T1 Highways - Preferred Option

Imorovements to the highway systems in the district should be well in place prior to development proceeding. Promises to improve after development has gone ahead is not good enough.

Where in the Core Strategy are there any plans to enhance the roads through or around Hawkwell/Hockley? Authorities have to be realistic. The vast majority of residents will continue (most have to) use a car to get to work, shops and to get to the leisure centres/green spaces.
The main road through Hawkwell, Hockley to Rayleigh cannot cope with increased traffic load. (It already forms a rat run to avoid A127 congestion with the Cherry Orchard link).

Stop further development in the whole area and concentrate on health & well being of existing residents! We are entitled to an improving quality of life - not the slow chipping away cased by creeping over population in this area!

The car is here to stay - accept it! The road network is slowly but surely grinding to a halt. Stop development and halt increasing conjestion.

I understood from local publicity that there was to be a presence at Canewdon Village Hall from 10th Nov. I visited, but nobody there! I read the document on line and tried to give my comments on line. However, the site jdi-consult.net/ldf/ was not available! It is good to have the opportunity to be consulted, but please don't make the process too difficult. I am sending you my comments below.

1. It is good to see you identify transport problems, partic across the area, East to West. Unless there are some major improvements, this is going to become an increasingly important topic in the years to come. Plans for change do seem a little vague at present. I feel it is most unlikely that car usage will be discouraged unless good alternatives (not just walking and cycling) are put in place.

2. You identify the lack of services and transport in Canewdon. There appears to be a proposal to build 60 more houses by 2021. The location given is South Canewdon. Where is this? Are services etc to be upgraded to cope with a sizeable proportion increase in the population? I feel local residents feel they are the 'poor relations' in spending terms. You mention the possibility of a multi-agency centre in Great Wakering. Canewdon only has a village hall which is way past its sell by date.

3. I very much endorse the improvements to the Baltic Wharf access road. This has been a sore point for many years. I consider the present road to be very dangerous!

These are just a couple of points that come to mind. I agree largely with what you have in the document, but it is rather general at present and I look forward to seeing and being able to comment on more specific objectives.

Although I have already sent you comments on behalf of Hockley Parish Plan Group, I would now like to register my own comments as a resident of Hockley:

The Core Strategy proposes to add 1,550 new homes on Greenbelt land in the pleasant semi-rural region comprising Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Rochford, plus a further undefined number of homes on brownfield sites, and a further undefined number of homes in the Hockley and Rochford town centre developments. The new homes will reduce the open spaces between these parishes, closing the boundaries, and leading to the loss of their individual community identities.

Residents enjoy living (and retiring) in this region. However, the infrastructure of the area is already stretched in terms of roads, public transport, parking, schools, community services, and healthcare. The Core Strategy proposal gives very little detail of infrastructure improvements to support the increased population and traffic. It provides no details of costs or responsibilities for infrastructure implementation. By spreading the locations of new homes, it will be more difficult to ensure that developers incorporate and pay for new infrastructure.

Although average daily traffic on the B1013 is stated to be only 72% of the maximum capacity, there are no figures available that highlight the current congestion in peak periods, where traffic is almost at a standstill. Unless significant highways development is introduced, especially in the vicinity of the Spa roundabout, the additional traffic resulting from the Core Strategy proposed homes in Rochford and Hawkwell, will create gridlock. Proposed Southend Airport development will add further traffic problems through Hockley. The Core Strategy is not sustainable without a solution to the highway network bottlenecks in and around Hockley. No solution is provided to the lack of cycle path networks in the region.

The bus service in the Hockley and Hawkwell region is about to be cut back, but will need to be increased to support the additional number of residents proposed in the Core Strategy. Agreements with Arriva must be included to make the Strategy viable.

Car parks in Hockley are regularly overfull creating queues especially in Spa Road. Exits from the car parks in Spa Road are hazardous and will one day inevitably lead to a serious accident. Space in Hockley town centre is at a premium, but additional and safer car parking is essential to support the proposed additional traffic, or again the Core Strategy is not sustainable.

The Core Strategy includes new primary schools in Rochford and Rayleigh and an extension to King Edmund secondary school, but there is no proposal for additional school places in Hockley and Hawkwell. I assume that the majority of additional younger children in the Hawkwell region will go to Westerings School, where the roads in the locality are already a hazard during the 'school runs' where mothers drop off and pick up their children. Local residents regularly have to weave between cars and drive on pavements to avoid a collision. Without major improvements to the road networks in this region, the increased numbers of cars will undoubtedly cause havoc and lead to accidents. There are no proposals in the Strategy to accommodate additional secondary school children at Greensward College, which is the nearest school for Hawkwell West.

Community Services such as crime prevention, street cleaning, waste collection and road maintenance are already stretched, and will not be able to cope with the additional homes without a considerable increase to their budgets. It is unlikely that increased Council Tax revenue from the additional population will support the extra costs.

Doctor and dentist to patient ratios are currently unacceptable for residents in Hockley and would need to improve significantly to support the additional number of residents.

In conclusion, although many of these obstacles can be overcome with possibly cost effective justification, the necessary changes to highway networks and car parking in and around Hockley to support additional traffic volumes are massive, and probably not feasible due to cost and space limitations, leading to the Core Strategy not being sustainable in Hockley and the surrounding area.

ECC Highways have acknowledged that the B1013 is at 3/4 capacity. there is only one bus an hour along the B1013, so no alternative to using cars. No proposals or costs given for enhancing the B1013

CPBC support attempts to reduce reliance on the private car however it is important not to overestimate how much this reliance can be reduced. It is therefore essential to recognise that highway improvements may still be required. These should be planned for in order to maximise the benefits of developer contributions where appropriate.

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).

minimal intrusion into green belt land

T1 Highways - Preferred Option
As a considerable impact on the highway network is inevitable. Is it enough just to state "we will work with developers and the Highway Authority to ensure that the requisite improvements are carried out"?
Planning by RDC to reduce road congestion should under these circumstances be Pro-Active NOT re-active.
Plans on how to reduce the dire road traffic congestion that already exists, and will worsen following development, should be made a top priority before deciding were dwellings will be located.
In fact no development should commence before the road improvements are made.
Finance for road improvements should be found, by Government grant or borrowing if necessary, with contributions from developers to recoup costs made where applicable.
Sitting back and hoping that the problem can be solved at a later date will not work.

Improvements to east to west road networks could be made by extending Cherry Orchard Way to the north and linking to Rectory Road and Ashingdon Road.This new link could then provide better access to the A127 thus reducing some of the east to west traffic. At a later date this could provide a new link to a northern bypass to the A130. I will submit a fuller proposal in a separate document.

What have the LDF Committee put forward to improve road traffic problems in the District? Very little I would suggest, other than ways to reduce reliance on the private car.
They accept however that some impact on the highway network is inevitable and they will work with developers and the Highway Authority to ensure that the requisite improvements are carried out. Very non committal!
Suggestions to improve public transport are mentioned time and again for every development location but can this be relied upon?

Cllr.Hudson has stated that we need more houses for future generations but seems to ignore the fact that they will need improved and additional roads.
Young families will not use public transport as (a) it cannot be relied upon and (b)it is very rarely convenient to their needs. If they own a car, or cars, they will use them.
From experience we have learned that public transport companies will not provide a service on routes that are not profitable. They have stated at RDC meetings that "if they cannot return a reasonable profit they will not run the service". This has been demonstrated recently by the removal, or re-routing, of some bus services in the district.
What will happen if new public transport requirements fail? Is there an answer to this?

South West Rayleigh-

The road network in Great Wheatley Road, High Road, Love Lane, Spring Gardens etc is already suffering from 120% overcapacity. Further housing would make this intolerable and virtually inoperative.
One serious consequence of this would be even more traffic in the vicinity of Love Lane Rayleigh Primary School, with all the risks to children;s safety. This would apply to the School itself and use of the Spring Gardens playing fields and Swimming Pool by the schoolchildren
I understand that the Emergency Service access to the area is also a constraint to further development.

I would hope that RDC would make sure that all highway improvements are in the pipeline before any development starts. Finance should be in place and any obstacles overcome as well. RDC are well known for their reluctance in pushing County Highways to improve the road infrastructure in our area.

Will the required road improvements be carried out before, during or after the building
work? Historically it is usually afterwards with no regard for the long suffering locals.
Young families will not use public transport due to exorbitant costs, inaccessibility and unreliability. For most of the general public cars would be the preferred mode. As a pensioner with a car I still use buses when I can to avoid the car park charges in Rayleigh. I know how frustrating it is waiting for buses that are very late or fail to arrive.

The reference to locating development in such a way as to reduce reliance on the car accords with Government policy, but conflicts with Policy H2 which identifies land at Canewdon, a settlement with few services and poor public transport provision.

The plan will need central government funding as 106's will not generate the revenue needed.
Details required re East to West improvements please.
Please expand on your ideas re improvements to Baltic Wharf

Essex Chambers of Commerce considers it vitally important for the efficient movement of goods and services that significant improvements in the existing highway infrastructure will be required during the plan period. The existing levels of congestion are considered to be unacceptable, so further provision is essential to cope with the traffic generation to be created by more housing and employment. In particular, consideration must be given to a better east-west route linking Rochford east to the A130/A127.

There appears no explanation or description as to the importance/significance of Baltic Wharf so that we can comment appropriately?

H2 is in direct conflict with this objective

LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options

Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council

(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered

In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.

The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.

Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.

Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.

These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".

This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.

The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".

(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.

(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.

This statement must be made more prescriptive.

(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.

This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.

(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare

Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.

(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page

(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.

(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems

SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems

This section needs to be far more robust

(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?

(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.

(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)

It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.

(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards

At last the voice of reason and common sense!!

(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years

(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement

(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9

(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))

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.

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

1.0 Instructions and Introduction

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

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

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

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

Peter Kneen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
Planner

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

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

2.0 Housing:

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

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

Policy H1 - Distribution

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

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

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

Policy H2 - General Locations and Phasing

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

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

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

Policy H3 - General Locations Post 2021

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

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

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

Policy H4 - Affordable Housing

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

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

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

Policy H5 - Dwelling Types

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

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

Policy H6 - Lifetime Homes

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

3.0 The Green Belt:

Policy GB1 - Green Belt Protection

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

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

Policy GB2 - Rural Diversification and Recreational Uses

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

4.0 Environmental Issues:

Policy ENV3 - Flood Risk

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

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

Policy ENV4 - Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS)

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

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

Policy ENV8 - Code for Sustainable Homes

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

5.0 Transport:

Policy T1 - Highways

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

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

Policy T2 - Public Transport

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

Policy T4 - Travel Plans

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

Policy T5 - Cycling and Walking

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

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

Policy T7 - Parking Standards

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

6.0 Character of Place:

Policy CP1 - Design

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

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

7.0 Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism:

Policy CLT1 - Planning Obligations and Standard Charges

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

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

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

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

Policy CLT6 - Community Facilities

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

8.0 Summary:

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

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ED1 preferred option.

We support the concept.

But they need to consider improved access

Pressurise Central Government for funds to improve infrastructure for example Stobart is an infrastructure user

Ensure it's a driver for employment.

Ensure it maintains its highly skilled workforce of its engineering base.



ED2 preferred option

The Chamber needs to see the Area Action Plan details to enable them to comment on this proposal.



ED3 preferred option

We support,

However we need further details of the infrastructure plans to this and other major employment site eg the Airport.

We doubt the viability of relocating businesses for housing.

The danger of this policy in relocating businesses, will more than likely lead to relocation out of the area, probably westwards where infrastructure is better.



ED4 preferred option

The areas infrastructure needs considerable improvement to ensure employment retention and growth so that the areas economy improves to the well being of the area.



ED5 preferred option.

We support





ENVIRONMENTAL

ENV6 preferred option

Disagree



ENV6&7 items 1&2

The plan needs to look at and consider other options such as

Combined Heat & Power plants

District heat

Use of the water powers in the River Crouch with such items as;

Underwater generators

A barrage across the River Crouch west of Lion Creek to generate Hydro Electric Power as they do in Scotland, and at the same time it will create an excellent new leisure facility.



TRANSPORT

T1 preferred option

It's a nice concept

The plan will need more than developer 106 contributions.

Reflect reality the car is here to stay as per paras 5&6 highways page 65 and base policies accordingly



RETAIL

RTC4

Neither support nor object.

Until we see the Area Action Plan to enable us to comment constructively

The profile of Rochford needs raising to improve the economy to improve social standing.



UPPER ROACH VALLEY and WALLASEA ISLAND

URV2 preferred option.

Whilst we support the RSPB project their should be adequate facilities for visitors and the infrastructure improved to the site from Rochford, they should ensure 106 agreements are in the consent.

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Core Strategy Preferred Options document, I would to make my opinions known concerning several points mentioned in the document and I refer to a few additional suggestions from me in general.

I am strongly against the construction of new areas of housing in Rochford District. We have already seen a very great number of developments in Rochford, Rayleigh and in the 14 or so villages in the RDC over many years.

I am strongly against the construction of new industrial estates in most of Rochford District. We already have several in the RDC area and within most, there are some vacant properties and a few areas for expansion within them.

I am strongly against the construction of new major roads in Rochford District.

I am in favour of developing Southend Airport and its passenger terminals, new railway station, freight facilities, engineering and industrial areas.

I am fully in favour of the work done by RDC in the expansion of recreational, leisure and wildlife areas, such as the many woods and the Cherry Orchard Country Park.

I am prepared to accept incremental expansion of existing areas, mainly in or very close to the urban areas.

I am strongly against the further expansion of any of the villages in the RDC area. The villages are already over-developed, over-crowded and in many cases spoilt by what has been built in the past.

I am against the considerable expansion of housing and population in our District. If we were in the middle of the country with a full 360 degrees of surrounding areas and a "hub and spoke" star pattern of routes, population areas, directions, destinations, routes of escape and scope for access and expansion, it might be a different matter. But, we do not have that geography.

With Rochford located where it is - nestled or trapped hard up against the sea in the east and surrounded and enclosed north and south by two major rivers - The Thames and The Crouch and enclosed by the ribbon urban expanse of Southend-on-Sea Borough along The Thames, it is impossible to fit in any more routes or infrastructure. Apart from heading west along completely inadequate and insufficient roads - much of which we have to share with the very populous Southend-on-Sea Borough population - there is nowhere else to go to get in or out. It is a narrow one way approach.

With the infrastructure that we have and the limited space within our District, there is simply no room nor scope for more than a small amount of expansion.

The existing population in the RDC is too high for the roads that we have.

I must add to that the much higher population of Southend-on-Sea Borough competes with us for the same scarce and inadequate resources.

There are no relief roads and no room for any of any significance to be built. I and many people whom I know would protest very strongly against the very suggestion of brand new highways built on green fields.

There is no choice of alternative routes for when congestion is bad or when it will get worse, nor for a theoretical higher population.

one of the problems that we will encounter with new housing in our area is the strain to be felt on roads and traffic, public services, schools, doctors and much more needed for larger populations. We must remember that: For every 1000 houses, we can expect in excess of 2000 more cars on the roads for the residents plus more for visitors and deliveries. For every 1000 houses we can expect in excess of 2500 more people. For every 1000 houses we can expect at least 1000 more school children. For every 1000 houses we will need some more doctors' services.

I am strongly against the growth in traffic calming measures and road layout changes. They are called "traffic calming". But, they are anything but calming, they are antagonizing, irritating, inefficient and in many cases - absolutely dangerous. I fear that with a significant growth in housing and traffic, there is going to be the desire to interfere with road layouts and architecture. In my experience from observations locally, regionally and nationwide, road narrowing, pinch points, road-centre islands, tarmac projections to deviate the path of traffic and many similar types of traffic manipulation result in traffic momentarily delayed and sometimes considerably delayed. The result of that is that traffic having been held up, sppeds away at a speed far in excess of what it would have done if progress had not been impeded. Traffic which approaches pinch points has to pass oncoming traffic much too close to the centre of the road and too close to other vehicles with a closing speed of 60 miles per hour (or more) being the 30mph limit times two. Traffic approaching islands which block one lane with priority in the other direction causes traffic to speed up before they reach the obstruction - to avoid getting held up if they arrived more slowly. Then having rushed through the obstruction, it is a while before they can reduce speed. Road centre islands are a death-trap for cyclists and horse riders which leaves them and the traffic with nowhere to go when a motorist comes upon an island without seeing them until too late. The cycling and riding community are fully aware that the authorities are using them and their fragile bodies as part of the traffic calming obstacles and measures.

Quite frankly, I am against any more development. I understand that there has to be some new houses and services. I would not block all of it, but it has to be limited, delayed and phased in a progressive, slow and sustainable way.

If it is the central government which is demanding new development, then it our duty as citizens and local authorities to object and if need be refuse to accept the development where it is not sustainable, or not wanted. Central government like any type of government has to remember that they are not our bosses who can push us around. On the contrary, we are their bosses and they are our servants, and they should do as we - the voting public tell them to do, or as we tell them not to do.

I feel very strongly about all of these points and if it is of any interest, I am expressing the same or similar views of many people who have told me about such points, just as I have listed in my letter above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

REPRESENTATIONS TO CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS DPD (OCTOBER 2008)

Iceni Projects Ltd (Iceni) has been instructed by Colonnade Land LLP (Colonnade) to submit
representations in respect of the Rochford Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Development Plan Document (DPD).

a) Background

Colonnade is a strategic land company with a particular interest in the future development of the District as a consequence of a number of sites that it controls, particularly around Rochford. The representations set out below respond principally to the Housing and Employment chapters of the DPD, but do also take in other issues.

b) East of England Plan Review

You will be aware that representations have been made by Colonnade to the EERA Call for Proposals consultation, which closed in October 2008. The consultation forms an early part of the comprehensive long term review of the East of England Plan, which will address the growth strategy for the East of England Region, to include Rochford District, to 2031. Any associated changes to Rochford's growth strategy triggered by the East of England Plan Review will as a necessity, require a subsequent review to Rochford's Core Strategy, but as a consequence, are not matters that the current Core Strategy needs to directly contemplate.

c) Overview

Iceni consider the Core Strategy Preferred Options DPD to be a balanced, responsible, and legible document. Whilst we inevitably make observations, and in places objections, these are issued with the intention of improving the Core Strategy, and to ensuring that the DPD is both sound and responsive to future changes.

The downside to delivering a succinct document is that much of the material that is presented in the evidence base is left out of the Core Strategy DPD. Iceni believe that further cross referencing must be made in order to ensure the recommendations suggested within the evidence base are carried through.

For example, the employment policy should reflect and cross-reference the Employment Land Study 2008 recommendations.

As a general comment, Colonnade believes that the Core Strategy could place a greater focus on promoting Rochford as the principal settlement within the District. In the longer term, London Southend Airport has the potential to become a key catalyst for employment growth in the town. Such an opportunity warrants
identifying Rochford as the most logical and sustainable location for associated growth, not only in terms of housing, but also retail, community and education facilities. Coupled with the planned delivery of the new London Southend Airport Railway Station and the opportunity to connect with South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT), Rochford has the obvious credentials to function as the principal settlement within the District.

d) Site-Specific Interest

i) Residential

Your Authority will be familiar with Colonnade's interest in Coombes Farm, which it has previously registered through the LDF Call for Sites exercise. In our opinion, Coombes Farm is the most logical location for residential development abutting the urban area of Rochford. Coombes Farm has the ability to
direct pedestrians and cyclists through the town centre, to the benefit of existing retail and service
businesses, which will benefit from through-trade. Our representations accordingly reflect this opinion.

The site warrants recognition through the Core Strategy as a general location for residential development. At a more local scale, Colonnade is also pursuing the allocation of land adjacent to Little Wakering Road, which abuts the existing urban area and an existing playspace, and presents an excellent opportunity for a
focussed residential development in the rural area, which in particular, can deliver affordable housing. It is anticipated that the Site Allocations DPD will provide a more appropriate forum to advance these proposals, as well as reaffirming the support for Coombes Farm.

ii) Employment

In addition to the above, Colonnade will look to pursue the allocation of Three Ashes Farm for employment purposes, which abuts the western boundary of the Purdeys Industrial Estate. The Employment Land Study 2008, recommended that Purdeys Industrial Estate is a 'fit for purpose industrial estate which should be maintained and, if possible, expanded'. Colonnade consider Three Ashes to be an excellent location for
localised employment growth in Rochford, in view of its proximity to existing businesses and residential properties, which will be further enhanced by the development of the planned London Southend Airport Railway Station. Colonnade note with interest the Core Strategy's aspirations for an Eco-Enterprise Centre, which could be incorporated within the site, and underpins Colonnade's aspirations to provide a high quality buffer between existing residential properties and the boundaries of Purdeys Industrial Estate.

e) Plan Representations

For the sake of clarity, the representations made are presented in the same order as the Core Strategy Preferred Options DPD.

i) Page 24: Distribution

We concur that it is not realistic to expect Rochford's housing allocation to be met mainly on Brownfield sites, and support the aim of delivering 30% of development on previously developed sites.

ii) Policy H1- Housing Distribution

The policy objective of resisting intensification of smaller sites in residential areas is supported, both in terms of the stated intention of protecting the special character of existing settlements, and ensuring that the District's housing programme is not dominated by the development of flatted developments, which
typically provide an oversupply of one and two bedroom properties. Furthermore, this approach accords with the general thrust of the guidance within PPS3 which confirms that allowance for windfall sites should not be included in the calculation of the first 10 years of housing land supply.

Whilst the general principle of directing housing development towards previously developed land is accepted, deliverability of identified sites must be carefully monitored. This is particularly important in the current market as many of the sites identified as previously developed land will not be viable for development and will therefore not come forward within the first five years of the Core Strategy. The policy should be sufficiently flexible to allow for additional sites to be brought forward in order to demonstrate the
continuous delivery of a five year housing land supply.

iii) Page 26: General Locations

Colonnade concur with the general principle of the settlement hierarchy, albeit would reaffirm its view that Rochford has the potential to stand above all other settlements due to its proximity to London Southend Airport. The Airport, along with London Gateway, is one of the two most significant employment opportunities within the Essex Thames Gateway. The Core Strategy should more specifically acknolwdge this opportunity, and reflect this in its approach to all policies and objectives.

iv) Policy H2: General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option

Policy H2 provides for the development of 1,450 dwellings by 2015. The concluding paragraph on page 27 implies a start date of 2006, with reference to an annual delivery rate of 261.7 units over the period 2006-2015 (which in turn, represents a notional target of 2,617 for the ten year period). Allowing for the sites identified in Policy H2, this would imply a continuing requirement for 1,167 units to be brought forward from previously developed land. In contrast, the second paragraph under Distribution (on page 24) indicates an anticipated delivery of 805 units by 2015. Iceni would suggest that this issue deserves clarification. Subtracting the anticipated urban capacity and the identified H2 sites from the ten year delivery target suggests a shortfall of 362 units. In view of the guidance provided by PPS3 it is important that the Core Strategy is not perceived as placing a continuing reliance on windfall sites. Should this be the case, the
Core Strategy should look to identify additional land to meet its housing target under Policy H2.

In respect of the general areas identified for the delivery of housing, it is recognised that the detailed location and quantum of development will be articulated within the Allocations DPD. However, without providing any notional site areas, development density, or land take of associated facilities (such as those listed within H Appendix 1) it is difficult to quantify how likely it is that these site will be capable of meeting
the District's housing target. Iceni would suggest that this information needs to be incorporated within further iterations of the Core Strategy.

Regarding the relative strengths of the housing areas, at this juncture, Colonnade is content to focus on the merits of promoting Coombes Farm (or East Rochford) as a suitable location for residential development rather than criticising those areas identifed, for two principal reasons: firstly, areas rather than sites are listed, and consequently, it would be inappropriate to pass judgement until greater information is known of
actual sites, their size, potential constraints, and so on. Secondly, in advance of clarification on the above issue (in respect of windfall sites) it is possible that there will be a requirement to incorporate additional areas for residential development in any event.

The above notwithstanding, in Iceni's opinion, it is evident that there are compelling grounds for identifying Coombes Farm (within an East Rochford area designation) under Policy H2, and that in particular, it should be recorded as a priority location for helping to meet the District's five year housing land supply. The site is
located adjacent to the existing urban area, the River Roach acts as a defensible boundary to avoid coalescence with Southend, and it provides an opportunity to promote a sustainable residential development in close proximity to both Rochford Town Centre and Rochford Railway Station. Colonnade has conducted a detailed site analysis and is in the process of preparing an evidence base to a sufficiently detailed standard to underpin a planning application. Colonnade's emerging development proposals avoid the use for residential purposes of any land at risk of flooding, land within the existing (or future) public safety zone of London Southend Airport, or any other constrained land. A highly qualified consultant team have been appointed, including John Thompson Architects and Buro Happold engineers, who have deduced that the site is capable of accommodating circa 300 houses, the majority of which would be provided as family accommodation, as well as satisfying the District Council's affordable housing objectives.
Moreover, and despite the criticism provided within H2-Alternative Options, the proposals can be progressed without detrimental impact on congestion levels through Rochford Town Centre. Indeed, the site's proximity to Rochford Town centre is a virtue, as all other potential areas for development in Rochford/Ashingdon would bypass the town centre entirely. As a final point, it remains to be seen whether other landowners and developers will be prepared to proceed with a planning application and commit to implementation of any planning permission in the present economic climate. Colonnade in contrast is fully committed to Coombes Farm.

v) Policy H3 - General Locations Post 2021

Colonnade welcomes the fact that the Core Stratey correctly responds to the requirements of PPS3 in identifying broad locations for the delivery of a fifteen year housing land supply. In keeping with representations on H2, it remains to be seen whether the areas identified are sufficiently robust to meet the District's longer term housing requirements, because at this stage, there is insufficient information to
comment. In so far as Colonnade would anticipate Coombes Farm being fully delivered well in advance of 2021, the Company has no significant observations to make at this stage on the proposed policy.

vi) H4- Affordable Housing

Colonnade supports the proposed affordable housing target of 35%, albeit the actual percentage and tenure split is more appropriately determined at a planning application stage. It is likely that only Greenfield housing sites will be capable of meeting this target, as Rochford historically, and Brownfield sites generally, have consistently failed to meet affordable housing targets, as reflected in the critical under supply of affordable housing identified by the Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Between
2001 and 2007, Rochford have only delivered 8% of their total housing stock for affordable dwellings, presenting a shortfall of 1,338 affordable units over the Plan Period to the end of 2007. The inability of sites to typically deliver more than 35% affordable justifies an over provision of housing sites to deliver a greater
quantum of affordable housing and housing as a whole.

Colonnade would also recommend that the Core Strategy specifically enables 100% affordable housing schemes to be brought forward on unallocated sites, potentially as rural exception proposals.

vii) H5- Dwelling Types

Colonnade welcomes the emphasis placed in the Core Strategy on delivering a mix of dwelling types, whilst making specific reference to the provision of family and affordable housing. Colonnade supports the promotion of Rochford District as a location for housing rather than flatted developments.

viii) H Appendix 1

There is concern that the table in H Appendix 1 fails to provide the necessary justification for the proposed improvements in infrastructure. Whilst the preamble seeks to clarify why the infrastructure is sought, the inclusion of this list should be fully justified, otherwise it is of little value. Furthermore, it would be of benefit to provide further details of the existing community infrastructure provision and capacity within the evidence base.

For the avoidance of doubt, Colonnade would welcome similar information being provided as a caveat for the allocation of Coombes Farm. Colonnade is fully committed to delivering infrastructure and community improvements, and for Coombes Farm to properly address the needs of future and existing residents.

ix) Proposed Policy GB3

Colonnade would promote the inclusion of an affordable housing exception policy within the Core Strategy, which will particularly aid the delivery of community housing within rural areas. Passing land values will typically preclude such developments on Brownfield sites. However, the limited and justified release of small
parcels of Green Belt land would fundameltally enhance the viability of 100% affordable schemes without setting a precedent for open market housing developments.

x) ED1- London Southend Airport

Colonnade supports the identification of London Southend Airport in providing a significant role for the economic development of the District, not only within the confines of the development location and Airport uses only, but also through the expansion of other employment uses in nearby locations. The policy does not provide any indication of the number of jobs it will provide within the Plan period through the
redevelopment/extension of the Airport. The supporting text explains that there is pportunity for economic development around the Airport that is not necessarily linked, but it does not commit to the amount of employment land that might be appropriate and where this should be ideally located.

Three Ashes is located adjacent to the existing Purdeys Industrial Estate and is located close to Southend Airport. As discussed above, the site is an opportunity to provide employment land in the short-term which can cater for 'spin off' Airport uses, or for more general employment purposes adjacent to the existing Industrial Estate. The Three Ashes site would be further justified by its close proximity to the planned
London Southend Airport Railway Station.

xi) ED2- Employment Growth

Colonnade agrees that Rochford's economy must diversify and modernise through the growth of existing businesses and through the creation of new enterprises. Whilst the general principle of encouraging growth of existing businesses is accepted, further employment growth is likely to be necessary, as identified within the Employment Study 2008.

The policies of the Green Belt chapter should reflect the requirement for Green Belt releases and in accordance with policy 2.12 of PPG2, consideration should be given to the identification of additional safeguarded land to meet employment and job targets to allow flexibility and ensure Green Belt policies do
not put employment delivery at risk.

xii) ED4- Future Employment Allocations

The policy indicates that only one new location for employment should be carried forward, located on land to the South of London Road, Rayleigh, and otherwise relies solely on the Airport to deliver the required employment land within the District. The level of employment to come forward from the Airport is likely to be
delivered towards the end of the Plan period and beyond, and therefore presents further employment land to be identified.

Three Ashes Farm provides an excellent opportunity to deliver employment growth in the short term. The Employment Land Study 2008 stated that Purdeys Industrial Estate is fit for purpose, and recommended that if possible, the Industrial Estate is expanded. Three Ashes could deliver this outcome, providing a natural extension to Purdeys Industrial Estate and being strategically located close to the Airport. Three
Ashes would address the negative impacts that the nearby residential area experiences from the existing Industrial Estate by providing a buffer between established uses and the residential area with less intensive employment activities. The highways analysis that has been carried out has suggested that it would not have an adverse impact on roads and congestion. Furthermore, there are very few opportunities for businesses to expand and Three Ashes could provide this opportunity.

The evidence base presented within the Urban Capacity Report 2007, suggests that it is likely that a significant amount of employment land will be taken up for residential development. This puts further pressure on the demand for employment opportunities within the District. The potential loss of employment sites would trigger the need for a further allocation of employment land. The policy should be flexible
enough to allow for other areas to be considered to meet the minimum job target set by the EEP.

Cross-referencing to the Employment Land Study should be provided within this chapter in order to demonstrate that more information has been issued on the consideration of general locations for employment land.

xiii) ENV5- Eco-Enterprise Centre

Colonnade support Rochford's aim of securing an Eco-Enterprise Centre within the District and consider Three Ashes to be an excellent location. This would provide a high-quality employment development that may also incorporate uses associated with the Airport. The site would further justify its sustainability benefits
by being located within close proximity to the London Southend Airport Railway Station and Rochford Town Centre.

xiv) ENV8- Code for Sustainable Homes

In seeking to go above and beyond the policy targets set out by Central Government, which propose zero carbon (i.e. Code 6) by 2019, the proposed policy does not set achievable targets for developers. The proposed imposition of stricter targets will have a potentially negative impact on housing delivery after 2010.

This is exemplified by the findings of the recent Communities and Local Government report entitled 'The Cost Analysis of the Code for Sustainable Homes' (July 2008) which confirms that costs for achieving the Code 6 would increase between 41% and 52% of the cost for meeting 2006 Building Regulations per unit
(detached). These additional costs would further impact upon the viability of housing schemes and thereby reducing housing delivery.

Accordingly, Iceni would suggest that rather than identifying specific targets, a generic policy should be incorporated confirming that housing development should accord with Central Government targets for the Code for Sustainable Homes.

xv) T1/T2 Highways and Public Transport

Colonnade supports the principle of improving public transport provision and reducing reliance on the private car. However, it is to be noted that the Core Strategy provides no information on how surface access improvements are to be delivered to London Southend Airport, which is a fundamental caveat for the growth of the Airport, and therefore the District's employment strategy. Equally, the policy provides no information on the planned development of a London Southend Airport Railway Station. Notwithstanding the planned programme off a Joint Area Action Plan with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, the transport and
infrastructure implications of the Airport deserve further scrutiny within the Core Strategy.

xvi) T7- Parking Standards

The guidance in PPG13 is clear regarding the imposition of parking standards. Paragraphs 52-56 of PPG13 confirm that the Local Planning Authorities should apply maximum not minimum parking standards. Such a clear dismissal of adopted Central Government policy guidance is undermining the Strategy. Policy must reflect PPG13 to promote sustainable transport choices and further provide incentives for developers to
locate further residential land closer to local service centres by requiring maximum parking standards for residential developments.

xvii) CP1- Design

The Council should not seek to impose further demands on developers where existing regulations provide sufficient requirements regarding design. In this instance, Design and Access Statements provide sufficient design guidelines for developments.

xviii) Planning Obligations and Standard Charges

The principle of providing for planning gain associated with new development proposals is widely accepted. However, there needs to be a careful balance struck to ensure planning gain does not place undue burdens on developers, particularly in difficult market conditions. There is considerable risk that the imposition of high tariffs will mean that development will not come forward, further reducing affordable housing delivery and planning gain as a whole. The policy should refer to guidance contained within a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and should allow for flexibility to acknowledge reasonable negotiation on s106 agreements to ensure development proposals continue to come forward thereby contributing to
deliverability, whilst allowing realistic reductions for marginal schemes.

The supporting text to Policy CLT4 refers to the potential requirement to undertake a Health Impact Assessment. However, it fails to confirm what information should be contained within Health Impact Assessments and as such, further clarification of what is involved in the assessment and the expected outputs should be provided as it is not made available in the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document.

Colonnade Land LLP welcomes the opportunity to be an active stakeholder in the consultation process for developing the standard formula for Planning Obligations and formally requests that an invitation is extended by Rochford District Council.

Conclusion

Iceni Projects, on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP trust that the Council will find these representations to be constructive and helpful in taking forward the Core Strategy. Should you wish to discuss any aspect of these representations further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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.

Please find enclosed representations made on behalf of Martin Dawn Plc in relation to the Core Strategy.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course, but please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

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.