ENV1 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats - Preferred Option

Whilst we appreciate the need for new homes in the area, we have deep concerns on the following:-

Road congestion. Hockley Spa junction which already causes traffic queues
Road congestion. A 127 into the Southend area which already causes traffic queues
Health. Adequate provision of Doctors and Dentists are required. We are already woefully lacking in both these areas.

We fully support recent policies which have resulted in the provision of designated areas for woodland, green corridors and the coastal protection belt.However we feel most strongly that any large scale development must incorporate green areas for wild life and recreational purposes.

The proposed numbers of homes which have been put forward for the area - 11,000 plus - is a huge amount of development which cannot do anything other than change the area permanently.We have already seen considerable in filling and new estates going in over the last few years and the infrastructure not keeping pace.

This burden of housing must be reviewed
The resultant level of development must be shown to provide the necessary infrastructure at the planning stage for all to see.

Please find attached our respresentations in respect of the Core Strategy preferred Options (October 2008) which have been submitted on behalf of our client (Aber Ltd).

agree

I fully support this objective.

The prefered option appears to have lost the word 'Protect'?

We are pleased to see mention made of your intention to support the Crouch and Roach Management Plan in this policy.
Please note that the core strategy should also be seeking to enhance biodiversity through development in accordance with PPS1 and PPS9. This will involve retaining existing natural features within any development and seeking opportunities to create new habitats and link in with existing adjacent habitats. The Essex Biodiversity Project has produced an informative guide called: 'Integrating Biodiversity into development...realising the benefits'. This is available on their website: www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk.

Revised Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above, in your letter received by this office by email on 5 November 2008. We refer you to previous comments made in our letter of 27 June 2007 during the initial preferred options consultation. Whilst we are generally supportive of the plan, we would like to make the following comments.

Evidence Base
Natural England is pleased to note that the Essex Landscape Character Assessment (2003) and the Local Wildlife Site Review (2007) has been included under this heading.

Vision
Natural England supports the vision because it sets out the intention to retain the essential landscape characteristics of the district and the distinctiveness of both the natural and built environment. These are aspects which are compatible with our own objectives. We also support the recognition of the District's position within Thames Gateway South Essex to promote the District as the "green part" of the sub region.

Objectives
Whilst Natural England generally supports the objectives we would liked to have seen specific reference to "landscape" within the fourth bullet point. We also consider that there should be a stronger reference to climate change within the objectives, linked particularly to the transport objective (6th bullet point) by referring to the need to reduce carbon emissions. An additional objective should also be included on the issue of renewable energy and climate change, for example "to promote renewable energy and address the causes and potential impacts of climate change"

The Green Belt

GB2 Rural Diversification and Recreational Uses - Preferred Option
Natural England supports the Council's preferred option on this issue. We have recently assessed the case for a review of green belt policy where the role of the green belt is reconsidered. The value of the green belt should be judged on its contribution to quality of life, nature conservation, landscape protection, flood mitigation and the impact of a changing climate. Linked with this is a desire to improve the environmental quality of existing green belt. We would therefore support rural diversification within the green belt such as green tourism and outdoor recreation, provided these activities are linked with environmental enhancements and an increase in biodiversity.



Economic Development

ED1 London Southend Airport - Preferred Option
Natural England reiterate our previous comments on the London Southend Airport, that is we are concerned with the impact of the growth in the airport on air quality and on the disturbance of Natura 2000 sites. We also would actively encourage enhanced North South links including greenways, as envisaged in the Thames Gateway South Essex Greengrid

Environmental issues

Crouch and Roach Estuary Management Plan (Page 52, 4th paragraph)
In this paragraph a list of stakeholders is given who are working with Rochford District Council on the above plan. Natural England should also be actively involved in this project and listed accordingly.

All references to 'English Nature' should be changed to read 'Natural England', e.g. page 52, 1st paragraph.

ENV1 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats - Preferred Option
Natural England supports the overall aims of the preferred option and we are pleased to note that the wording now includes "maintain, restore and enhance" rather than just protect. However we consider that the policy does not fully cover all aspects of the natural environment but concentrates on the protection and enhancement of designated sites. We therefore suggest that the policy is expanded to include the following points:

i. Wildlife Networks- Natural England would like the policy wording to encourage an approach to conservation management which is focussed not solely on individual site protection but which seeks to rebuild the fabric of the landscape in which individual sites sit. Actions such as reducing habitat fragmentation and creating green corridors for wildlife can help to achieve this. PPS9 states specifically at paragraph 12 that "Local authorities should aim to maintain networks by avoiding or repairing the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats through policies in plans." This policy could link to a wider policy on Green Infrastructure. We would therefore suggest that the following point is added to the policy wording: "The Council will ensure the protection and enhancement of a network of local wildlife sites and wildlife corridors, links and stepping stones between areas of natural green space to avoid fragmentation of habitats".

ii. Designing in Wildlife - We would recommend the inclusion of designing in biodiversity measures within this policy. By incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity early on within a development scheme, significant improvements for biodiversity can be achieved, along with easier integration with wider environmental, design and planning aspects. For example designing for biodiversity can include the retention of sensitive or valuable habitats present, or enhancements for protected species that may be present, whilst integrating other development design requirements such as drainage and engineering. By addressing ecological aspects early on, design aspects such as site layout can be tailored to provide enhancements and improvements for biodiversity that may not be possible later on within the design process. Measures to encourage biodiversity can include green roofs, planting and landscaping using native species, setting up bird and bat boxes and sustainable urban drainage systems. We would suggest that the following point is added to the policy wording: "The Council will ensure development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing in wildlife, and ensuring any unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated for."

iii. BAP Targets - We would suggest that this policy is linked to the Essex Biodiversity Strategy (1999) which has established targets to boost priority habitats and targets. The policy should therefore include the additional wording: "The Council will promote wildlife enhancements which will contribute to the habitat and species restoration targets set out in the Essex Biodiversity Strategy."

iv. Landscape Character - In addition this policy, although it mentions "natural landscape" in the title does not fully cover the protection and enhancement of landscape character and quality. The Landscape Character Assessment of Essex (2002) should be specifically mentioned in the policy wording. LCAs are a tool to understand the intrinsic character of the landscape and direct appropriate sustainable development and should be used as part of the evidence base to underpin planning and management decisions in the preparation of the LDF. We therefore suggest the insertion of wording which seeks to achieve the following: "The landscape character and local distinctiveness of the District will be protected, conserved and where possible enhanced. Proposals for development will take into account the local distinctiveness and sensitivity to change of distinctive landscape character types. These landscape character types are described in the Essex Landscape Character Assessment"

ENV2 Coastal Protection Belt - Preferred Option
Whilst Natural England generally supports the aims of the preferred option and agrees with the overall approach of protecting the open character of the undeveloped coast and its important wildlife sites, we suggest that this policy should give explicit recognition to the implications of climate change and sea level rise, and the need for necessary adaptation. The current draft appears to defend a 'static' situation. We also draw your attention to policy SS9 of the East of England Plan, which states that LDDs should (inter alia):
• protect important coastal environmental assets, if practicable and sustainable without causing adverse impacts elsewhere. If it is not practicable to protect sites and habitats in situ, including sites of European or international importance for wildlife, shoreline management plans and development plans should include proposals for their long-term replacement and the recording of any lost historic assets;
investigate and pursue opportunities for the creation of new coastal habitats, such as salt marsh and mudflat, in areas identified for managed realignment. New development should not be permitted in such areas.

ENV4 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) - Preferred Option
Natural England agrees that Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) should be encouraged within new developments as part of sustainable design. SUDS can be used to provide open space and wildlife habitats around areas of vegetation, water channels and storage ponds which are positive steps to increasing biodiversity.

ENV6 Large Scale Renewable Energy Projects - Preferred Option
Natural England agrees that large scale projects should only be considered where there is no significant adverse affect on the landscape or wildlife. We would also recommend that when considering locations for renewable energy installations that the Essex Landscape Character Assessment should be referred to. This will help to ensure that installations are located in places which will cause minimum impact on the surrounding landscape.

Notwithstanding the above, and the current policy wording to protect site integrity, we highlight to the Council the supplement to PPS1: Planning and Climate Change, which requires that: "19. In developing their core strategy and supporting local development documents, planning authorities should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy generation. Policies should be designed to promote and not restrict renewable and low-carbon energy and supporting infrastructure."
And
"20. In particular, planning authorities should:.......
ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most exceptional circumstances"
Natural England therefore comments that an appropriate balance needs to be struck between site protection and the promotion of renewable and low-carbon energy generation projects. We also suggest that a fuller criteria-based policy is included in the Development Control Policies DPD.

ENV7 Small Scale Renewable Energy projects - Preferred Option
We are supportive of small scale energy projects as part of sustainable design and construction.


ENV8 Code for Sustainable Homes - Preferred Option
Natural England supports the preferred option as it is compatible with our own promotion of sustainable design and construction including energy efficiency in homes. We would draw the Council's attention to our project "A New Vernacular for the Countryside" which addresses broad sustainable design and construction principles for the countryside.

Transport

T5 Cycling and Walking - Preferred Option
Natural England supports the preferred option. Footpaths and cycleways should be provided as part of new development layouts which will contribute to sustainable transport and also provide informal recreation opportunities to help improve the health and well-being of residents.

T6 Greenways - Preferred Option
Natural England is supportive of the Thames Gateway Green Grid Strategy and would see the provision of greenways as a contribution to a wider network of green infrastructure. We therefore welcome this commitment to the implementation

Character of Place

CP1 Design - Preferred Option
Natural England supports this preferred option and acknowledges the importance of setting high standards of design in all new development. We would like to ensure that development is "good enough to approve", accessible to all, locally distinctive and makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, utilising the opportunities presented by the location. In particular we are glad to note that Village Design Statements have been included in the policy wording as this is an initiative which Natural England actively promotes.

In our previous comments on this issue we also made the point that opportunities should be sought to promote accessible greenspace provision that meets local requirements and provides functional links for people and wildlife. We recommended that the authority should consider the use of policies to promote the delivery and long-term management and maintenance of greenspace and green linkages.

Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism

CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Preferred Option
Natural England would suggest that countryside recreation projects including the management and maintenance of greenspace, wildlife sites and environmental improvements should be included in the list of activities that planning obligations and charges could contribute to.

CLT5 Opens Space - Preferred Option
Whilst Natural England supports the preferred option we consider that it should be expanded in greater detail. We would like the point emphasised that all development should incorporate sufficient new green space in accordance with Natural England's Natural Green Space Standards of achieving natural greenspace within 300m of every home.

The policy should also emphasise how open spaces and green areas could be improved and enhanced and linked to a wider network of open spaces, footpaths, amenity areas, river corridors i.e. Green Infrastructure. Wherever possible opportunities should be taken to improve the biodiversity and amenity value of these areas by suitable planting with native species or improved management regimes. It may also be possible to introduce footpaths or cycleways through these areas which would increase the provision of informal recreation and contribute to sustainable transport measures.

CT11 Tourism - Preferred Option
Natural England supports the preferred option particularly the proviso that green tourism projects should not adversely impact on character of place or biodiversity. We would reiterate our previous comments that it should be mentioned in the policy wording that this approach is consistent with the objectives of the Thames Gateway South Essex Greengrid. We would also make the point that the conversion of rural buildings could involve damage to protected species such as barn owls and this should be mentioned in the explanatory text.

Upper Roach Valley and Wallasea Island

URV1 Upper Roach Valley - Preferred Option
As we said in our previous comments Natural England supports the Council's preferred option for the enhancement and protection of the Upper Roach Valley including the Country Park. This provides an opportunity to link this area with the wider green infrastructure network and improve access to the countryside from surrounding areas. We suggest however that the policy is reworded to refer to 'appropriate management', as 'minimum of interference' as presently set out may not in fact 'permit certain flora and fauna to flourish.'

URV2 Wallasea Island - Preferred Option
Natural England supports the Council's preferred option as it supports the Wallasea Wild Coast Project which will create a variety of wildlife habitats and enhance the biodiversity of the area. We suggest however that the policy is reworded from 'no adverse impacts' to 'provided any adverse ecological impacts are avoided, mitigated, or compensated for.'

Habitat Regulations Assessment

As discussed in our responses to the previous Core Strategy Preferred Options and Strategic Environmental Assessment, dated 27 and 13 June 2007, we remind the Council that the Core Strategy will require assessment against the Habitats Regulations. I provide an extract below from our 27 June 2007 letter:

"Where a plan may affect a European site, the European Court of Justice ruling (October 2005), has concluded Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive provides that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In practice, the SEA should aim to be sufficiently detailed in its assessment to address the requirements of The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992.

The Assessment will require an initial screening of all policies alone and in combination with other plans and projects. This aims to establish whether any policies should be regarded as likely to cause/have a significant effect on the interest features of the European Sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Options should then be considered to establish whether amendments to individual policies, suite of policies or supporting text could effectively address concerns to 'not likely significant effect'.

Those policies that are still regarded as likely to have a significant effect will then require an appropriate assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Habitat Regulations. National Government direction encourages local planning authorities to develop local development documents that clearly demonstrate that they avoid an adverse affect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

Furthermore, consistent with the cross-border working that is necessary in delivering strategic solutions we recommend you gain a brief appreciation of the assessment from the developing Habitat Regulations Assessment for Southend on Sea Borough Council's Core Strategy (see Topic Papers for Examination in Public www.southend.gov.uk ).

Our initial assessment indicates that the particular elements of the strategic direction could be likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects and these are listed below:

i) Overall growth targets, alone and in combination with relevant Regional growth area targets, will lead to increased population and subsequent increased recreational pressure on Natura 2000 sites.

ii) The aspirations for significant growth in airport movements at Southend Airport, which may result in increased air quality and/or disturbance impacts on Natura 2000 sites.

iii) Development in, or immediately adjacent to, intertidal or coastal areas that either requires land-take through encroachment or exacerbates the effects of coastal squeeze."

I trust these comments are of assistance to you and please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any of the above further.

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.

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.