4.7 Affordable Housing

I feel that Rochford should move closer to the lower threshold of 15 units as the threshold for affordable housing and aim for the higher percentage figure of 35 rather than 30 as proposed. There is a desperate need for affordable housing within the authority area. More and more houses are being bought by people retirng to the area from places where house prices are higher. House prices are therefore becoming inflated and young people are forced into rented housing or out of the area altogether. The result for the district will be even more of an aging population than already exists. It is not enough just to provide affordable housing for key workers. A balancedc local economy needs a full range of workers in all fields.

CPREssex is concerned at the level of affordable housing proposed. Although we accept that the rate of 35% affordable housing would be high for Rochford, we consider that the 30% rate should be imposed on sites with 15 or more units.

Rochford District Council Core Strategy Consultation Response

From A.J. Handfield



1 The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements.

I am concerned about the constant erosion of buffer zones. It's all very well to keep saying that we need the land for this or that but the effect is that the land is being lost for it's existing purposes, and probably lost for a very long time.

The purpose of green space is not always the obvious one e.g. agricultural use is obvious but there are other benefits which are less obvious such as for the well-being of wildlife (not just protected species but all insects, birds and mammals) and visual amenity.

2 General Development Locations.

In my view it is highly unlikely that the proposed development can be accommodated without significant infrastructure problems.

New development is usually permitted, where appropriate, with certain mitigation measures to offset expected new pressures on schools, roads, recreation and/or health facilities. These are usually very focussed. Unfortunately there are very many issues which do not get addressed because of the smaller increments of development. Smaller increments of development result from either (i) smaller development sites or (ii) relative remoteness from a larger development site. The list of infrastructure which suffers from smaller incremental development would include roads, hospitals, shopping centres, public town centre car parks, schools, water supply and waste, energy supply, air quality, solid waste etc. Any of these may benefit from developer contributions where the proposed impact is predicted to be significant but where the development is more remote, contributions are not forthcoming and the stress on the infrastructure increases in numerous small increments.

Roads - New developments used to be required to satisfy the IHT guidelines with regard to traffic generation i.e. any development which had less than a 10% impact on a traffic flow on a junction or road link (5% if congested) would not be required to fund remedial measures. This has been superseded by the latest government recommendations. The Traffic Management Act 2004 requires the Local Traffic Authority to manage traffic and seek to reduce congestion. The DfT "Guidance on Transport Assessment" also supersedes the old IHT guidelines.
It is impossible to mitigate against the traffic impacts on roads further away from a new development site because the impact has reduced to smaller, less quantifiable levels. The road network in the Rochford and Southend areas is however already very congested at peak times and new settlements of the numbers indicated in this draft document will impact quite severely on remote roads and junctions. Nearly everyone who lives in the area is aware of the severe congestion that frequently and regularly occurs at places such as Rayleigh town centre and to a lesser extent Hockley town centre where all the approaches are almost constantly congested at peak times, Eastwood Road which queues heavily at peak times, Progress Road junction with the A127 and Rayleigh Weir whilst not in Rochford district are still used by a lot of the rush hour traffic from Rochford district. The traffic generation from the proposed new settlements will add to this and is therefore unsustainable and undesirable.

Hospitals, dentists, clinics and g.p. surgeries - These suffer in exactly the same way that the road network further away from a development sites suffer from the incremental effects of more remote new developments as explained above. New pressures will be placed on the health service that will not be matched by the necessary increases in capital investment.
Developers are frequently required to provide a new health facility where it is needed to accompany a new housing site but this does not offset the additional stress that is being created for other functions, for example a new g.p. surgery does not address the additional stress being created on hospitals and dentists etc.

Air Quality - The Government has identified air quality improvement as a target in it's "A New Deal For Transport" and other policy documentation. Air quality will undoubtedly suffer as a result of the additional traffic generation and congestion that the new developments will create.

Energy supply and solid waste disposal - New housing development will have an impact on both of these issues since increasing the numbers of households will result in increased energy consumption and waste.
Constructing new houses will involve additional energy consumption and pollution in connection with the original creation of the houses and the materials used therein. If the houses are to be built, the CO2 produced should be offset.

The locations and distribution of proposed development numbers - I object to the enlargement of Rayleigh and Hockley for the reason that the infrastructure cannot cope. I have already described my main reasons for objecting above. There will be other increased pressures resulting from the new settlements such as on existing town centre car parks which I find unacceptable.

If additional housing has to be accepted in the district, it seems more sensible to me to enlarge Hullbridge creating a new town rather than the distribution described in the draft Core Strategy. New highway links could be created or existing ones could be upgraded much more easily, public transport could easily be improved (not rail, of course) and cycling infrastructure could be provided. Hullbridge has the potential to become a very desirable location in view of it's riverside rural setting, with a full range of housing provision.

Affordable Housing - I am pleased to see the intention to provide for gypsy and traveller needs through mainstream housing, and support that strategy.

Accommodation Type - No mention is made in the draft Core Strategy of the types of accommodation that are to be provided. It is essential for the general living quality of a community to ensure that the full mix of accommodation is provided. I would object to any proposal to build many small flats or one bedroom houses.
A method for arriving at an accommodation mix should be specified in the Core Strategy.

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.

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)

What is the point of having the expense of County Councils and Town Councils etc if Government Policy is going to be forced upon us anyway? What about infrastructure and the extra pressure on this that these extra houses will cause, especially on roads, sewers, health care, schools etc. Loss of Green Belt is unacceptable. There should instead be tax incentives (as this is driven by central government, tax incentives should come from central government also) to encourage the full use of all brown sites as a top priority before any other land is used.

All new houses should have high standards of insulation and energy saving devices now before planning permission is granted.

Any new land used must be more fairly spread over the whole of the Rochford District - Rayleigh is already to densely populated!

What is the definition of affordable housing? (Affordable to whom? Prices and specification of these houses must be clearly defined).

In general, the pubilc needs more detail to comment properly on this very important matter. Questionnair should have been more widely distributed - supermarkets, Echo and free local papers, all newsagents etc etc.

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.

Increase in affordable housing/keyworker properties should be increased to 50%. There will, therefore, be less need for larger 4/5 bedroom properties. Families' needs will be met better this way and more importantly our young adults and keyworkers will hopefully be able to remain in their home town and continue to provide and maintain essential services in the future.

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.

I wish to object to the proposal to site 1800 housing units in Rayleigh/Rawreth for the following reasons:

1. Rayleigh and Rawreth are already suffering more than the rest of the district from overdevelopment - a large proportion of the 900 houses already built are located in Rayleigh.
2. Rayleigh and Rawreth have already received most of the large scale new housing in the last 20 years.
3. It is not possible to put 1800 extra houses in Rayleigh in a sustainable way.
4. More amenities must be provided prior to any large scale development being undertaken.
5. Development should be split evenly across the entire district.
6. The East of England plan is not yet policy and only when and if it is in place does a decision require to be made.
7. As quoted in the RDC Planning Policy - re Rawreth - "Any new dwellings would have a detrimental effect on the visual appearance of the Green Belt and the existing open character of such settlements".
8. Better controls should be put in place for the sale of affordable housing to prevent purchase and subsequent letting.

The 900 houses already built - The majority of these are in Rayleigh. These should be taken into accuont when sharing the additional houses in the area.

Rayleigh is already overdeveloped. As quoted in the RDC Planning Policy - re Rawreth - 'any new dwellings would have a detrimental effect on the visual appearance of the Green Belt and the existing open character'.

I strongly object to the plan of 1800 being built in the Rayleigh area. It is far too many.

I understand the 'East of England Plan' is not yet policy therefore all this extra housing may not be needed!

Rayleigh cannot cope with this much extra housing ie roads, schools, doctors, etc, etc, etc.

I hope at the next Council meeting the local councilors will represent their residents rather than their party policy!

Affordable housing - This should be for those intended for. Not as with Coppice Gate, bought and then rented out.

Representation from Savills on behalf of Martin Dawn Plc

Please find enclosed representations made on behalf of Martin Dawn Plc in relation to the Core Strategy. Comments are submitted in relation to the following paragraphs in section Four:

4.27 and 4.28 - Object
4.5.11 and 4.6.12 - Object
4.6.10 and 4.6.11 - Support
4.7.10 - Support
4.7.11 - Object
4.9.9 - Object
4.9.10 - Support
4.11.6 - Object
4.12.11 - Object

These representations were also sent by fax and e-mail on 2 July 2007.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course, but please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

4.27 AND 4.28 - OBJECT

Whilst Martin Dawn supports the principles of continuing to maintain the purposes of including land in the Green Belt as required by PPG2 and seeking to prevent the coalescence of settlements, paragraphs 4.27 and 4.28 do not recognise the Council's need to consider release of Green Belt land to meet regional housing and employment land where there is a sequential case proven for sustainably located land.

The alternative options for Green Belt set out in the paragraph do not reflect this need and will be inadequate for reviewing the Green Belt boundaries in the Site Allocations DPD at the appropriate time.

4.5.11 AND 4.5.12 - OBJECT

Paragraph 4.5.11 does not contain an approach to address the housing needs of the District. PPS3 requires that LPAs identify at least a five year supply of housing land. The Council's site allocation document must therefore be capable of identifying land to meet strategic housing numbers otherwise applications can legitimately be determined in line with the status of the housing supply numbers. This paragraph should therefore refer to the need to identify Greenfield/Green Belt land in accordance with strategic housing numbers and sustainable location criteria.

Paragraph 4.5.12 and the alternative options for housing numbers and phasing, does not meet PPS3 guidelines and is unlikely to be acceptable to the Government Office.


4.6.10 AND 4.6.11 - SUPPORT

Martin Dawn supports the Council's identification of the priority and hierarchy of Rochford and Rayleigh. It is clear that the established settlements will be able to respond to sustainable development criteria where there are existing public transport services and social and community facilities.

4.7.10 - SUPPORT

Martin Dawn supports the affordable housing policy in line with local housing needs.

4.7.11 - OBJECT

Martin Dawn objects to the alternative higher level affordable housing percentage and lower threshold in line with local housing needs.

4.9.9 - OBJECT

Martin Dawn objects to the need for a Design Brief to be required in advance of the submission of all major applications. This is an unnecessary requirement and a hindrance to the planning process which will delay the progress of the delivery of housing and employment sites. There is no requirement within national planning policy guidance or the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act (P&CPA) for this process. The legislation requires a Design & Access Statement for major applications and this is all that should be required (in addition to any other technical or EIA documentation).

4.9.10 - SUPPORT

Martin Dawn supports the options set down in paragraph 4.9.10 as both the P&CPA, Building Regulations, PPS1 and PPS3 contain sufficient guidance and requirements to enforce high quality design. The LDF documents are required not to repeat national guidance and be brief in their structure. Paragraph 4.9.9 is therefore unnecessary in this context.

4.11.6 - OBJECT

Whilst Martin Dawn agrees that landscaping is an important consideration in the determination of applications, paragraph 4.11.6 takes away the legislative rights set down in the P&CPA for outline applications to chose whether landscaping is determined within the outline application or as a reserved matter. LDF documents should not prevent the application of the Act and its legislation. The paragraph also does not define what application types will be required to provide landscape details in advance.

4.12.11 - OBJECT

Martin Dawn supports the sustainable development principles of paragraph 4.12.11 but it is too prescriptive in its requirements. Not all development will be able to meet the paragraph objectives and therefore it should recognise that an assessment to be submitted with major applications, should demonstrate how or why not the sustainable objectives can or can not be met. It is widely recognised that renewable energy technologies are not yet sufficiently advanced to meet legislative requirements and that generally only major applications will be capable of making a contribution to energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies. This paragraph is too prescriptive.

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.

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.

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

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

Spatial Vision

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

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

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

Upper Roach Valley

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

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

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

Housing Numbers and Phasing

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

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

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

General Development Locations

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

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

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

Meeting Housing Needs

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

Health Impact Assessment

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

Energy Conservation

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

Compulsory Purchase

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

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

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

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


Spatial Vision

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


Core Strategy Issues

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

Affordable Housing

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


Employment

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




Good design and Design Statements

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

Community, Leisure & Tourism Facilities

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

On Behalf of The Hockley Parish Council
Cllr R Vingoe.

Policy Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Future Process

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

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

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

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


2. MORE DETAILED COMMENTS

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

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

Spatial Vision

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

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

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

Green Belt

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

General development locations

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

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

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

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

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

Employment

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

Good design & design statements

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

Character of place & the historic environment

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

Energy & water conservation & renewable energy

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

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

- Use of renewable resources from sustainable sources.

- Impact of development on the environment and local amenity.

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

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

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

Compulsory purchase & planning obligations

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