General Locations Post-2021
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Representation ID: 3261
Received: 20/11/2008
Respondent: Hockley Residents Association
The CS proposes around 12 housing sites scattered across the district. No consideration has been given to option of focusing development in a few locations The CS process errs in not considering the option of a few sites and risks future legal challenge.
The Seaside/Colonnade proposal for housing east of Rochford, and other planning applications for this area, represents a valid alternative option which needs to be addressed. Why have RDC not considered this option?
Neither is any consideration given to future expansion, already proposed by ERRA/ECC. This is shortsighted and risks future problems.
The CS proposes around 12 housing sites scattered across the district. No consideration has been given to option of focusing development in a few locations The CS process errs in not considering the option of a few sites and risks future legal challenge.
The Seaside/Colonnade proposal for housing east of Rochford, and other planning applications for this area, represents a valid alternative option which needs to be addressed. Why have RDC not considered this option?
Neither is any consideration given to future expansion, already proposed by ERRA/ECC. This is shortsighted and risks future problems.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Representation ID: 3309
Received: 24/11/2008
Respondent: Mr Spencer Croucher
I believe the strategy to delay post 2021 to a leter date to not be in the public interest. Lets hit this problem once with firm proposals and not drag out the process.
I believe the strategy to delay post 2021 to a leter date to not be in the public interest. Lets hit this problem once with firm proposals and not drag out the process.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Representation ID: 3402
Received: 08/12/2008
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Policy H2 advises that in order to ensure that an adequate five year supply, that the policy needs to adopt a flexible approach with regards the timing and release of land for residential development, however, in light of the current economic climate sites that are identified for the period up to 2021, may not come forward for a variety of reasons and need to be augmented by site(s) identified in period 2021 - 2025 in order to maintain the 15 year supply. If these sites are not delineated within the Allocations Development Document it would be more difficult for these sites to address the shortfall. Therefore, the sites for the period 2021 - 2025 shoudl also be delineated in the Allocations Development Plan Document, or have the ability to bring sites from the later period's forward, if some sites are not able to be delivered.
The objective of the Local Development Framework is not just about allocating sufficient land to provide new homes but is about ensuring that, subject to the prevailing market conditions, allocations will actually deliver the required amount of housing over the plan period. This relies largely on allocating sites where there is a real prospect (available, suitable and achievable), of delivery within the anticipated timescale. It also requires a mechanism to ensure that sufficient sites are brought forward at the right time to enable delivery.
This approach is consistent with the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which advocates a local planning authorities to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of housing land that reflects the 'Plan, Monitor, Manage' approach. This supports the need for a clear policy approach that indicates the timing of potential housing sites in relation to the housing trajectory and the 5 year supply of land. In addition, to the 5 year supply of deliverable land, PPS3 also requires a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and where possible, years 11-15. Sufficient sites will therefore be allocated up top 2026 to meet the 15 year requirement in PPS3. In the event that the market does not deliver sufficient homes to meet requirements, sites will be brought forward from future year's allocations to ensure housing delivery targets are met.
As we are currently in a period of recession it is not unreasonable that some of the sites allocated in the early years of the 15 year supply may not come forward as for a combination of reasons the sites may no longer be deliverable (eg no longer available and/or achievable). In addition, it is necessary to provide private housing in order to ensure that the associated/linked affordable housing is also provided.
Therefore, in order to ensure that a continuous 5 year supply is maintained it may be necessary for sites identified in future years to be brought forward and to ensure this to happen these sites should also be specifically delineated on the Proposals Map, which accompanies the Allocations Development Plan Document.
Please find attached our respresentations in respect of the Core Strategy preferred Options (October 2008) which have been submitted on behalf of our client (Aber Ltd).
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Representation ID: 3639
Received: 14/12/2008
Respondent: Mr A James
I believe the required additional homes should be built as a new village with self-contained services in the west of Rochford from a new access road to the A1245 (old A130). This is by far the best location for access to the existing trunk road network and would eliminate the detrimental effect on the rest of the district.
I believe the required additional homes should be built as a new village with self-contained services in the west of Rochford from a new access road to the A1245 (old A130). This is by far the best location for access to the existing trunk road network and would eliminate the detrimental effect on the rest of the district.