H1 Distribution - Preferred Option

Stop further development in the whole area and concentrate on health & well being of existing residents! We are entitled to an improving quality of life - not the slow chipping away cased by creeping over population in this area!
Stand up to central Govt and say NO!

We thank you for your letter of notification dated 5th November 2008 giving us the opportunity as an interested party to comment on the above and we respond as follows.

Provision for future housing in the Rochford District.

On the basis of past study of the Local Development Framework and previous, associated support documents which reject various alternative options such as a new town wholly constructed in the greenbelt, we consider the Council and the Planning Directorate have basically got it right for the following reasons, subject to certain comments herewith.

It is understood that the Council has a legal liability to make provision for a certain quota of future housing in the district the numbers being dictated by representative agencies of the Government. If adequate provision is not made by the Council, these outside agencies will have the power to dictate where and when such provision will be made. Something no one who lives in the Rochford District would really like to see.

We also understand that the total housing target for the period 2001 to 2021 is 4600 and from this year (2008) 3790 remain to be completed by 2021.

We believe that the Council's Policy H1 Distribution - Preferred Option of allocating sites a selective but more general spread in areas adjoining the existing settlement envelopes within the district, is the fairest and best case scenario. Also Policy H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option we feel is the best way forward under the circumstances. All settlements have previously evolved in this way and objectors should be mindful not to deny the district's young and relocating families the same choice, means and opportunity to live and work in the Rochford District.

Accepting that a singular equivalent development sited wholly in the greenbelt would destroy the existing character of the Rochford District, it is apparent that prospective sites within the existing town planning envelopes of the various settlements are inadequate to accommodate all of the required future development. Therefore, some areas of land currently designated greenbelt, albeit a minimum, will have to be released to supplement the deliverable land supply needed for the district's future development.

It is important that great care should be taken (although general quotas have to be met) that proposed gypsy/traveller sites and social rented housing should not be too concentrated in singular locations in the Allocations Development Plan Document. If the Council should fail to take such care we feel that this would change the character as well as the standards of the Rochford District, and place a greater burden on certain community resources. We therefore consider that social housing should be dispersed within mixed new housing projects as outlined in Policies H4 Affordable Housing - Preferred Option and H5 Dwelling Types - Preferred Option, in a sympathetic way together with intermediate, key worker and market housing to create a more sustainable development.

It makes sense that allocated sites will have to be within reasonable reach of existing services which may in some cases have to be extended or upgraded. Where specific sites are eventually allocated, landowners/developers should be encouraged to contribute to appropriate Section 106 Agreements to help facilitate any necessary upgrading of infra-structure (including local road improvement) but with due regard to viability.

Finally, in relation to the foregoing and with regard to requirements set out in H Appendix 1, as long standing landowners and residents of Rochford District, we feel it may be helpful in recommending to the Council and Planning Directorate, our joint deliverable proposal with Swan Housing Association, submitted under the Council's Call for Sites (Ref No 17) within the context of the release of greenbelt land in south west Hullbridge that the Council and Planning Directorate may decide to make.

Castle Point Borough Council (CPBC) support Rochford District Council's approach to the provision and distribution of housing. It is important to prioritise the use of previously developed land, however CPBC recognise that to avoid over development of the existing urban area it is necessary to allocate sites on the urban periphery for residential development.

CPBC would seek to ensure that urban periphery sites allocated for residential development are assessed with regard to their contribution to the functions of the Green Belt as set out in PPG2. Urban periphery sites should also be assessed with regard to their potential contribution to sustainable development and benefits for the wider community. It is crucial that allocated sites are deliverable in order to achieve the required level of housing provision as set out in the East of England Plan.

Stop further development in the area and concentrate on what we already have look after existing residents! We are entitled to improvments keep them nice and green and not leave us with a built up jungle. Let us all try to stand up to the Government and say NO we may be heard!!!

I want Rochford District Council to be careful that the outskirts of Wakering do not become joined to Shoeburyness. No offence intended to the residents of Shoebury, but the space around it gives Wakering its character. Any development close to the borders now could lead to linking developments between the two in years to come.

The general approach outlined to the proposed distribution of housing is supported, including recognition that there is insufficient urban capacity to accommodate the District's housing requirement in the Plan period and beyond to 2025 as required by GOEE. The principle of allocating land on the edge of existing settlements to meet the requirement is also endorsed, however, this must be focussed on the highest tier settlements in the most sustainable locations.

I support your proposals to use already developed land, however from the evidence shown as to where housing is proposed in Rawreth and West Rayleigh your intentions are clearly different. The farm land to the north of London Road is greenbelt, not brownfield, this makes a nonsense of your proposals

The Core Strategy does not follow the RDC approved strategy of developing in the tier 1&2 settlements. Rayleigh has virtually no development but Raweth has hundres of new houses

Residents are not given an alternative option of development being focussed in one or two places. the Colonnade/Seaside proposal demonstrates such an option is viable and sustainable.

No costings have been undertaken to support the proposals and it is unlikely that sufficient finances can be found to fund widespread, scatterred development. Consequently the CS iis not viable or sustainable.

RDC has stated,"We want your views!" yes but will they listen to what residents want and further more will they take any notice?
As a resident of Rawreth I find it difficult to believe they will.
The LDF Committee, with the exception of one Lib Dem councillor, had blatantly refused to admit that 850 residential properties are proposed on green belt within Rawreth and a further 200 on brown field at the Rawreth Industrial Estate.
Descriptions such as 'Rayleigh, north of London Road' being used to distort the true fact that this is in fact Rawreth.
Recent local pressure has caused RDC to admitted that Rawreth does exist. why the deceit, what happened to honesty?
RDC policy stated 'Fair Shares For All' but the preferred allocation for Rawreth will increase dwellings by 270%. 80% of which is on green belt. No other Town or village allocation comes anywhere near this figure and it is an unwanted level of expansion

Disagree with last sentence should substitute with ;Remaining housing should be allocated on appropriate sites on the edge of existing settlements or within smaller settlements to enhance lives of all residents where infrastructure needs improving .

When considering green field sites, the quality of the land for agricultural purposes should be considered. With a growing world population, food output will become more and more important in the future and permanently removing good agricultural land from use by building on it is not sustainable.

The stated government policy of 60% brown field first before green field seems to have been reversed, with many potential sites for building being of a green field nature.

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.

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.

I wish to object to the Core Strategy Preferred Options for housing distribution, in particular, the housing allocation in the Parish of Rawreth or , as you misleadingly call it, "North of London Road, Rayleigh"!!!
A development of this magnitude on prime farmland is wholly unsustainable, disproportionate and would destroy the rural character of the area.
This plan appears to be poorly thought out and does not consider the social, environmental and economic impact it would have.
Quality farmland is increasingly in short supply at a time when we are becoming more reliant on home grown produce, and future demand will only grow.

I am concerned that housing is being allocated to North & West of district but employment will be in South East creating additional traffic, with no road improvements, contrary to Government policy.

I wish to object to the Core Strategy Preferred Options for housing distribution, in particular, the housing allocation in the Parish of Rawreth or , as you misleadingly call it, "North of London Road, Rayleigh"!!!
A development of this magnitude on prime farmland is wholly unsustainable, disproportionate and would destroy the rural feel and character of the area.
This plan appears to be poorly thought out and does not consider the social, environmental and economic impact it would have.
Good farmland is increasingly in short supply at a time when we are becoming more reliant on home grown produce, and future demand will only grow.

The 650 homes for this site, not including the further 200 on Rawreth Industrial Estate, plus the 540 proposed for "Southwest Hullbridge" (also in Rawreth) represent an increase of over 300% in housing stock for Rawreth - hardly a fair and proportionate allocation.
The infrastructure cannot withstand such expansion and any improvements are likely to be minimal.
Rawreth Lane and London Road are frequently at a standstill already, due to the amount of traffic forced to use these routes, and adding some 1500 to 1800 additional vehicles to this gridlock is unwise to say the least.
Upgrading Beeches Road and Watery Lane would be horrendously expensive and only create a huge bottleneck at the Battlesbridge end.
Public transport is wholly inadequate and being progressively scaled down.
Rayleigh West Sewage Works is already unable to cope with demand as witnessed by the frequent smell of raw sewage emanating from the site and drifting across the area.
The water courses in this area also suffer frequent flood conditions due to excessive surface run off.

I do recognise that there is a requirement for additional housing, but there are more suitable sites that RDC do not appear to be considering, such as the Hambro Nursery site on the eastern side, and the garages site on the western side, of the A1245, both with easy access to a major road. These would accommodate a substantial amount of housing and also add focus to Rawreth Village.
I can also reluctantly accept the proposal for Rawreth Industrial Estate provided these units are included in the allocation figures, not additional to.
I'm sure that there are several other smaller sites within the district that would be more suitable and sustainable without ruining this "Green and Pleasant Gateway to the District of Rochford" which helps make it a desirable place to live.
Perhaps a larger site near Canewdon would justify the revival of former plans for a northern relief road to serve that area and bypass existing congested roads, whilst regenerating what is reportedly a dying community due to it's remote location?

The Council should seek to renegotiate these figures and not just accept the government edict. I'm sure you would enjoy the full support of residents if such a stand was taken - Remember, it is our votes that keep you in office.

1050 dwellings,an increase of 270% in the Rawreth area is an unfair share. What percentage have the other areas been allocated? The roads struggle to cope with the increased traffic from the new developments now. Goodness knows what will happen if we are lumbered with even 1 car per household. With over 4000 dwellings planned for the District , this will result in gridlock at busy times. We regularly have standing traffic outside our house (Rawreth Lane). Why has RDC tried to conceal the fact that the dwellings are in Rawreth not Rayleigh. We are not idiots!

The estimated number of houses put forward by the Government for future development we feel is grossly over exagerated, in particular the amount estimated for the Thames Gateway area. This area is already highly conjested and existing infastructure is already at maximum capacity. If these figures are correct then the most logical answer would be to develop previously developed land and resist greenfield site development. Infilling and intensification of smaller sites within residential areas however should only be carried out sympathetically and be in character with its surroundings. Flat land development should not be used as concentrated housing methods, more traditional forms of housing with front door, own driveway/off street parking should be adopted, this would encourage a more neighbourhood friendly society. Existing residents views should be given full consideration before building new developments and their standard of living conditiions should not be reduced or downgraded by cramming in too many dwellings on small sites which is happening at the present time.

POLICY H1 SUPPORT

1. We support the prioritisation of previously developed land for new development but
feel that the capacity of sites in existing urban areas to produce sufficient numbers of
dwellings to meet the requirements set out in the East of England Plan is now
significantly reduced. We therefore support the need to allocate land for development on
the edge of existing settlements. This should be in the form of sustainable urban
extensions, as self sufficient as possible in terms of facilities for community use, health,
leisure, employment and neighbourhood retail, and providing excellent mobility by
means of a range of non-car modes within the urban extension, between the urban
extension and the accessible countryside and between the urban extension and the
existing urban area. We believe that the best opportunity for such a development in the
District is to the north of Rayleigh, where 40 hectares of land at Lubards Lodge Farm is
immediately available for this purpose.

2. Lubards Lodge Farm provides an excellent opportunity to create a sustainable urban
extension by building a mixed and integrated development providing housing,
employment, leisure and community facilities, whilst reinforcing a strategic undeveloped
gap to ensure the permanent separation of Rayleigh and Hullbridge.

3. Development north of Rayleigh would be the least damaging option for the town in
landscape impact terms. The sites to the west and south west of Rayleigh are highly
visible from the main roads that surround them, whereas the land at Lubards Lodge Farm,
which dips sharply northwards from Rawreth Lane, is not visible from major roads.

4. A significant proportion of the land bound by the A1245, A129 and Rawreth Lane is
assessed by the Environment Agency to be at risk of flooding and the area is crossed
north south by parallel power lines. No part of Lubards Lodge Farm is at risk of flooding,
and the power line that passes across the north of the site would be in part of the
undeveloped strategic gap.

5. A legal undertaking would be offered to ensure that about 16 hectares of land towards
the northern end of Lubbards Lodge Farm were reserved in perpetuity partly for open
leisure uses and partly for extensive woodland planting. This, together with the existing
golf course to the east of Hullbridge Road, would provide a very effective landscaped
buffer between the two settlements ensuring their permanent separation in accordance
with the aims of Green Belt policy.

6. Lubbards Lodge Farm contains an existing vibrant employment area of 3.5 hectares
on a rectangular site on the western side of Hullbridge Road, about 450m north of its
junction with Rawreth Lane. This site presently consists of a large number of former farm
buildings of various shapes and sizes and has gradually become established over the
years as an important reservoir of premises for local start up businesses. In other
representations to this Core Strategy document we argue for the designation of this large
area of "previously developed land" as an employment area, to enable the expansion and
redevelopment of the existing buildings within the confines of the site.

7. The existing employment area could also provide the anchor for an expanded
employment area to the south of the existing site. The fields to the south of the existing
employment area total about 5 hectares. This would create an Employment Park superior
to the current preferred option south of London Road, Rayleigh in policy ED4 (see our
representations to that policy).

8. It is envisaged that this enlarged employment area would be closely integrated with
housing development occupying the fields to the west and south up to Rawreth Lane.
These fields have an area of about 18 hectares, capable of accommodating 540 dwellings
at 30 dph. The appropriate balance between employment and housing land could be
debated, but this option offers the potential to integrate new employment with new
housing effectively to create a genuinely sustainable community, unlike the distinct
housing and employment site options being considered west of Rayleigh.

9. In transport terms the site would be 1.5kms from Rayleigh station and could be
integrated into the town's public transport network. New footpath and cycle routes would
be developed, not only within the urban extension, but also linking across Rawreth Lane
and Hullbridge Road into the existing urban area, by tunnel or bridge or both. These new
links would have the added benefit of bringing the open countryside to the north,
especially the area of open leisure uses suggested as part of this proposal, within easier
reach of the existing resident population of Rayleigh. Some upgrading of the junctions of
Rawreth Lane/ Hullbridge Road and Rawreth Lane/A1245 would be desirable and could
be funded from these proposals.

Stolkin and Clements (Southend) LLP support this policy which seeks to protected the character of existing settlements by resisting the intensification of use of smaller sites within residential areas.

No further residential development around Rayleigh until existing access problems to the High Street are addressed.

The Town is being strangled by through traffic and comuters. Access to open spaces & views is being swallowed up by development.

The District Council's prioritisation of the reuse of previously developed land within settlements for additional housing is supported.

Preferred Option H1 (Housing Distribution), contains the only reference to density of development in the Core Strategy and this is limited to stating that a density of 60+ dwellings per hectare (dph) may be appropriate in town centres. The opportunity should be taken to 'flag up' an expectation of there being higher densities in sustainable locations to help safeguard Green Belt land in the district. The District Council intends to adopt the Urban Place Supplement, and scenarios set out in the Supplement, for example, 'Compact Development' appropriate for sustainable locations, such as town centres, sets out a minimum of 75 dph as being appropriate. It is suggested that the Core Strategy be amended to indicate that a density of 75+ dph may be appropriate in town centres and also to give a fuller assessment of density expectations at other types of location.

The broad approach of H1 is fully supported. Priority should be given to the re-use of previously developed land identified as being appropriate for development as part of the Urban Capacity Study (UCS) 2007.

The UCS is however considered to underestimate the number of units which are likely to come forward from previously developed sites including those at Stambridge Mills and Star Lane Brickworks, Great Wakering.

H1 should therefore state that maximum use will be made of previously developed sites identified in the UCS subject to the need to achieve sustainable development objectives including proximity to and potential for improved infrastructure, access to services, deliverability, environmental improvement including the removal of contamination, the re-use of existing resources, and respecting physical constraints. Such use would minimise the need to release Green Belt land, and would be likely to result in more than 30% of new housing development being provided on previously developed land

This option appears to contradict one of the key objectives of this Core Strategy, ie the efficient and effective use of land, as well as National and Regional policy guidance. The density of development in existing 1st tier settlements is relatively low and there is considerable scope for intensification without 'town cramming'. This option cannot be considered sustainable.

Representations on behalf of
Swan Hill Homes Limited
RESPONDENT NUMBER: 5040

1.0 Instructions and Introduction

1.1 Charles Planning Associates Limited (Chartered Town Planners) is Instructed by Swan Hill Homes Limited (Swan Hill) to prepare and submit representations on their behalf in respect of the Rochford District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Preferred Options (October 2008) Development Plan Document.

1.2 The comments refer to the relevant sections and policy designations in the Preferred Options document, as appropriate.

1.3 The comments set out in this submission are intended to assist the District Council in taking forward its Local Development Framework. It is our intention to continue to be involved in the preparation process and we look forward to the opportunity to comment further at the Submission Version stage. Prior to the assessment of the Core Strategy Preferred Options (October 2008), Swan Hill had serious concerns regarding the way the document had been prepared. The lack of clearly defined policies meant that any policies would have only appeared in the Submission Version of the document, giving the Council no opportunity to make amendments, and limited opportunity for Consultees to see the exact policy position of the Council. It is considered that this Revised Preferred Options document has addressed this position, and enables Consultees to examine further the proposed position of the District Council, and the direction with which they are seeking to take their Core Strategy.

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

Peter Kneen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
Planner

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

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

2.0 Housing:

2.1 Swan Hill recognises the importance of seeking to concentrate new developments mainly in the existing urban areas, on previously developed land where possible, particularly in view of the Government seeking to ensure 60% of all such new developments are on previously development land (PDL).

2.2 However, given the character of the District, and the strategic housing requirement of the East of England Plan, Swan Hill supports the approach that the Council must also make provision for additional development on the edge of existing settlements on greenfield sites, particularly in the most sustainable locations. Swan Hill supports the approach that green field land on the edge of settlements that are released for development should not have a significant impact on the characteristics of the Green Belt, and that densities are in line with the objectives of PPS3 and reflect the local character of the settlement to which the extension is proposed.

Policy H1 - Distribution

2.3 Swan Hill generally supports the approach taken by the Council in this preferred option. As set out above, Swan Hill consider the Council's acknowledgment that housing requirements should be met through the allocation of land on the edge of the existing settlements is the most suitable way forward to meeting the Council's strategic housing requirement and complies with the advise in PPS3.

2.4 The need for suitable greenfield urban extensions represents the best way forward for the Council to meet its strategic housing requirement, as set out in the East of England Plan. Swan Hill supports the recognition that 70% of new residential properties will need to be on sustainable greenfield urban extensions to the existing settlements of the District.

2.5 As such, it is essential within the Core Strategy to establish general locations suitable for the expansion of settlements into the Green Belt. This should not be as site specific as determining the exact parameters of settlement expansions, but should include a general assessment around settlements where development could be accommodated without conflicting with the objectives of the Green Belt. Swan Hill considers that the Council has had regard to these implications in this version of the Core Strategy, and supports the overall distribution policy set out by the District Council.

Policy H2 - General Locations and Phasing

2.6 As set out above, Swan Hill supports the overall approach the Council has taken in this revised version of the Core Strategy, which has both recognised the need for sustainable green field urban extensions in addition to the recognition of the most suitable 'general' locations for such extensions.

2.7 Swan Hill considers that the level of provision for the Tier 1 and 2 settlements (Tier 1: Rochford/Ashingdon, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh; Tier 2: Great Wakering and Hullbridge), which represents almost 98% of the proposed urban extensions, is appropriate, particularly given that these settlements either benefit from established services and facilities or are located within good proximity to the important service centres surrounding the District, principally Shoeburyness and Southend. This approach, as also set out in the supporting text to Policy H2 would help ensure that the second and third tier settlements remain viable rural settlements, supporting their local communities.

2.8 Additionally, Swan Hill welcomes the recognition that the provision of development on larger sites, in these first and second tier settlements can positively contribute to infrastructure provision, particularly in areas where there is an identified need for improvements.

Policy H3 - General Locations Post 2021

2.9 Swan Hill supports the general principles of this policy, and that the Council has sought to make provision for a 15-year supply of housing land supply, from the date of adoption of the document, as set out in PPS3.

2.10 Policy H1 of the Adopted RSS, East of England Plan sets out a requirement for the remaining 5-year supply, beyond 2021 to be based on the higher amount of the annual average for the period 2001 to 2021 or 2006 to 2021, whichever is higher. Based on this assessment, the 5-year period beyond 2021 would make a minimum requirement for 1,000 dwellings. However, Swan Hill considers it is important that the Policy provision sets out that this is a minimum level, and is likely to change over the course of the Core Strategy period.

2.11 Whilst Policy H3 sets out a degree of flexibility towards the deliverability of these 'general locations', it is important that Policy H3 sets out that the potential number of units proposed on those 'general locations' are a minimum, based on the current Adopted East of England Plan. Further, the East of England Plan is currently under review, and it is likely that the strategic annual housing figure for the period beyond 2021 is likely to increase. This should be reflected in Policy H3.

Policy H4 - Affordable Housing

2.12 In general terms, Swan Hill supports the approach taken by the Council towards the provision of affordable housing for new residential developments. Additionally, the threshold is considered the most appropriate, given that most developments below 15 dwellings or 0.5ha may not be viable to support an element of affordable housing, unless being provided solely for affordable housing.

2.13 The proposed Policy sets out a degree of flexibility for those sites which, if demonstrated by the developer that a provision of 35% affordable housing would make a scheme unviable, has been included. However, it is considered that a greater degree of flexibility should be set out in the policy, in order to ensure the level of affordable homes is considered through negotiation with the Council, and that each application is assessed on a site-by-site basis.

2.14 Additionally, it is considered that many Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) may consider the 'pepper potting' of affordable dwellings throughout larger sites can have significant logistical and cost implications which could discourage RSLs from wanting to take up those units. Whilst Swan Hill acknowledges the benefits of pepper potting affordable housing units around a large development, as this would ensure less disparity between those units and the open market units, clustering affordable housing units together, whether that is in one area or in groups can significantly reduce costs and logistical management issues for many RSLs, making them more attractive to manage and rent.

Policy H5 - Dwelling Types

2.15 Swan Hill supports the policy provision of H5, and considers that the approach taken by the Council for this policy represents a suitably flexible alternative to stipulating percentages of dwelling mix, sought by some local authorities. With the exception of providing a suitable proportion of the provision of affordable units with three-bedrooms, the policy appears to represent to best option for ensuring flexibility for new housing developments, enabling developers to ensure the most up-to-date market assessments play a pivotal role in determining the appropriate level of mix, at any given time.

2.16 In respect of the reference to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Thames Gateway South Essex, it is important that if the Council chooses to rely on such assessments as a key factor in determining the appropriate level of mix, it is important that such an assessment is up-to date, and represent the most appropriate model for assessment the level of housing requirements.

Policy H6 - Lifetime Homes

2.17 In regard to this policy, Swan Hill objects to the Council's preferred options where all new dwellings should be provided to the Lifetime Homes Standard. Whilst it is acknowledged that the UK has an aging population, Swan Hill considers the Alternative Option set out in the Core Strategy represents the most suitable option for this type of policy provision. Seeking to provide Lifetime Homes on all sites is considered to be overly onerous for proposed developers, particularly when considering the requirement for all car parking spaces to be suitable for disabled users, which could result in more schemes becoming unviable. Therefore, the provision of a degree of Lifetime Homes should be considered through negotiations with the Council at the planning application stage, and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

3.0 The Green Belt:

Policy GB1 - Green Belt Protection

3.1 Swan Hill generally supports the policy approach taken towards the protection of the Green Belt, where the key objectives of PPG2 can be met and maintained. It is important that Policy GB1 has regard to the need for a review of the Green Belt boundaries around the key settlements of the District, in order to achieve the required level of residential development required by the East of England Plan.

3.2 As such, and whilst a review of the Green Belt is set out in the supporting text, Swan Hill considers that Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy should be amended to address the need to review the Green Belt boundaries as a means to ensure that minor greenfield sustainable extensions to the settlements can occur without offending the overarching policy objectives of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Policy GB2 - Rural Diversification and Recreational Uses

3.3 Swan Hill generally supports the Council's policy approach towards rural diversification and provision of recreational uses within the Green Belt.

4.0 Environmental Issues:

Policy ENV3 - Flood Risk

4.1 Swan Hill supports the preferred option approach towards dealing with settlements at risk of flooding. Whilst Great Wakering is identified as a particular area at risk of flooding, this is predominantly associated with the eastern part of the settlement, and as such should not be considered as an overriding constraint to development at other parts of the settlement. Swan Hill concurs with the Council that restricting all new development away from Great Wakering could have a significant adverse impact on the long term viability of the settlement.

4.2 Swan Hill supports the Council's collaboration with the Environment Agency in seeking to ensure Great Wakering is protected from flooding for the existing and future residents.

Policy ENV4 - Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS)

4.3 In respect of Policy ENV4, Swan Hill supports the general principle of sustainable drainage systems. However, given the difficulties in transferring the future management and operation of SUDS to water companies and local authorities, it is not considered appropriate to require the provision of SUDS as a pre-requisite to development in all cases.

4.4 As such, it is considered that the provision of SUDS should be considered on a site-by-site basis, and the level of provision should form part of the negotiations at the planning application stage of the larger developments in the District.

Policy ENV8 - Code for Sustainable Homes

4.5 The need to provide all new dwellings to the Code level 3 of the 'Code for Sustainable Homes' by 2010 is a key objective of the Government. This policy approach is supported by Swan Hill. However, Swan Hill consider the requirement to achieve Code level 6 by 2013 is unrealistic and whilst Swan Hill recognises the importance of this issue, and the desire for carbon neutral homes, producing this on all new dwellings by 2013 could have significant implications on the cost of developments, viability and deliverability. The Government target for achieving Code Level 6 for new dwellings is 2016, and as such, Swan Hill considers the Council should not seek to supersede Government policy on this matter.

5.0 Transport:

Policy T1 - Highways

5.1 Swan Hill supports the overall objectives set out in Policy T1 requiring developments to be located and designed to reduce the reliance on the private car and to meet the infrastructure needs generated by development or seek to help achieve these needs is acceptable in principle.

5.2 Swan Hill recognises the importance between providing sufficient infrastructure provision to meet the requirements of development, and that where developments have no consideration of impact on existing infrastructure, they should be considered unacceptable and contrary to National policy guidance. However, Swan Hill considers it important to emphasise that the developer's role should not be seen as a means to meet existing shortfalls in provision.

Policy T2 - Public Transport

5.3 Swan Hill supports the policy approach taken by the Council on Policy T2.

Policy T4 - Travel Plans

5.4 Swan Hill supports the policy approach taken by the Council on Policy T4.

Policy T5 - Cycling and Walking

5.5 Swan Hill supports the general approach to this policy, as Swan Hill recognises the importance of promoting the use of alternatives to the private car. However, it is important that any policy on the provision of additional off site facilities is based on a site-by-site assessment, and should be related to the impact generated by the development proposed.

5.6 As such, Swan Hill considers this policy should allow for a greater degree of flexibility on the provision and justification of off-site improvements to the cycle and pedestrian network of the District.

Policy T7 - Parking Standards

5.7 The Council has recently (January 2007) adopted SPD on the requirements for parking standards, and as such, Swan Hill supports the policy approach chosen by the Council. However, Swan Hill consider it relevant that the Council set out within the wording of the policy that they have adopted supplementary guidance, which should be applied by developers in the preparation of proposals.

6.0 Character of Place:

Policy CP1 - Design

6.1 The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (As Amended) makes the submission of a Design and Access Statement for most types of planning applications a Statutory requirement, and as such, the provision of a Design Brief represents a pre-requisite of all major planning applications.

6.2 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure the provision of good, high quality developments that reflect local characteristics and distinctiveness, this ideology is supported by Swan Hill.

7.0 Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism:

Policy CLT1 - Planning Obligations and Standard Charges

7.1 Swan Hill generally supports the overall approach the Council has taken in Policy CLT1. It is considered Policy CLT1 sets out a degree of flexibility to ensure that all sites are considered on a site-by-side basis, assessing the individual merits of each planning application, in order to ensure the levels of contributions applicable meet the five tests of Circular 05/05.

Policies CLT5 - Open Space;
CLT7 - Play Space;
CLT8 - Youth Facilities; and,
CLT10 - Playing Pitches

7.2 Swan Hill supports the need for new residential developments to incorporate a degree of new publicly accessible open space, children's play space, youth facilities and playing pitches, and as such, generally supports the policy approaches taken by the Council.

7.3 However, it is important that whilst the Council may seek to undertake an assessment of providing standard charges for new development, which, as set out in Policy CLT1, this should be based on thorough public consultation and consideration and sound justification. Swan Hill consider that within the provision of a standard charge, it is important that such provision allows for a degree of flexibility to ensure that each site is assessed individually and on its own merits. This is particularly important for those sites close to existing open spaces and facilities. As such, the levels of open space and recreation facilities required in the 'standard charge' should be based on an up-to-date PPG17 Open Space assessment, which should be used to form a key consideration in the levels of provision likely to be required in the standard charge system proposed.

Policy CLT6 - Community Facilities

7.4 Swan Hill supports the approach set out by the Council in policy CLT6, and in particular, that the Council has identified a need for new community facilities within Great Wakering.

8.0 Summary:

8.1 In Summary, Swan Hill considers that overall the 2008 version of the Core Strategy presents a significant improvement on the earlier document, and seeks to address the strategic housing requirements for the District up to and beyond 2021 with clarity. However, it is considered that in general terms the Core Strategy is overly prescriptive and detailed, dealing with too many issues and providing too many policies that could be and should be dealt with in other Development Plan Documents, such as the Development Control Policies DPD. Whilst some of the policies provide flexibility and allow for the individual assessment of development proposals through negotiations with the Council, Swan Hill considers that many of these can removed from the Core Strategy, to be considered later in other DPDs.

8.2 Swan Hill considers the Core Strategy could be significantly reduced in size, in order to provide a more concise, directed document, which deals with the key, overarching strategic policy requirements of the District, as required by PPS12.