Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities

So why do we need to build on our natural beatiful area. It is a sin and we as residents of the Rochford District comunity tax payer should have our say and we should be listerned to

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL

RESPONSE TO ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL ON THE CORE STRATEGY.

GENERAL BACKGROUND:
Members of Hawkwell Parish Council have had some opportunity to consider the Core Strategy Document issued by Rochford District Council. Whilst we are grateful to the District for providing 6 copies, this is a very large document needing considerable time to read and digest. Limitation of our access to 6 copies means that each document has had to be studied by up to 3 Members thus creating time constraints that should not be suffered with such an important document.

We note that the objective of this exercise is, primarily, to allow residents to respond to the options that have been identified as preferred. However we wish to make a number of observations to assertions made in the introductory remarks.

We are concerned that we are being asked to respond before we have had a chance to consider the Allocations Development Plan Document that is to be issued shortly. Whilst many sites have been the subject of speculation we cannot respond specifically until we have had the benefit of the formal statement identifying the actual sites and numbers of property to be built thereon. We therefore require the Planning Authority to provide good opportunity for residents to consider specific sites prior to their approval.

LISTENING TO YOUR VIEWS.

1. Page 3: In response to the comment that there is too much residential development proposed in our village/town. You have said you have reconsidered the matter but have given no indication of your conclusions. Do you accept the assertion or do you reject it, and if so on what basis.
2. Page 4 Intensification: We are concerned that you have inserted the phrase as 'far as is practicable' yet in H1 you state that you will resist intensification on smaller sites. Is this comment also subject to the aforementioned caveat, if not what powers will you rely on to achieve this and why can you not resist intensification currently.
3. Page 8 Priority 5: You state that walking and cycling are to be encouraged. With the greatest of respect, with an ageing population (Core Strategy Document penultimate paragraph page 14) is it realistic to brush aside the opportunity to ease an already almost gridlocked transport system and ignore the additional pressure to be imposed by an additional 3.5K houses by expecting elderly people to walk or cycle everywhere? Though much of the transport congestion experienced in the district is from the district much of it is also traffic travelling from outside Rochford to Southend.
4. Page 8 Priority 6: You say you are committed to improving access to sporting facilities yet we understand you recently rejected a central government initiative to give free swimming to the older people in Rochford. This decision is set against an acknowledgement that the population of over 65's is increasing and is expected to outnumber the under 20s by 2015! This aspiration does not sit well with the insistence on franchising the public sporting facilities out to the private sector that charge high entrance/membership fees thus reducing the ability of fixed income people to make use of these facilities.

CHARACTERISTICS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES:
Page 20 Settlements: We are incensed by the failure to recognise Hawkwell as a settlement in its own right. As the biggest Parish (based on population) and second only to Rayleigh Town we have, in this report, apparently been subsumed into Hockley. Whilst you may argue that, at the recent Central Area Committee, residents expressions of concern about the number and locations of new houses was premature, we cannot help but feel that, as a settlement that is ignored in the Core Strategy, we are having little say in the allocations of housing to our parish.

HOUSING:
We now wish to make the following observations in response to the chapter on Housing:
General Observation:
It is stated on page 23 (penultimate paragraph) that a balance of 2489 units have to be delivered before 2021 and the total to be delivered by 2025 is 3489, this figure after allowing for the 1301 units identified by the urban capacity study. This represents a 10% in housing and whilst we fully endorse the need to re-use land (brown-field sites) and allow small infill developments where the impact on the local infrastructure can reasonably be accommodated, we cannot agree that finding locations for almost three and a half thousand new homes (or a 10% increase) should be addressed on the basis of cramming them into existing settlements. We suggest that this requires a much more strategic view and the piecemeal approach based on a 'call for sites' is totally inadequate. In our policy document sent to the Planning Authority in December 2007/January 2008, we supported the view that a new settlement should be developed where the infrastructure needs can be properly developed and accommodated and where the additional housing will have the minimum impact of existing overdeveloped settlements. We believe there is strong argument that a new settlement would be far greener and thus, in the longer term, more sustainable that a myriad of smaller in fill sites. This option must not be rejected out of hand as is currently the case

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
We are concerned that whilst our Planning Authority has adopted a policy against the intensification under this preferred option, this is contrary to what is currently happening with the increase in the number of flats being approved and the number of plots being turned from single dwelling sites to multiple dwelling sites. We are currently told that such intensification cannot be resisted, how then will the new policy be enforced? That said we would support the limitation on intensification and require that new lower levels agreed be adhered to.

In the penultimate paragraph on page 26 (General Locations) it is asserted that you have adopted a balanced strategy in respect of the location of housing development, we cannot see how the emerging proposals for Hawkwell are, in anyway, balanced allocations.

H2 General Locations & Phasing - Preferred Option:
Members hold the view that our policy developed and forwarded to the Head of Planning and Transportation in January 2008 still holds good. A copy of our policy is attached. Our view is that the Core Strategy appears to distribute new housing development on an uneven basis. We hold the view, as clearly stated in our policy, that if additional housing has to be distributed amongst existing towns and villages then it must be done on a sensible and defensible base such as existing population or geographical size and not on the ad hoc base that the call for sites appears to have produced. We strongly object to being subsumed into a settlement called Hockley/Hawkwell and then being expected to take the lions share of new houses that the Core Strategy allocates to this pseudo-settlement. (as indicated by the table in H2)

We do not believe that the argument against Rayleigh taking more of the allocation as given in H2 Alternatives (top of page 29) gives any sensible basis for rejection of this option, if the comment 'best access to services' still holds good then it must be properly considered and not thrown out as a result of clamour from the Rayleigh lobbyists on the District Council.

Transport
The diagram provided on the last page of the document shows a heavy concentration of development within Hawkwell and Rochford. This will inevitably have an impact on Rectory Road, Ashingdon Road, Main Road, Hawkwell and Hall Road ensuring a triangle of congestion on all routes to and from our village.

We cannot help but feel that the options in this section are pious hopes with little real substance. Seeking contributions from developers for public transport provision is laudable but transport companies and developers are ephemeral, housing estates are less so. We have experienced the way the private sector has progressively withdrawn service from our village, what safeguards are offered to sustain this transport when the provider decides it is not profitable and withdraws the service?

T7 Parking Standards:
We are concerned by the decision to apply minimum parking standards in residential developments. The District has insufficient resources to manage the consequential bad parking that occurs with cars parked over pavements causing obstruction to pedestrians and traffic alike. It is not sensible to adopt such a policy without also properly evaluating the consequence and then resourcing the appropriate methods of enforcement.

RTC 4 & 5 - Preferred Options:
We understand from the various consultations that the Hockley and Rochford Town Centre Studies have not yet been completed and we would require that these are completed and properly considered before any decisions are taken.

Economic Development Preferred Options: ED1 to ED 4
Contrary to what is stated in the Core Strategy there is too much reliance on the development of the airport and its environs involving the release of green belt land to provide jobs, it appears to be assumed that the new residents of Hawkwell will work there thus justifying the large proportion of housing in or adjacent to our parish.

We feel the Core Strategy and the JAAP in respect of Southend Airport should be properly integrated so that recommendations are consistent.

Character of Place:
Hawkwell Parish Council welcomes the re-introduction of the local list.

Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism:
CLT 1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Preferred Option
We are concerned that the interpretation of sustainability has been insufficiently addressed and we request that any proposal for a specific site be accompanied by a clear and unequivocal statement of the results of the test of sustainability and that only developments where the assessment shows a clear positive result in respect of sustainability are approved. Furthermore we would request that each site is tested against the sustainability test developed for a 'new' settlement to allow a fair comparison of advantages and disadvantages.

We note that government policy is that 60% of the development should be on brown field sites and the balance on green field, the indications emerging from the Core Strategy document seem to have reversed the policy with the higher percentage on green field sites and the balance on brown field.

Thank you for consulting the Government Office on the Rochford District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Report.

As you are aware, we have commented in the past on earlier documents published in relation to the Rochford Core Strategy. In line with our earlier comments we consider that the document is well organised, comprehensive, set out in a systematic fashion and is easy to read and comprehend. The authority is to be commended for achieving this. We do though have some general comments and concerns as well as detailed observations that relate to many of the intended policies. These are set out in the paragraphs below.

Going forward under a revised PPS12

You will also be aware that on the 4th June this year CLG published a revised PPS12 along with revised regulations, which are now in place. The revisions are aimed mainly at streamlining the process further to help ensure that production of DPD's is able to happen as quickly as possible, whilst ensuring that public participation is effective and its results taken fully into account. As well as this, a key motivation of the revisions is to provide local planning authorities with greater freedom to determine the most appropriate way to prepare or revise DPD's. There is now more flexibility particularly in terms of consultation, where consultation on the DPD during the preparation phase of the plan is expected to be proportionate to the scale of the issues involved in the plan. On this basis, the regulations have now removed one of the formal stages of consultation - the preferred option stage. As well as this, the regulations now require that consultation and representations are made on a DPD before submission to the Secretary of State.

You should refer to the new PPS in taking forward this DPD, but essentially you will need to comply with the following principles in the PPS on:

• Participation and stakeholders (see section 4.20, 4.25 & 4.27);
• Not repeating national and regional policy (4.30);
• Being subject to a sustainability appraisal (4.39 - 4.42);
• Being justified, effective and consistent with national policy (4.36 & 4.44) and
• Being produced according to the timetable set out in the LDS to ensure that the DPD is produced in a timely and efficient manner (see section 4.53 & 4.54)

Further guidance, including examples of best practice, is provided in the Plan Making Manual, which may be accessed via the Planning Advisory Service's website: www.pas.gov.uk/planmakingmanual. Additional content will become available in further updates of the Manual.

The DPD must be prepared in accordance with the Local Development Scheme and in compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended, be subject to a sustainability appraisal, have regard to national policy and any sustainable community strategy for the area and conform to the RSS. To be sound, the DPD should be justified (founded on a robust and credible evidence base, and be the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives), effective (the document must be deliverable, flexible and be able to be monitored) and consistent with national policy.

The key consideration before drafting the final DPD, is to be satisfied that the process of testing and refining of the options and consulting with key stakeholders has been undertaken adequately and satisfactorily in an appropriate and proportionate manner in relation to the issues arising in respect of this particular DPD.

Presentation of Options

There will be an expectation when the Core Strategy is submitted for examination, that the Council is able to demonstrate that it's decisions for deciding on certain options and ruling out others has been underpinned and informed by a robust Sustainability Appraisal (SA). I am surprised that there are not many references to the SA in the main text of the Core Strategy preferred options document, especially in the context of the presentation of options. It is not explicitly evident from reading the Core Strategy document, that the findings in the SA report support the Authority's preferred options and how decisions about the spatial strategy have been reached.

At submission, the Authority will need to be able to demonstrate that the DPD's policies represent the most appropriate response in all the circumstances, having considered all the relevant alternatives, and that they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base; and that all reasonable and deliverable options have been equally presented at the Issues and Options stage, all underpinned by relevant sustainability information and other evidence. In order to meet this requirement, we firmly recommend that the subsequent documents make explicit linkages between the SA process and the decisions on chosen options and disregarded options.

Habitats Directive

As a result of the recent European Court of Justice ruling in relation to the Habitats Directive, Local Planning Authorities are now required to assess whether an Appropriate Assessment (AA), the purpose of which is to assess the impacts of a land-use plan against the conservation objectives of a European Site and to ascertain whether it would adversely affect the integrity of that site, is necessary and to carry out the AA in the preparation of a DPD or SPD where it is required.

Replacement of Local Plan Policies

It is a regulatory requirement for the Council to identify which extant saved local plan policies will be replaced/superseded by the Core Strategy upon its adoption. We would suggest that any early consultation documents should give a broad indication of the extant policy areas likely to be replaced and the submission Core Strategy document to include this information in detail, perhaps as an appendix.

Consultation Statement

We remind you that when you submit the relevant DPD, you will be required to provide a statement setting out which bodies were consulted at earlier regulated stages, how they were consulted, and a summary of the main issues raised and how these have been addressed. It is important therefore that you document clearly the consultation that you are undertaking now, and in the future, to inform this requirement.

Specific Comments on the Rochford District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Document

• It might be helpful in the introductory paragraphs of your eventual Submission document to explain in slightly more detail, what has preceded the stage you have now reached (i.e. the earlier stages) in terms of the evolution of your Core Strategy, particularly in relation to the chronology and 'frontloading' (statutory consultees/stakeholders) including public engagement.
• You might like to consider whether in your Submission document you should distinguish what is in effect your 'Spatial Portrait' (i.e. term it as such) from the other information that forms the 'Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities' in the introductory section.
• On page 14 under population, I think you are suggesting that the average household size in Rochford is a function of the relatively large number of families which is a feature of the District's population structure. The way you have expressed it appears to be somewhat ambiguous to me and this section of text may therefore benefit from being expressed in a way that is simpler and provides for clarity.
• Under the section entitled 'Vision', the text referring to the latter seems to be based more upon the separate document 'Vision to Reality' that is referred to. In addition, the initial Vision Statement that is then set out as text amounts to little more than a 'Statement of Intent'. The way I feel the Vision should be expressed is in fact much like the way you have expressed it in text boxes at the start of each theme- based section that follows in the document. This is an unconventional way of handling the matter and consequently you will need to be satisfied that it is an appropriate method. Clearly though, I feel that the linkage between the section entitled 'Vision' and what is written subsequently in the initial text and later in the text boxes, is inconsistent and at present confusing (the Vision and the Objectives that follow from it, should set the scene for the Core Strategy policies and proposals, particularly in terms of time scales (which you do outline) local distinctiveness, the scale of development intended and its broad locations).
• The objectives as currently expressed are very general and not distinctive or 'spatially specific' to Rochford.
• Policy H1 - The spatial dimension to this policy is in fact provided by Policy H2 and therefore there should be a cross reference in the text of Policy H1 to provide this linkage.
• Some of the text boxes are clearly making reference in 'plain English/general terms' to the 'Evidence Base' (i.e. when not setting out the Vision) without providing a reference to the appropriate 'Evidence Base' document. Given that the 'Evidence Base' is listed in detail in the first section of the Core Strategy document, it might be helpful to devise a system of Codes, or similar, to provide for cross references from the text box statements to the appropriate 'Evidence Base' document in the earlier list (the same system could be used in respect of 'non-specific references' to the 'Evidence Base' in the main text).
• You should avoid repeating national policy within the Core Strategy. In some instances in the supporting text you actually reproduce sections of PPSs. It may be appropriate in such instances to refer to such policy in general terms (a text box is a good way of doing this) but reproduction of actual PPS text should be avoided. Where references are made in some cases within policy wording to national policy (PPSs etc.) then the policy must be re-written in the Submission document to remove such references. The Core Strategy can only interpret national policy, indicating how it is to be applied to the local area - it must not repeat it.
• Whilst the use of text boxes is to be commended in general, that on P42 contains text which is repeated in some of the main text virtually alongside it. This occurs elsewhere in the document and it should be avoided in the Submission document.
• Several policies (e.g. GB1, ED2) are expressed in terms of: 'we will seek to direct'; 'we will encourage'; 'we will ensure'; we will enhance' etc. Expressed in this way the policies amount to little more than 'statements of intent'. Such expressions beg the questions 'how?', 'when?', 'where?'; and 'what?' etc. The policies in the Core Strategy need to relate to firm actions (albeit 'criteria based' if appropriate) and if there are not clear intentions in relation to delivery, then it is not appropriate to include the policy at all. I accept that as currently written, the policies may be indicating what the 'preferred option' for the policy is, rather than expressing it currently in its final form.
• In policy ED3 other than mention being made of 'Baltic Wharf', the existing employment sites to be reviewed are not identified. In order for the policy to be 'spatially specific' the other sites should be identified.
• Other than mention being made in the supporting text that there is an identified requirement for 2 hectares of office space, there are not any allocations made in terms of quantum of floorspace, or land areas, to meet the jobs requirement for the District. Furthermore, a policy has not been developed in terms of the distinction between locational implications of different uses (i.e. B1, B2 and B8). The submission policy should provide a clearer articulation of the locational implications relative to employment use types B1, B2 and B8 including any relevant split of land requirements relative to the different uses.
• In policy ENV4 'large scale' development is not defined.
• You will need to ensure that the wording in respect of Policy ENV6 wholly accords with the PPS1 Supplement on Climate Change. At present the wording appears to suggest a greater level of restraint than that intended by national policy.
• When/what date will Code Level 3 in Policy ENV8 be introduced? What is your 'Evidence Base' (as required by virtue of the PPS1 Supplement) to justify (in terms of viability) introducing this requirement in Rochford?
• In respect of Policy ENV9, what is your 'Evidence Base' (as required by virtue of the PPS1 Supplement) to justify (in terms of viability) introducing this requirement in Rochford?
• Where is the contaminated land referred to in ENV10 to be found in the District? What are the broad locations?
• In policy RTC1 what is the amount of retail floorspace that is being directed to the stated locations?

• In policy CLT5 what are the standards that will be applied?

• In policy CLT7 what are the standards that will be applied?

• In policy CLT8 what are the standards that will be applied?

• The Key Diagram should preferably be located much earlier on in the document - it could even be located after the background section and preceding the theme based sections. It appears that some potential designations are missing e.g. AQMA's.

• It is important for a Core Strategy to set out a strategic housing trajectory, expressing the Council's broad expectations for the delivery of housing over the Core Strategy period. It is accepted that it will need to be done at a strategic level, since individual development sites have yet to be identified, but it could set out the general expectations for the broad quantum (in general terms) and sources of completions (existing commitment, unallocated urban capacity/windfall sites, brownfield allocations, Greenfield sites/urban extensions etc) over the plan's lifetime. The trajectory should preferably be in the form of a bar chart, or similar, setting out expected development rates and indications of which main locations in each year that development is likely to be forthcoming.

Conclusions

We commend you for the work carried out so far. Where any soundness issues arise, either through our consideration of the work done to date to comply with Regulation 25, or later, through our consideration of the further documents that you will publish to comply with Regulations 25 and 27, we hope that they can be resolved prior to the DPD's submission and subsequent examination.

Executive summary

RW Land & Planning Ltd welcome the opportunity to submit representations on
behalf of J F Spencer & Son Ltd in response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options, published by Rochford District Council in October 2008.
This submission is split into two parts:

1. Core Strategy Representations
It is felt that the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" does not provide a balanced or
justified distribution of the housing numbers throughout the district and that key
sustainability principles have been disregarded when identifying the preferred housing allocations.

Accordingly, it is considered that Hockley, as a first tier settlement within the district should be allocated a larger proportion of the housing numbers in the area already identified on the Key Diagram as being suitable for housing growth (West Hockley).

2. Site Suitability Appraisal - Land and property at Folly Chase, Hockley

A suitability appraisal of land off Folly Chase, Hockley including the residential plot
known as Thistledown, demonstrates its suitability as a deliverable location for housing in line with the Core Strategy principles. The sites location, within walking distance of Hockley town centre and the available facilities, services and public transport links locally and regionally identify this site as being able to meet sustainability principles and should be considered
appropriate for development.

A Masterplan illustrates one of the many ways this site can be developed for housing and provide a deliverable opportunity to provide social housing within a sustainable location, reducing the reliance on the private car.
Appendix 1 - Site Suitability Matrix
Appendix 2 - Site Photographs

1. Core Strategy Representations
Sustainable Community Strategy - Page 6
We welcome the importance the Council place on the close links between the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Core Strategy including ensuring accessibility to services.
Housing Issues and Options - Page 16
We welcome the acceptance by the Council that infilling alone will not be able to provide the housing numbers necessary and that this would have an adverse effect on the character of the towns.

Whilst we acknowledge that the release of greenfield sites for development present
an opportunity to provide new infrastructure, it is surely more sustainable to concentrate additional housing on greenfield sites which benefit from existing infrastructure and nearby services. This would then enable Planning Obligations to improve services and facilities rather than having to focus on providing basic
infrastructure.

Transport Issues and Options - Page 18
It is acknowledged within the Core Strategy that car dependency within the district
is higher away from the main three settlements of Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell and
Rochford/Ashingdon, primarily due to the rail links within these three towns.

This principle of sustainable development therefore dictates, unless there is a justifiable reason, that the majority of the housing proposed should be within or adjacent to the main three settlements.

Settlements Issues and Options - Page 20
We welcome the four tiers of settlements and the Council's acknowledgment that Hockley is classed as a Tier One settlement containing a "local town centre catering for local need".
We also agree that the Second tier Settlements of Hullbridge and Great Wakering have a "more limited range of services access to public transport is relatively poor".

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
We acknowledge that brownfield sites should take priority over the development of
Greenfield sites. However, with a rising housing market over recent years, many of the sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study still remain undeveloped it could be argued that if the sites were suitable for development they would have come forward by now. The Council must therefore demonstrate that there is evidence to
suggest that the remaining sites are genuinely available and deliverable within the specified phased timescale.

If they are not deemed to be available, the housing must be allocated on greenfield sites associated with a Tier One settlement.

H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option

It is welcomed that the Core Strategy accepts that greenfield development will be necessary in order to achieve the required housing numbers.
As set out in the H2 chart and Key diagram, the reliance of Tier Two and Three settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering and Canewdon) to provide 860 houses pre 2021 is unsustainable, unjustified and contrary to sustainable planning
guidance at national, regional and local level.

It is acknowledged by the Core Strategy that the Tier Two and Three Settlements only having limited services and poor public transport links and despite this, over 34% of the greenfield housing allocations have been located here without justification.

We acknowledge that development in Tier Two and Three Settlements is necessary to ensure that village communities continue to grow. However, there has been no justification provided that warrants such a large percentage of the overall housing numbers being allocated to these lower tier settlements.

The distribution of the greenfield housing allocations as it stands is contrary to PPS3 which provides clear local level guidance for Core Strategies when deciding on housing locations:
"...at the local level, Local Development Documents should set out a strategy for
the planned location of new housing which contributes to the achievement of
sustainable development." Part of which is "...the contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions from focusing new development in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car..."
Even with significant public transport improvements, residents will have to travel a
substantial distance to Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell or Rochford/Ashingdon in order to catch a train and go beyond the local area. This level of development in the lower tier locations are promoting a significant increase in carbon emissions, contrary to PPS3, even if the residents travel by public transport, which the Core Strategy accepts is not the current situation, with high car dependency.

Despite being a Tier One Settlement with an active and diverse town centre and good public transport including a train station, Hockley has only been allocated 50 houses (2% of the total greenfield allocation within the district). This goes against the Core Strategy vision of concentrating development on Upper Tier settlements which have the services and facilities to accommodate additional development.
In light of this unsustainable and unsound approach to housing distribution, Policy H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option and the Key diagram should be amended to reduce the proposed housing numbers associated with Tier Two and Three settlements and redistribute the surplus to Tier One Settlements and Hockley in particular which has received an unnecessarily low number of houses
despite existing services and facilities to accommodate additional development.

It is proposed in the analysis set out in Appendix 1 that Land at Folly Chase, West Hockley is suitable and capable of accommodating circa 200 houses. Policy H2 should be amended to reflect this.

We welcome a flexible approach to the release of land in order to maintain a five year land supply is supported and necessary. It is imperative, however that in assessing the release of land, the landowners willingness to sell or develop the site is taken into account.

We welcome the identification of West Hockley as being a suitable location for development pre-2015.

H2 Alternative Options
We welcome the comments regarding North East Hockley and agree that the location would place undue pressure on the highway network and that it is unviable for development.

H3 General Locations - Post 2021
The continued reliance on lower tier settlements post 2021 is again unjustified and
unsustainable with 340 homes proposed. These locations, even following improvements to the infrastructure will not provide genuine alternatives to the private car due to the length of journeys required to get to services, facilities and employment.

H4 Affordable Housing
The 35% level proposed must be based on sound qualitative evidence with the flexibility to be reduced if there are site specific circumstances that warrant it.

We do not accept the desire by the Core Strategy to "pepper pot" social housing
throughout developments, it causes difficulty for Housing Associations to manage their properties effectively and efficiently. This should be amended to allow for clusters of social housing units in say, groups of 15-20.

H5 Dwelling Types
Whilst we acknowledge that PPS3 suggests that local level planning documents should assist in developing a suitable mix of houses on sites, PPS3 para 23 also states that developers should "...bring forward proposals that reflect demand and the profile of households requiring market housing...". It is therefore imperative
that H5 makes reference to the influence of market demands and does not solely
rely on the advice of the Strategic Housing Team as the policy currently intimates.

H6 Lifetime Homes
We welcome the fact that the pursuit of 100% Lifetime Homes from 2010 will be viability tested.
H Appendix 1

We welcome the associated infrastructure required in relation to development at
West Hockley.

As part of the development of Land off Folly Chase, Hockley, further community benefits beyond those listed could be included, such as a new community woodland and play space.
Proposed development at the lower tier settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering
and Canewdon) are reliant on significant public transport improvements which sequentially is contrary to sustainability principles of focusing development in areas of good public transport, with the ability to improve further.

ENV3 Flood Risk
We welcome the proposal to pursue development in areas which fall into Flood
Zone 1 and the use of the sequential test in PPS25.

ENV4 Sustainable Urban Drainage
SUDS is not always the best environmental option for dealing with drainage. We welcome the viability test intended to identify those sites where SUDS is not appropriate.

ENV8 Renewable Energy
We recognise the Core Strategies desire to adhere to the Code for Sustainable Homes star rating, however, there remains a doubt as to whether Code Level 6 is realistically achievable within the current timescales. There will always be the potential for National Policies to alter the rating system and timescales. There is a
requirement for the Core Strategy to remain flexible and be in parity with The Code for Sustainable Homes, or its successor. Moving away from the Code should it alter, would alienate the Districts development sites from developers and reduce the likelihood of them being built within the Core Strategy phasing timescales.

We welcome the decision to not pursue the 10% renewable "Merton Rule" as piecemeal renewable energy production is not an efficient approach to its production.

T1 Highways
We welcome the objective to locate and design housing developments that reduce the reliance on the private car.

T2 Public Transport
We welcome the objective developments must be well related to public transport, or accessible by means other than the private car.

RTC1 Retail
We welcome the designation of Hockley as a district centre and that retail developments will be focussed towards it along with Rayleigh and Rochford.

RTC5 Hockley Town Centre
We welcome the proposals contained within this policy for the improvement of facilities, services and town centre living within Hockley Town centre.

CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges
We welcome the continued use of Planning Obligations to secure reasonable on and off site improvements as set out in Circular 05/2005.
Standard charges must take into account the level of impact the future residents are likely to have on the strategic infrastructure and be negotiated on a site by site basis.

[more details including photographs regarding the site put forward can be found our ref allocations no. 69]

Executive summary

RW Land & Planning Ltd welcome the opportunity to submit representations on
behalf of J F Spencer & Son Ltd in response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options, published by Rochford District Council in October 2008.
This submission is split into two parts:

1. Core Strategy Representations
It is felt that the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" does not provide a balanced or
justified distribution of the housing numbers throughout the district and that key
sustainability principles have been disregarded when identifying the preferred housing allocations.

Accordingly, it is considered that Hockley, as a first tier settlement within the district should be allocated a larger proportion of the housing numbers in the area already identified on the Key Diagram as being suitable for housing growth (West Hockley).

2. Site Suitability Appraisal - Land and property at Folly Chase, Hockley

A suitability appraisal of land off Folly Chase, Hockley including the residential plot
known as Thistledown, demonstrates its suitability as a deliverable location for housing in line with the Core Strategy principles. The sites location, within walking distance of Hockley town centre and the available facilities, services and public transport links locally and regionally identify this site as being able to meet sustainability principles and should be considered
appropriate for development.

A Masterplan illustrates one of the many ways this site can be developed for housing and provide a deliverable opportunity to provide social housing within a sustainable location, reducing the reliance on the private car.
Appendix 1 - Site Suitability Matrix
Appendix 2 - Site Photographs

1. Core Strategy Representations
Sustainable Community Strategy - Page 6
We welcome the importance the Council place on the close links between the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Core Strategy including ensuring accessibility to services.
Housing Issues and Options - Page 16
We welcome the acceptance by the Council that infilling alone will not be able to provide the housing numbers necessary and that this would have an adverse effect on the character of the towns.

Whilst we acknowledge that the release of greenfield sites for development present
an opportunity to provide new infrastructure, it is surely more sustainable to concentrate additional housing on greenfield sites which benefit from existing infrastructure and nearby services. This would then enable Planning Obligations to improve services and facilities rather than having to focus on providing basic
infrastructure.

Transport Issues and Options - Page 18
It is acknowledged within the Core Strategy that car dependency within the district
is higher away from the main three settlements of Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell and
Rochford/Ashingdon, primarily due to the rail links within these three towns.

This principle of sustainable development therefore dictates, unless there is a justifiable reason, that the majority of the housing proposed should be within or adjacent to the main three settlements.

Settlements Issues and Options - Page 20
We welcome the four tiers of settlements and the Council's acknowledgment that Hockley is classed as a Tier One settlement containing a "local town centre catering for local need".
We also agree that the Second tier Settlements of Hullbridge and Great Wakering have a "more limited range of services access to public transport is relatively poor".

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
We acknowledge that brownfield sites should take priority over the development of
Greenfield sites. However, with a rising housing market over recent years, many of the sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study still remain undeveloped it could be argued that if the sites were suitable for development they would have come forward by now. The Council must therefore demonstrate that there is evidence to
suggest that the remaining sites are genuinely available and deliverable within the specified phased timescale.

If they are not deemed to be available, the housing must be allocated on greenfield sites associated with a Tier One settlement.

H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option

It is welcomed that the Core Strategy accepts that greenfield development will be necessary in order to achieve the required housing numbers.
As set out in the H2 chart and Key diagram, the reliance of Tier Two and Three settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering and Canewdon) to provide 860 houses pre 2021 is unsustainable, unjustified and contrary to sustainable planning
guidance at national, regional and local level.

It is acknowledged by the Core Strategy that the Tier Two and Three Settlements only having limited services and poor public transport links and despite this, over 34% of the greenfield housing allocations have been located here without justification.

We acknowledge that development in Tier Two and Three Settlements is necessary to ensure that village communities continue to grow. However, there has been no justification provided that warrants such a large percentage of the overall housing numbers being allocated to these lower tier settlements.

The distribution of the greenfield housing allocations as it stands is contrary to PPS3 which provides clear local level guidance for Core Strategies when deciding on housing locations:
"...at the local level, Local Development Documents should set out a strategy for
the planned location of new housing which contributes to the achievement of
sustainable development." Part of which is "...the contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions from focusing new development in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car..."
Even with significant public transport improvements, residents will have to travel a
substantial distance to Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell or Rochford/Ashingdon in order to catch a train and go beyond the local area. This level of development in the lower tier locations are promoting a significant increase in carbon emissions, contrary to PPS3, even if the residents travel by public transport, which the Core Strategy accepts is not the current situation, with high car dependency.

Despite being a Tier One Settlement with an active and diverse town centre and good public transport including a train station, Hockley has only been allocated 50 houses (2% of the total greenfield allocation within the district). This goes against the Core Strategy vision of concentrating development on Upper Tier settlements which have the services and facilities to accommodate additional development.
In light of this unsustainable and unsound approach to housing distribution, Policy H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option and the Key diagram should be amended to reduce the proposed housing numbers associated with Tier Two and Three settlements and redistribute the surplus to Tier One Settlements and Hockley in particular which has received an unnecessarily low number of houses
despite existing services and facilities to accommodate additional development.

It is proposed in the analysis set out in Appendix 1 that Land at Folly Chase, West Hockley is suitable and capable of accommodating circa 200 houses. Policy H2 should be amended to reflect this.

We welcome a flexible approach to the release of land in order to maintain a five year land supply is supported and necessary. It is imperative, however that in assessing the release of land, the landowners willingness to sell or develop the site is taken into account.

We welcome the identification of West Hockley as being a suitable location for development pre-2015.

H2 Alternative Options
We welcome the comments regarding North East Hockley and agree that the location would place undue pressure on the highway network and that it is unviable for development.

H3 General Locations - Post 2021
The continued reliance on lower tier settlements post 2021 is again unjustified and
unsustainable with 340 homes proposed. These locations, even following improvements to the infrastructure will not provide genuine alternatives to the private car due to the length of journeys required to get to services, facilities and employment.

H4 Affordable Housing
The 35% level proposed must be based on sound qualitative evidence with the flexibility to be reduced if there are site specific circumstances that warrant it.

We do not accept the desire by the Core Strategy to "pepper pot" social housing
throughout developments, it causes difficulty for Housing Associations to manage their properties effectively and efficiently. This should be amended to allow for clusters of social housing units in say, groups of 15-20.

H5 Dwelling Types
Whilst we acknowledge that PPS3 suggests that local level planning documents should assist in developing a suitable mix of houses on sites, PPS3 para 23 also states that developers should "...bring forward proposals that reflect demand and the profile of households requiring market housing...". It is therefore imperative
that H5 makes reference to the influence of market demands and does not solely
rely on the advice of the Strategic Housing Team as the policy currently intimates.

H6 Lifetime Homes
We welcome the fact that the pursuit of 100% Lifetime Homes from 2010 will be viability tested.
H Appendix 1

We welcome the associated infrastructure required in relation to development at
West Hockley.

As part of the development of Land off Folly Chase, Hockley, further community benefits beyond those listed could be included, such as a new community woodland and play space.
Proposed development at the lower tier settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering
and Canewdon) are reliant on significant public transport improvements which sequentially is contrary to sustainability principles of focusing development in areas of good public transport, with the ability to improve further.

ENV3 Flood Risk
We welcome the proposal to pursue development in areas which fall into Flood
Zone 1 and the use of the sequential test in PPS25.

ENV4 Sustainable Urban Drainage
SUDS is not always the best environmental option for dealing with drainage. We welcome the viability test intended to identify those sites where SUDS is not appropriate.

ENV8 Renewable Energy
We recognise the Core Strategies desire to adhere to the Code for Sustainable Homes star rating, however, there remains a doubt as to whether Code Level 6 is realistically achievable within the current timescales. There will always be the potential for National Policies to alter the rating system and timescales. There is a
requirement for the Core Strategy to remain flexible and be in parity with The Code for Sustainable Homes, or its successor. Moving away from the Code should it alter, would alienate the Districts development sites from developers and reduce the likelihood of them being built within the Core Strategy phasing timescales.

We welcome the decision to not pursue the 10% renewable "Merton Rule" as piecemeal renewable energy production is not an efficient approach to its production.

T1 Highways
We welcome the objective to locate and design housing developments that reduce the reliance on the private car.

T2 Public Transport
We welcome the objective developments must be well related to public transport, or accessible by means other than the private car.

RTC1 Retail
We welcome the designation of Hockley as a district centre and that retail developments will be focussed towards it along with Rayleigh and Rochford.

RTC5 Hockley Town Centre
We welcome the proposals contained within this policy for the improvement of facilities, services and town centre living within Hockley Town centre.

CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges
We welcome the continued use of Planning Obligations to secure reasonable on and off site improvements as set out in Circular 05/2005.
Standard charges must take into account the level of impact the future residents are likely to have on the strategic infrastructure and be negotiated on a site by site basis.

[more details including photographs regarding the site put forward can be found our ref allocations no. 69]

Executive summary

RW Land & Planning Ltd welcome the opportunity to submit representations on
behalf of J F Spencer & Son Ltd in response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options, published by Rochford District Council in October 2008.
This submission is split into two parts:

1. Core Strategy Representations
It is felt that the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" does not provide a balanced or
justified distribution of the housing numbers throughout the district and that key
sustainability principles have been disregarded when identifying the preferred housing allocations.

Accordingly, it is considered that Hockley, as a first tier settlement within the district should be allocated a larger proportion of the housing numbers in the area already identified on the Key Diagram as being suitable for housing growth (West Hockley).

2. Site Suitability Appraisal - Land and property at Folly Chase, Hockley

A suitability appraisal of land off Folly Chase, Hockley including the residential plot
known as Thistledown, demonstrates its suitability as a deliverable location for housing in line with the Core Strategy principles. The sites location, within walking distance of Hockley town centre and the available facilities, services and public transport links locally and regionally identify this site as being able to meet sustainability principles and should be considered
appropriate for development.

A Masterplan illustrates one of the many ways this site can be developed for housing and provide a deliverable opportunity to provide social housing within a sustainable location, reducing the reliance on the private car.
Appendix 1 - Site Suitability Matrix
Appendix 2 - Site Photographs

1. Core Strategy Representations
Sustainable Community Strategy - Page 6
We welcome the importance the Council place on the close links between the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Core Strategy including ensuring accessibility to services.
Housing Issues and Options - Page 16
We welcome the acceptance by the Council that infilling alone will not be able to provide the housing numbers necessary and that this would have an adverse effect on the character of the towns.

Whilst we acknowledge that the release of greenfield sites for development present
an opportunity to provide new infrastructure, it is surely more sustainable to concentrate additional housing on greenfield sites which benefit from existing infrastructure and nearby services. This would then enable Planning Obligations to improve services and facilities rather than having to focus on providing basic
infrastructure.

Transport Issues and Options - Page 18
It is acknowledged within the Core Strategy that car dependency within the district
is higher away from the main three settlements of Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell and
Rochford/Ashingdon, primarily due to the rail links within these three towns.

This principle of sustainable development therefore dictates, unless there is a justifiable reason, that the majority of the housing proposed should be within or adjacent to the main three settlements.

Settlements Issues and Options - Page 20
We welcome the four tiers of settlements and the Council's acknowledgment that Hockley is classed as a Tier One settlement containing a "local town centre catering for local need".
We also agree that the Second tier Settlements of Hullbridge and Great Wakering have a "more limited range of services access to public transport is relatively poor".

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
We acknowledge that brownfield sites should take priority over the development of
Greenfield sites. However, with a rising housing market over recent years, many of the sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study still remain undeveloped it could be argued that if the sites were suitable for development they would have come forward by now. The Council must therefore demonstrate that there is evidence to
suggest that the remaining sites are genuinely available and deliverable within the specified phased timescale.

If they are not deemed to be available, the housing must be allocated on greenfield sites associated with a Tier One settlement.

H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option

It is welcomed that the Core Strategy accepts that greenfield development will be necessary in order to achieve the required housing numbers.
As set out in the H2 chart and Key diagram, the reliance of Tier Two and Three settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering and Canewdon) to provide 860 houses pre 2021 is unsustainable, unjustified and contrary to sustainable planning
guidance at national, regional and local level.

It is acknowledged by the Core Strategy that the Tier Two and Three Settlements only having limited services and poor public transport links and despite this, over 34% of the greenfield housing allocations have been located here without justification.

We acknowledge that development in Tier Two and Three Settlements is necessary to ensure that village communities continue to grow. However, there has been no justification provided that warrants such a large percentage of the overall housing numbers being allocated to these lower tier settlements.

The distribution of the greenfield housing allocations as it stands is contrary to PPS3 which provides clear local level guidance for Core Strategies when deciding on housing locations:
"...at the local level, Local Development Documents should set out a strategy for
the planned location of new housing which contributes to the achievement of
sustainable development." Part of which is "...the contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions from focusing new development in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car..."
Even with significant public transport improvements, residents will have to travel a
substantial distance to Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell or Rochford/Ashingdon in order to catch a train and go beyond the local area. This level of development in the lower tier locations are promoting a significant increase in carbon emissions, contrary to PPS3, even if the residents travel by public transport, which the Core Strategy accepts is not the current situation, with high car dependency.

Despite being a Tier One Settlement with an active and diverse town centre and good public transport including a train station, Hockley has only been allocated 50 houses (2% of the total greenfield allocation within the district). This goes against the Core Strategy vision of concentrating development on Upper Tier settlements which have the services and facilities to accommodate additional development.
In light of this unsustainable and unsound approach to housing distribution, Policy H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option and the Key diagram should be amended to reduce the proposed housing numbers associated with Tier Two and Three settlements and redistribute the surplus to Tier One Settlements and Hockley in particular which has received an unnecessarily low number of houses
despite existing services and facilities to accommodate additional development.

It is proposed in the analysis set out in Appendix 1 that Land at Folly Chase, West Hockley is suitable and capable of accommodating circa 200 houses. Policy H2 should be amended to reflect this.

We welcome a flexible approach to the release of land in order to maintain a five year land supply is supported and necessary. It is imperative, however that in assessing the release of land, the landowners willingness to sell or develop the site is taken into account.

We welcome the identification of West Hockley as being a suitable location for development pre-2015.

H2 Alternative Options
We welcome the comments regarding North East Hockley and agree that the location would place undue pressure on the highway network and that it is unviable for development.

H3 General Locations - Post 2021
The continued reliance on lower tier settlements post 2021 is again unjustified and
unsustainable with 340 homes proposed. These locations, even following improvements to the infrastructure will not provide genuine alternatives to the private car due to the length of journeys required to get to services, facilities and employment.

H4 Affordable Housing
The 35% level proposed must be based on sound qualitative evidence with the flexibility to be reduced if there are site specific circumstances that warrant it.

We do not accept the desire by the Core Strategy to "pepper pot" social housing
throughout developments, it causes difficulty for Housing Associations to manage their properties effectively and efficiently. This should be amended to allow for clusters of social housing units in say, groups of 15-20.

H5 Dwelling Types
Whilst we acknowledge that PPS3 suggests that local level planning documents should assist in developing a suitable mix of houses on sites, PPS3 para 23 also states that developers should "...bring forward proposals that reflect demand and the profile of households requiring market housing...". It is therefore imperative
that H5 makes reference to the influence of market demands and does not solely
rely on the advice of the Strategic Housing Team as the policy currently intimates.

H6 Lifetime Homes
We welcome the fact that the pursuit of 100% Lifetime Homes from 2010 will be viability tested.
H Appendix 1

We welcome the associated infrastructure required in relation to development at
West Hockley.

As part of the development of Land off Folly Chase, Hockley, further community benefits beyond those listed could be included, such as a new community woodland and play space.
Proposed development at the lower tier settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering
and Canewdon) are reliant on significant public transport improvements which sequentially is contrary to sustainability principles of focusing development in areas of good public transport, with the ability to improve further.

ENV3 Flood Risk
We welcome the proposal to pursue development in areas which fall into Flood
Zone 1 and the use of the sequential test in PPS25.

ENV4 Sustainable Urban Drainage
SUDS is not always the best environmental option for dealing with drainage. We welcome the viability test intended to identify those sites where SUDS is not appropriate.

ENV8 Renewable Energy
We recognise the Core Strategies desire to adhere to the Code for Sustainable Homes star rating, however, there remains a doubt as to whether Code Level 6 is realistically achievable within the current timescales. There will always be the potential for National Policies to alter the rating system and timescales. There is a
requirement for the Core Strategy to remain flexible and be in parity with The Code for Sustainable Homes, or its successor. Moving away from the Code should it alter, would alienate the Districts development sites from developers and reduce the likelihood of them being built within the Core Strategy phasing timescales.

We welcome the decision to not pursue the 10% renewable "Merton Rule" as piecemeal renewable energy production is not an efficient approach to its production.

T1 Highways
We welcome the objective to locate and design housing developments that reduce the reliance on the private car.

T2 Public Transport
We welcome the objective developments must be well related to public transport, or accessible by means other than the private car.

RTC1 Retail
We welcome the designation of Hockley as a district centre and that retail developments will be focussed towards it along with Rayleigh and Rochford.

RTC5 Hockley Town Centre
We welcome the proposals contained within this policy for the improvement of facilities, services and town centre living within Hockley Town centre.

CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges
We welcome the continued use of Planning Obligations to secure reasonable on and off site improvements as set out in Circular 05/2005.
Standard charges must take into account the level of impact the future residents are likely to have on the strategic infrastructure and be negotiated on a site by site basis.

[more details including photographs regarding the site put forward can be found our ref allocations no. 69]

INTRODUCTION

We act on behalf of Crowstone Properties Ltd and are instructed to submit Representations on their behalf as part of the Consultation on the emerging Core Strategy.

Whilst we fully appreciate that the current stage is principally concerned with strategic and district-wide issues rather than site-specific aspects, we note that Policy H2 General Locations and Phasing Preferred Option contains a schedule of areas which are indicated on the Key Diagram. We also note that two of the areas, namely West Hockley and West Great Wakering, have capacities of only 50 units. Our clients Representations submitted at an earlier consultation stage on the Core Strategy Preferred Options, (ie July 2007) included a Land Bid relating to developable land on the western side of Ashingdon which extends to approximately 2.5 hectares and would therefore provide an estimated minimum capacity in excess of 50 units. It is therefore of sufficient size to be regarded as "strategic" in terms of the Core Strategy and Policy H2.

Our Representations are in three parts:-

Part A: General Representations
Part B: Strategic Site Representations
Part C: Schedule of Amendments

At various points, however, we will cross-reference to our proposed strategic site, a plan of which can be found at the end of Part B. As noted, the area edged red extends to 2.5 hectares of which 0.5 hectares would be used to provide peripheral landscaping, and if required, a car park to serve the open space to the west and south. Immediately to the north, edged in blue, a woodland area extending to approximately 1.5 hectares would be dedicated for public open space. The strategic 4.0 hectare site would therefore constitute a mixed use comprising housing, a public car park and public open space and amenity land.

It would be of great assistance if future documents have their various sections numbered and each paragraph given a discreet paragraph number. The absence of any form of numbering system poses difficulty in identifying particular quotes from the document which makes the task of the reader and writer more laborious.

PART A: GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS

Listening to your views:

We found the summary of public opinion set out in "Listening To Your Views" to be both interesting and valuable as a basis for formulating the Core Strategy.

Clearly, one of the key points of public concern relates to the question of whether some Green Belt land should be used for future development. Much depends on how the question is put; if one asks: should Green Belt land be developed? - it is to be expected that most people's first reaction is that it should not. It is widely recognised and appreciated that undeveloped land in Rochford District performs many functions - it provides the setting for the settlements, gaps which prevent the coalescence of settlements, areas for informal and formal recreation, and pleasant countryside. Any encroachment of the Green Belt must be at a cost and should be avoided if humanly possible. If, however, the question is put another way, namely - should we safeguard the Green Belt rather than make provision for the various types of housing to meet the needs of our existing and future residents? - then a different response might be forthcoming. The prospect of housing shortages, with house shortages, with house prices driven up by scarcity value, and younger sections of the population finding it even more difficult to reach the first rung on the housing ladder, might be sufficiently unattractive a proposition to lead people to support a justified and carefully controlled release of parts of the Green Belt. We therefore welcome the fact that after many years of assiduous protection of Green Belt land, the Council has "grasped the nettle" and has clearly identified sound reasons why it is a Preferred Option to identify some Green Belt land for development.

Characteristics, Issue and Opportunities

We also found the section headed "Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities" to be a useful summary which painted an accurate picture of the current character and contemporary issues in Rochford District.

Economy

We do not consider the document sufficiently recognises the need to adopt a strategy which seeks to make the District more self-contained and hence more sustainable. We note the paragraph which states "A high proportion of the Rochford workforce commutes out of the District. 30% travel to work in Southend, 14% to London, 9% to Basildon and about 15% travel elsewhere outside the District." In other words, 68% of the working population commute out of the District and only 32% work within the District. Even allowing for the high proportion that commute the relatively short distance to Southend, this represents a very heavy reliance on employment beyond the District's boundaries. The District is therefore highly unsustainable in this particular respect.

We note the references to Thames Gateway South Essex and to initiatives at Southend Airport, but consider that such employment growth will needs to be supplemented by a myriad of smaller and localized initiatives which are more likely to reduce the lengths of journey to work. At the same time, if well located, small business parks and enterprise areas would help counterbalance the lack of local employment which makes the District so heavily reliant on other areas. It would also reinforce the District's track record for thriving small businesses.

Settlements

We broadly support the four tiers of settlement with the first tier comprising Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley as set out on page 20. We note, however, in "General Locations" on page 26, the first tier settlements are listed as Rayleigh; Rochford/Ashingdon; Hockley/Hawkwell. We have no difficulty with this but consider there should be consistency as to how settlements are addressed. For the avoidance of doubt, we prefer the approach adopted on page 26.

Vision

Again we register our support for the overarching vision and the key planning objectives. Without detracting from the high ideals expressed here, we would perhaps hope to see a much fuller explanation of how the vision is to be realised. Some reference to the types of measures or policy and proposals that will be introduced to implement the key planning objectives might be appropriate at this stage.

Housing

We consider the remaining balance of 2,489 units for the period 2001-2021 together with the further 1,000 units for the period 2021-2025 represents a substantial commitment requiring careful decisions in relation to its future distribution. We fully acknowledge the concern that can arise from town cramming and the difficulty posed by the rapidly dwindling supply of other brownfield land. We consider the Council can be justifiably proud of its record in directing a high proportion of recent growth to brownfield sites. However, this is a finite resource and it was inevitable that at some point it would be necessary to increase the Greenfield contribution. In the Council's view, that point has now been reached, and we agree with that. We note that the 30% of development that will still be targeted to brownfield sites is only half that advised in the East of England Plan, but that this lower level is probably realistic and hence deliverable. In any event, it is also important not to rely on regular reviews of the Green Belt boundary and this points to the need for long term land reserves needed for development being taken out of the Green Belt as part of the Core Strategy.

In moving towards the Preferred Distribution, we note the following on page 26.

"The preferred distribution is based not simply on which areas are the most sustainable at present, but also on how residential development can contribute to, and marry with, other strategies - particularly in relation to town centre vitality, environmental issues and employment - to ensure long term sustainable development within the District."

We believe that is exactly the right approach but at this stage we have not seen the evidence to support this important claim. Indeed, the Preferred Options move rapidly into the topic of "Housing" without any clear demonstration of a comprehensive and holistic approach in terms of the distribution of the wider development needs of the District. In other words, we would expect to see a coherent strategy which closely and geographically associates housing needs, employment and community facilities based on sound sustainability principles. We do not believe that general locations for new housing, for example, can be selected in isolation but that such decisions must reflect a pre-agreed framework of sustainability principles taking account of existing and all forms of new development requirements.

In turning to H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option, it is unclear what process of selection was undertaken to alight on this particular choice of area. No doubt each of the areas identified have their own particular merits and advantages, and some may be highly sustainable and other less so. It is difficult to pass judgement without any pre-stated basis for the inclusion of these particular areas. By the same token, the reasoning behind the split before and after 2015 is equally unclear. We do not oppose the principle of staging development - indeed we support it if this assists in ensuring land allocations are more evenly spread and hence available throughout the plan period. Again, however, we expect to see the reasoning for this split and this does not seem to be apparent. We raise these points because they are fundamental and there needs to be a clearly understood basis for the choice of general locations and for phasing. We have given careful consideration to the general locations set out in H2 and the alternative options set out giving reasons why these further locations were not preferred. Having regard to the earlier representations submitted on behalf of Crowstone Development Ltd relating to an area on the western side of Ashingdon, we can find no reference to this as a possible option.

Turning to H3 General Location Post-2021 Preferred Option, we consider there is a similar duty to justify the general locations and capacity for the areas identified. Whilst we note that: "The detailed location and development will be articulated within the Allocations Development Plan document and, where appropriate, Area Action Plans," this in no way reduces the need to ensure that the location itself is sustainable and can be justified as a Preferred Option. The information and analysis to support the general locations both pre and post 2015 and post 2021 is lacking and we consider this must go to the soundness of the Plan.

Affordable Housing

We take the view that much greater emphasis must be given in future to the delivery of affordable units, especially having regard to the high house values which preclude so many entering the housing market. We recognise that Exceptions Policies are necessary but deliver very little in terms of numbers. We also recognise that it is the larger sites that have the viability which enables a significant proportion of affordable units to be provided or cross-subsidised by free market housing. A judgement is needed as to the level of affordable provision that should be required from new sites. On balance we consider the suggestion that at least 35% of dwellings on all developments of 15 or more units, or on sites greater than 0.5 ha, should be affordable - gets the balance about right. We therefore support the wording of H4 Affordable Housing - Preferred Option in this respect and favour this to the Alternative Options in H4.

With regard, however, to the requirement to spread (pepper-pot) affordable dwellings throughout larger developments, we express certain concerns. We agree that large blocs of affordable housing should be avoided if possible but pepper-potting can give rise to design and management problems. As usual, these matters can normally be overcome through compromise having regard to the circumstances relating to each particular site. We would therefore prefer to see a more general reference to the need to avoid large blocs of affordable housing and the need to integrate affordable and free market housing in a harmonious way.

The Green Belt

As indicated above, we support the conclusion that the time has now come when the current boundaries of the Green Belt need to be reviewed to enable development required to be provided in Rochford District by the East of England Plan can be met in an environmentally acceptable way. Given the long-term nature of the plan period, the opportunity arises to adjust the Green Belt boundaries to facilitate growth over a long period and this should avoid the need for repetitive short term reviews which could undermine the confidence in the Green Belt. We note the wording of GB1 Green Belt Protection - Preferred Option and in particular the commitment to prioritise the protection of Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt. Whilst this seems entirely clear and logical, we would expect this exercise to be conducted to inform the general locations identified in H2 and H3. Further uncertainty arises from the reference to "strategic buffers that are particularly worthy of mention" which appear not to be mentioned or featured on the Key Diagram. We consider any reference to "strategic buffers" should be deleted from the text as this function will continue to be achieved by means of the Green Belt.

The approach being adopted towards the release of Green Belt land for development may be sound as a general principle but we would expect to see clear evidence to support the general locations for growth in terms of their relative impact on the purposes of the Green Belt. There would appear to be a lack of joined up thinking between the Preferred Options in H1 and H2 and that in GB1.

Dwelling Types

Whilst we support the wish to ensure a mix of dwelling types to reflect a wide spectrum of housing needs and budgets, much will depend of the size of the particular development, the character of the area, and any other local constraints or factors. We therefore have certain reservations about a blanket policy requiring a housing mix. Such a mix may in any event be triggered by the requirement to provide affordable housing over and above the thresholds in H4. Our reservations might be overcome quite simply by inserting the words "Where appropriate," at the beginning of the text H5.

Rural Diversification, Green Tourism and Recreational Uses

We support the Council's aims to promote and secure a vibrant and prosperous countryside and one that encourages recreational uses. In fringe urban areas and particularly where development abuts the Green Belt boundary, opportunities should be explored to supplement formal and informal recreational provision as part and parcel of mixed use development sites. The opportunities for such provision should be one of the determining factors in the selection of locations for growth and subsequently at the Site Allocations DPD stage.

Future Employment Allocations

We generally welcome the initiatives set out to deliver increased employment provision to meet the needs of the District and its growing population over the plan period. We nevertheless have similar reservations to those expressed in relation to housing in terms of the proposals put forward. It is vital that housing and employment are considered jointly to ensure the best possible "fit" which would encourage new and more accessible employment opportunities. We would like to see evidence of the co-ordinated provision for housing and employment promoted through the growth locations put forward as Preferred Options. Again, this potentially calls into question the soundness of the plan.

Environmental Issues

We support the continuing protection of the District's natural landscape and habitats and hence we endorse the Preferred Options in ENV1 and ENV2. We consider some of the protective notations are sufficiently important to be denoted on the Key Diagram.

Flood Risk

Clearly the avoidance of areas prone to or at risk of flooding will be a key consideration in the choice of growth locations and later individual sites at the Site Allocations DPD stage. We mention in passing that the inclusion of the western side of Ashingdon as a General Location would not pose any problems associated with flood risk as it lies entirely outside any area so defined by the Environment Agency (see Part C).

Transport

We fully endorse the Preferred Options in T1 Highways and T2 Public Transport. With regard to the Preferred Option T5 Cycling and Walking, we draw attention to the particular opportunities in this respect associated with the inclusion of the western side of Ashingdon (see Part C).

Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism

With regard to CLT5 Open Space - Preferred Option, we have already indicated we see opportunities for providing Open Space for both formal and informal recreation in association with General Locations especially on the edge or within the Green Belt. There are particular opportunities on the western side of Ashingdon which we refer to in Part C.

CONCLUSION

Whilst it will be seen that we have identified much to support within the text of the consultation document, we have expressed concerns in relation to the justification of many of the Preferred Options - particularly where these have Lane Use implications. Whilst not necessarily opposing any particular proposal, we have been unable to establish a paper trail which would convince us that such proposals are indeed justified in themselves or sufficiently tested. In some respects, the danger is that unless there is a clear testing of options against agreed criteria leading through a sieving process to establish the most appropriate locations for growth, then the process is not very different from the old style Local Plan system. It is this introduction of "better assessment" which is critical in terms of determining 'soundness'. An example of this crucial defect is the identification of General Locations requiring the loss of Green Belt land without any reference to the evaluation of the relative effects of that encroachment in relation to the purposes of the Green Belt. We believe these fundamental concerns need to be addressed in order to achieve reasonable confidence in the Core Strategy.

PART B: STRATEGIC SITE REPRESENTATIONS

In the above submission, we indicated that we considered the Land Bid put forward at an earlier stage in relation to Land on the Western Side of Ashingdon qualifies as a General Location because of its capacity to deliver more than 50 units - the lowest capacity threshold in H2. A plan identifying theland in question is found at the end of this section. As noted in the introduction, the site extends to 4.0 hectares of which 1.5 hectares is existing woodland. The remaining 2.5 hectares re envisaged to provide 2.0 hectares of housing and 0.5 hectares for landscaping and a public car park serving the Open Space to the west. Based on minimum densities required in PPS3: Housing, it is therefore envisaged that the location would provide a minimum of 60 units.

The main justification for the inclusion of the western side of Ashingdon as a General Location is as follows.

The location directly abuts established development off Rectory Avenue with estate road access up to its boundary along Hogarth Way. It therefore forms a natural adjunct to the existing built up area.
The location has very clearly demarcated and defensible boundaries in the form of a boundary with a flood park to the south, a footpath/cycleway to the west, and mature woodland and bridleway to the north.
There are important opportunities to contribute to the recreational use and potential of the land to the west as well as to upgrade the woodland for public access.
There are additional opportunities to provide a landscaped recreational car park for use by ramblers and dog walkers on the western side of the development served via Hogarth Way.
The interface between the development and open land to the west can be provided with a landscape buffer to help integrate the General Location into its landscape setting.
The site lies outside any Flood Risk zone identified by the Environment Agency (see plan at end of this section).

It is considered that a General Location identified on the western side of Ashingdon compares well with other locations on the edge of Rochford/Ashingdon in terms of its sustainability, its effect on the Green Belt, and on the setting of the settlement. As noted in Part A, this general location is not included in the list of General Locations or in the alternatives that have been considered and rejected.

We have advanced the view in Part A that particular regard should be had to the contribution General Locations might make to recreational facilities and amenities. We attach sufficient importance to this by suggesting that it could be a determining factor in the choice of General Locations. The associated Open Space and woodland management that would be achieved as part of the development of this proposed General Location would be very substantial indeed and would reinforce the existing neighbouring Open Space provision which is heavily used by both the local resident population and by visitors. There are no Rights of Way across this General Location at present. However, we envisage that there would be new footpath and cycleway routes through the development area to link with the existing Rights of Way.

Having regard to the above, we put forward land on the western side of Ashingdon as a General Location that should be included in H2 as a Preferred Option.

PART C: SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENTS

We set out below the main amendments we are seeking and suggesting to the Core Strategy Preferred Options some of which we believe to be necessary in order to make the document 'sound'.

1. Insert text which recognises the need to adopt a strategy which seeks to make the District more self-contained and hence more sustainable.

2. Supplement the main employment growth proposals with complementary proposals relating to smaller and localised employment initiatives likely to reduce the lengths of journey to work.

3. Refer consistently to Rochford/Ashingdon and Hockley/Hawkwell rather than just Rochford and Hockley.

4. Provide a fuller explanation of how the 'Vision' is to be realised through the implementation of the key planning objectives.

5. Provide evidence to support the claim that "The preferred distribution is based not simply on which areas are the most sustainable at present, but also on how residential development can contribute to, and marry with, other strategies - particularly in relation to town centre vitality, environmental issues and employment - to ensure long term sustainable development within the District".

6. Set out a coherent strategy which closely and geographically associates housing needs, employment and community facilities based on sound sustainability principles.

7. Demonstrate how the coherent strategy referred to in (6) above has informed the General Locations for new housing and other forms of development.

8. Provide supporting evidence to justify the locations and capacity for the release of land pre- and post-2015 and post 2021.

9. Amend text to delete reference to pepper-potting affordable housing and refer instead to the need to avoid large blocks of affordable housing and the need to integrate affordable and free-market housing in a harmonious way.

10. Explain the relative effects of the General Locations identified in H2 and H3 on the Green Belt.

11. Delete reference to "strategic buffers" as their purpose will continue to be achieved by the Green Belt.

12. Insert the words "Where appropriate," at the beginning of H5.

13. Make explicit that opportunities should be explored for the provision of recreational and amenity land within or adjoining General Locations.

14. Provide clearer evidence to show a coordinated approach to the provision for housing and employment in order to meet the tests of soundness.

15. Consider including the more important rural and natural resource notations on the Key Diagram.

16. Include Land on the western side of Ashingdon (Part B of this submission) as a General Location in H2.

INTRODUCTION

We act on behalf of Mr Dudley Ball - a resident of Church Road, Hockley and are instructed to submit Representations on their behalf as part of the Consultation on the emerging Core Strategy.

Our Representations are in two parts:-

Part A: General Representations
Part B: Schedule of Requested Amendments

PART A: GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS

Listening to your views:

We found the summary of public opinion set out in "Listening To Your Views" to be both interesting and valuable as a basis for formulating the Core Strategy.

Clearly, one of the key points of public concern relates to the question of whether some Green Belt land should be used for future development. Much depends on how the question is put; if one asks: should Green Belt land be developed? - it is to be expected that most people's first reaction is that it should not. It is widely recognised and appreciated that undeveloped land in Rochford District performs many functions - it provides the setting for the settlements, gaps which prevent the coalescence of settlements, areas for informal and formal recreation, and pleasant countryside. Any encroachment of the Green Belt must be at a cost and should be avoided if humanly possible. If, however, the question is put another way, namely - should we safeguard the Green Belt rather than make provision for the various types of housing to meet the needs of our existing and future residents? - then a different response might be forthcoming. The prospect of housing shortages, with house shortages, with house prices driven up by scarcity value, and younger sections of the population finding it even more difficult to reach the first rung on the housing ladder, might be sufficiently unattractive a proposition to lead people to support a justified and carefully controlled release of parts of the Green Belt. We therefore welcome the fact that after many years of assiduous protection of Green Belt land, the Council has "grasped the nettle" and has clearly identified sound reasons why it is a Preferred Option to identify some Green Belt land for development.

Characteristics, Issue and Opportunities

We also found the section headed "Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities" to be a useful summary which painted an accurate picture of the current character and contemporary issues in Rochford District.

Economy

We do not consider the document sufficiently recognises the need to adopt a strategy which seeks to make the District more self-contained and hence more sustainable. We note the paragraph which states "A high proportion of the Rochford workforce commutes out of the District. 30% travel to work in Southend, 14% to London, 9% to Basildon and about 15% travel elsewhere outside the District." In other words, 68% of the working population commute out of the District and only 32% work within the District. Even allowing for the high proportion that commute the relatively short distance to Southend, this represents a very heavy reliance on employment beyond the District's boundaries. The District is therefore highly unsustainable in this particular respect.

We note the references to Thames Gateway South Essex and to initiatives at Southend Airport, but consider that such employment growth will needs to be supplemented by a myriad of smaller and localized initiatives which are more likely to reduce the lengths of journey to work. At the same time, if well located, small business parks and enterprise areas would help counterbalance the lack of local employment which makes the District so heavily reliant on other areas. It would also reinforce the District's track record for thriving small businesses.

Settlements

We broadly support the four tiers of settlement with the first tier comprising Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley as set out on page 20. We note, however, in "General Locations" on page 26, the first tier settlements are listed as Rayleigh; Rochford/Ashingdon; Hockley/Hawkwell. We have no difficulty with this but consider there should be consistency as to how settlements are addressed. For the avoidance of doubt, we prefer the approach adopted on page 26.

Vision

Again we register our support for the overarching vision and the key planning objectives. Without detracting from the high ideals expressed here, we would perhaps hope to see a much fuller explanation of how the vision is to be realised. Some reference to the types of measures or policy and proposals that will be introduced to implement the key planning objectives might be appropriate at this stage.

Housing

We consider the remaining balance of 2,489 units for the period 2001-2021 together with the further 1,000 units for the period 2021-2025 represents a substantial commitment requiring careful decisions in relation to its future distribution. We fully acknowledge the concern that can arise from town cramming and the difficulty posed by the rapidly dwindling supply of other brownfield land. We consider the Council can be justifiably proud of its record in directing a high proportion of recent growth to brownfield sites. However, this is a finite resource and it was inevitable that at some point it would be necessary to increase the Greenfield contribution. In the Council's view, that point has now been reached, and we agree with that. We note that the 30% of development that will still be targeted to brownfield sites is only half that advised in the East of England Plan, but that this lower level is probably realistic and hence deliverable. In any event, it is also important not to rely on regular reviews of the Green Belt boundary and this points to the need for long term land reserves needed for development being taken out of the Green Belt as part of the Core Strategy.

In moving towards the Preferred Distribution, we note the following on page 26.

"The preferred distribution is based not simply on which areas are the most sustainable at present, but also on how residential development can contribute to, and marry with, other strategies - particularly in relation to town centre vitality, environmental issues and employment - to ensure long term sustainable development within the District."

We believe that is exactly the right approach but at this stage we have not seen the evidence to support this important claim. Indeed, the Preferred Options move rapidly into the topic of "Housing" without any clear demonstration of a comprehensive and holistic approach in terms of the distribution of the wider development needs of the District. In other words, we would expect to see a coherent strategy which closely and geographically associates housing needs, employment and community facilities based on sound sustainability principles. We do not believe that general locations for new housing, for example, can be selected in isolation but that such decisions must reflect a pre-agreed framework of sustainability principles taking account of existing and all forms of new development requirements.

In turning to H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option, it is unclear what process of selection was undertaken to alight on this particular choice of area. No doubt each of the areas identified have their own particular merits and advantages, and some may be highly sustainable and other less so. It is difficult to pass judgement without any pre-stated basis for the inclusion of these particular areas. By the same token, the reasoning behind the split before and after 2015 is equally unclear. We do not oppose the principle of staging development - indeed we support it if this assists in ensuring land allocations are more evenly spread and hence available throughout the plan period. Again, however, we expect to see the reasoning for this split and this does not seem to be apparent. We raise these points because they are fundamental and there needs to be a clearly understood basis for the choice of general locations and for phasing. We have given careful consideration to the general locations set out in H2 and the alternative options set out giving reasons why these further locations were not preferred.

In particular, we note the inclusion in H2 of a location at West Hockley with a projected capacity of 50 units in the period to 2015. It would appear possible that this relates to potential capacity that might become available on land known as Pond Chase Nurseries. We have no specific objection to the inclusion of this site - but this would strengthen the case for a careful review of the Green Belt boundary in the general vicinity of Pond Chase Nurseries and Church Road, Hockley. The existing Green Belt boundary in this part of the settlement is highly arbitrary and has been blurred by development that has taken place on the edge of the town over a number of years. We refer to this matter again shortly in relation to the Green Belt.

Turning to H3 General Location Post-2021 Preferred Option, we consider there is a similar duty to justify the general locations and capacity for the areas identified. Whilst we note that: "The detailed location and development will be articulated within the Allocations Development Plan document and, where appropriate, Area Action Plans," this in no way reduces the need to ensure that the location itself is sustainable and can be justified as a Preferred Option. The information and analysis to support the general locations both pre and post 2015 and post 2021 is lacking and we consider this must go to the soundness of the Plan.

Affordable Housing

We take the view that much greater emphasis must be given in future to the delivery of affordable units, especially having regard to the high house values which preclude so many entering the housing market. We recognise that Exceptions Policies are necessary but deliver very little in terms of numbers. We also recognise that it is the larger sites that have the viability which enables a significant proportion of affordable units to be provided or cross-subsidised by free market housing. A judgement is needed as to the level of affordable provision that should be required from new sites. On balance we consider the suggestion that at least 35% of dwellings on all developments of 15 or more units, or on sites greater than 0.5 ha, should be affordable - gets the balance about right. We therefore support the wording of H4 Affordable Housing - Preferred Option in this respect and favour this to the Alternative Options in H4.

With regard, however, to the requirement to spread (pepper-pot) affordable dwellings throughout larger developments, we express certain concerns. We agree that large blocs of affordable housing should be avoided if possible but pepper-potting can give rise to design and management problems. As usual, these matters can normally be overcome through compromise having regard to the circumstances relating to each particular site. We would therefore prefer to see a more general reference to the need to avoid large blocs of affordable housing and the need to integrate affordable and free market housing in a harmonious way.

The Green Belt

As indicated above, we support the conclusion that the time has now come when the current boundaries of the Green Belt need to be reviewed to enable development required to be provided in Rochford District by the East of England Plan can be met in an environmentally acceptable way. Given the long-term nature of the plan period, the opportunity arises to adjust the Green Belt boundaries to facilitate growth over a long period and this should avoid the need for repetitive short term reviews which could undermine the confidence in the Green Belt. We note the wording of GB1 Green Belt Protection - Preferred Option and in particular the commitment to prioritise the protection of Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt. Whilst this seems entirely clear and logical, we would expect this exercise to be conducted to inform the general locations identified in H2 and H3. Further uncertainty arises from the reference to "strategic buffers that are particularly worthy of mention" which appear not to be mentioned or featured on the Key Diagram. We consider any reference to "strategic buffers" should be deleted from the text as this function will continue to be achieved by means of the Green Belt.

The approach being adopted towards the release of Green Belt land for development may be sound as a general principle but we would expect to see clear evidence to support the general locations for growth in terms of their relative impact on the purposes of the Green Belt. There would appear to be a lack of joined up thinking between the Preferred Options in H1 and H2 and that in GB1.

In addition to the need to amend the Green Belt boundary to facilitate the selected General Locations, it is considered that a wider review of Green Belt boundaries should also be undertaken. There are many small scale opportunities to adjust and rationalise the Green Belt boundary which would enable various small sites to come forward without material conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. We have already referred to one such general area, namely Church Road, Hockley, where a more appropriate urban edge could be defined. We believe it is important that both larger and smaller adjustments should be agreed to avoid regular nibbling at the Green Belt boundary which would undermine confidence in Green Belt policy.

Dwelling Types

Whilst we support the wish to ensure a mix of dwelling types to reflect a wide spectrum of housing needs and budgets, much will depend of the size of the particular development, the character of the area, and any other local constraints or factors. We therefore have certain reservations about a blanket policy requiring a housing mix. Such a mix may in any event be triggered by the requirement to provide affordable housing over and above the thresholds in H4. Our reservations might be overcome quite simply by inserting the words "Where appropriate," at the beginning of the text H5.

Rural Diversification, Green Tourism and Recreational Uses

We support the Council's aims to promote and secure a vibrant and prosperous countryside and one that encourages recreational uses. In fringe urban areas and particularly where development abuts the Green Belt boundary, opportunities should be explored to supplement formal and informal recreational provision as part and parcel of mixed use development sites. The opportunities for such provision should be one of the determining factors in the selection of locations for growth and subsequently at the Site Allocations DPD stage.

Future Employment Allocations

We generally welcome the initiatives set out to deliver increased employment provision to meet the needs of the District and its growing population over the plan period. We nevertheless have similar reservations to those expressed in relation to housing in terms of the proposals put forward. It is vital that housing and employment are considered jointly to ensure the best possible "fit" which would encourage new and more accessible employment opportunities. We would like to see evidence of the co-ordinated provision for housing and employment promoted through the growth locations put forward as Preferred Options. Again, this potentially calls into question the soundness of the plan.

Environmental Issues

We support the continuing protection of the District's natural landscape and habitats and hence we endorse the Preferred Options in ENV1 and ENV2. We consider some of the protective notations are sufficiently important to be denoted on the Key Diagram.

Flood Risk

Clearly the avoidance of areas prone to or at risk of flooding will be a key consideration in the choice of growth locations and later individual sites at the Site Allocations DPD stage. Any changes to the Green Belt boundary on the western side of Hockley, and particularly in the vicinity of Church Road, will not raise any flood risk issues.

Transport

We fully endorse the Preferred Options in T1 Highways and T2 Public Transport.

Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism

With regard to CLT5 Open Space - Preferred Option, we have already indicated we see opportunities for providing Open Space for both formal and informal recreation in association with General Locations especially on the edge or within the Green Belt.

CONCLUSION

Whilst it will be seen that we have identified much to support within the text of the consultation document, we have expressed concerns in relation to the justification of many of the Preferred Options - particularly where these have Lane Use implications. Whilst not necessarily opposing any particular proposal, we have been unable to establish a paper trail which would convince us that such proposals are indeed justified in themselves or sufficiently tested. In some respects, the danger is that unless there is a clear testing of options against agreed criteria leading through a sieving process to establish the most appropriate locations for growth, then the process is not very different from the old style Local Plan system. It is this introduction of "better assessment" which is critical in terms of determining 'soundness'. An example of this crucial defect is the identification of General Locations requiring the loss of Green Belt land without any reference to the evaluation of the relative effects of that encroachment in relation to the purposes of the Green Belt. We believe these fundamental concerns need to be addressed in order to achieve reasonable confidence in the Core Strategy.

PART B: SCHEDULE OF REQUESTED AMENDMENTS

We set out below the main amendments we are seeking and suggesting to the Core Strategy Preferred Options some of which we believe to be necessary in order to make the document 'sound'.

1. Insert text which recognises the need to adopt a strategy which seeks to make the District more self-contained and hence more sustainable.

2. Supplement the main employment growth proposals with complementary proposals relating to smaller and localised employment initiatives likely to reduce the lengths of journey to work.

3. Refer consistently to Rochford/Ashingdon and Hockley/Hawkwell rather than just Rochford and Hockley.

4. Provide a fuller explanation of how the 'Vision' is to be realised through the implementation of the key planning objectives.

5. Provide evidence to support the claim that "The preferred distribution is based not simply on which areas are the most sustainable at present, but also on how residential development can contribute to, and marry with, other strategies - particularly in relation to town centre vitality, environmental issues and employment - to ensure long term sustainable development within the District".

6. Set out a coherent strategy which closely and geographically associates housing needs, employment and community facilities based on sound sustainability principles.

7. Demonstrate how the coherent strategy referred to in (6) above has informed the General Locations for new housing and other forms of development.

8. Provide supporting evidence to justify the locations and capacity for the release of land pre- and post-2015 and post 2021.

9. Amend text to delete reference to pepper-potting affordable housing and refer instead to the need to avoid large blocks of affordable housing and the need to integrate affordable and free-market housing in a harmonious way.

10. Explain the relative effects of the General Locations identified in H2 and H3 on the Green Belt.

11. Commit to undertake a comprehensive review of the Green Belt boundary to enable small sites to come forward for development at the Site Allocations DPD stage where this would not harm the purposes of the Green Belt, sepecially where a rationalisation of the boundary is justified.

12. Delete reference to "strategic buffers" as their purpose will continue to be achieved by the Green Belt.

13. Insert the words "Where-appropriate," at the beginning of H5.

14. Make explicit that opportunities should be explored for the provision of recreational and amenity land within or adjoining General Locations.

15. Provide clearer evidence to show a coordinated approach to the provision for housing and employment in order to meet the tests of soundness.

16. Consider including the more important rural and natural resource notations on the Key Diagram.