4.5.11 Housing Numbers & Phasing Preferred Option

I would just like to express my disgust on the 1800 homes planned for Rayleigh.

Having lived in the town for all of my life I have seen the inexorable decline of the quality of living.

From the Downhall Park area it now regularly takes up to 30-45 minutes to drive the 1.5 miles and park in the town centre (an essential use of the car due to an ill parent and small children)

Even those of limited intelligence should be able to workout that cramming 1800 more homes in to this town will not make it any easier to get around.

On the way home tonight an earlier accident around Ingatestone on the A12 meant that I had to queue from The Dunton slip road on the A127 to almost the A130 interchange.

An extra 1800 houses is going to help this?

From the two developments recently completed in this area it seems that all the development companies seem to want to do is build the highest number of houses in the smallest possible area (again dressed up in the plan as a good way to minimise the loss of green belt) Has anyone who approves these plans actually tried living in this type of estate? Roads so small cars can't pass, Lack of garage / driveway space that forces people to park on the pavements on these narrow roads. The danger to children playing in the street is frankly unacceptable.

It seems that all this "affordable" housing is really an excuse to maximise profit. I can only wonder how these plans get passed.

It is my opinion that any significant development in Essex should be in the form of new town's / villages, planned with all the correct infrastructure in from the start, and not located along the choke points of the A127 / A12 / A13

Don't just dump them all in Rayleigh, It's full up already!

I would appreciate some insight into how plans for Rayleigh are passed, especially detailing how much time in actually spent in the area reviewing the local issues & identifying how many decisions are made by people who might as well be living in Scotland for all the understanding they seem to show of real local town issues.

The road infrastructure for this area is already overburdened and incapable of taking a further increase. For example, queues from and to Rayleigh High Street from the Weir between 8-9am and 5-6pm. The Ridgeway is now used as a ring route to circumvent this problem adding to traffic problems Great Wheatley Road/High Road junction. This junction is also becoming dangerous with cars parking, all day in Great Wheatley Road by commuters to London and workers in Rayleigh. A number of roads in the Rayleigh area are of minimum width ie Springfield Gardens. Main water pressure is very low. A127 already at maximum capacity especially at peak periods ie 6.30-9am and 5-6.30pm

Having recently bought a house in the district for its rural location, backing on to open farm land, and having moved from a far densely populated area, I am horrified to discover that the council is considering using areas of greenbelt land on the edge of existing residential areas for development. This would ruin the nature of such areas that are tranquil and desirable for that very reason. I agree that the council should use existing brown field sites in preference however and disgusted that some green belt land might be used.

The reliance on accommodating all of the residential development required to 2021 by allocating land for large developments is unacceptable as it is likely to result in excessive release of green belt land for development, especially with regard to Rayleigh's green belt. At least a percentage of the housing allocation should come from windfall development and intensification, though it is reasonable for the council to seek to limit the over intensification of small sites. Some sensible compromise needs to be arrived at, or there is likely to be an over provision of new housing (just as there was in past years), through the excessive release of green belt land, while the occasional windfall site is inevitably going to become available, and some intensification is bound to occur. It is bad enough having development targets imposed from outside, without the council bending over backwards to create a situation where some over provision of new housing is certain to occur.

4600 houses are obviously too many for the district to cope with, the infrastructure ( sewage, water supply, etc ) will be unable to cope, leaving aside the generation of even more carbon emissions. I realise that this number is government policy, but it MUST be resisted. 1800 now homes in Rayleigh is nonsense, given the over-development that has taken place since we moved here nearly 50 years ago. Typical of this is the ribbon development along Rawreth Lane, not helped by the Council giving in to Asda after initially refusing planning permission for the new supermanket there. This does not auger well for the futire, if the way to circumvent planning laws is merely to re-submit until the Council gives in to powerful vested interests.

It is hard to envisage how 1800 extra
homes can be fitted into Rayleigh without
ruining the current nature of the area.
It is still a very plesant place to live
and this could so easily change.
We don't want to become another Basildon

Hawkwell West needs to retain its existing pockets of green belt land, none should be released for further development. There is
congestion on B130 linking Cherry Orchard Way
from the direction of Rayleigh,Hockley, Hawkwell
now how can it cope with the extra traffic
that development will bring?

I would rather see some inclusion of "windfall" land in the numbers as I don't want to see development of green belt land.
There is still some scope for this type of development in our area - I hope it has been counted in the past!

There should be no more housing in Rayleigh. An extra 1800 houses will mean another 4000 plus cars and more commercial vehicles on the already severely congested roads. The whole road infrastructure, amenities, and support facilities in the area are already insufficient. It already takes more than 2 months to get hospital and dental appointments. There will be even more overcrowding on the overcrowded trains and busses at peak times. We are already loosing wild life from our gardens - this will further reduce it.

The number of new housing in Rayleigh will completely destroy this town. We do not have the infrastructure to cope with the development currently so with more housing this would be a disaster. There are not enough, doctors, dentists, police, public transport, schools. the roads cannot cope as they are. Anti-social behaviour, which we have is getting worse. This plan has not been thought out and should be challenged in the hardest possible terms. We should be a new village where these developments could be built without harming the current environment.

The Council should resist the imposition by central Government of ill-conceived house-building targets, the justification for which is extremely dubious.Other Councils in more influential parts of the south-east will shout louder and no doubt win concessions which will place yet greater pressure on areas like Rochford.
You should emphasize that Rochford is outside the Thames Gateway, and therefore should have less development.

It is insufficient for the Council to suggest that it will ensure that enough land is allocated to accommodate the figures from the East of England plan.The Government's response to the Panel report on the draft RSS states that district housing figures should now be treated as minimum targets.It is recognised that the priority be given to previously developed land accords with the national and regional policy for the need for sustainable patterns of development. However it is certainly premature to rely on previously developed land to provide all the required housing numbers as Council have provided no information to be able to demonstrate the degree to which this objective can realistically be achieved. An urban capacity study and a detailed analysis of housing completions, outstanding commitments and estimated housing supply by a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment is therefore essential.In addition there should be a proper assessment of the merits of retaining or redeveloping sites that fulfil or may assist local or strategic employment or commercial needs for the District before contemplating release for housing.It is our submission that there will be every likelihood that reliance on a previously developed strategy will not deliver the "flexible response" supply of housing land required by PPS3 and the Council should consider opportunities for releasing land adjacent to existing settlements in order to ensure that the RSS and PPS3 objectives are met. At the very least, PPS3 at paragraph 62 suggests that Local Development Documents should, in setting out the housing strategy, include "contingency planning to identify different delivery options in the event that actual housing delivery does not occur at the rate expected." The Preferred Options for the Core Strategy is not sufficiently flexible and it contains no contingency should sites not materialise for development. Ruling out the need for possible release of Green Belt land as an option is therefore entirely premature.

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

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.

Representation forms

Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options

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


Background:

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

PPS1

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

PPS3

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

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

The Council will need to:

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

* be market responsive;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* set out a housing implementation strategy.

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

* The requirement for a robust evidence base;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPS25

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

The East of England Plan

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

PINS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Options & Vision:

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


Specific matters:

4.2.7

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

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

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

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

4.5.2

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

4.5.3

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

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

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

4.5.4

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

4.5.7

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

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

4.5.11

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

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

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

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

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

4.7.4

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

4.7.6

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

4.7.10

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

4.9.9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.11.6

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

4.12.11

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

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

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

5.

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



Consultation

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


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

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 26) Consultation Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of Aston Unit Trust and Mr J Needs, I enclose representations in respect of the Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options.

As you will be aware from previous correspondence, my clients have a particular interest in land at Wellington Road, Rayleigh. Should you require any further information on this particular site or this batch of representations, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Further to my conversation with Sam Hollingworth please find attached comments from clients in respect of the above consultation. Unfortunately I have been unable to register clients on the on-line system. Although I can log-in successfully I cannot add clients so I have been advised to e-mail these comments.

I trust that this is acceptable but should you have any queries then please contact me.

Further to my conversation with Sam Hollingworth please find attached comments from clients in respect of the above consultation. Unfortunately I have been unable to register clients on the on-line system. Although I can log-in successfully I cannot add clients so I have been advised to e-mail these comments.

I trust that this is acceptable but should you have any queries then please contact me.