CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Preferred Option

The use of standard charges is consistent with circular 5/05 planning obligations. Standard charges provide greater certainty for developers. Developer contributions should however be the subject of negotiation as there may be economic viability reasons why the value of a development may not be able to support the standard charge.

No detail is given on Standard Charges but the government have laid out some indicative figures at:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/reformingplanningobligations
where they provide the following table:

Table 4.1 Indicative Levels of Standard Charge
Type of Charge Cost per dwelling £
Education 2,000 - 3,000
Primary Healthcare 1,000 - 3,000
Sport and Open Space 1,000 - 3,000
Public Transport 2,000 - 7,000
Affordable Housing (no subsidy at 33% target) 30,000 - 50,000

It does not include roads but still provides a range of £36K to £66K per dwelling. In this economic climate, will developers have problems in paying such levels of charges?

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).

Focusing income from Standard Charges on the specific area to which they have been raised means no improvements elsewhere. hence, bottlenecks like Hockley will not be resolved.

I have significant concerns regarding the system of standard charges attaching to specific developments. The level of charges should be proportionate to the increased value of that property as a result of planning permission being granted.
More detail is required on how these will be calculated and levied.

Limiting use of funds from SC to specific developments will not address the overall impact eg roads, schools, health services etc. Areas such as Hockley will take a great deal of extra traffic and school use, pressure on medical services etc but will get no benefit.

It could be construed from the final paragraph of the Preferred Option CLT1 (Planning Obligations and Standard Charges) that where land for community facilities is required as part of a development this obligation will be instead of the standard charge. The paragraph should be revised to clarify that the obligation will be in addition to the standard charge.

Essex Chambers of Commerce is particularly concerned that the Standard Charges will not be sufficient to contribute to any strategic highway improvements within Rochford District that will be needed to cope with the traffic generation resulting from the intended growth in housing and jobs.

We would suggest that flood risk should be included in this policy. Where planned development is only deliverable due to the presence of flood defences, it is not unreasonable to request that the developer contributes to the continued provision and maintenance of those defences - especially where any larger developments are concerned.

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.

Revised Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation

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

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

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

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

The Green Belt

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



Economic Development

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

Environmental issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Transport

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

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

Character of Place

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

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

Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism

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

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

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

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

Upper Roach Valley and Wallasea Island

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

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

Habitat Regulations Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please find enclosed herewith, representations on behalf of Barratts Eastern Counties. We trust these are in order and look forward to the acknowledgement in due course.

Core Strategy Preferred Options


Thank you for your letter of 5 November consulting The Theatres Trust on the Preferred Options for the Core Strategy.



The Theatres Trust is the national advisory public body for theatres and a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting land on which there is a theatre. This applies to all theatre buildings, old and new, in current use, in other uses, or disused. Established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 'to promote the better protection of theatres', our main objective is to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use but we also provide expert advice on design, conservation, property and planning matters to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies.



Due to the specific nature of the Trust's remit we are concerned with the protection and promotion of theatres and therefore anticipate policies relating to cultural facilities.



This document is a great improvement on the 2007 version but is still lacking any cultural content.



RTC1 Retail and Town Centres

The preamble to this topic includes ensuring that the District's town centres are vibrant places and the text refers to the 2008 Retail and Leisure Study. However, to quote from PPS6 A diversity of uses in centres makes an important contribution to their vitality and viability. Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening, can reinforce each other, making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers and visitors. Local planning authorities should encourage diversification of uses in the town centre as a whole, and ensure that tourism, leisure and cultural activities, which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups, are dispersed throughout the centre.



PPS6 also states that the main town centre uses are retail, leisure, offices, arts, culture and tourism. Town centres are the heart of communities and an expression of their culture and identity. As well as shops they should provide a range of realistic functions for leisure, recreation and cultural activities centred on restaurants, pubs, clubs, theatres, cinemas, libraries and museums. As such all these elements play an active role in creating and maintaining vibrant town centres and contributing to a stimulating night-time economy.



We would expect therefore to see other town centre uses mentioned in this section and some findings regarding your leisure offer from the Retail and Leisure Study. Or we suggest that you remove any general reference to town centres from this section as policy RTC1 only refers to their retail element.



RTC3 Rayleigh Town Centre

The Retail and Leisure Study is mentioned here which identifies a lack of leisure uses which includes pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, bingo halls, cinemas etc. Here again, the policy only refers to the retail element of the town - no mention is made of any other shortcomings that may need addressing for this 'principal centre of the District'.



CLT1 Planning Obligations

We support a policy in the Core Strategy to show an overall approach to developer contributions with appropriate references to strategic sites and clear links to the details set out in an accompanying supplementary planning document. We look forward to being consulted on this document.



CLT9 Leisure Facilities

Surprisingly the 2008 Retail and Leisure Study isn't mentioned here and this section and the policy only focuses on sport and recreation through your leisure centres.



Your website under Arts and Leisure states that the District has a range of arts and leisure facilities. Your arts facilities should therefore be included in the text and within the policy. The wording of policies needs to be robust, clear and succinct because of the way they determine whether or not, and how development can take place and we therefore suggest that the title of this section be amended to Arts and Leisure Facilities for continuity and clarity.



The policy should ensure that your existing arts and leisure facilities are promoted and protected as without such wording it could become difficult to retain an essential community asset particularly where land values become higher for an alternative use. This policy should also state that the loss of an existing facility will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer needed, or it can be established that the services provided by the facility can be served in an alternative location or manner that is equally accessible by the community.



CLT11 Tourism

The opening accompanying text on page 100 states that the District has the potential to be the arts and cultural opportunities area for the sub-region. But there is no mention of this aspiration in any section nor this policy or any other policy.



Even though 'A Better Life' (Essex Cultural Strategy) and Rochford's Cultural Strategy are listed as 'relevant strategies' their content does not make an appearance in this document. Except on page 8 under Priority 6 More participation in sports, culture and volunteering ..... and on page 95 in the right hand column where the Audit Commission Report 2004 found that residents thought that cultural facilities in the District had got better or stayed the same. However there is no mention of cultural facilities in this policy or any other policy.





We look forward to being consulted on the Submission Core Strategy, Infrastructure and Standard Charges document together with Rochford and Hockley Area Action Plans.

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]

CORE STRATEGY - PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Ashingdon Parish Council accepts that that more homes must be built in the District of Rochford.
The suggestion of sharing the burden of additional homes equally around the existing conurbations seems to us to be reasonable.
We agree that additional infrastructure must be provided to support the new residents and prevent existing residents suffering from stretched and weakened services; roads, schools, sewerage, health facilities, etc.
The Green Belt must be protected as much as possible;
every scrap of'Brownfield Land' should be sensitively used.
We will support you in demanding infrastructure improvements to accompany new developments.
Whenever possible developers must be required to pay for these improvements to the existing infrastructure.
We must work together to: pressurise government authorities responsible for infrastructure (roads, schools, sewerage, health, etc.) to agree that additional provision is required; and to ensure that these agreed improvements are actually made.


John Dyke - Clerk to Ashingdon Parish Council 15 December 2008.

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.

Dear Sir / Madam

Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options Document

On behalf of the Aston Unit Trust and Mr John Needs, I enclose formal representations in respect of the Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options.

Whilst the individual representation forms set out my clients comments on each policy, it may be of assistance briefly to summarise their overall perspective on the Preferred Options. The main criticism is the decision to shift a much higher proportion of the greenfield housing allocations to the second and third tier settlements compared to the 2007 Preferred Options.

The 2007 Preferred Options was the subject of a Sustainability Analysis which concluded that the option of providing only 10% of the total housing provision (460 units) in these minor settlements was the most sustainable option. The 2008 Preferred Options now proposes to allocate 860 units on greenfield sites in second and third tier settlements. When completions and commitments are added to this figure, the total level of housing growth in these lower tier settlements will be considerable. There is nothing in the evidence base to justify such a change and since it results in a less sustainable spatial strategy it is unsound.

The solution is to reduce the level of greenfield allocations in the second and third tier settlements and increase the proportion in the three towns. It is not the role of these representations to suggest a detailed Policy H2 redistribution, however land at Wellington Road, Rayleigh is capable of delivering around 200 dwellings at a sustainable location in the 'principal town' in the district. This site is within walking distance of a wide range of services, facilities, employment and public transport in Rayleigh. As a consequence, future residents of this site have a real choice not to use their cars for most day to day trips. This choice does not exist in the lower tier settlements of Hullbridge, Great Wakering and Canewdon.

My clients support the tariff or 'CIL' approach set out in Policy CLT1 and the representation on Appendix 1 sets out the social and physical infrastructure which would be expected to accompany the residential development of the Wellington Road site.

Should you wish to discuss the delivery of the Wellington Road site in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,
R Sellwood
Sellwood Planning Ltd
cc. Aston Unit Trust
J Needs