Introduction

Housing to be scattered, mainly to West and North of District whilst industry will be concentrated in South East.

The impact of thousand of extra car movements each day is unsustainable. Roads like the B1013 are already at near full capacity and the railway bridges across the district are pinch point which will difficult and expensive to circumvent. This approach contravenes government policy PPG4.

PP4 says: "encourage new development in locations that can be served by more energy efficient modes of transport". The CS does the opposite with housing mainly in West and North. Bus services are non-existant.

Non consideration given to how traffic will access airport across the District with its numerous railway bridge pinchpoints

Housing development is being spread across the northern boundry of the District but idustry will be around the airport in the SE side, creating extra traffic in contravention of government policy.

Character of Place
Whilst agreeing it is desirable to keep the traditional buildings, where possible the public would wish to see any new build in keeping and fitting in with the character of the surrounding areas.

Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism
Without a comprehensive assurance that the Infrastructure i.e. Sewers, Roads, Bus Routes, Schools, Recreational and Medical Facilities are dealt with at the OUTSET of ANY new scheme would occur, then without this assurance, a ghetto type scheme would occur, with building being done for the sake of putting up bricks and mortar. At this moment in time there is great concern at the reduction of bus services and bus routes. This council feels it is rather a short sighted view and needs to be dealt with in the very near future.

Green Areas
It is vital our Green areas, some under Green Belt and some under recreational land is retained where possible. If this is reduced too much then the question will be that the health of the new and existing population will start to suffer. The idea of the Upper Roach Valley and Wallasea Island schemes is good - for those who are able to travel to and take advantage of these areas. They will of course aid the conservation of the wildlife habitats for all to benefit by.

Economic Development
Under this heading comes London Southend Airport. Now that the lease has been purchased we will all wait with some trepidation for the "preferred options" to come to light. There are very few people who do not want the Airport to succeed but the overwhelming concern is regarding the likelihood of the 24 hour operational action at the Airport, and with the proposed obvious increase in flights, quite a large proportion of the residents of both Rochford and Southend would have very little sleep. This would cause enormous health and economic problems - watch this space very carefully.

Housing
Unfortunately, no actual maps are yet available, the location on the given maps being somewhat vague. There is a genuine concern that the infrastructure for a further 2489 dwellings will be unable to cope BUT we realise, with an ever increasing population they are necessary.
Yes, they can be added on to already existing areas but perhaps a new village could be created towards the Rawreth Lane - London Road are of Rayleigh, bearing in mind a large new build has already been completed on the Park School Site. This would include shopping areas, schools, medical and recreational areas including village halls and of course the very necessary public transport facilities.

Green Belt
There must be a limited and tightly controlled release of Green Belt, but only if absolutely necessary. Once a start is made, without very tight control, they you might as well say bye-bye to it. It is a very necessary Green Lung.
Again no actual proposed plans are available.


Overall Views
Overall, whilst we do agree it is very necessary to look at sites for new housing and employment facilities etc., to be built and encouraged, without the infrastructure that is already in existence being vastly improved i.e. farmers making sure all ditches are cleared and lined where necessary to stop flooding, adequate sewage pipes and drains are attended to, roads and pavements brought up to date, then if the relevant Councils do not address these problems, what chance is there for any new proposals being dealt with properly.

Regarding the booklet on the Core Strategy. I wish to comment on the information contained. Air quality is mentioned, so why is so much being spoken about the expansion of Southend Airport when the exhaust gases from jet engines is one of the worst polluters. You can have quieter engines but you cannot get rid of exhaust gases.

Also your document states there are more old people living in Rochford than most towns, this is true, and they require a retirement of peace which will be displaced with airport expansion.

Coupled to the above will be more lorry movements plus disturbance by night flights.

Recently we learn of a plan to reduce bus services, so that will mean more cars, so more pollution.

On employment issues if Rochford District Council had done more to support the people opposed to the closure of Rochford Hospital you would still have employment for dozens of people, especially those just leaving school. My children used the hospital to start out on lives working, as did many others.

On the housing issue, I would like to see more homes built instead of flats everywhere.

Flats are not an acceptable accommodation for bringing up children, they need a garden to play in.

Therefore, with strict controls some small areas of the green belt could be utilised.

I also support the Wallasea Wetland Scheme, and welcome the views in the document.

Summing up no doubt you will not be suprised when I inform you that I am against Southend Airport Expansion, its pie in the sky.

I consider affordable housing is a myth, what you buy you have to pay for.

One day it will be pleasant to learn that the peoples views on house building numbers have been listened to and conveyed to the Government.

Response to Core Strategy - Local Government Framework Oct 2008-12-24

Thank you for opportunity to comment on the above and I make the following objections.

HOUSING

I object to proposals in Preferred Options under this heading in following 10 paras.

Numbers. I object to ordained housing numbers. Up to 2025, East of England Plan requires 5,600 minimum, of which, after actual and projected completions, gives remainder of 4,700, based on current need - adult children wanting to leave home, break-up of relationships, population projected increase from 78,489 to 87,000 by 2020s. This is largely supposition. Even the original remainder of 3,500 to 2021 after projected completions is too many. Notional redistribution of numbers around District centres following last Core Strategy consultation is fruitless when one studies the map showing areas excluded from development due to: flood plain, SSIs, conservation etc which comprise the bulk of the District. The built area plus projected green belt release won't sustain it. Don't forget, based on history, post 2025 Government will require ever more notional numbers accommodated.

Population. Planning Services express fear of continued out-migration due to housing shortage. In fact much known such migration is caused precisely by over-development, families looking to move to roomier, less claustrophobic environments. It will be necessary to discourage inward migration by persuading other Local Authorities to make improvements to education etc.

Much is made of the old causing a housing problem. This is skewed logic. The under 20 age group will not fall. The Office of National Statistics has reported a further baby boom commenced 2001 - an increase. The over 65 population will increase solely because the ageing earlier baby boom generation mostly under that age now will join them, but that doesn't increase population. The 24 to 64 age group will lose at the top and gain at the bottom.

In this connection complaint is made of the old hanging onto houses instead of down-sizing to so-called sheltered housing and allied ghettoes. If over-65s are found a problem, Third Reich had a solution that should appeal to EEDA: they could set up termination camps, with double benefit: get rid of them and clear their homes for redevelopment.

It should be pointed out much over-large new build market housing is for upwardly mobile, but middle and old aged persons from elsewhere, whose children have left home. An estate of 5 such units houses 10 persons. Some mansions are built or bought purposely for one person.

Distribution/General locations. I appreciate new concern with 'town cramming' and note view that Government target of 60% on 'brownfield' land is unrealistic (that damage already done) and that you propose much less. If this can be done with one Government target, why not cut down others?

I regret, however, that the newly restrictive approach against town cramming does not apply to 'windfall' development - very much of that has been done - over-dense, out of scale with existing dwellings, particularly in Hockley.

In this respect I'm sceptical of your new good intentions, as revised Urban Capacity Study 2007 notes 'intensification of existing residential land has made significantly larger contribution to housing figures than other forms of development..'.

Presumably the proposals listed under H2 and H3 are based on the 'call for sites' letter 2007 and have been offered by developers. The total for south Hawkwell of 350 to 2025 is over the top in relation to impact and land availability. It is bounded by over-busy B1013, former country lane. New roads required for it will mean compulsory purchase and some green belt residents will have to go.

Hockley seems unusually favoured with 50 units, but only as officials know well that windfall development will continue without restriction, as in the past, so no need to overdo target.

Core Strategy Preferred Options is a blank cheque, exact locations to be given in later allocations document.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

I object to outlined proposals as follows. The noted dire shortage, with waiting list of young looking to leave home, etc, has resulted from shed loads of council housing having been sold off under the Thatcher Government in 1980s, or you would not need this genre. Council housing was meant for two sections: first those who would never be able to afford a mortgage and should not be pressured to do so; secondly, first-timers who could not initially afford ownership, but with aid of cheap rent could save over time for a deposit on their own place.

CHARACTER OF PLACE AND DWELLING TYPES

I object to proposals for reasons in following 7 paras.

Traditional. It is noted that the District 'has character, appearance, much of which stems from traditional buildings that still dominate towns and villages'. Unfortunately, as I noted under housing, much of that has been eliminated, many remaining dwellings now threatened with same, as Locally Listed buildings and their environs have gone, especially in Hockley, though Rochford, Rayleigh, small settlements have been reasonably well spared in this respect.

Intensification. Rochford District recognises defects of intensification of residential areas and proposes limiting redevelopment not in keeping with density and character of the area. But failure to clarify that those terms both mean not only destruction of heritage, but replacement with edifices out of scale in bulk, area, height, will lead to jeopardy of existing homes. Some new build may be out of character, but might be acceptable if not out of scale. Planning Services have been known to decide planned over-large buildings comply with density - they might do numerically, but are over-dense proportionally.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment is happy for market housing to be out of scale with existing: '...recommends Local Authorities don't set rigid requirements for size of dwellings, particularly...market housing, market is adept at matching dwelling size to market demand at local level'. Precisely. The upwardly mobile private sector have no regard for others and want multi-bedroomed dwellings massively out of scale with neighbours (who are often unfortunate to be north of them) plus all sorts of intrusive security systems to match. This should be resisted.

Planning Policy Statement 3 states: 'Design which is inappropriate in its context and which fails to take opportunity for character and quality of area should not be accepted. Development which is not inclusive and does not fit with surroundings..'. This is just what the typical 'executive' house, in gated site, 'town' house (also 3 storey where locale is 2 storey), flats etc, encouraged for Hockley has done. So clearly Government dictate has not been followed in this regard.

Character of place. Much has been made of the idea that, unlike Rochford, Rayleigh, the small settlements, Hockley village is not where once sited - around Hockley Church a 12C Listed building, but is a construct arising with the railway in 1887, all growth haphazard and dated subsequently, having no heritage value. This is inaccurate.

The road from Rayleigh to Rochford, via Hockley was a country lane. What is now B1013 was made a toll road in 18C for coaches, which is why it by-passed the church. To my certain recollection a dozen period houses, as good or better than Rochford's, from Marigold Corner (Hawkwell end of Hockley hill) to the Spa Hotel, dating 17C to 19C, have been destroyed since c.1975 for redevelopment.

4 Tiers. Core Strategy proposes dividing District settlements into 4 tiers of graded sustainability for more housing, those in the 4th tier being thought unsuitable. No wonder such places as Paglesham, Foulness, Stambridge have closed schools, churches, for lack of people.

MATERIALS

My objections here should be included in those under Character of Place. Core Strategy notes 'modern standardised building materials and design have begun to erode character of the District'. That is very true: there is a new element of hard sell by contractors, who want to replace traditional work, materials, with eg. Plastics, spray paint, steel. Personally, to avoid this I have had to engage a contractor specializing in heritage work to do standard painting, repair of external cast iron, timber work. Formerly, any general building would have done the work required as asked without argument.

It is a joke that design is expected to be sympathetic to locale and in-house building styles to fit local setting, not other way round. It is too late. Developers have strived to spoil local setting precisely to jeopardise existing housing, so it can be acquired for redevelopment.

LOCAL LIST

I list my objections to proposals for preferred options under this heading in following 6 paras.

I note Rochford District Council dropped Local List just prior to enabling demolition of Black's Farm (1 Southend Road), which was on that list, a house and garden that certainly conformed to 'local distinctiveness and [central to] a cherished and local scene' in Hockley.

The List was ostensibly dropped as, so a former Planning policy Manager said, 'Government frowns on such Lists'. Other councils, unaware of that, retained theirs. His comment to an Inspector on objection to proposed flats redevelopment of 1 Southend Road 'Just politics, lot of local interest, nothing of character in that area', presumably presaging his plans for the area. He also remarked on intended replacement 'flats sell well' - not a planning consideration. Surprise, surprise! As soon as the item was successfully demolished, we learned more recent Government guidance encouraged Local Lists! 'There is now positive encouragement from Government in recent White Paper for such Lists and we propose to reintroduce one for the District'. How disingenuous can you get.?. Were they holding it back, then?

It seems to me where Hockley is concerned notional land values for developers are more important than anything standing on it. In fact a former councillor once said exactly that.

An adviser proposed an Article 4 Direction be served for 1 Southend Road (an embargo on demolition while listing is considered. If it fails, compensation may be payable to the developer by council). The council refused because of that risk. English Heritage, well documented, as also Dept. of Culture, didn't visit, but left the matter to Essex County Council heritage department, who were inevitably not interested from scratch. After all was too late, English Heritage even advised another time one should get a period building under threat put on the Local List! Meanwhile in the time when 3 Hockley period houses were demolished for redevelopment, including No1, there was sickening sight of several Rochford buildings under repair 'sponsored by English Heritage' and other funded organisations. In Rayleigh large sums of public money, including from Thames Gateway, Lottery, were spent on schemes such as the Mill. And to think the council begrudged an unlikely financial risk in respect of Article 4 on 1 Southend Road Hockley.

I insist that a draft Local List be issued for consultation for ALL residents, which right to propose or refuse what goes on it. If, as suggested in earlier Strategy document, new development is to be included, then all adjacent properties are to be included as a conservation area.

Heritage, etc, Award by RDC. In view of all the above, there is hypocrisy in this scheme for heritage style redevelopment. Period houses now demolished, are replaced with out of scale pseudo-period redevelopment, particularly, as a planner said, on 'important, significant hill top, hillside sites' (money) such as Etheldore Avenue and Southend Road. These are of doubtful marketability, but this award is a pretence of concern with heritage to hide the real facts.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORT

I list objections to proposals under this heading in following 5 paras.

Standard Charges. Though I welcome proposals at CLT 1 for developers to pay towards the problems caused by their plans, it is a pity these are not to be set at a realistically punitive level to discourage them from excessive schemes. It has been suggested if a developer won't provide required infrastructure, opportunity will be given to another who will. But what if first developer already owns the site council is keen to see developed? Also, there is still a risk that retention of S.106 Planning Agreements will cause developers to buy Consents they might not otherwise get.

South Hawkwell building proposal. Re H2 alternative options, namely N E Hockley thought unviable for development due to impact on highway network of traffic heading through/out of Hockley to Ashingdon, but development south of Hawkwell found better placed in relation to highway network and employment growth at Southend Airport - this is grossly illogical.

I certainly don't support further development for N E Hockley. It is already burdened by Etheldore/Wood Avenue, Broadlands estate and much new else, and appreciate Greensward traffic, though less than main roads, does meet extra traffic traversing Lower Road. But to suggest that B1013 through Hockley and Hawkwell, busiest B road in UK, carrying 2000/hour quiet times, gridlock at peak times, now threatened by vast economic expansion proposal at the airport, is a suitable venue for 330 extra dwellings in south Hawkwell is ludicrous. Since opening of Cherry Orchard Bypass, all area traffic has been directed through Hockley and Hawkwell to Southend on B1013. B1013 (like the above roads) is a winding country lane. It has been hinted there will be new roads - where, and will this also involve compulsory purchase?

Highway improvements. I note these are under consideration to serve new developments, particularly to cast-west routes. Please do not subject home owners along B1013 winding lane to compulsory purchase of frontages to effect highway efficiency. This was done to owners on both sides of that road along Southend Road on Hockley hill in the 1960s. Apart from loss, speeds increased, accidents occurred and owners have had on-going problems. Any more and owners would lose homes as well.

Public transport improvements. Presumably as Standard Charges, are envisaged for new development at H Appendix 1 and CLT1. You need to watch crafty manoeuvres by services to get more money this way. For example, it is not coincidence that, since the revised Core Strategy consultation, with proposed large developments for Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford was issued, Arriva bus company propose cutting back further their already abysmally poor Nos 7 and 8 services, presumably as ploy to get more money to reinstate them. Don't forget also that, unlike eg a community centre, classroom etc once provided a bus service is on-going. What happens to bus service when the builder has made his profit and moved on?

RETAIL AND TOWN CENTRES

I list my objections to proposals in Core Strategy under this heading in following 5 paras.

'2008 Retail/Leisure Study shows significant leakage out of the District...[should] direct retail development to town centres: Rayleigh/Rochford/Hockley'. You should understand Hockley has always been a village, traditionally having staple day-to-day shopping needs, eg grocers, butchers, bakers, fishmongers, greengrocers, haberdashers, hardware, newsagents, pharmacy, shoemenders, post office, building society or bank. Hawkwell also has a small shop parade with similar basics. At most, a modest extra supermarket might be set in the industrial estate in Eldon Way.

Regrettably, several prime Hockley units have become occupied by numerous estate agents. These should be reduced to two. An instructive example follows: in late 1980s, with already 6 agents, owner of one unit wanted change of use to estate agent. Planning Services refused on grounds it would be one too many. He appealed and won. In 1990 recession he closed, as did all the rest bar two, proving for once planners were right. A number of trivia shops have also arisen, which last a short time.

Residents have always expected to travel to Southend for furniture, clothing, large DIY stores other than hardware, bathrooms etc. This is NOT going to change. Any attempts have failed.

You need to understand there won't be any 'national multiples' in Hockley. Presumably Eldon Way industrial estate was considered a possible venue. The crowds and traffic would build up further in Spa Road, already a bottleneck. Remember your point that further housing for NE Hockley would increase traffic impact passing through Hockley. Also how would this fit with possible plans for extra housing in Eldon Way?

I have heard central Hockley central area might be regenerated. That will be resisted; there must be no demolition or compulsory purchase here, where there are listed and period buildings, too many of latter have been destroyed in Hockley already, intentionally to change its character.

There is also no space for large multiple stores in either Rayleigh or Rochford, which would be damaged. Southend High Street and Hamlet Court Road are ideal for large scale shopping.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

I object to proposals in Core Strategy preferred options as follows. 'East of England Plan specifies the number of jobs any sub-region must provide'. Apart from the airport, Rochford District is not within Thames Gateway and EEDA are not qualified to dictate 3000 jobs must be found. EEDA's idea the airport will generate large employment is unrealistic - jobs from this will be temporary.

Many attempts have been made to 'reduce reliance on out-commuting' without success. Vide the empty office blocks in Southend once occupied by eg Willis Faber, C E Heath & Co., Prudential, CU - all now elsewhere. You cannot replicate London employment in Rochford.

EDUCATION

I understood 'new residential development' was for extension of existing population, not meant to 'result in more people living in the District' already overcrowded. I'm surprised Hockley isn't expected to generate additional educational needs. I conclude the new upwardly mobile moving to executive mansions from elsewhere get their young tutored at private prep schools in Southend to pass the 11+ and get into Southend grammar schools. It should be noted parents have for years had a problem getting their children into any of the 3 overcrowded primary schools.

HEALTHCARE

It seems appropriate to propose under CLT4 that 'new developments be accompanied by a Health Impact Assessment... and developers be required to address negative effects prior to development implementation'.

Having, with other existing neighbours, experienced deafening noise 7am to 7pm 7 days per week for several years, polluting and furnace heating fires, daylight denying and night dark removing huge edifices in course of adjacent development, there is a definite impact on health by development.

PLAY SPACE

I object to preferred options proposals under this heading for following reasons. I thought Strategy said RDC would be abolishing practice of removing homes and gardens to get greater density. Gardens for children are essential. Even if out of sight, they are within earshot of adults. I note couples with small children are usually keen to have a place with garden. Communal play space advocated under CLT7 means children must be escorted. There is one on Hawkwell green, adults not permitted to enter.

AGEING POPULATION

I object to preferred options comments here. Core Strategy is obsessed with this. It is nonsense that ageing population leads to a smaller workforce with higher dependency ratio. Many persons of retirement age forced out of jobs by the baby boom continue to earn a living if allowed to do so, well beyond retirement.

Final insult under Youth Facilities '...ageing population (which could lead to increased demand for health and social care, rather than services for youth) it is important....needs of young people...catered for..'. The old, as well as striving to keep economically sound, also take steps to remain healthy and so are no more a burden to NHS and social services than younger groups.

As I said under Housing, if you feel the old are in the way in various ways, EEDA could clear them with termination camps.

PROTECTION, ENHANCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE AND HABITATS

I object that landscape and gardens in built area gardens have been excluded.

This is laudable, but it should be noted that landscape and habitat are also found in local gardens. Any wild life if found in same would need protection - definitely not translocation as at Etheldore Avenue etc, with unfortunate results. Developers have been known to drive protected wildlife out ahead of building and Rochford Woodland office to designate flourishing hedgerows 'dying, diseased'. So I object to landscape and habitats in gardens, built area being omitted from preferred options here.

CONCLUSION

I appreciate all this sounds negative, but development and inward migration ideas are out of hand.

Greenbelt. The perceived need to release some and recognition that existing settlements have increasingly limited space for further development clarifies that further government/developer demands must now be resisted. S E Essex is overcrowded and too small for further incursion.

Flood risk. Practically all Thames Gateway is a flood basin. From RDC map, most of the District is either at flood risk from N. Sea, rivers Crouch, Roach or else enjoys special protection. Permeable pavement is a good idea to stop surface flooding from paved residential frontages (now needing planning permission), but another problem is the many drainage ditches that have been filled in in residential and other areas.

Car dependency and congestion will continue with any population growth.

Energy consumption. Small wind turbines don't produce relevant energy. Most homes don't have cavity walls (doubtless an excuse for demolition as not sustainable).

In sum, I object to Core Strategy preferred options as further extensive development in Rochford District cannot be contained.

Comments from the FSB SE Essex Branch Vice Chairman.

Due to the lack of a sustainable road transport infrastructure in the district, the need to ensure that each centre of population has a concentration of suitable commercial premises to enable local employment to succeed. This could be attained by the careful introduction of commercial centres within the community. Better utilization of existing building and out buildings, farm and redundant properties which would lead to local employment possibilities. Local mini business centres could mushroom with the right type and size of accommodation for starter companies. There would be a need for various types of business accommodation as not all businesses will be in the high tech category. This could lead to growth areas being formed which could lead onto larger estates sited in the west of the district.

There is a common belief that we need to embrace high tech industries. The presented base information indicates not only are we an area of small and ultra small businesses there is a vast diversity of trades of which many are service based.

With the recently announced purchaser of the Airport the potential development based on other locations, leans to the possibility of large warehousing and transport based industry. This, though it will bring employment to the area, will only bring a certain type of employment and the need to have a better scatter of types of businesses in the location possibly has been missed. There will now be an urgent need to upgrade the road and rail infrastructure to cope with the increase in goods movement. The demise of yet another air support company may in turn mean a problem for growth in the form of commercial air travel, thus aircraft based industries must not be relied upon as the answer to future employment. The need to open the immediate area to low tech industries and small and micro small businesses is paramount.

The presented vision of creating a business park for larger concerns in the west of the district, to release much needed housing allocation, is in the bases a reasonable solution. Large transporters would not have to negotiate the restricted road infrastructure of the district. Though we have existing large companies who are well established within the district, some who would have trouble relocating due to the type and size of their operation eg Baltic Wharf .

There also could be a counter argument in that due to the lack of road infrastructure, there may be a problem of access at peak times for staff. This is a common problem on our existing trading estates such as Purdies Estate Rochford. Also the need to move staff from one side of the district to the other will not help the already inadequate transport system. The positive is there is direct access to major road system. But there may be also a need to investigate if there is a need of an upgrade of the rail infrastructure, this is due to the inadequacy of the national road infrastructure of the future.

The three main retail centres are at this time having a real challenging time. Due to the restraints of public spending and the need to use car parking fees as a source of revenue does not make it easy for the high street retailers. As the district originated from market towns and we can't compete with the out of town shopping centres and large super markets, should we be. looking at returning to the small centres with convenience/service stores. With more "on street" drop by parking, maybe pedestrian walk ways areas. Smaller towns and villages to adopt a similar style of small retail outlets. New residential developments should be required as part of the development include "Corner Shop" type units. This not only forms a micro community but helps in retaining the "spend" within the district and the need not to have to travel to the major shopping areas for the basic essentials.

If the ideals of the tourism initiative are implanted into the district, the need for more cheap but adequate accommodation within the newly developed countryside, eg Wild Coast at Wallasea, Jubilee Park at Hawkwell. There will be a need to change planning policy to accept this type of development. Yet there must also be suitable hotel accommodation in the west of the district to cover the proposed new industrial area.

There are concerns that the Core Strategy does not cover the future of the Roach and its tributies from the aspect of the existing users of the river. There seems to be scant regard to the illegal waterside development in the area, House boats, live a board's, waterside constructions. Following the latest Appeal Decision at Pagelsham Boatyard is the now a need to look again at a coherent policy on House boats/ Live Aboard Craft on the rivers.

The lack of access by the public to the riverside both on the Roach and the Crouch. There is a great need to open up such public access to the rivers as we only have one point at Hullbridge which is not designated as a slipway but a road end.

The proposed increase in commercial boat yards/ Marina's is not matched by the decrease in river traffic and boats in the rivers. The CHA report a marked drop in mooring take up, to gain better access to the water will mean negotiations with bordering land owners. The problem as always will be controlled access and costs.

In reflection and in reading the document again after composing the contents of this reply I note many of the points raised have been covered or partially discussed in the LGF (October revision) document.

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 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.

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.

Re: Rochford District Council - Core Strategy Preferred Options

Thank you for consulting the Assembly on this matter.

The Regional Planning Panel Standing Committee considered the attached report at its meeting on 5th December 2008 and endorsed the following recommendation:

'Overall, the preferred options put forward in the Core Strategy respond well to the RSS. The Assembly does have some minor concerns but considers that these do not give rise to any major conformity issue'

Our detailed comments, which are set out in Appendix A of the attached report, constitute the Assembly's formal response to this consultation.

If you have any queries concerning the content of the report or any other issue relating to conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy, please contact myself or James Cutting, Team Leader - Strategy & Implementation

Regional Planning Panel Standing Committee

5th December 2008

Subject: Rochford District Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document

Report by: Regional Secretariat

Purpose

To give a response to Rochford District Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document

Recommendation

The Standing Committee is asked to consider the recommendation that the comments in this report and those in Appendix A constitute the Assembly's formal response to Rochford's Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document.

1. Introduction

1.1 Rochford District Council has published for consultation a revised version of its Core Strategy Preferred Options Development Plan Document. This is the second stage in the Local Development Framework (LDF) process and will, in due course, lead to a Submission Version. As the principle document in Rochford's LDF, the Core Strategy sets out the overall strategy for the district until 2021 and, where appropriate, beyond.

1.2 The Council consulted on an earlier version of its Core Strategy during June and July 2007 (see RPPSC 15 June 2007 - Item3). In submitting its response, the Assembly noted that whilst the document responded well to the then emerging East of England Plan there were issues with regards to affordable housing and major releases of land from the Green Belt.
1.3 The closing date for comments on this revised Core Strategy is 17th December 2008. Further details can be found on Rochford District Council's website.

1.4 A copy of the Core Strategy Key Diagram is included at Appendix B.

2. Background

2.1 Rochford District covers an area of approx. 168 sq. km's (65 sq. miles) and is situated within a peninsula between the Rivers Thames and Crouch. Bounded to the east by the North Sea, it shares land boundaries with Basildon and Castle Point District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Councils. It also has marine boundaries with Maldon and Chelmsford Districts. The A127 and the A13 provide a strategic road link to the M25 Motorway and there are direct rail links into London. London Southend Airport is also located within the district boundary.

2.2 The district has a noticeable east - west divide. The majority of the population, which recent estimates put at 81,300 (expected to rise to 87,000 by 2021), live in the west where the three main urban areas of Rochford, Rayleigh, Hockley are located. To the east, the district is more rural in nature, and is characterised by stretches of unspoilt coastline and countryside, with a scattering of smaller settlements. Approximately 75 per cent of the district is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt.

2.3 A significant proportion of the districts workforce (estimated to be around 68 per cent) work beyond the district boundary. Southend-on-Sea exerts a particularly strong influence, not just as an employment location but also as the largest retail centre in the sub-region. Beyond the three main urban areas of Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley, which offer greater opportunities to access public transport, there is a high dependency on private car use.

3. Regional and Local Policy

3.1 Regional planning guidance for Rochford is contained within the adopted East of England Plan (hereafter referred to as the RSS) and the remaining six "saved" structure plan policies for Essex and Southend-on-Sea. At a local level, the Core Strategy and other LDF documents will replace the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006).

3.2 In considering general conformity the Core Strategy was assessed against all policies contained within the RSS, with particular attention paid to policies relating to the Essex Thames Gateway (ETG1 - ETG5).

4. Comments

4.1 Overall, the preferred options put forward in the Core Strategy respond well to the RSS. There is recognition that growth needs to be delivered in a sustainable manner and evidence of continued joint working with neighbouring authorities, and the County Council, to ensure delivery of regionally significant schemes such as London Southend Airport and the South Essex Rapid Transit system.

4.2 The Assembly does have some minor concerns over the amount of development that is planned to come forward on previously developed land, and also on the Council's position with regards to larger scale renewable energy schemes. However, it considers that these do not give rise to any major conformity issue.

5. Recommendations

5.1 The Standing Committee is asked to consider the recommendation that this report and the comments in Appendix A constitute the Assembly's formal response to Rochford District Council's Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document.


Appendix A
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT CHECKLIST
PART TWO - GENERAL POINTS

Question - Does the area covered lie within the Eastern Region?
Answer - Yes


Question - Are all references to the East of England Plan correct?
Answer: - Yes

Question - Does the area covered include a Key Centre for Development and Change?
Answer - Yes
Comments - London Southend Airport is included within the Essex Thames Gateway policy area.

Question - Are there any key issues covered by the document that are of strategic or regional importance?
Answer - Yes
Comments - Expansion at London Southend Airport and the regeneration of the Thams Gateway are of regional importance.

PART THREE - CONSISTENCY/CONFORMITY CHECKLIST

Question - Is there a clear push for sustainable development?
RSS Policy - SS1
Local Policy - All
Comments - The overall objectives and policies seek to achieve a balance between bringing forward sufficient new growth to meet the needs of the district whilst protecting its natural and historic built environment. There is also clear recognition of the need to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is delivered in a timely and effective manner.

Question - Does policy seek to maximise the use of previously developed land (PDL), and will it contribute towards the 60% target?
RSS Policy - SS2
Local Policy - H1
Comments - (See also comments below relating to Green Belt.)
While local policy H1 supports prioritising the reuse of PDL, the findings of the Council's recent Urban Capacity Study (2007) and concerns over town cramming will mean that only some 30% of new housing development will come forward on PDL.
Although accepting that the 60% target may not be deliverable in all parts of the region, the Council is encouraged to maximise the development potential of all brownfield sites (including "windfall' sites) and, through its monitoring procedures, ensure that delivery does not fall below the proposed 30% level.

Question - Is there a clear pattern of development for 'Key Centres' or for other urban and rural areas?
RSS Policy - SS3, SS4
Local Policy - Various

Question - Is the role of city/town centres clear? Is there a clear retail hierarchy?
RSS Policy - SS6
Local Policy - RTC1 to RTC5
Comments - The influence of out-of-district shopping facilities; particularly those provided at Southend, is acknowledged. Local policy seeks to maintain and enhance the current market share of retail spending, with the focus for development centered on Hockley, Rayleigh and Rochford.

Question - If appropriate, is there a policy dealing with the Green Belt?
RSS Policy - SS7, ETG1
Local Policy - Page 4, GB1, GB2
Comments - RSS policy SS7 states that the broad extent of the Green Belt in the region is appropriate and should be retained. There are no plans for a Green Belt review around Rochford.

Whilst local policy seeks to protect the existing Green Belt, it does allow for some limited reallocation in order that built development can come forward. Where this release is considered to be unavoidable, the Core Strategy proposes that development occurs at a reasonably high density.

In accepting that some Green Belt land will be released, using that which contributes least to its main purpose seems appropriate. Either through this document or through relevant future documents, the Council should clarify what level of development constitutes a 'reasonably high density'.

Question - Is there a policy on coastal issues?
RSS Policy - SS9
Local Policy - ENV2
Comments - The biological/landscape value of the District's coastline is recognised.

Question - Is the East of England Plan employment target met?
RSS Policy - E1, ETG5
Local Policy - Econ' Dev' Chapter, ED1, ED2
Comments - The introductory paragraphs set out districts job requirement figure as quoted in RSS policy ETG5. There is acknowledgment of the important role that London Southend Airport can play in bringing forward employment and other economic development opportunities, as expressed through local policy ED1.

Question - Is employment land protected and is its designated use consistent with relevant RSS policies?
RSS Policy - E2 - E4
Local Policy - ED3, ED4, ED5

Question - Is the RSS housing target met? Is there a housing policy post 2021?
RSS Policy - H1
Local Policy - Housing Chapter H2, H3
Comments - The introductory section sets out district housing figures in line with RSS requirements. Local policies H2 & H3 relate to general distribution, including indicative housing numbers within settlement areas for the period to 2015, from 2015 to 2021, and post 2021.

Question - Is there an affordable housing policy and does it meet the RSS target?
RSS Policy - H2
Local Policy - H4, H5
Comments - The Preferred Option is consistent with the RSS target (35%) and national site size thresholds (15 or more dwellings). It is noted that local evidence shows the actual level of need is much higher, but that the Council is seeking to strikes a balance between deliverability of affordable housing and overall site viability.

Question - Is there a clear policy for meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers?
RSS Policy - H3
Local Policy - H7
Comments - Local policy H7, which states that provision will be made in line with recommendations set out in the RSS Single Issue Review, is welcomed. It is also noted that local authorities in Essex have expressed concerns over the RSS review process.
The Assembly encourages all local authorities to make provision in line with its recommendations to 2011 and beyond, noting that they will need to be mindful of any amendment to district pitch requirement figures as the RSS Single Issue Review is progressed.

Question - Are culture issues addressed?
RSS Policy - C1, C2
Local Policy - CLT6 - 11

Question - Is there a policy seeking to change travel behaviour? Is there a policy seeking to enhance provision for non-motorised forms of transport?
RSS Policy - T2, T9, T13 & T14
Local Policy - T1 - T6
Comments - The Core Strategy recognises that, away from the three main urban areas, there will continue to be a high dependency on private car use. Policies that encourage and bring forward the delivery of alternate and non-motorised forms of transport are supported.
Opportunities to facilitate home-working within new development proposals should not be ignored.

Question - Are any major transport generators covered by appropriate proposals?
RSS Policy - T11, T12
Local Policy - ED1
Comments - [The Council is referred to concerns raised by the Assembly during recent consultation on the JAAP Issues & Options consultation stage - see RPPSC 18 July 2008, Agenda item 4]

Question - Are any transport schemes being promoted that match regional priorities?
RSS Policy - T15
Local Policy - T3
Comments - Local policy T3 supports the implementation of the South Essex Rapid
Transport (SERT) scheme.

Question - Is there a policy dealing with green infrastructure?
RSS Policy - ENV1
Local Policy - ENV1, ENV2, T6

Question - Are landscape, wildlife and other conservation issues addressed?
RSS Policy - ENV2, ENV3
Local Policy - ENV1, ENV2, URV1, URV2

Question - Is agricultural land and soil conservation covered by a policy? Is there a policy relating to rural diversification?
RSS Policy - ENV4
Local Policy - GB2
Comments - The introductory paragraphs in the Environmental Issues chapter (pg 51) states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the districts agricultural land will not be adversely affected. Local policy GB2 offers support for rural diversification schemes within the designated Green Belt.

Question - Are woodlands protected by a policy?
RSS Policy - ENV5
Local Policy - ENV1, URV1 (ENV6)
Comments - The Preferred Options seek to ensure that areas of ancient woodland are protected.

Question - Is the conservation/enhancement of the historic environment addressed?
RSS Policy - ENV6
Local Policy - CP2, CP3
Comments - The Council intends to reinstate a 'Local List' which will afford protection to local buildings with special architectural / historic value.

Question - Is there a policy that seeks to achieve a high quality built environment, including sustainable construction?
RSS Policy - ENV7
Local Policy - H6, ED5, ENV8, ENV9, CP1
Comments - Local policies ENV8 & ENV9 advocate the implementation of Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) and BREEAM3 standards. It would be helpful if a timescale was included showing when the Council expects to implement the various code standards.

Question - Is there a policy dealing with the reduction of CO2 emissions? Is there a policy on renewable energy, including the setting of a target?
RSS Policy - ENG1, ENG2
Local Policy - ENV6, ENV7
Comments - The Core Strategy contains two policies on renewable energy - ENV6 and ENV7. While the Assembly is supportive of any policy that actively seeks to implement renewable energy technologies it is concerned that (i) as worded, policy ENV6 seemingly discourages any large scale scheme from coming forward and, (ii) that whilst local policy ENV7 is welcomed, difficulties may arise in measuring the effectiveness of small scale schemes and relating this back to regional and national targets.

Local policy ENV6 should be more 'proactive' by, for example, indicating which type of scheme(s) the Council would be wiling to support. The Assembly will be looking to the relevant Development Control documents to ensure that appropriate targets are set in line with regional targets.

Question - Is there a policy promoting water efficiency?
RSS Policy - WAT1
Local Policy - ENV8, ENV9
Comments - Water efficiency measures are being promoted through policies that adopt BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) standards

Question - Is Flood Risk Management addressed? Are proposals to implement Sustainable Urban Drainage technologies included?
RSS Policy - WAT4
Local Policy - ENV2, ENV4

Question - Is there a policy dealing with waste management?
RSS Policy - WM1 - WM8
Local Policy - ENV8, ENV9
Comments - It is implied that domestic/commercial waste management practices will addressed through adoption of CSH and BREEAM Standards.

Question - Is there a policy that deals with implementation and monitoring?
RSS Policy - IMP1 - IMP2
Local Policy - Page 107 and Table

PART FOUR - OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Question - Is the document in general conformity with the RSS? If the answer is 'no', what is needed to rectify this?
Answer - Yes
Comments - Overall, the preferred options put forward in the Core Strategy respond well to the RSS. There is recognition that growth needs to be delivered in a sustainable manner and evidence of continued joint working with neighbouring authorities, and the County Council, to ensure delivery of regionally significant schemes such as London Southend Airport and the South Essex Rapid Transit system.

The Assembly does have some minor concerns over the amount of development that is planned to come forward on previously developed land, and also on the Council's position with regards to larger scale renewable energy schemes. However, it considers that these do not give rise to any major conformity issue.