4.9 Good Design & Design Statements

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

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

There is no menion under any of these sections about lighting. Well designed lighting is an integral part of good design. Lighting can contribute to or detract from the environmental impact. We hope you will consider including a statement on this issue.

Sport England believes that greater emphasis should be given within this section to the importance of design of new communities encouraging people to be more physically active through the incorporation of attractive public open spaces, provision of formal facilities for sport and recreation and the designing in of increased opportunities for walking and cycling.

These principles are in keeping with the vision and aims of the Core Strategy, inparticular promoting a green and sustainable environment and improving quality of life.

Sport England has published detailed guidance 'Active Design' which promotes these principles and which should be referred to in developing design policies and preparing design briefs for particular sites. The guidance can be downloaded from the Sport England website at www.sportengland.org

The RSPB supports the COncils commitment towards ensuring the sustainable design of new developements.

The RSPB supports policy 4.9.6, and agree that all development should meet the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes. We would recommend that the COuncil commit to ensure all new homes meet a 3 star rating.

We woudl also recommend inclusion of a section detailling the layout of development within a site. This would enable consideration of, the retention of natural features such as hedgerows, provision of communtity greenspaces, opportunties for habitat enhancement, provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) etc.

Thank you for your letter dated 21 May 2007 consulting English Heritage on the above document. There are a small number of issues which we would like to mention at this stage in the LDF process.

Southend Airport

English Heritage has been involved in discussions in the past over proposals for expansion of the airport involving the demolition of St Laurence and All Saints church [listed grade I] at the south west end of the runway. We understand that future plans do not now require demolition, which we welcome, and we trust that the church, and its setting, will be protected.

Evidence base

Rochford, together with Essex County Council, has undertaken some exemplary work on Historic Environment Characterisation and Conservation Area Appraisals. There is every opportunity for Rochford to be an exemplar in using this information to shape the policies and implementation of the LDF. We very much hope that the way the evidence base has been used to influence the plan will be made explicit as the plan progresses.

Historic environment and design policies

We welcome sections 4.9 and 4.10, and also the references to the historic landscape of the Upper Roach valley. The Council may wish to consider how far the Essex Urban Place Supplement [UPS] should be applied since development in some small settlements needs to assessed according to a more rural character, and less dense/smaller scale development is often appropriate. If the LDF does not adopt the UPS in its entirety, then it should be clear which parts are not applicable.

We welcome the commitment to reinstate the local list in the light of the Heritage Protection White Paper. In the preferred policy option it is not necessarily explicit that enhancement is included. We are also unsure if archaeology is reflected here.

We would be happy to discuss any of these comments if you would find this useful.

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)

Thank you for your letter dated 21 May 2007 consulting Natural England on the preferred options report.

This letter is provided as our formal response of Natural England to your request for advice for this plan or programme and is intended to be considered in conjunction with previous English Nature consultation advice provided for the emerging Strategic Environment Assessment.

Natural England notes the significance of the nature conservation assets within Rochford District Council. We believe these assets significantly contribute to the character of the district and provide vital ingredients to the quality of life it offers. Opportunities exist to further enhance these qualities through an appropriate integration of measures towards economic, social and environmental aspirations.

Natural England encourages local planning authorities to include policies for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and natural resources. We are likely to e supportive of suitably worded policies that seek to conserve environmental assets such as biodiversity, water, energy, air quality and promote effective flood risk management, appropriate landscaping and pollution control.

Consistent with PPS9 and the accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005 we advocate adopting an informed approach utilising information about biological and geological assets, from sources such as Phase I surveys, Country Wildlife Site inventory's and previous geological surveys (RIGS - regionally important geological sites). In our previous advice about the Strategic Environmental Assessment we have advised that in addition to designated sites, other areas (notably local wildlife sites, local nature reserves, green corridors) can make a significant contribution to the green infrastructure of the district. Accounting for this, and the challenges of enabling progress towards growth targets we refer you to the following points for consideration:

i) Developing within the urban area is likely to involve development on brownfield land, which can be rich in biodiversity interest
ii) Different types of land may have strategic significance for the conservation of biodiversity assets.
iii) In some locations, the green belt can provide a significant buffer (and in some cases supporting habitat) for sites of national and international significance and opportunities may exist through landscape enhancement schemes for these areas to provide a more multifunctional accessible natural greenspace role.
iv) The requirements of the Habitat Regulations should be considered particularly if options for development are within or adjacent to intertidal areas.
v) The plan needs to account for environmental issues that span local authority boundaries. This is significant, noting Southend-on-Sea Borough Council's growth targets.

1. Assessment in accordance with Habitat Regulations

Where a plan may affect a European site, the European Court of Justice ruling (October 2005), has concluded Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive provides that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In practice, the SEA should aim to be sufficiently detailed in its assessment to address the requirements of The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992.

The Assessment will require an initial screening of all policies alone and in combination with other plans and projects. This aims to establish whether any policies should be regarded as likely to cause/have a significant effect on the interest features of the European Sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Options should then be considered to establish whether amendments to individual policies, suite of policies or supporting text could effectively address concerns to 'not likely significant effect'.

Those policies that are still regarded as likely to have a significant effect will then require an appropriate assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Habitat Regulations. National Government direction encourages local planning authorities to develop local development documents that clearly demonstrate that they avoid an adverse affect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. A summary diagram (Figure 1) of the processes within the assessment is attached for your consideration. Furthermore, consistent with the cross-border working that is necessary in delivering strategic solutions we recommend you gain a brief appreciation of the assessment from the developing Habitat Regulations Assessment for Southend on Sea Borough Council's Core Strategy (see Topic Papers for Examination in Public www.southend.gov.uk).

Our initial assessment indicates that the particular elements of the strategic direction could be likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects and these are listed below:

1) Overall grown targets, alone and in combination with relevant Regional growth area targets, will lead to increased population and subsequent increased recreational pressure on Natura 2000 sites.

ii) The aspirations for significant growth in airport movements at Southend Airport, which may result in increased air quality and/or disturbance impacts on Natura 2000 sites.

iii) Development in, or immediately adjacent to, intertidal or coastal areas that either requires land-take through encroachment or exacerbates the effects of coastal squeeze.

2. Additional Advice

2a) Consistent with the point (ii) raised above, Natural England welcomes the proposed Joint Area Action plans for Southend Airport and Foulness MOD land. We recommended that the latter should include surface access. The Joint Area Action Planning process should provide opportunities for enhanced North-South links including greenways, as envisaged in the Thames Gateway South Essex Greengrid.

2b) Natural England supports the Council's preferred options for the enhancement and protection of the Upper Roach Valley including the Country Park. These are consistent with the objectives of the Thames Gateway South Essex Greengrid and it is recommended that wording to that effect should be included in the document. Natural England would be happy to advise with regard to a possible overall Upper Roach Valley Strategy as a means to delivering it's full potential.

2c) The Plan needs to align with the direction provided by PPS9 to conserve and enhance designated sites and biodiversity assets rather than merely to 'protect'.

2d) Consistent with the advice provided in paragraph 5 above we recommend that the environmental baseline is updated through a County wildlife site review and Phase 1 survey.

2e) Natural England encourages Rochford District Council to align with emerging strategic direction to address flood risk management. This includes principles set out in the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Strategy, the Essex ChaMP, the Great Wakering Flood Risk Management Strategy and the emerging Thames Estuary 2100 project.

2f) We encourage Rochford District Council to include specific measures and policy direction to promote the integration of biodiversity into development. This can be through a package of measures, outlined in the CD-Rom resource 'Integrating Biodiversity into development .....realising the benefits' available from www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk.

2g) Natural England supports the Council's strong promotion of good design with regard to new developments via the Essex Design Guide and Urban Place Supplement. Opportunities should be sought to promote accessible natural greenspace provision that meets local requirements and provides functional links for people and wildlife. Where possible these should also enable contributions to BAP targets. Natural England recommends that the authority should consider the use of policies to promote the delivery and long-term management and maintenance of greenspace and green linkages. These could be financed through planning gain/section 106 and would further encourage innovative and high quality design in new developments and regeneration initiatives.

2h) Rochford District Council's Option regarding leisure and tourism is consistent with the objectives of the Thames Gateway South Essex Greengrid and it is recommended that wording to that effect should be included in the document.

I trust that this is helpful, but please do not hesitate to contact me at the above Colchester address or telephone number should you wish to discuss this matter further. For further advice regarding greenspace/openspace strategy and implementation of the Thames Gateway South Essex Greengrid, please contact my colleague Pat Crosby (E-mail: partricia.Crosby@naturalengland.org.uk).

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.

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.

1.0 Instructions and Introduction

1.1 Charles Planning Associates Limited (Chartered Town Planners) is Instructed by Swan Hill Homes Limited (Swan Hill) to prepare and submit representations on their behalf in respect of the Rochford District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Preferred Options Development Plan Document.

1.2 The comments refer to the relevant paragraph numbers in the Preferred Options document, as appropriate.

1.3 The comments set out in this submission are intended to assist the District Council in taking forward its Local Development Framework. It is our intention to continue to be involved in the preparation process and we look forward to the opportunity to comment further at the Submission Version stage. Prior to the assessment of the Core Strategy Preferred Options, Swan Hill has serious concerns regarding the way the document has been prepared. The lack of clearly defined policies means that these will only appear in the Submission Version of the document, giving the Council no opportunity to make amendments, and limited opportunity for Consultees to see the exact policy position of the Council. This is considered insufficient, and is likely to result in the document being considered to be unsound in front of an Inspector.

1.4 If you have any queries regarding the content of this submission then please do not hesitate to contact:

Peter Kneen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
Planner

Charles Planning Associates Limited
1644-1645 Parkway
Solent Business Park
Whiteley
Hampshire
PO15 7AH

Tel: 01489 580853 Fax: 01489 580913 E-mail: peter.kneen@charlesplanning.co.uk


2.0 Section 4.2: Green Belt and Strategic Buffers

2.1 As set out in the earlier representations to the Issues and Options Stage of the Core Strategy, Swan Hill considered that the District Council need to set out that a review of the Green Belt boundary will be needed as part of the Rochford Local Development Framework. Given the housing requirements of the Draft East of England Plan, and the changes as a result of the publication of PPS3: Housing in November 2006, there will be a need for the District Council to identify areas where a Green Belt boundary review would be acceptable.

2.2 Many local authorities have recently seen their Core Strategies fail the Tests of Soundness due to a failure to clarify in their Core Strategy adequate awareness of how they will meet the strategic housing requirements of the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy. As such, it is essential within the Core Strategy to establish general locations suitable for the expansion of settlements into the Green Belt. This should not be as site specific as determining the exact parameters of settlement expansions, but should include a general assessment around settlements where development would not result in the failure to comply with the general objectives of the Green Belt.

2.3 It is clear from the approach to general locations of development (as set out in Section 4.6 of this version of the Core Strategy) that the Council have accepted the need to expand into the Green Belt, and that where expansion is acceptable, it should occur in the most sustainable locations, i.e. the top and second tier settlements. As such, Swan Hill considers that the Green Belt policy should set out that the Green Belt boundary will be reviewed as part of the Rochford Local Development Framework and the Key Diagram should be amended to highlight the general direction where such an encroachment has been assessed to be acceptable.

2.4 A failure to undertake an assessment at this stage could result in the Core Strategy being determined to be unsound, as it would not provide sufficient information from which the rest of the Local Development Framework could feasibly operate. For example, without the spatial framework in the Core Strategy setting out the general locations into which development in the Green Belt would be acceptable, other documents, such as the Allocations DPD and Development Control Policies DPD could not operate. The Council need development at the edge of existing settlements, and as the Core Strategy currently stands, this is not achievable as all the settlements are bounded by Green Belt land, which under the provisions of PPG2: Green Belts, is protected from inappropriate development. The Hertfordshire Structure Plan made provision for the review of its Green Belt boundary (Policy 5), and could therefore be used as a guide to the approach the District Council could take in the preparation of their Green Belt policy for the Core Strategy.

2.5 In addition, PPS7: Sustainable Developments in Rural Areas sets out that local landscape designations should only be maintained where it can clearly show that other criteria-based planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection. In the case of the Strategic Buffers identified in the Core Strategy document, Swan Hill is not convinced of the need for these designations. Their primary purpose is to restrict settlements coalescence, however, the District benefits from the countryside being protected by the Green Belt, which was established to maintain the openness of the countryside and prevent urban sprawl which could lead to settlement coalescence. In view of this, Swan Hill considers that the provision of Strategic Buffers are unnecessary, where the existence of the Green Belt offers more than sufficient protection from settlement coalescence.

3.0 Section 4.5: Housing Numbers and Phasing

3.1 Swan Hill recognises the importance of seeking to concentrate new developments mainly in the existing urban areas on previously developed land. However, given the character of the District, and the strategic housing requirement of the Draft East of England Plan, Swan Hill supports the approach that the Council must also make provision for additional development on the edge of existing settlements. As set out in paragraph 4.5.10, Swan Hill supports the approach that green field land on the edge of settlements that are released for development should not have a significant impact on the characteristics of the Green Belt, and that densities are in line with the objectives of PPS3 and reflect the local character of the settlement to which the extension is proposed.

4.0 Section 4.6: General Development Locations

4.1 As set out in Section 2.0, Swan Hill supports the approach taken by the Council towards the need to expand settlements into the Green Belt to meet the strategic housing requirements and that is must be done only in the most sustainable locations, and where the objectives of the Green Belt are not compromised. Swan Hill has considered further the Council's position towards only providing 10% of the strategic housing requirement to the second tier settlements (Canewdon, Great Wakering and Hullbridge), with 90% being located in the top tier settlements (Rochford/Ashingdon, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh). This approach is generally accepted as it conforms to the principles of providing developments in sustainable locations, whilst also recognising that the smaller settlements need additional development to ensure services and facilities remain viable. Swan Hill welcomes the recognition that the provision of development on larger sites, in these top and second tier settlements can positively contribute to infrastructure provision, particularly in areas where there is an identified need for improvements.

4.2 However, as set out above, Swan Hill has serious concerns over the lack of direction the Council has taken towards identifying specific locations around the top and second tier settlements where sustainable urban extensions can be achieved. Without identifying these general locations, other Development Plan Documents cannot function to bring forward these allocations. As such, Swan Hill considers that the Core Strategy should be amended to address the need to review the Green Belt boundaries as a means to ensuring these minor extensions to the settlements can occur without offending Green Belt policy.

4.3 In respect of development in the other smaller settlements, below the top and second tier, Swan Hill supports the District Council's approach not to provide any identified allocations of land, but to simply reply on providing affordable housing in these locations, to meet only identified local need, through the provision of a rural exception sites policy.

5.0 Section 4.8: Affordable Housing

5.1 Swan Hill recognises the importance of providing affordable houses in new residential developments, in order to meet the specific needs of the existing population. In this regard, Circular 06/98: Planning and Affordable Housing and the Draft East of England Plan sets out provisions and thresholds for affordable housing as part of new residential developments.

5.2 As set out above, and in accordance with the provisions of PPS3, Swan Hill supports the Council's approach towards the inclusion of a Rural Exceptions Site Policy. In this regard, Swan Hill considers that the District Council have sought to apply the correct threshold from which new developments should provide affordable housing. Having regard to the Council's approach towards seeking a smaller number of larger sites around the District to meet their strategic housing requirements, setting the threshold at 25 dwellings or more would allow for a greater provision of affordable housing to be provided on these larger sites, without being a burden on developers seeking smaller-scale infilling type developments within the existing urban area. Setting a provision of 30% of all new houses on the larger scale sites would help provide a significant element of affordable housing to meet the needs of the local community.

6.0 Section 4.9: Good Design and Design Statements

6.1 In respect of the Council's preferred option that Design Briefs will be required in advance of the submission of all major planning applications, Swan Hill considers that the inclusion of this assessment is an unnecessary duplication of National policy and statutory requirement, particularly for major developments. The General Development Procedure Order (as amended) makes the submission of a Design and Access Statement for most types of development a Statutory requirement, and as such, it is considered unnecessary to include it in policies in the Core Strategy.

6.2 In respect of the issue regarding 'lifetime housing standards' and the Code for Sustainable Homes, Swan Hill recognises the importance of providing houses that conserve energy and minimise waste, and supports the requirement that all new homes comply with the minimum standards set out in the Governments Code for Sustainable Homes, particularly given that it could in the future become a mandatory requirement. In respect of the provision of 25% of all new homes meeting the lifetime housing standard, it is considered that many of the requirements of lifetime homes are presently controlled under Building Regulations provision, and would not therefore need to form part of any planning policy document. Swan Hill considers that it is appropriate to include within the Core Strategy the District Council's approach towards the provision of lifetime homes and that they would encourage developers go beyond the standard Building Regulations requirements in order comply, where appropriate and possible, with these standards.

7.0 Section 4.10: Character of Place and the Historic Environment

7.1 Swan Hill supports the provision of policies to protect the intrinsic character and historic environment of the District. However, Swan Hill considers that these policies should not be overly prescriptive. Each planning application should be assessed on its own merits, and the policies should allow for a degree of flexibility in the design of schemes so as to not stifle the creation of new, innovative schemes, and meet the density target set out in PPS3.

7.2 In respect of the provision of a new 'Local List' of buildings, Swan Hill considers that this is inappropriate, contrary to the provisions of PPS7, which seeks to remove unnecessary local designations. If a building is worthy of listing, it should be listed. The Local List cannot afford a building any form of statutory protection, and the List should therefore not be prepared.

8.0 Section 4.11: Landscaping

8.1 Swan Hill recognises the importance of a suitable landscaping scheme in new developments, particularly where a suitable landscaping scheme could significantly enhance the presence of new developments on the existing environment. It is also important to highlight that under the provisions for Design and Access Statements, landscaping forms an integral part, and should in many cases be sufficient to essentially set out the basis for a landscaping scheme in many small scale developments.

8.2 Swan Hill recognises the importance of landscaping schemes on larger development proposals, and that they should form part of the planning application pack, in order to provide a basis from which the Council and Developer would negotiate as suitable scheme. Swan Hill considers that it would be important as part of any landscaping policy proposal to establish what types of planning applications the Council would want a more detailed landscaping scheme. However, this should only occur in the relevant Development Plan Document, not in the Core Strategy, but in the Generic Development Control Policies DPD. It is considered sufficient within the Core Strategy to establish the approach to landscaping policies the Council will take, and to state that more detailed specific requirements for such policies will be set out within the Development Control document.

9.0 Section 4.12: Energy and Water Conservation, and Renewable Energy

9.1 With regard to the preferred options set out in this Section, each has been considered in turn below:

9.2 In respect of the issues of policies seeking to reduce the need to travel and encourage the use of energy efficient transport, this is generally accepted by Swan Hill as it conforms with National policy guidance in PPG13, in locating developments that reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car.

9.3 In respect of the second issue, this policy position is an unnecessary duplication of policy provisions already set out in Section 4.9 above. Swan Hill accepts in general the provision of policies regarding the development of new houses compliant with the Code for Sustainable Homes, particularly given that this could become a mandatory requirement in the future.

9.4 In respect of the District Council's approach to seek that all new developments in the District are carbon neutral should not be set out as a policy of the Core Strategy, but merely defined as an aspiration of the Council. Seeking to require all new developments to be carbon neutral is unlikely to be achievable without resulting in it becoming a disincentive to developers to develop in the District. Swan Hill recognises the importance this position has taken recently by Government, and considers that it is important to incorporate within developments 'elements' of energy efficiency and means to reduce waste. However, in many instances it might not be a viable option to seek to impose such arduous requirements on all developments. This could ultimately result in the Council struggling to meet strategic requirements for housing and employment provision.

9.5 As set out above, whilst Swan Hill recognises the importance of including water and energy conservation measures within developments, it is considered that each development should be considered on its own individual merits and site specific circumstances. Given that Swan Hill accepts the approach that all new homes should be constructed in compliance with the minimum standards in the Code for Sustainable Homes, it is considered unnecessary to include policy provisions regarding water and energy conservation measures, as this already forms part of the minimum requirements under the Code.





10.0 Section 4.13: Compulsory Purchase & Planning Obligations

10.1 Swan Hill accepts that developments can have potential impacts upon existing infrastructure and as such developments should contribute towards improvements to, or contribution towards new infrastructure, commensurate with the level of need generated by the development.

10.2 Any form of planning contribution resultant from a planning application should be based on a site-by-site basis, and allow for a degree of flexibility so that contributions sought are achieved through negotiations between the developer and the District Council. All contributions should be based on an up-to-date assessment of existing services and facilities, in order to ensure developments do not result in a surplus or deficiency of provision or contribution.

11.0 Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilities:

11.1 In general terms, countryside policies should make provision for the allowance of leisure, recreation and tourism in the countryside, where a countryside location is essential. Swan Hill would support this approach. Further, it is considered appropriate to provide policy provisions for financial contributions in the Core Strategy towards leisure and community facilities, where appropriate. This policy approach should be flexible and the Council should seek to consider each application on its own merits, and how it would impact on existing leisure and community facilities.