no further development in Hockley. However, we are aware of the planned increase of 3700 new homes of which 50% seem to be in or east of Hockley, which will obviously have a serious impact.

The preferred methods for absorbing new developments were as follows:
* Building on plots that form part of existing property / industrial sites
* Small groups of houses
* Replacing houses with flats / apartments to protect greenbelt and open spaces
* Provision of a satellite village remote from Hockley
The least preferred methods were:
* Large housing estates
* Building on greenbelt and open spaces
* Infilling with mini-roads off main roads

3. Protection of old and historic buildings
There was strong support for preserving all the buildings that are currently listed. In addition, there were recommendations for several buildings that were previously put forward but rejected for listing, plus several buildings that have not previously been proposed. A list is currently under preparation for follow up with the appropriate departments to ensure their protection during development.

4. Appropriate development in terms of housing, leisure, community and business
The preferred types of appropriate development for Hockley were as follows:
* Youth centres
* Shops
* Restaurants
* Leisure facilities
* Starter homes
* Sports facilities
The least preferred appropriate development included:
* Workshops / Industrial Units / Business Parks
* Housing (except starter homes)
* Pubs
5. Appropriate infrastructure to match development
There was a major concern that infrastructure will not match housing developments in Hockley. The main issues included:
* Inadequate highways - need for a by-pass or alternative proposals to alleviate traffic congestion
* Insufficient medical centres
* Inadequate parking
* Inadequate community services
* Inadequate public transport
* Insufficient school places
The areas which seem to best match development include:
* Sewage disposal
* Water supply,
* Gas and electrical supply

6. Priority types of accommodation needed in future years
Apart from starter homes, there was very little support of additional housing in Hockley. However, assuming that the proposal for additional homes goes ahead, the preferred categories of accommodation needed in Hockley are:
1) Owner occupied
2) Private rented
3) Housing association
4) Shared ownership

The priority general types of accommodation needed are:
1) 2 Bedroom properties
2) 3 Bedroom properties
3) Retirement homes
4) 1 Bedroom properties
5) Sheltered accommodation
6) Homes for the disabled
7) 4+ Bedroom properties

The top 10 individual types of property needed are:
1) 3 Bedroom house - owner occupied
2) 2 Bedroom house - owner occupied
3) Retirement homes - owner occupied
4) 4+ Bedroom house - owner occupied
5) 1 Bedroom house - owner occupied
6) Retirement homes - private rented
7) 2 Bedroom flat / apartment - owner occupied
8) Sheltered accommodation - owner occupied
9) Sheltered accommodation - housing association
10) Retirement homes - housing association

7. Location of power cables
It was unanimous with almost 100% of responses that new power cables should be located underground.

8. Location of mobile phone masts
The most popular vote, with 64% of responses, was that there should be no additional mobile phone masts in Hockley. If there has to be more mobile phone masts, then there was a strong recommendation that they should be located remote from people and animals. As such, they should be remote (by at least 500 metres) from residential areas, schools and medical centres.

9. Pollution issues related to traffic and businesses
The main pollution issues were attributed to traffic (noise, smells and fumes) and businesses (smells and fumes). Any future development in or around Hockley is likely to increase pollution issues, and every effort must be made to offset pollution effects. In addition, any expansion at Southend Airport will increase pollution, and must be considered in any planning applications.

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.

It is impossible to comment on where the houses should be built as the plans at the Hawkwell Village Hall gave no clue as to exactly where the available land might be and the suitability of each area of land. I can assure you that the B1013 is at saturation level and the roads into Hockley are always at a standstill- and this is only one aspect of the problem. The infrastructure needs to be in place to cope with any more housing. Each application needs to be looked at on its own merits.

Section Four. Housing Numbers and Phasing

Para 4.5 The Council's preferred options for housing numbers and phasing is considered to be somewhat ambiguous and is not clear and precise as required by PPS 12. The statement made in paragraph 4.5.10 does not clearly translate into the Council's preferred option. The Council states that neither urban intensification nor Green Belt releases were popular with respondents, however they rightly acknowledge that new homes have to be built and land has to be released to ensure land supply is available. The compromise, the Council suggests, would be to release land from the edge of settlements.

The compromise suggested would, in the case of the Rochford District, actually mean a release of Green Belt land, albeit Green Belt land abutting a settlement. The compromise is therefore an ambiguous statement, which appears to disguise the reality of the situation. The Council should clearly state that it expects to have to allocate some land on the edge of settlements for housing during the plan period as the Council's compromise suggests.

The preferred option fails to acknowledge the Council's suggested compromise of having to allocate land on the edge of settlements. It simply states that the Council will ensure that enough land is allocated and that priority will be given to large sites in urban areas on previously developed land. The preferred option is silent on how much urban and or previously developed land is available to accommodate the growth and it fails to recognise that some land will need to be released from the Green Belt at the edges of settlements to meet the shortfall. It would appear that the Council is reluctant to face the reality of the likely need for some Green Belt releases. In the absence of up to date evidence to the contrary from a revised urban capacity study, the Council should acknowledge, in its preferred options that some Green Belt releases on the edges of settlements will be necessary within the plan period.

The preferred option of a reliance on large urban intensification sites is considered to be an uncertain strategy which will require very close monitoring to ensure that delivery is achieved within the required timeframes. Large urban Brownfield sites are often difficult to assemble and their availability is highly unpredictable. They are also not always the most sustainable option and can displace other uses which require further allocations to be found. The Council must ensure that there urban capacity study is PPS3 compliant in order that its findings are robust and can be relied upon. In particular it will need to identify constraints that might make sites unavailable or unviable and discount them. It should also identify actions which could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites. Without this robust approach, such a reliance on urban capacity will lead to uncertainty in delivery.

The Council's preference to dismiss small urban intensification sites is generally supported; however it does not have a sound basis in any national or regional policy. The Council has not provided any advice on the criteria, which will be relied upon in determining what a small site is. Thresholds will need to be provided and discussed with stakeholders. This element of the preferred option will be vulnerable to not meeting the test of soundness. Whilst the reasons for discounting small sites is understood, the Council should satisfy itself that it is able to adopt such a policy, which on the surface appears to contradict the advice given in PPS 3.

It is agreed that to release Greenbelt land on the edge of a settlement would be a compromise to minimise any significant impact on the Greenbelt. It is considered that land put forward previously to the east of Rochford, which abuts the settlement boundary would be a suitable area of land for housing development. The site to the south of Stambridge Road abuts the settlement boundary on two sides and has access from both Stambridge Road to the north and Rocheway to the west.

I write on behalf of my client Fairview New Homes Ltd.

Fairview New Homes Limited (FNH) is a leading house builder that specialises in the provision of new housing on previously developed land to provide accommodation at the more affordable end of the market. They are therefore very familiar with the issues arising out of the redevelopment of previously developed land and the costs that can often be involved. They are also a major provider of affordable housing and therefore it is hoped that their views will be appropriately taken on board during the progression of the LDF.

In relation to the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document, please find below on behalf of FNH the following comments:

Housing Numbers & Phasing

FNH considers that the most suitable and sustainable approach for the Council should be both the re-use of previously developed land and at the same time some greenfield land in sustainable locations. Further housing development is necessary, and Green Belt areas on the periphery of an urban area should be considered for housing. FNH would therefore support the option in paragraph 4.5.10 that would allow the release of land on the edge of settlements.

This approach is in accordance with PPG2 on Green Belts that states in paragraph 2.8 "...encroachment of the Green Belt may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries are drawn too excessively tightly around existing built up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have." PPG2 therefore suggests taking land out of the Green Belt that borders existing settlements.

FNH would request that the Council establishes a policy framework that would support the release of land Green Belt land on the edge of existing settlements for housing development.

FHN also request that the Council considers non-housing sites for residential development if they come forward for redevelopment.

Some non-housing sites in the Borough may be better used for housing or mixed-use development and so employment and commercial land should be released for housing where it no longer fulfils its commercial use. Paragraphs 38 and 44 of PPS3 require local planning authorities to consider whether sites that are currently allocated for commercial use be more appropriately re-allocated for housing development. Such an approach would support the deliverability of housing in the Borough. Through the re-use of non-housing sites for residential development, the Council would accord with paragraph 40 of PPS3, which states that a key objective for Local Planning Authorities is to continue to make effective use of land that has been previously developed.

FNH consider that the Council should allow for the release of such land only for housing if it is surplus to requirements.

Affordable Housing

Fairview object to the 'possible' option whereby 30% of all new homes in the district be affordable on all sites unless such a site is considered to be a rural exception site.

FNH consider it necessary to state that any affordable housing targets should be indicative and set at a maximum negotiation level at which point the characteristics and constraints of a site can be discussed with the local authority to determine an appropriate level of affordable housing for the development. This will accord with PPS3, which states that housing targets should reflect the economic viability of land for housing within the area taking into account risks to delivery.

FNH request that it is stated within the document and through policy that the level of affordable housing in development schemes is determined with regard to individual site characteristics such as site costs and constraints as well as financial viability.

FNH therefore consider that the affordable housing mix on new development sites should therefore be negotiated on a site by site basis.

Detailed Design Brief

FNH would object to the requirement that a detailed design brief on all major planning applications be submitted in advance of a planning application. This is an unreasonable request, particularly as Design and Access Statements are a compulsory requirement. The submission of a planning brief would constitute additional information that would add extra cost to the development.

Whilst it is right and proper that the level of design quality is considered within policy terms, it should not however stifle housing delivery. Design initiatives sometimes create an additional cost to the developer and together with Section 106 requirements, this could make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites would not come forward. FNH consider that the design of a particular scheme should be discussed and negotiated with the local planning authority at an early stage on a site-by-site basis.

Code for Sustainable Homes

FNH object to the inclusion of the Central Government's "Code for Sustainable Homes" initiative into the Core Strategy.

Fairview considers that the "Code for Sustainable Homes" (2006) initiative should remain voluntary as stated in the document and that Councils cannot require developers to comply with it. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.



Lifetime Homes Standard

FNH consider that requirements relating to lifetime homes standards in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Health Impact Assessment

FNH consider that requirements relating to the submission of a Health Impact Assessments with planning applications for new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Carbon Neutral Developments

FNH would object if a particular provision is stipulated in the Core Strategy for residential developments to be carbon neutral.

Whilst recognising that the construction industry need to become more proactive in promoting and incorporating the use of environmentally friendly technology in the built environment, whereby FNH has gone as far as to introduce a wide range of renewable energy measures in its recent developments. The use of a "blanket" policy to provide renewable technology should not stifle regeneration and development. Such rigid requirements may make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites may not come forward to be developed. Moreover, where difficult sites are being regenerated and the costs are significant, other issues may be more important to reduce, for example contamination and affordable housing. The viability of delivering schemes must be a priority.

FNH therefore require renewable energy generation to be negotiated on a site by site basis, taking into consideration the characteristics and viability of the site.

Fairview object to the 'probable' option whereby all new housing development to include renewable energy provision (page 38). Whilst it is right and proper that energy and sustainable issues are considered, they should not stifle regeneration and development. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority. FNH are of the view that this should be assessed on a site-by-site basis and should not be applied to all residential developments. FNH therefore object to such requirements unless the policy makes it clear that viability will be an issue to be considered.

Water and Energy Conservation

FNH consider that initiatives relating to water and energy conservation in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

I trust that Fairview's comments on the Core Strategy Preferred Options shall be considered, however should you require clarification on any matters raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The Council's approach on housing numbers and phasing lacks the required clarity and detail and is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base. The document currently sets out a series of intentions and there is no clear trail of options generation, appraisal selection or rejection to inform the preferred options. There is no sustainability appraisal of the options being presented, the housing figures are presented as a matter of fact without a proper assessment of issues or national or regional and local strategy. There is no urban capacity study to inform the deliverability and distribution of growth and there are conflicting figures on land availability between the Document and the Annual Monitoring Report.There are six key issues arising out of these inadequacies:-* The urban capacity study should assess the yield of housing sites from possible sites over the period 2001 - 2021 to be able to determine the extent to which the Council's objectives of concentrating development on previously developed land can actually be achieved.* Over reliance on previously developed land to meet the Council's housing growth requirements has implications for the Housing Strategy in terms of density and addressing the mix of development to meet local needs. In addition the possible identification of employment sites as suitable previously developed land for housing development will impact severely on the Council's ability to protect, retain and enhance employment in the District.* The Annual Monitoring Report suggests that there is a balance of 3789 units to be found to meet East of England Plan requirements. The Preferred Options document suggests the figure is 3699 units. There is no explanation for this anomaly.* The Government response to the panel report on the draft RSS indicates that district housing figures should be treated as minimum targets. The implication for the Council is that additional housing will have to be provided beyond the eventual figure that will be agreed for the District in the RSS.* There is no Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to identify whether there is sufficient, suitable land available to achieve housing and previously developed land housing objectives. Furthermore, additional housing may be required at an early stage as a result of PPS3 guidance which states the Core Strategy should plan for the continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption.* The housing trajectory contained in the Annual Monitoring Report 2006 suggests that on the basis of past performance and projected performance the annual requirement for 250 homes per year set out in the East of England Plan has not been achieved. At the very least there may well be an immediate requirement for an additional 437 units to make up for the shortfall during the period 2001 - 2006.

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)

We write in response to the Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation Draft (preferred options).

Our interest in the Core Strategy is in regard to housing numbers, phasing and general development locations. We represent a consortium of landowners in Hawkwell known as the Old Nurseries Consortium, who jointly own a site in Hawkwell known as land off Thorpe Road.

In general, we feel that the Councils approach and the content of the draft Core Strategy can be supported. There are a number of points that have been raised in the draft that we consider are essential for future housing allocations in the District and should be carried forward into the approved Core Strategy. The points are discussed in more detail below, with reference to the site that we represent.

Green Belt

Green Belt land should be protected, and where possible brownfield land should be given priority for development. However, the draft Core Strategy conveys that the scope for using previously developed land in the District appears to be diminishing as many of the major brown field sites have already been used (paragraph 4.2.5).

It is obvious that to meet the housing requirements set out by the East of England Plan, which is the provision of at least 4600 new homes by 2021, that some Green Belt land will need to be allocated for housing development in the allocations DPD.

Therefore, in our view sites on the edge of settlements that do not harm the purpose of the Green Belt should be the only ones that are considered for housing development in the Green Belt.

We maintain that only suitable Green Belt land should be allocated as part of the allocations document. As a starting point, the strategic buffers identified in the draft which help to maintain the function of the Green Belt and prevent coalescence are considered essential and should not be compromised by the future allocation sites.

A point to mention with regard to the land off Thorpe Road is that the Council own a strip of land at the southern edge of one of the strategic buffers between Hawkwell and Ashingdon, known as Clemence Hall Open Space and be safeguarded from development and prevent coalescence.

Housing Number and Phasing

Paragraph 4.5.8 of the draft Core Strategy states that new development in the District should be directly related to sites with the availability of services and infrastructure. Development will need to be phased to ensure that the extensions of settlements and the provision of services go hand in hand.

General Development Locations

Paragraph 4.6.2 of the draft Core Strategy states that the Council will not allocate sites which are considered sensitive due to landscape designations, biodiversity issues or are liable to flooding. We agree with this approach as a number of Green Belt sites have been put forward which do raise these issues and should be avoided.

Countryside around Hockley and Hawkwell in particular does have a number of environmental designations from the Roach Valley, Hockley Woods to the southern boundary of the conurbation, and also a series of open spaces and wildlife throughout the area. Therefore the conurbation as a whole is significantly limited in terms of its prospects for development. However, what we would like to clarify is that the site that we represent, Land off Thorpe Road, is not presented with any such physical or environmental constraints.

The Core Draft identifies 3 tiers of settlement within the district. The top tier is Hawkwell/Hockley, Rayleigh and Rochford/Ashingdon. These settlements have been identified as the top tier of settlements as they have a good existing range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport. They are capable of some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. These sites would be capable of accommodating housing in the short term as they benefit from existing infrastructure.

Taking into account sustainability issues, the Council believe that the settlement pattern should be focused on existing settlements, with the main settlements taking the majority of development required. The draft core strategy identifies the 'majority' of development as 90% of the overall housing requirement for the District, some 4140 dwellings by 2021.

The draft Core Strategy sets out a preferred split of housing allocations as set out below:

Rochford/Ashingdon - 1000
Hockley/Hawkwell - 400
Rayleigh - 1800
Smaller Settlements - 500

A number of sites have been put forward for the allocations DPD. Taking the characteristics of each of these sites into consideration, the environmental constraints and also the existing position of each of the main settlements, we would consider that the allocations proposed by the draft adequately reflect the level of development that would be feasible without causing undue harm to the districts settlements.

With particular regard to the sites of Hockley and Hawkwell, paragraph 4.6.19 of the draft Core Strategy identifies that Hawkwell is the best located part of the conurbation, being only a short distance from the Cherry Orchard Link Road. The land off Thorpe Road is very close to the link road. Also, it is approximately 1km away from Hockley town centre and the railway station. There are also local shops and services at a lesser distance. Additionally, there are bus services in Main Road and Rectory Road.

Affordable Housing

Under guidance set by the East of England Plan (Policy SS13) the LPA consider the threshold for affordable housing should be set at 25 units with a provision of 30% required.

It is stated in paragraph 4.7.6 of the draft Core Strategy that the Council will examine the details of affordable housing through the preparation of its other DPD's. It is intended that the allocations DPD will provide a minimum figure for the number of affordable units to be completed on each site specified.

We consider that the proposed housing allocation sites should be identified by the opportunity to contribute towards the affordable housing requirements in the district.

Housing allocation sites should be of a certain size that will trigger the affordable housing threshold of 25 units, to be able to contribute towards affordable housing. Additionally, sites should be able to be developed without the need for major infrastructure costs, as high building costs could result in a justification for developers to provide less affordable housing on specific sites.

If wholly used, the site known as land off Thorpe Road could accommodate not less than 330 dwellings. Under the guidance proposed by the Council the site could therefore accommodate up to 90 affordable units which is a large part of the required affordable units across the entire district. The site does not require any major infrastructure works and therefore the affordable housing provision envisaged would be achievable.

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.

Please find attached our representation in respect of the Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 26) Draft, which have been submitted on behalf of our client (Aber Ltd).

The majority of the site indicated on Plan 1 is in the ownership of Aber Ltd, with the remainder owned by A W Squier Ltd; it is the intention that this site is brought forward as one. In addition, the land immediately to the east of the site is also in the ownership of A W Squier Ltd, which could be used to provide additional landscaping to the site.

4.2 The Green Belt & Strategic Buffers between Settlements

The policies of the East of England Spatial Strategy advise that there is not a requirement to undertake a strategic review of the Green Belt Boundary within Rochford at this point in time.

PPG2 (Green Belts), states that Green Belts should be designed to ensure that they will endure and should not include land which it is not necessary to keep open, and the boundaries should not be drawn excessively tight around the existing built-up areas, as it may not be possible to maintain a degree of permanence that Green Belts should have.

It is not considered that all the residential and employment development required over the plan period could reasonably take place on brownfield sites within the urban area, therefore, it will be necessary that there is some release of Greenfield land, which would be within the existing Green Belt. Sites located on the end of urban areas and would not be contrary to the objectives of including land in the Green Belt, eg result in urban sprawl or the coalescence of adjoining settlements should be considered to be sustainable locations.

With regards to the Council's preferred option we would agree that the strategic buffers should be identified on the Proposals Map and Allocations DPD. In terms of the list of strategic buffers, we require confirmation that the buffer between Rochford/Ashingdon and Hawkwell/Hockley, this does not relate to the area of land between Rochford and Ashingdon, as these settlements are already connected by existing development along Ashingdon Road.

4.3 Protection and Enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley

It is important that future development is directed away from the sites of special landscaped areas, ancient woodland and Country Parks, which should be protected, as together with their environmental interest they offer a 'green lung', offering opportunities for countryside recreation to the benefit of local residents.

We would agree with the Council's preferred option to protect and enhance the Upper Roach Valley, as a location suitable of providing informal recreational opportunities.

4.4 Protection and Enhancement of Special Landscapes, Habitats & Species

As the Special Landscape Areas (SLA) historic landscapes and habitats are important natural assets and provide valuable habitats to the District, their conservation is important to the District, and development should not be permitted in these areas, as this would have a detrimental effect on the areas natural heritage.

We would agree with the Council's preferred option which seeks to protect and enhance the Districts special landscapes and habitats, by seeking to develop policies to ensure the protection of these areas and only permitting development which is considered appropriate to these locations.

4.5 Housing Numbers & Phasing

In order to ensure that sufficient housing is provided in the District, the East of England Plan advises that 4,600 new dwelling units are required over the period 2001-2021; 901 dwellings were completed between the period of April 2001 and March 2006, which has left a residual of 3,699 units. These housing figures should be seen as minimum targets, rather than ceilings that should not be exceeded.

Whilst, it is noted that site specific details will be included in the Allocations DPD, it is important that the right approach is adopted by the Council to ensure that these dwellings are provided in the most sustainable manner.

In accordance with Government advice contained within PPS3 and the East of England Plan, the priority is to ensure that brownfield sites in urban areas are developed in the first instance and then sites that would result in a sustainable form of development.

The Council has made reference to the significant role of the use of previously developed land and these sites will generally be bigger sites within the urban areas. Our concern is that large urban brownfield sites may be more difficult to develop and delivery within the relevant timescales; as these sites could be in multiple ownerships and have a number of constraints that need to be resolved prior to the site being developed. These issues can have adverse affect on the deliverability of the site, and in turn a detrimental impact on the supply of new housing.

The Council has indicated that is wishes to restrict Green Belt development, however, it is not realistic to expect that all 3,699 additional dwellings can be accommodated on previously developed sites in the urban areas and given the fact that the Green Belt is currently drawn tightly around the existing settlements, means it is likely that there will be a need for the localised release of site(s) from the Green Belt.

PPS3 (Housing) advises that priority is given to developments on previously developed land, particularly where vacant and derelict; however, it does go on to state that at the regional level, broad strategic locations should be identified for new housing developments, these should ensure that the needs and demands for housing can be addressed in a way that reflects sustainable development principles. In selecting suitable locations for new housing it is necessary to consider the contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions by focusing new development in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car, and to maintain sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.

Sites adjacent to the urban areas are considered to represent a sustainable form of development, particularly where they have access to local shops, services, community facilities, green and amenity space and public transport and would be in accordance with the provisions of PPS3 and Policy SS7 of the East England Plan.

As stated previously in order to provide sufficient sustainable sites to meet the needs and demands for new housing around Rochford, there will be a need for the release of selective site(s) from the Green Belt. Such sites are suitable for release from the Green Belt where they do not have a significant affect on the Green Belt or the reasons for including the land on the Green Belt.

The provision of the required number of additional dwellings to meet the Regional Spatial Strategy housing requirement is only half the picture, as it is also as important that they are provided throughout the plan period. In order to achieve an acceptable delivery of dwellings, it is necessary to ensure that there is a constant supply of housing land, as such we would recommend the following approach:
* Short term (0-5 yrs) - existing permissions and smaller brownfield sites
* Medium term (5-10yrs) - non-strategic Greenfield sites
* Long term (10-15yrs) - strategic sites (including large/complex brownfield sites)

In terms of the Council's preferred option we would agree that it is important that sufficient land is allocated to accommodate the housing figure cascading down from the East of England Plan. Although there is a priority to reuse existing brownfield sites in urban areas efficiently, due to the number of dwellings required over the plan period it will also be necessary to allocate suitable site(s) from the Green Belt on the edge of existing settlements.

4.6 General Development Locations

In order meet the objectives of sustainable development and reduce the reliance on private cars, it is important that where it is necessary to allocate new housing sites these are located adjacent to existing settlements (to offer a wide as choice of shops and service), and public transport. However, any new housing site should be located away from areas that are subject to specific landscape/habitat/biodiversity designations or areas that are subject to unacceptable levels of flooding.

PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas), one of its main objectives is to promote more sustainable patterns of development and focus most development in, or next to, existing towns and villages, and where it is required to use Greenfield land, ensure that it is not used wastefully. Furthermore, to promote more sustainable patterns of development the focus of most additional housing in rural areas should be on existing town.

Policy SS4 of the East of England Plan advises that outside the Regions Key Centre, it would seek that other towns have the potential to increase their economic and social sustainability by ensuring appropriate amounts of new housing and local facilities and improving the town's access to public transport.

Hawkwell/Hockley, Rayleigh, Rochford/Ashingdon are the largest settlements within the District, and have the most extensive range of goods and services, as well as access to public transport. In order to offer both the most sustainable option and ensure that future residents have the greatest access to shops and services the majority of new housing sites should be focused around these three settlements.

With specific regard to Ashingdon/Rochford, this settlement is considered to capable of accommodating significant residential growth and expansion as it benefits from:

* Good transportation:
* Rail links - London to Southend line; and
* Road connections - access to the highway network;

* Good level of community facilities (including educational establishments);

* Existing local services will be strengthened by the expansion of the settlement; and

* Access to countryside and informal recreational opportunities

The Core Strategy seeks to set out both the number of additional dwelling units that need to be provided and develop a locational strategy for how these additional units can be distributed throughout the District.

In order to demonstrate that this is the right approach to find the necessary site(s) for the required housing number, it is important to identify suitable locations where these units can be accommodated. To this end we would propose a site to the northeast of Rochford, located to the east of Ashingdon Road, between Rochford and Ashingdon - see Plan 1.

This site would allow for a medium sized urban extension, providing for approximately 500 homes, together with a neighbourhood centre, community facilities, and associated open and amenity space. The particular benefits of this site include:

* Located on the edge of the existing settlement(s) and has good access to public transport compared to the rest of the District; the site is approximately a 15 minutes walk to the train station, and 3 no. bus services (routes 7, 8 & 20X) travel along Ashingdon Road;
* The site is located well in terms of accessing Rochford town centre, which can be reached by public transport, cycle and foot;
* Due to its proximity to Ashingdon Road there is an ability to get access off the main highway relatively easily. In addition, there is also the option to get secondary accesses in from the area to the south, off Rochford Gardens Way;
* The site is surrounded on three sides by built form, and as such the site would be a classic 'rounding off', and would not result in an intrusion into the countryside, and have the minimum impact on the Green Belt;
* There would be no loss of specific landscape/habitat/biodiversity designations;
* The land is not within a functional flood plain and is not liable to flooding;
* The site has the ability to link-up existing areas of open space, and create 'green links', with access to the wider countryside beyond, taking into account the needs of children;
* It is a regular shaped site, which is also relatively flat, this would enable a sufficiently diverse development to ensure that the site is used efficiently but with a landscape setting, notably along the eastern boundary, which would form a landscape buffer/green link;
* The site is of sufficient scale to ensure a wide mix of housing in terms of tenure, type and price to cater for a wide range of needs and demands, including households with children, single people and elderly and ensure that it would result in a balanced community;
* The scale of the site is of sufficient to pay for improvements to infrastructure costs, and would allow it to be undertaken as a viable phased development;
* The site is in two ownerships; there an understanding between both parties to bring this site forward, this will ensure that it is available and deliverable; and
* The relationship of this site would mean that not only would it result in a sustainable development, within easy walking distance of schools, shops and open space but will also marry in well with existing settlement.

We would comment that historically this site was seen as a natural expansion to the settlement of Rochford, however, the outbreak of World War II prevented the development of this site at this time.

The additional units proposed would bring more households to the area and in turn spending power, which would bolster the local parade of shops on Ashingdon Road.

Furthermore, the development of this site would be compatible with the Districts evolving employment strategy for the area, as it would not result in the loss of an existing employment site and would permit more residents to work in the District as opposed to commuting to out to other places of work.

We are in agreement that the vast majority of new housing should be split between the three main settlements (with an approximate number of dwellings allocated per settlement), and that this should be achieved by a smaller number of larger site(s), which should include the area to the northeast of Rochford. However, the timescale and phasing of these housings site(s) will be subject to a more detailed policy.

4.7 Affordable Housing

In accordance with the provisions of PPS3 (Housing), local planning authorities are required to include an element of affordable housing on all sites that would generate over 15, The Regional Spatial Strategy advises that the aspiration regional target for affordable housing should be 35% of all new housing.

Taken into consideration the character and make up of the residential areas the Council has indicated that, the threshold should be set at development over 25 units and at a rate of 30%. It is noted that the Allocations DPD will provide a minimum figure for the number of affordable units to be completed on each of the specified sites.

In order to ensure mixed communities we would agree with the Council's preferred option that of all new housing, 30% of the units should be affordable on all developments of 25 units or more. Whilst we agree that in order to create inclusive communities the affordable housing should be spread throughout the development, this should be done in such a manner to take into consideration the future management and maintenance of these units.

4.8 Employment

The Draft East of England RSS advises that over the period 2001 to 2021, 3000 new jobs should be provided within the District.

It is considered that two locations where the majority of new jobs can be generated include London Southend Airport, and Rochford Business Park, which between them will create in the order of 2000 jobs, with the remainder of the jobs created throughout the rest of the District.

Proposals for major new residential developments will include a neighbourhood centre and community facilities, which will be generators of new jobs in their own right. In addition, the occupiers of the new residential will also be future employees of the existing and proposed employment areas.

We would agree with the Council's preferred option, with regard to the provision of new jobs within the District, and the preparation of a Joint Area Action Plan to cover employment uses within west Rochford.

4.9 Good Design & Design Statements

In order to promote sustainable development, proposed developments should include good designs that in keeping with scale and character of their surroundings, and sustainable development principles.

In order to ensure that major sites are developed appropriately and to involve stakeholders in the development of the proposals, there is a need for Design Briefs to be prepared for such sites.

We are in agreement with the council's preferred option to require that planning applications are accompanied by design statements. These should ensure that there is good design, which is fundamental to the development of high quality housing and contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.

4.10 Character of Place & Historic Environment

As stated in PPS1 the appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings is a material consideration in the consideration of development proposals. As such the relationship with the local setting is more important that 'in house building style'.

In order to ensure that new development takes into account the District's identity we agree with the Council's preferred option.

4.11 Landscaping

In order to ensure that the landscape quality of the District is both maintained and enhanced, developments must contain well considered and high quality landscape content. This is important when assimilating a new development into its surrounding, particularly when located on the urban fringe.

With regard to the proposed housing location to the northeast of Rochford; three sides would be bound by built-form, however, the fourth side would adjoin open countryside. In order to ensure that this site would have the right appearance it is important that this boundary is made up of a sufficient landscaping belt (including trees). This will not only form a substantial landscape buffer (assist in softening the transition between the urban area and rural landscape), but would also form part of the green link, linking existing urban areas.

On major sites as the relationship of the site with its surroundings both urban and rural is important, we agree that in the consideration of such proposals sufficient information should be submitted in order that the landscaping can be properly assessed.

4.11 Energy & Water Conservation & Renewable Energy

In order to address the issue of climate change and conserve natural resources, it is important to ensure that future developments are designed with this in mind, as this will contribute to a more sustainable form of development.

With major developments the preparation of development briefs should include the requirement to address sustainable layouts and construction, together with the requirement for renewable energy, which dependent on the location should include amongst other things, wind energy, solar power and ground heat. In addition, to the energy produced by these means it would also be important to consider any possible adverse effects they could have on local and visual amenity.

We agree with the Council's preferred option that seeks to locate development in sustainable locations and reduce the need to travel by private vehicles. In addition, new developments should be designed so that they have an energy efficient layout and construction, seek to conserve water and energy and generate energy from renewable sources.

4.12 Compulsory Purchase & Planning Obligations

Planning obligations will be used to deliver compensatory or mitigatory measures in order to permit development or to reduce the impact of development to an acceptable level.

We are in agreement with the production of a strategic policy detailing the working of planning obligations in the district.

Representation forms

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.

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.

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.

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.

Local Development Framework - Re The Lords Golf Course site (formerly The Hanover) and neighbouring land fronting Lower Road and Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh Essex SS6 9QS

Further to our letter of 16th February 2007 concerning the above site, which you have agreed to kindly consider for possible future housing development as part of your preparation for the Allocations Document, we understand we shall be given the opportunity to expand on the merits of this potential site in due course.

However, at this stage, we feel it is appropriate to consider the potential for the development of the above site within the context of the Draft Core Strategy options currently being considered by the Council.

Accordingly, we enclose our comments which we ask you to treat as being formally submitted in response to the current public consultation on the Councils Draft Core Strategy preferred options (Regulation 26) and trust this may encourage the Council to adopt an appropriate strategy sympathetic to our client's aspirations relating to the above mentioned site.

1. We support the broad approach of directing future housing growth towards established settlement areas and avoiding any significant growth within or around the more modest rural settlements situated within the eastern part of the district.
2. However, in view of the recent housing growth which has taken place within the District's main urban areas, together with the planned future demand for housing, it is felt future residential development should be more widely distributed around the fringes of the established urban areas.
3. The current strategy is felt to be too rigid in this respect and a more flexible approach is needed to avoid an over concentration and to make best use of existing services, facilities and communication links.
4. We suggest some loss of the existing Green Belt in appropriate fringe locations adjacent to the existing establish main settlement areas is unavoidable and, given the limited opportunities for redevelopment or windfall sites remaining within the settlement areas, a controlled and orderly adjustment to the Green Belt boundaries around some of the existing urban areas, in appropriate sustainable locations, is felt to be necessary.
5. This will give an opportunity to provide much needed affordable housing and create mixed high quality and attractive sustainable schemes within such locations, at appropriate densities to ensure the efficient use of land. This approach is more likely to safeguard the residential amenity and character of established residential areas, whilst safeguarding the vast majority of the surrounding countryside and protecting the rural character of the district.
6. It is apparent from the Councils analysis (4.2 - 4.5) that the local authority can no longer rely on regeneration within established settlement areas alone, without some release of the Green Belt.
7. The Councils spatial vision for the district appears to envisage development opportunities on existing Green Belt sites around the urban fringe can achieve attractive sustainable environments which can be landscaped and connected to the green grid and public open space. In addition such projects can incorporate enhancement to public open space and make a positive contribution towards community facilities, in appropriate locations. This can help to address the recognised deficit of playing pitch provision in the district.
8. Without seeking to deny the protection of the Green Belt is an important consideration, by adopting a sensitive and careful approach, some rounding off of existing settlements and limited residential expansion into the Green Belt is felt to be necessary and reasonable within the plan period, as is implied in paragraph 4.26.
9. The combination of generally maintaining the existing Green Belt boundaries but allowing some release of fringe sites to enable appropriate residential expansion to take place is considered to be an appropriate approach, particularly when reinforced by the inclusion of strategic buffers to ensure adequate separation is maintained between neighbouring settlements.
10. Whilst accepting the need to adhere to national policies and guidelines in respect of the protection of the Green Belt and the need to safeguard the rural character of the district, in view of the demand for housing which must be accommodated in the most appropriate way, we respectfully submit that the Development Control Policies DPD should allow for some relaxation of Green Belt control, particularly with regard to sites to be identified on the proposals map, taking into consideration the sites allocation DPD process. We feel it important that the Core Strategy at this stage should not rule out such an approach.
11. Such an approach can be adopted, in suitable locations so as to integrate new housing together with Green Tourism and leisure facilities, in order to provide a viable framework for the provision of facilities which would not otherwise become available to benefit existing communities.
12. We note the Council's intention to make sites specific allocations in the allocations DPD in order to accommodate the housing provision for Rochford for the period 2001-2021.
13. Flexibility is needed at this stage, particularly bearing in mind the Councils review of its Urban Capacity Study prepared in 2001 has not yet been completed and the planning circumstances have significantly moved on since the last study was carried out.
14. The Council's proposed compromise referred to paragraph 4.5.10, to release land from the edge of settlements, will inevitably mean the loss of some Green Belt land. Nevertheless, this approach will ensure high quality development can be achieved with minimal impact on openness and rural character or Green Belt objectives.
15. It is noted that the Council have excluded the policy option to prevent the need for any Green Belt Release (para 4.5.12).
16. In this respect we suggest the Council should not exclude the contribution which medium sized sites can make, subject to the merits of each individual case being carefully considered (para 4.5.11).
17. The need for the strategic buffers is recognised but they should not preclude any reasonable development proposals brought forward during the allocations DPD process. In this respect it will therefore be necessary to retain a degree of flexibility as to the precise location of the boundaries of these "buffers".
18. We respectfully suggest the 90% figure referred to in 4.6.6 should be treated as indicative only since much will depend on the outcome of the above mentioned Urban Capacity Study and the quality and range of sites which come forward at the site allocations stage. Having said this we accept it is sensible to channel the majority of new housing development within and adjacent to the main settlements.
19. We would suggest Hullbridge and the immediately surrounding area can be seen to have greater potential for expansion compared with Canewdon and Great Wakering, having regard to the character and scale of these existing settlements and accessibility to the wider area.
20. The development of our client's site which is situated close to the settlement of Hullbridge will provide the opportunity for local services and facilities to be enhanced.
21. We accept the Strategic Buffers are indicatively shown at present but we would respectfully suggest there is some potential for some expansion to the south of Hullbridge without prejudice to retaining a reasonable Strategic Buffer between any such development and the urban area of Rayleigh.

At this stage, we feel it is appropriate to consider the potential of the above site for development within the context of the Draft Core Strategy options currently being considered by the Council.

Accordingly, on behalf of our clients we enclose a document containing our comments in response to the current public consultation and trust this will encourage the Council to adopt an appropriate strategy sympathetic to our client's aspirations relating to the above mentioned site. You will appreciate the enclosed submissions have been lodged within the required timescale.

1. We support the broad approach of directing future housing growth towards established settlement areas and avoiding any significant growth within or around the more modest rural settlements situated within the eastern part of the district.
2. However, in view of the recent housing growth which has taken place within the District's main urban areas, together with the planned future demand for housing, it is felt future residential development should be more widely distributed around the fringes of the established urban areas.
3. The current strategy is felt to be too rigid in this respect and a more flexible approach is needed to avoid an over concentration and to make best use of existing services, facilities and communication links.
4. We suggest some loss of the existing Green Belt in appropriate fringe locations adjacent to the existing establish main settlement areas is unavoidable and, given the limited opportunities for redevelopment or windfall sites remaining within the settlement areas, a controlled and orderly adjustment to the Green Belt boundaries around some of the existing urban areas, in appropriate sustainable locations, is felt to be necessary.
5. This will give an opportunity to provide much needed affordable housing and create mixed high quality and attractive sustainable schemes within such locations, at appropriate densities to ensure the efficient use of land. This approach is more likely to safeguard the residential amenity and character of established residential areas, whilst safeguarding the vast majority of the surrounding countryside and protecting the rural character of the district.
6. It is apparent from the Councils analysis (4.2 - 4.5) that the local authority can no longer rely on regeneration within established settlement areas alone, without some release of the Green Belt.
7. The Councils spatial vision for the district appears to envisage development opportunities on existing Green Belt sites around the urban fringe can achieve attractive sustainable environments which can be landscaped and connected to the green grid and public open space. In addition such projects can incorporate enhancement to public open space and make a positive contribution towards community facilities, in appropriate locations. This can help to address the recognised deficit of playing pitch provision in the district.
8. Without seeking to deny the protection of the Green Belt is an important consideration, by adopting a sensitive and careful approach, some rounding off of existing settlements and limited residential expansion into the Green Belt is felt to be necessary and reasonable within the plan period, as is implied in paragraph 4.26.
9. The combination of generally maintaining the existing Green Belt boundaries but allowing some release of fringe sites to enable appropriate residential expansion to take place is considered to be an appropriate approach, particularly when reinforced by the inclusion of strategic buffers to ensure adequate separation is maintained between neighbouring settlements.
10. Whilst accepting the need to adhere to national policies and guidelines in respect of the protection of the Green Belt and the need to safeguard the rural character of the district, in view of the demand for housing which must be accommodated in the most appropriate way, we respectfully submit that the Development Control Policies DPD should allow for some relaxation of Green Belt control, particularly with regard to sites to be identified on the proposals map, taking into consideration the sites allocation DPD process. We feel it important that the Core Strategy at this stage should not rule out such an approach.
11. Such an approach can be adopted, in suitable locations so as to integrate new housing together with Green Tourism and leisure facilities, in order to provide a viable framework for the provision of facilities which would not otherwise become available to benefit existing communities.
12. We note the Council's intention to make sites specific allocations in the allocations DPD in order to accommodate the housing provision for Rochford for the period 2001-2021.
13. Flexibility is needed at this stage, particularly bearing in mind the Councils review of its Urban Capacity Study prepared in 2001 has not yet been completed and the planning circumstances have significantly moved on since the last study was carried out.
14. The Council's proposed compromise referred to paragraph 4.5.10, to release land from the edge of settlements, will inevitably mean the loss of some Green Belt land. Nevertheless, this approach will ensure high quality development can be achieved with minimal impact on openness and rural character or Green Belt objectives.
15. It is noted that the Council have excluded the policy option to prevent the need for any Green Belt Release (para 4.5.12).
16. In this respect we suggest the Council should not exclude the contribution which medium sized sites can make, subject to the merits of each individual case being carefully considered (para 4.5.11).
17. The need for the strategic buffers is recognised but they should not preclude any reasonable development proposals brought forward during the allocations DPD process. In this respect it will therefore be necessary to retain a degree of flexibility as to the precise location of the boundaries of these "buffers".
18. We respectfully suggest the 90% figure referred to in 4.6.6 should be treated as indicative only since much will depend on the outcome of the above mentioned Urban Capacity Study and the quality and range of sites which come forward at the site allocations stage. Having said this we accept it is sensible to channel the majority of new housing development within and adjacent to the main settlements.
19. It will be noted the indicatively shown Strategic Buffer at present would not preclude some modest enlargement of the established residential part of Ashingdon, in a northerly direction. This would fully safeguard the strategic separation from Hockley/Hawkwell to the west.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.

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

Introduction

1. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Mrs L Byford who owns a significant area of land on the north eastern edge of Rayleigh, including an area of farm land and employment land adjacent to the north eastern boundary of Rayleigh together with horse related uses adjacent to Home Farm on the western edge of Hockley. In general terms her land ownership is bounded by the railway line to the north, Hockley to the east, Hockley High Road to the south linking Rayleigh and Hockley and Rayleigh itself to the south west bounded by Hambro Hill.

2. Within this area of land we believe that there is scope for a residential and mixed use allocation adjacent to Hambro Hill and this area is identified on the attached plan.

3. We welcome the consultation on the Preferred Options, and comment below on specific options raised within the document under those headings set out in the document itself.

Green Belt & Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

4. Whilst we note that the Council proposes to continue its restrictive suite of policies for development within the Green Belt in accordance with PPG2, we note that the Council in addition to this proposes to establish strategic buffers between key settlements which will be defined and protected by policy and included on the Core Strategy key diagram.

5. Whilst we accept the reasons for this designation we do consider that it unnecessary duplicates Green Belt policy particularly given that the first two purposes of including land in Green Belts as defined by para 1.5 of PPG2 are to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and to prevent towns from merging into each other.

6. If the green buffer designation is to be included within the Core Strategy and defined in more detail on proposal maps, there must be defined accurately to exclude those areas that do not fulfil Green Belt objectives and/or those areas of land that could be developed without impinging on the broader objective of avoiding the merging of separate towns.

7. In particular it is important that development within the strategic buffers that accords with paragraph 1.6 of PPG2 in terms of the use of land in Green Belt in particular in providing opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas is retained and that the strategic buffer designation does not offer an additional layer of policy which overrides the Green Belt designation and related policies.

Housing Numbers and Phasing

8. The draft East of England Plan makes clear that the housing allocation figure for individual districts must be based on minimums rather than maximums and these should be reflected in this section. Whilst the Core Strategy and Site Allocations document will no doubt seek to identify as many urban capacity sites as possible, it is inevitable some windfalls will emerge and given that this source should not be used towards meeting housing supply in the first ten years as set out in PPS3, it could be that the minimum allocation could be exceeded by the windfall factor.

9. Whilst we accept from paragraphs 4.5.9 and 10 that housing numbers and intensification of the existing urban area, together with the Green Belt releases are politically unpopular, we do support the Council's stance that housing numbers are not matters under its control and that the Council has a responsibility to ensure that the new homes are built and released in order to ensure that land supply is available.

10. The compromise to the Council in releasing land from the edge of settlements is supported and this accords with the thrust of PPS3. As such we support the Council's preferred option in relation to housing numbers and phasing subject to comments above on the figures being seen as minimums and this being reflected in the final policy.

General Development Locations

11. We support the settlement pattern being based on existing settlements with the three main settlements being Hawkwell/Hockley, Rayleigh and Rochford/Ashington taking the majority of new development which is defined as 90% of the housing development required. These settlements do have a good range of services and facilities together with access to public transport, unlike the second and third tier settlements which by comparison are considerably smaller and with a consequentially much poorer range of services.

12. In particular we support the Council's preferred options for general development locations in relation to the split between settlements as this appears to be proportionate to both the size of settlement and the range of services within each. We particularly support the rejection of alternative options as these clearly failed to meet sustainable development objectives and indeed and would be inconsistent with the approach of PPS3.

Employment

13. We consider a criteria based approach towards the retention of existing employment land in the district should form part of the Council's preferred options for employment not necessarily to ring-fence all employment land in existing use but to ensure that new allocations do not simply make good ongoing losses in employment land to other uses and to ensure that new jobs are classed as net additions to the existing stock.

Community, Leisure & Tourism Facilities

14. It is important when setting out a policy dealing with leisure proposals to set out the Council's preferred option such that this provides clarity for development particularly those located within Green Belt locations where paragraph 4.14.5 of the core strategy preferred options is a little vague. As set out above it is important that those uses considered appropriate for Green Belt locations are expressed clearly in the document and that this accords with PPG2, with particular regard to horse riding facilities and the encouragement of such facilities in the countryside as set out in the Replacement Local Plan under Policy LT14.

Land at Home Farm

15. The area of land on the north eastern edge of Rayleigh which forms part of Home Farm which is considered appropriate for housing and mixed use development is indicated on the plan attached to these representations. It is contained by the woodland to the east and by the existing area of open space, a railway line to the north and west. Adjacent to the site is an existing employment area which could be retained or redeveloped as appropriate. Whilst the land falls to the north, the small area is visible between the wood and the open space can be contained by new planting and or an extension of the woodland to increase the local biodiversity as part of the development.

16. Part of the site is used for sand extraction for specialist brick making and this area of land is despoiled and the allocation and development of the site will clearly resolve this particular issue. In addition the area of open space north of Hambro Hill to the east of the railway line at present does not have public access, despite being defined as local open space on the Replacement Local Plan, and is therefore not available to the general public, this might be closely related to the substantial residential estates of northern Rayleigh which themselves are deficient in open space. This position could be resolved by the allocation of the site which could include the area of open space and ensure that public access is gained to it, together with an enhancement of the appearance and the facilities within the open space.

17. Given that development to the north of Rayleigh, west of railway line together with development along Hockley Road extends the settlement boundary of Rayleigh beyond the representation site, allocation of this land would not impinge on the strategic gap between Rayleigh and Hockley and for the same reason the land does not fulfil a cogent Green Belt purpose. Allocation of the site would create a more logical and a defensible Green Belt boundary as well as being a clearly defined edge to the strategic gap as defined on the attached plan.

18. On behalf of our clients we welcome the opportunity to be involved in this stage of the production of the core strategy and look forward to being involved in further development of the local development framework.

19. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss the above or the attached in more detail.

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.