Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 15867

Received: 15/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Sealey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Annual Monitoring Report will only tell you what has happened after the event and there will probably be further delays while an action plan is produced. Whilst some recognised indicators are proposed they do not have particular targets to help identoify where the strategy is not delivering as expected. Other monitoring is simply reporting what the current status is with no method of identifying if that is on target or not.

Full text:

Support

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16001

Received: 28/10/2009

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

The Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring Plan identifies, clearly, a description of tasks, ownership, potential risk, mitigative action and monitoring measures.

Full text:

The Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring Plan identifies, clearly, a description of tasks, ownership, potential risk, mitigative action and monitoring measures.

Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16703

Received: 02/11/2009

Respondent: Essex County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Full text:

ROCHFORD CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION DOCUMENT, SEPTEMBER 2009
RESPONSE OF ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL

1. General Comment

Essex County Council welcomes and broadly supports the Core Strategy prepared by Rochford District Council. The Strategy contains policies and proposals that address the spatial characteristics, issues and opportunities facing the District whilst respecting the distinctive qualities of the different settlements and parts of the District.

The County Council fully supports the maintenance of a strong policy approach to protection of the Green Belt and of the quality of environmental assets in the District whilst making adequate housing and employment provision within the District. The Core Strategy presents an approach that emphasises a balance of opportunity through the District and recognition of emerging economic prospects in the District and neighbouring areas. The intended preparation of more detailed Action Area Plans for London Southend Airport and its environs and for each of the three town centres of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley will further enhance the approach of the Core Strategy. The emphasis on the three town centres is particularly welcomed as offering a stimulus to improvement in the services and facilities available locally within the District whilst also affording possibilities of increased community focus.

2. Housing Distribution and Locations

The East of England Plan requires Rochford to provide a minimum of 3,790 additional dwellings between 2006 and 2021. In addition, provision for a further 1,000 dwellings should be made between 2021 and 2025 to ensure delivery of housing for at least 15 years from adoption of the Core Strategy (expected in 2010). Of this total requirement the District Council has identified a capacity of 2,000 dwellings through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. This means that the Core Strategy has to identify locations for about 1,750 dwellings to be delivered before 2021 and a further 1,000 dwellings between 2021 and 2025.

Policy H1 (The efficient use of land for housing) is supported. However, prioritisation of the reuse of previously developed land within settlements for additional housing is unlikely to provide a sufficient source of provision due to the generally residential nature of existing settlements in the district and the absence of potentially large sites of previously developed land. The assessment of potential for additional housing provision within settlements already includes the proposed re-allocation to substantially residential use of 4 existing employment areas.

Within Policy H2 (Extensions to residential envelopes and phasing) and Policy H3 (Extension to residential envelopes post-2021) the District Council has adopted a balanced approach to the distribution of additional housing locations, which is based on identification of tiers of settlements defined by reference to their accessibility to jobs, services and facilities (some of which lie outside the District) and the need to protect the valued environments within the District. This approach is generally supported, although implementation and delivery of individual schemes should give further thought to securing sustainable functional relationships between proposed development locations and availability of jobs, services and facilities.

The proposed scale and phasing of development at each of the identified locations in Policy H2 and Policy H3 should be capable of being supported by County Council service groups, provided that adequate and timely funding is available. The County Council would wish to work with the District Council to ensure that future infrastructure and facilities would serve and give benefit to the existing adjoining community as well as to the new development. In this respect it is noted that the Core Strategy proposes preparation by the District Council of a Planning Obligations and Standard Charges document (Policy CLT1). The District Council's document should fully reflect the County Council's own approach to this matter as set out in the County Council's 'Developer's Guide to Infrastructure Contributions'.

3. Economic Development

The approach to Employment Growth (Policy ED1) is supported. Given the economic structure of Rochford District the support to be given to protection and enhancement of the role of small and medium sized businesses; enhancement of the District's commercial centres; and development of a skills training academy is particularly welcome. These measures will assist in building on the existing economic resource of the District.

Proposals for the comprehensive development of London Southend Airport and its environs (Policy ED2) are supported. The further elaboration of proposals through an Area Action Plan will provide a firm foundation to realise the economic regeneration and growth opportunities presented by effective use of the Airport. The recognition of the potential environmental impact of the Airport and the commitment to work to mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment and local amenities is fully supported.

The location of the proposed Eco-Enterprise Centre to the North of London Southend Airport (Policy ED4) is supported. Creation of the Centre would assist reduction of the rate of business start-up failure in the district. Further the proposed location for the Centre would afford a clear offer to businesses within an area of varied business activity.

The continued protection and enhancement of existing employment land (Policy ED3) is supported, as is the identification of 4 existing employment sites for appropriate alternative, substantially residential, uses. Each of the 4 sites affords particular issues and opportunities whereby their redevelopment for other uses and relocation of existing occupiers would confer advantage for the immediately neighbouring areas and for the District as a whole.

4. Town Centres

The town centres of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley, and future plans for them, are closely linked to the economic development of the District but also present the opportunity to offer greater community focus within the District. The varied approach being taken to each of these town centres is supported (Policy RTC4, RTC5 and RTC6), notably the recognition of the role and purpose of the town centres beyond retail uses.

The contribution that the County Library service could make to plans for the town centres should not be overlooked. The 5 libraries in the District are substantial footfall draws in their localities and act as a 'community anchor store'. This has knock-on effects in encouraging use of neighbouring retail and service facilities. Further the Library service is currently looking at co-location opportunities for other services within the libraries which would enable them to act as a community focus.

5. Transport

The transport aspects of the Core Strategy are well balanced in identifying potential measures that would meet the needs of existing residents and businesses in the District as well as needs arising from future development. The approach reflects and makes good reference to the transportation aspirations of the County Council. The policy emphasis on close working between the District Council and the County Council to advance the transport aspirations is welcomed and fully supported.

In relation to parking standards (Policy T8 and Paragraph 10.30) the review undertaken by Essex County Council in conjunction with the Essex Planning Officers Association has now been completed. Revised parking standards have been agreed and signed off as County Supplementary Guidance, in accordance with PPS12, and is being applied by the County Council as Local Highways Authority.

6. Coastal Protection Belt

Policy ENV2 (Coastal Protection Belt) is not supported because in its current form it is not a suitable or effective replacement policy for Policy CC1 of the Replacement Structure Plan. Structure Plan Policy CC1 (The Undeveloped Coast - Coastal Protection Belt) currently remains a 'saved' policy of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan, April 2001 (following a direction of the Secretary of State, dated 27th September 2007, under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The existing Policy CC1 reads,
'Within the Coastal Protection Belt defined in adopted local plans there shall be the most stringent restrictions on development within the rural and undeveloped coastline situated outside existing built-up areas, and any development which is exceptionally permitted within this Belt shall not adversely affect the open and rural character, historic features or wildlife.'

Core Strategy Policy ENV2 should be revised to include specific reference to,
* Definition of the boundary of the Coastal Protection Belt in another Development Plan Document;
* the application of the most stringent restrictions on development within the rural and undeveloped coastline;
* any development exceptionally permitted not adversely affecting the open and rural character, historic features or wildlife.

7. Historic Environment

The importance of the historic environment in Rochford District is clearly identified within the Core Strategy document. Nevertheless, the policy guidance could be usefully enhanced to promote consideration and enhancement of the historic environment and use of the historic environment to shape place. This would be achieved by the following amendments to the Core Strategy,

* Policy ENV1 (Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats and the Protection of Historical and Archaeological Sites) should be amended by deletion of the final sentence and its replacement with,
The Council is committed to the protection, promotion and enhancement of the diverse historic landscape and extensive surviving archaeological deposits of the District.

* Paragraph 8.15 of the supporting text should be amended to better support the suggested amendment to Policy ENV1. The existing text of Paragraph 8.15 should be deleted in its entirety and replaced by,
The historic environment of Rochford District has developed through a history of human activity that spans over 450,000 years. Much of the resource lies hidden beneath the ground in the form of archaeological deposits. Other elements such as the historic landscape, the pattern of field, farms, woods and grazing marsh which characterise the District, are a highly visible record of millennia of agriculture, industry and commerce. Of particular significance are the coastal, island and estuarine areas where multi-period landscapes reflecting the exploitation of coastal and marshland resource survive. The District also includes the important historic medieval market towns of Rochford and Rayleigh.

* Page 16 (Sustainable Community Strategy Priority: Promoting a Greener District) should be amended to further support the approach to the Historic Environment. The fourth bullet of the Key Section/Policies of the Core Strategy should be amended to include the word 'historic', so that the first sentence of the bullet would read,
The Environment chapter seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity, historic and natural environment of the District by protecting sites of local, national and international importance.

8. Community Infrastructure

The approach to Community Infrastructure is supported. The County Council would wish to work with the District Council to ensure that future community infrastructure and facilities would serve and give benefit to the existing adjoining community as well as to the new development. In this respect it is noted that the Core Strategy proposes preparation by the District Council of a Planning Obligations and Standard Charges document (Policy CLT1). The District Council's document should fully reflect the County Council's own approach to this matter as set out in the County Council's 'Developer's Guide to Infrastructure Contributions'.

In addition, it should be noted that,
* Some County Council services are not highly visible despite being regarded as highly desirable community services by local residents. The need to ensure adequate funding and contributions to enable these services to meet community expectations should be recognised and acknowledged in consideration of planning obligations and standard charges.
* The Adult Community Learning Centre at Rocheway, Rochford could be better located with regard to the wider Rochford/Castle Point area of service. Relocation of the Centre could provide opportunities both at the new location and for the current site.
* The Core Strategy should make specific reference to,
o Appendix H1, Location at South Canewdon: new Early Years and Childcare facilities;
o Policy CLT2, final sentence: insert after the words 'primary schools' the words 'and Early Years and Childcare facilities;
o Appendix CLT1, Other issues/comment: for Early years and childcare facilities add 'Land to be allocated within new residential areas, as appropriate'.

9. Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring

The inclusion in the Core Strategy of a section considering Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring is welcomed and supported. Nevertheless, the District Council, in moving towards implementation and delivery of the individual elements of the Core Strategy, should highlight those schemes and projects that are critical to achievement of other aspects of the Strategy.

Further, the monitoring proposal for Policy H6 (Lifetime Homes) and for Policy CP1 (Design) should be amended,
* Policy H6 (Lifetime Homes) - the identified monitoring tool is Core Indicator H6 Housing Quality Building for Life Assessments. The Building for Life Assessment methodology was devised to measure the overall design/layout quality of housing developments. It was not devised to measure compliance with Lifetime Homes, which is largely, but not exclusively, concerned with internal space standards and the provision of internal arrangements within dwellings to meet needs of all residents.
* Policy CP1 (Design) - the monitoring indicator proposed by the Core Strategy is not supported because it is unclear what the indicator would actually be measuring. The proposed indicator should be replaced by the Core Indicator, Housing Quality - Building for Life Assessments, as suggested by the County Council in its response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options, October 2008. A better approach would be to base evaluation and monitoring of Policy CP1 on the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment's (CABE) 20 Building for Life principles, particularly as Government has endorsed these principles and is urging local authorities to use them to assess design quality. It is suggested that the monitoring arrangements for Preferred Option CP1 be deleted and replaced by the following text,
'The success of the implementation of this policy will be monitored by assessing schemes, or an appropriate sample of schemes, against the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment's (CABE) Building for Life principles.'

10. Access to Housing

The Core Strategy notes the higher prevalence of older people in Rochford District and the need to support them. However, a more broadly based approach to access to housing should be adopted by Policies H4, H5 and H6. It should recognise the presence of other vulnerable adults in the community, for example, those with learning or mental health disability, and the range of possible forms of accommodation, including supported, sheltered and extra care accommodation. The high level of owner occupation in the District further emphasises the need for a broader approach. The emphasis on Lifetime Homes would not address the variety of future needs, whilst the potential exemptions to the Lifetime Homes policy standard in Policy H6 are likely to act against demographic trends.

Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16704

Received: 02/11/2009

Respondent: Essex County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The inclusion in the Core Strategy of a section considering Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring is welcomed and supported. Nevertheless, the District Council, in moving towards implementation and delivery of the individual elements of the Core Strategy, should highlight those schemes and projects that are critical to achievement of other aspects of the Strategy.

Policy CP1 (Design) - the monitoring indicator proposed by the Core Strategy is not supported because it is unclear what the indicator would actually be measuring. The proposed indicator should be replaced by the Core Indicator, Housing Quality - Building for Life Assessments, as suggested by the County Council in its response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options, October 2008. A better approach would be to base evaluation and monitoring of Policy CP1 on the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment's (CABE) 20 Building for Life principles, particularly as Government has endorsed these principles and is urging local authorities to use them to assess design quality.

Full text:

Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16859

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Under the heading "risk mitigation" for Policy ENV3, the Council do not make any reference to updating their Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. This will be essential for the delivery of sustainable development in the district and will be required as part of the evidence base for more detailed DPDs being undertaken as part of the LDF. It is not considered adequate to rely solely on the flood maps produced by the Environment Agency and PPS25 requires LPAs to produce a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Full text:

Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16918

Received: 09/11/2009

Respondent: Barratt Eastern Counties

Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Implementation, Monitoring and Delivery - page 132 onwards

One of the key tests of soundness is that the Core Strategy should be effective - it should be able to deliver its strategy. The Implementation strategy set out at page 132 onwards of the Core Strategy does not explain how Policy H1, RTC6 and the strategy for redeveloping Eldon Way (Policy ED2 and ED3) will be delivered. The comment at Policy ED3 on page 161 identifies it as a potential risk and alludes to land assembly difficulties and the choices to be made by owner/occupiers. In order to deliver the strategy there should be a clear understanding as to whether the new land use values being promoted are sufficient to encourage relocation voluntarily. Secondly there is a need for more information to be gathered and presented to show
that current occupiers and landowners are wiling to relocate and the timescales likely for this. For example, do the building lease contracts enable early review or are there any break out clauses. There should be some commentary on whether the Council will engage in compulsory purchase orders to pursue their strategy should the 'encouragement' route fail. As currently drafted there is no clear path to deliver the strategy and the danger is that despite reallocation, the sites identified for redevelopment will not come forward in the plan period. In this regard, evidence to satisfy the test of soundness is not provided.

Full text:

Local Development Framework

Representations on the Core Strategy
Submission Document, November 2009
On behalf of Barratts Eastern Counties

Introduction

The requirements of Core Strategies are enshrined in the 2004 Planning and
Compensation Act, the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) England (Regulations) 2004 and the 2008 policy guidance in PPS12. The requirements of Coe Strategies are clear. And they are legal requirements. The Core Strategy must comply with the Local Development Scheme, Statement of Community Involvement and the Regulations. The Core Strategy must be subject to a sustainability appraisal, have regard to national guidance, conform generally with the Regional Spatial Strategy and have regard to any Sustainable Community Strategy. A Core strategy must be sound - justified, effective and consistent with national policy. The following
representations therefore focus on these legal requirements.

HOUSING
Paragraph 4.6 - Evidence Base

To meet the soundness test Submission Core Strategies (SCS) must be justified, that is to say it must be founded on robust and credible evidence base and comprise the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. The housing strategy in as far as it identifies a need for Green belt sites is sound, however, there are other elements which are unsound.

Paragraph 4.6 notes that the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has examined the supply of housing. It is presumed that the Table at paragraph 4.6 is the outcome of this examination. Whilst the SHLAA has some leigitimacy in that it identifies various sites that are apparently available, we are concerned that because the SHLAA was only published in November 2009 it post dates the SCS. This implies that the SCS is driving the SHLAA exercise rather than the other way round. Whilst this may have no real practical effect on the outcome of the SCS and the identified need for Green Belt sites, the Inspector will be mindful of the advice in paragraphs 33 and 54 of PPS3 that SCS draw on the evidence in SHLAA. It may be that the SCS should explain how the evidence base has been used to justify the strategy.

PPS12 explains at paragraph 4.37 that Core Strategies are based on thorough evidence. Since the SHLAA has only recently been published it is considered that the SCS is unsound as it is not justifiable. This, together with other comments on the SCS, indicates that the process should be delayed to ensure that a more robust document is placed in front of the EiP Inspector.

Table at Paragraph 4.6 - Evidence base

From our review of the available evidence it would appear that the housing land supply is insufficient and that Green Belt release are required. From the wider strategy being promoted we note that some of the sites that the District Council consider to be 'appropriate' are likely to relate to existing employment areas. As set out elsewhere in our representations, we maintain sever reservations that the redevelopment of existing employment sites for alternative uses and particularly the Eldon Way Industrial Estate is unsustainable. We will make reference to the effectiveness of this strategy in relation to sustainability, whether it is justified in the context of National Policy and the deliverability of such a strategy elsewhere.

In particular, paragraph 11.32 of the SCS refers to existing employment land and sites within the UCS. It does not refer the SHLAA and as such it appears that an evidence base to support the re-use of employment land for residential is not reported in the SCS.

Having reviewed the 2008 Annual Monitoring Report, as we did when commenting on the 2008 Preferred Options Core Strategy, we maintain severe doubts as to the appropriateness of some of the previously developed sites identified as potential housing sites and their expected housing yield. Whilst we cannot at this stage ascertain whether the SHLAA sites referred to in this table correlate with the Annual Monitoring Report and indeed the 2007 Urban Capacity Study, it is our view that there will be some commonality and so the reliance on these sites is likely to be at odds with Government Policy. We shall elaborate on this objection in relation to the specific housing policy below.

We note that the last two rows in the Table at paragraph 4.6 set out figures with and without Green Belt releases. The text to this section of the Core Strategy should, for reasons of clarity, explain that Green belt review will be necessary in order to deliver the required housing.

Paragraph 4.9

The table on page 40, which sets out the settlement tiers, is supported. Rayleigh, Rochford/Ashingdon, Hockley/Hawkwell are clearly the largest settlements in the District and they benefit from good employment, housing, leisure, community and public transport provision. These settlements are the most sustainable ones with the greatest mix of uses. Consequently, it is sensible that the Core Strategy identifies these as top tier settlements and is able to target them with growth accordingly. This component of the strategy is justified by reference to sustainability data and is effective, since targeting development at these locations will ensure a more sustainable pattern of development.

Paragraph 4.14

We maintain that the strategy for redeveloping the Eldon Way Industrial Estate for housing and other alternative uses to employment is unsound. It is neither justified nor effective. The Industrial Land Availability Study 2006 sets out on page 7 strategic objectives. The 3rd objective seeks to Support town centre and industrial estate enhancement initiatives aimed at improving the environment ensuring the area is economically prosperous and competitive. Clearly the strategy as currently drafted envisages major changes to existing industrial estates, including alternative uses. This strategy is not consistent with other strategies and evidence based studies and so cannot be justified in the context of the tests set out in PPS12. It is also an ineffective strategy since the new employment locations that would free up the Eldon Way site for redevelopment relies on transport infrastructure that has no certainty of being delivered. Principally, the erosion of employment uses at Eldon Way could
make the settlement of Hockley/Hawkwell less sustainable and thus conflict with the tiered approach on page 40, paragraph 4.9.

Policy H1

Prioritising the use of previously developed land ("pdl") is supported in principle. It is a justified strategy in the context of PPS3 and effective as sequential choices can be made by implementing the policy. However, the District Council is also promoting a strategy which seeks the redevelopment of existing employment locations to alternative uses and by consequence is identifying green field sites for new employment development elsewhere (Policy ED4 refers). This 'land swapping' is not considered consistent with PPS3, nor is it considered to be justified or effective in delivering the desired strategy. This is particularly the case as most of the existing employment sites are occupied and therefore unavailable for redevelopment. In addition, the new Greenfield sites are in an arguably less sustainable locations away from the top tier settlements identified on page 40 of the Submission Core Strategy. Clearly this element of the strategy is inconsistent with the wider strategy.

The Industrial Land Availability Study 2006 is included as an evidence base by the District Council. It includes an introductory section, which explains that the authority wishes to make Rochford the place of choice for new business. It includes several strategic objectives on page 7 including "Support town centre and industrial estate enhancement initiatives aimed at improving the environment ensuring the area is economically prosperous and competitive." It reviews existing employment areas and identifies vacant land, including land available from allocations. It does not include any assessment of new sites or potential opportunities for new sites that might have been expected to feed into the Core Strategy. The strategy for identifying Green Belt site employment allocation does not appear to be based on any evidence in this document and in that context cannot be justified. The strategy being promoted potentially conflicts with Government policy in PPG13, PPG2 and emerging PPS4.

The Employment Land Study 2008 is a much later document. It has a key recommendation on page ii "we recommend that Rochford District Council adopts strong policies to protect existing employment land." Furthermore under recommendations for existing sites on page iii-iv of that document it states "In our view, Hockley Trading Centre is a strategically well placed employment location. However, we recognise the ambitions of the Hockley Town Centre masterplan and that within this the Council should consider it to be allocated for other uses. However, we recommend that this reallocation happen only if provision is made within the masterplan for office use within Hockley Town Centre as part of a mixed use scheme." The view of the writers of this document is clear - the Eldon Way Industrial estate (Hockley Trading Centre) is a good employment site and that it is for other reasons that alternative uses are being considered and only then if office development is supported. This supports our representations that new future uses at
the Eldon Way site should be employment dominated and that alternative uses should relate to the objectives of the Town Centre which is to enhance the shopping and leisure facilities. Residential is not an appropriate alternative.

This document recommends the use of land to the west of Rayleigh for employment and envisages Green belt release. However, the SCS does not explain through the evidence base why existing employment sites should be 'deallocated' and Green belt land unnecessarily used.

In addition to these key issues we have some specific concerns. As a consequence we maintain an objection to the second paragraph of Policy H1. This policy states that the Council will seek the redevelopment of various industrial estates including Eldon Way. The Policy says that alternative uses will be sought (presumably alternative to the existing employment offer) and that new land will be allocated elsewhere. This policy statement, in relation to Eldon Way in particular, is unsound for a number of reasons:

The emerging Hockley Area Action Plan consulted upon in 2008 states that the Eldon Way Industrial Estate is strategically well placed. In a sense this statement underplays the true importance of this highly sustainable employment location and only major employment area in Hockley/Hawkwell. The employment area is adjacent to the railway station and located a short distance from the main bus routes that run along Spa Road. Some of the residential areas of the town are also within walking distance of this commercial area, thus providing a potential for sustainable travel by employees. The Eldon Way Industrial Estate is therefore right at the heart of the settlement of Hockley/Hawkwell and provides an opportunity to meet sustainable transport objectives by reducing the need to travel by car. Consequently, this employment area should be highlighted as a premier employment site in sustainability terms, both in the context of PPG13, PPG4 and PPS6. To encourage alternative uses as set out in Policy H1 implies the removal of the majority of employment based activity at Hockley/Hawkwell and this would be contrary to National policy, would not be the most appropriate strategy when considered against alternatives and is therefore unsound.

Whilst it is acknowledged that improvement to the Eldon Way Industrial Estate can and should take place, the extent to which the mix of employment uses should be altered in favour of alternative land uses requires careful consideration. It is our view that a mix of existing or indeed new employment land uses with some Town Centre type uses should dominate the Eldon Way site. A mix of employment types between offices, light industry and other high technology industries should be encouraged as this will provide many locational advantages to the firms that agglomerate together. The Council says that the existing uses on this site are harmful to amenity. However, the site has operated for many years without any significant issues and if renewal for B1 type uses are encouraged then the employment area can be maintained without harm to amenity. Renewal of the employment stock can help develop and improve trade, improve the sustainability of businesses as a whole and make for a more flexible labour market as skill levels are varied. A singularly different use altogether or a variety of uses which excludes employment could undermine the long term sustainability of the area and Town Centre. As such Policy H1 is not an effective strategy and should be amended to acknowledge the importance of Eldon Way and the need to renew the employment stock to ensure that the site maintains its important role as a employment site, albeit with some ancillary alternative use development where appropriate.

The 2008 Retail Study notes that Hockley Town Centre is not strong and there is trade leakage. Eldon Way Industrial Estate provides a customer base for existing town centre uses. Weekday spending within town centres is an important contributor to the viability of many retail and leisure businesses either through expenditure by employees during the lunchtime trade or expenditure by employers, on necessary goods and services. This relationship helps sustain the critical mass of a centre and provides a platform for new retail and leisure growth. It is important to have a balanced centre with a variety of uses. Policy H1, as currently drafted, implies the removal of employment related development and this is likely to harm the vitality and
viability of Hockley Town Centre. The Council has presented no evidence to suggest that this is not the case. Importantly, the 2008 Retail Study explains that there is a need for additional retail and office space. In principle we would support additional office and other B1 type uses plus retail but employment uses should always dominate for the sustainability reasons given above. Retail and office development are likely to present a viable alternative to some of the more industrial type uses.

Consequently, we do not support the phrasing of the third paragraph of Policy H1 and maintain that the most appropriate strategy is to seek renewal of the employment stock with employment based uses and with some new retail development. Removal of employment land uses completely as currently implied-which was the approach adopted in the emerging Hockley Area Action Plan - is not a justifiable strategy.

One of the key tests of a Core Strategy is consistency between policies in the
emerging Plan and this strikes at the heart of demonstrating an effective strategy. Policy H1 implies alternative uses to employment and the relocation of Eldon Way to a site identified under Policy ED4. However, Policy RTC6 sets out a suite of policy criteria for Hockley Town Centre which includes employment and commercial activities. In addition Policy ED3 seeks the protection of sustainable employment sites (Eldon Way) and notes that some reallocation of existing employment sites will include a proportion of employment. It notes that in the case of Eldon Way employment development will form a component. The policies appear at odds with one another. The third paragraph of Policy H1 should be deleted as the second paragraph is sufficient to set a strategic context for delivering new housing development. The employment policies and Hockley specific policies should be left to consider the type and quantum of land uses appropriate in the area. If the third paragraph of H1 is to be retained then it should tie in more with Policy RTC6 and in our view explain that employment uses should dominate any redevelopment proposals for the Eldon Way site and that retail and leisure uses should be a supporting proportion.

Implementation, Monitoring and Delivery - page 132 onwards

One of the key tests of soundness is that the Core Strategy should be effective - it should be able to deliver its strategy. The Implementation strategy set out at page 132 onwards of the Core Strategy does not explain how Policy H1, RTC6 and the strategy for redeveloping Eldon Way (Policy ED2 and ED3) will be delivered. The comment at Policy ED3 on page 161 identifies it as a potential risk and alludes to land assembly difficulties and the choices to be made by owner/occupiers. In order to deliver the strategy there should be a clear understanding as to whether the new land use values being promoted are sufficient to encourage relocation voluntarily. Secondly there is a need for more information to be gathered and presented to show
that current occupiers and landowners are wiling to relocate and the timescales likely for this. For example, do the building lease contracts enable early review or are there any break out clauses. There should be some commentary on whether the Council will engage in compulsory purchase orders to pursue their strategy should the 'encouragement' route fail. As currently drafted there is no clear path to deliver the strategy and the danger is that despite reallocation, the sites identified for redevelopment will not come forward in the plan period. In this regard, evidence to satisfy the test of soundness is not provided.

Policy H2 - General Locations

We support the strategy that new housing growth should be targeted at land South of Hawkwell. This area is suitably located to the urban area of Hockley/Hawkwell and to tie in with the settlement tiers on page 40 of the Submission Core Strategy the same terminology for settlement should be used. This ensures a consistency within the SCS. The choice of this location as a housing growth area is appropriate as it would not contribute to the coalescence of the urban area with Ashingdon (there is existing
development between this identified housing area at Rectory Road and Ashingdon and moreover, Rectory Road can form a natural physical boundary for the new Green belt boundary. This area is also well located to the existing road network. Cherry Orchard Way has recently been improved and provides much better accessibility to the proposed housing growth area than any other location around Hockley/Hawkwell. The existing bus routes along Rectory Road also make this location sustainable and the additional housing proposed will help underpin the financial viability of bus routes in this area. Locally there are employment opportunities, including the small commercial estate off Main Road. The Eldon Way Industrial Estate adjacent to the Town Centre also provides the opportunity for employment locally. Extensive public open space, play pitches and built leisure facilities are located just to the north of this area and a community hall is located off Briar Close, nearby. The area to the south of Hockley/Hawkwell is close to local shops on the corner of Heycroft Road and Main Road and there are numerous footpath links between this area and the local community including links via Thorpe Road, Thorpe Close, Briar Close, Hawkwell Park and Park Gardens. The area therefore provides the opportunity to enhance existing links, including cycle links, and
contribute towards community integration - more so than other sites on the south side of this settlement. The site is also in the control of one house builder and deliverable.

However, we find that the Policy is not fully consistent with national policy and
furthermore needs to be reviewed in order to be justified and effective. We have concerns as to how the Green Belt review strategy set out at Policy H3 and in the Local Development Scheme integrates with this policy and feel that Green Belt review should be more explicit throughout the SCS. We note that it is only Policy H3 which indicates the need for Green Belt land review. In fact Policy H3 only pays lip service to the need for a Green Belt review and provides, at best, loose advice in this regard. It says that prior to 2021 Green Belt will be safeguarded save for the releases noted under Policy H2. Policy H3 then goes onto talk about land release for development after 2021 but no time period is set out to provide a framework for any Green Belt review in this latter period. In our view Policy H2 and certainly Policy H3 and Policy GB1 should explain fully the need for a Green Belt review and that such a
review should take place for a defined period. That such a review has not taken place in advance of the SCS is a serious matter for the Inspector to consider in the context of soundness. That said, it is considered that any review of Green Belt should have regard to a period beyond 2021 as indicated by draft Policy H3. Paragraph 1.9 of the East of England Plan explains "this RSS covers the period to 2021 but sets a vision, objectives and core strategy for the longer term". 2026 is therefore considered a minimum suitable period that any Green Belt review must have regard to in order to meet the 5 year land supply requirements in PPS3 for the period after 2021. However, Policy SS7 of the East of England Plan talks about Green Belt reviews up to 2031. In view of this and the need to explore the circumstances of Rochford - that existing settlements cannot contain future housing growth; that Green Belt is necessary to provide housing; and that these provide exceptional reasons to vary the Green Belt locally (paragraph 2.6 to 2.7 of PPG2) the policies and strategy for the SCS should identify a Green Belt review covering the
period to 2031 and set out why a review is necessary.

Policy H2 - Phasing and Quantum

The 2008 Preferred Core Strategy document indicated that the area south of Hawkwell should deliver 330 dwellings over a phasing period to post 2021 (see Policy H2 and H3 of that document). The SCS reduces the quantum of housing in this area to 175 but expects delivery by 2015. At a broader level the Preferred Options Core Strategy of 2008, (Policy H2) required 1,450 dwellings to 2015 and a further 1,050 by 2021. In the SCS the figures are now 775 and 1,010 respectively.

Since the SHLAA post dates the publication of the SCS, we are uncertain as to the reason why such a significant reduction in quantum of housing and extensions to the residential envelope is considered necessary. Presumably it is the 'new' strategy to redevelop existing employment areas within the settlements that has led to this change. Our representations on this strategy and specifically the Eldon Way Industrial Estate are included elsewhere within our representations. Previously we have commented on the Table at paragraph 4.6 of the Submission Core Strategy and the lack of evidence to underpin that table. It seems odd that in the space of a year the expected requirement for Greenfield sites has effectively halved on the basis of a SHLAA exercise. The community is therefore not able to effectively comment on the housing land supply and at this stage the Submission Core Strategy
is legally unsound.

That said, we are of the view that the quantum of housing envisaged south of Hockley/Hawkwell should be more than the 175 currently envisage. In coming to this view we have reviewed the Urban Capacity Study and the latest housing figures in the Annual Monitoring Report 2008. We conclude that the shortfall in housing land supply is such that 330 dwellings in this location is appropriate.

The recently published SHLAA is based upon the data obtained from the Urban Capacity Study 2007, a call for sites exercise and data from the Annual Monitoring Report 2008.

The 2007 Urban Capacity Study (UCS)

1. 2007 is widely recognised as being the peak level of house prices in the UK and it was acknowledged by Government and practitioners alike that 2007 house prices were at an unsustainable level. It is our view that utilising the 2007 UCS as an evidence base without reference to the market does not pick up the depressed demand that is likely to now exist. Recent corrections to the housing market now mean that housing land prices are at a much lower and arguably more affordable level than before. The implications are that some pdl may not be viable for housing development. Often brownfield sites have much higher development costs than Greenfield sites and so the yield from urban capacity will be much lower than anticipated in the 2007 study. One example is the employment allocation of the Adopted Local Plan located at 76-92 Main Road, Hawkwell. This site has been allocated for several years and has been available during the most recent rises in residential property prices during
2006-07. As a consequence the lack of progress on the site can only be described by its current occupancy and perhaps it comprises high value
uses that do not encourage redevelopment. Despite this the site is identified as having high potential for alternative use and high potential demand. The SHLAA form notes that there is no information on legal constraints (e.g., tenancy agreements) As a consequence it is difficult to see how this could continue to be a potential site and as a consequence the allowance for green field releases should be increased.

2. There are considered to be other instances in the UCS and the recently published SHLAA where the assumptions and calculations would indicate that the 1301 urban capacity figure is over optimistic and the SHLAA assessment is limited. In the assessment of 'non-residential sites in appropriate locations' within the UCS assumptions are made as to the probability of sites coming forward for new housing. 68-72 West Street, Rochford is identified as a high probability site but we note that it has been subject to 7 refusals of planning permission/conservation consent. There is a significant gap between the urban capacity identified as being suitable by the Council and the capacity applied for by the owners. Given its alternate use value, it is debateable whether the two capacity figures can be reconciled. No 247 London Road is another example of a site allocated in the Local Plan but which hasn't come forward. This is now the subject of a proposal for a care home and if approved would further limit the scope for market/affordable housing capacity on the site. A striking example of how the urban capacity study has underestimated is also evidence by 2-4 Alderman's Hill, Hockley - described as a disused service station. There has been no residential development application on
this site since 2004 and most recent applications have sought commercial use of the site. Rather than being evidence of housing land deliverability, this particular site evidences the need for commercial uses in the area.
There are therefore deliverability doubts over these 'high probability' categories which amount to some 40 units.

3. In relation to the assessment in the UCS entitled 'intensification of existing
residential uses' we note that the assessment is premised on an assessment of recent trends taking into account net completions between 2001-2006 and 2005-06. This is effectively an assessment of windfall trends and not an approach that PPS3 encourages. Importantly Table 3-12 in the urban capacity study seeks to project forward urban capacity from residential redevelopment - a period that benefited from high house prices and PPG3 guidance encouraging redevelopment. These two circumstances have markedly changed and so the assumptions and conclusions drawn would also have changed. Even taking into account the UCS discounting, the reliability of the 404 units from this source must be questioned and in our view the 1301 figure cannot be a sound basis for urban capacity and further Greenfield releases are necessary.

4. In the section of the UCS entitled 'subdivision of dwellings' and 'living above the shop' it is estimated that recent trends would result in 7 and 15 units. Our concerns with using trends as a basis for urban capacity are detailed above - PPS3 does not encourage this. Rather, local authorities are charged with surveying their areas, identifying which areas may yield urban capacity and how much and developing policies to achieve that. Government guidance does not encourage the estimation of windfalls in the way the UCS does.

5. Redevelopment of established employment land is a separate section
within the UCS. At 1 above we identify the low probability of the Main Road residential allocation coming forward. This remaining section of the UCS considers 11 further employment sites which were first identified in the 2000 UCS. Three of these are considered to have a high probability of coming forward. We have looked at these three sites and can find no evidence that they are likely to come forward. In the 8 years between 2000 and 2008 the three identified high probability employment sites have not been developed and there is no reason to assume that the next 5-10 years will be any different. For example the Rawreth Industrial Estate is identified as being well used in the UCS and although it has some unneighbourly uses there is no indication that the site is available, suitable or deliverable for residential. Land between 39-69 Lower Lambricks, Rayleigh is identified as having a high probability of residential uses. Yet there is no evidence of any pre-application advice or planning applications for this area. Stambridge Mills, Mill Lane, Stambridge is a further example. This site is separated from the urban area, in a flood risk zone and protected in the 2006 Replacement Local Plan by Policy EB9 which promotes B1 uses. Against this background there is only two relevant planning applications affecting this area both date from the early 1990's and relate to a plant room and loading bay. There is no evidence that this is likely to come forward for residential purposes in the next 5-10 years.

6. In the UCS extant permissions are identified as 856 dwellings. It is
important to note that this figure needs to be continually reassessed so
that from the point of adoption of the Core Strategy a 5 and 10 year
housing land supply is available. The SHLAA notes extant permissions for
2009-14 being 106. As noted below extant permissions do not necessarily
translate into deliverable sites. There is therefore a contingency that
needs to be built in. Further allocations on greenfield land need to be
increased and as such the quantum of housing in the area south of
Hockley/Hawkwell should be increased to 330 dwellings in order to begin
to meet the shortfall identified.

The District Council's 5 year housing supply assessment

7. The District Council's Annual Monitoring Report ("AMR") 2008 purports to
demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The preamble to Table 4.10 in
the AMR 2008 explains that Rochford District Council ("RDC") has
included units under construction, units with full permission, units with
outline permission, units with a resolution to grant, units subject to preapplication discussion/Urban Capacity Assessment and land allocations in
its trajectory. The reader is referred to Appendix B which breaks down the
sites in more detail. The recently published SHLAA also includes a table
showing a potential 1273 dwellings deliverable. However, it refers to
"appropriate brownfield sites." Since these 'appropriate sites' are do not
benefit from an application or a planning permission it is difficult to
programme them into the housing delivery trajectory.

8. In the full planning permission category of the AMR 2008 where work has
not yet started there can be no guarantee that all these sites will be delivered in the 5 years. This comment relates to the one above in relation to the recently published SHLAA. It is not uncommon for permissions to be obtained to provide a means for valuing a site where the owner has no immediate plans to sell the site or develop housing. Delivery may also be hampered by funding constraints, or site assembly problems (where sites are in an alternative use or relocation constraints). Appendix B of the AMR 2008 does not set out the intentions of the landowner or whether the sites are truly achievable in the 5 year period as per PPS3 requirements. The SHLAA purports to show developer intentions at Appendix C but the assessment by the local authority into the legitimacy of some of the claims is not presented. The evidence base is not as full as it should be to demonstrate the robustness of Table 4.6 of the SCS. It is also unclear the extent to which this table is based on either the UCS 2007, AMR 2008, SHLAA 2009 or a combination of all three. This should be set out clearly.

9. In addition, to the 'non delivery' of a proportion of new homes in the AMR
2008, there is concern at the timings of delivery in that data set, for
example, 10 units in 2008-2009 relates to outline planning permissions
and it is doubtful whether reserved matters can be turned round quick
enough to begin delivering housing in this year period. There could well
be examples in that set of data where the delivery of units in the first year
of the 5 is unlikely, thus delivery is reduced for that period and pushed
back and this process is then compounded throughout the data set up to
and beyond year 5. Statistical evidence from the Department of
Communities and Local Government ("CLG") reveals that building starts
are 43% down on the quarter to March 2009 compared with March 2008.
It is not clear whether the recently published SHLAA has taken this into
account and unless it does the data in the Table at 4.6 of the SCS cannot
be relied upon, particularly given the current recessionary circumstances.
In relation to the Table at Paragraph 4.6 a refinement is therefore needed
to take into account this effect on phasing.

10. This problem is compounded for other units relied upon where permission
has been granted but no start on site has been made; this accounts for a
considerable number of sites in 2009-10 period (100 dwellings) which is
(year 2 of the 5 year period). A delay in these will require more Greenfield
sites to be identified in order to meet the shortfall.

11. Finally we note that the East of England Plan expresses its land supply
requirement as a minimum. This strategy is not reflected in the
Submission version of the Core Strategy policy H2.

12. In summary since neither the UCS nor the Annual Monitoring Report form
a SHLAA, reservations are maintained about the degree to which
sufficient housing land has been identified.

Policy H3

In the Preferred Options Core Strategy 2008 more locations were identified for
housing growth in the post 2021 phase. Whilst it is our view that land south of
Hockley/Hawkwell should benefit from a greater number of dwellings than the 175 currently identified (330) in order to make the strategy effective. We are concerned at the significant change in strategy between the Preferred Option Core Strategy and the Submission version, which has significantly less housing growth on green field sites. This change in strategy is so significant that we would question whether it is appropriate in the context of soundness and the consultation processes that have taken place so far.

We also have concerns as to how the Green Belt review strategy set out at Policy H3 and in the Local Development Scheme integrates with other policies in the SCS and feel that Green Belt review should be more explicit throughout the SCS. As it currently stands there is a potential conflict with national policies and limited justification for the Green belt strategy. We note that in Policy H3, which indicates the need for Green Belt land review, the advice is limited and unclear. In fact Policy H3 only pays lip service to the need for a Green Belt review and provides, at best, loose advice in this regard. It says that prior to 2021 Green Belt will be safeguarded save for the releases noted under Policy H2. Policy H3 then goes onto talk about land release for development after 2021 but no time period is set out to provide a
framework for any Green Belt review in this latter period. In our view Policy H3 and Policy GB1/H2 should explain fully the need for a Green Belt review and that such a review should take place for a defined period. That such a review has not taken place in advance of the SCS is a serious matter for the Inspector to consider in the context of soundness. That said, it is considered that any review of Green Belt should have regard to a period beyond 2021 as indicated by draft Policy H3. Paragraph 1.9 of the East of England Plan explains "this RSS covers the period to 2021 but sets a vision, objectives and core strategy for the longer term". 2026 is therefore considered a minimum suitable period that any Green Belt review must have regard to in order to meet the 5 year land supply requirements in PPS3 for the period after 2021. However, Policy SS7 of the East of England Plan talks about Green Belt reviews up to 2031. In view of this and the need to explore the
circumstances of Rochford - that existing settlements cannot contain future housing growth; that Green Belt is necessary to provide housing; and that these provide exceptional reasons to vary the Green Belt locally (paragraph 2.6 to 2.7 of PPG2) the policies and strategy for the SCS should identify a Green Belt review covering the period to 2031 and set out why a review is necessary. Not to do so is unsound for justification and effectiveness reasons.

Policy H4 - Affordable Housing

As currently drafted we feel that the policy is not concise enough and that the policy does not reflect current guidance. The phrase 'at least' would indicate that in most cases affordable housing above 35% will be sought. Our understanding is that the 35% figure is recommended in the SHMA and that to provide a policy framework which seeks to go beyond that figure would potentially be unworkable as many sites could not financially bare the burden of over a third of the net developable area not yielding a value. The policy should be redrafted so that "a target of 35% affordable housing shall be provided on all developments of 15 or more units..."

The last policy paragraph provides some scope to relax this policy, if there are clear site constraints that make on site provision impossible. The policy, though, is not particularly clear on what would constitute exceptional circumstances. For example, physical site constraints, which unusually raise development costs, would be one such reason and this should be specified. There may be other reasons including the nature of housing needs in the part of the District the site is located which justify affordable housing below the 35% target. Design reasons may also have a bearing on how provision is made and in what form, particularly if the site is in an historic area where design might override housing need argument. It is therefore recommended that the policy expand on the type of circumstances where affordable
housing may be relaxed and the type of information that will be sought of applicant's who have a need to invoke this part of the policy.

Policy H5

In support of the policy, it is advantageous that no percentages requiring a specific mix are included. This flexibility will enable developers and the Council to respond directly to changing circumstances in the local housing market. In the past some authorities have set out a percentage for the type of housing they require only to find that after a few years of strict implementation there is an oversupply of property of that type and no flexibility in the policy to address the problem.

Policy ED2 - London Southend Airport

It is considered that to grow non aviation related employment at a location north of Southend Airport where sustainable access from the rest of Rochford District requires careful consideration. Most Airports are serviced by aviation related employment development and as such a location close to the airport is sensible and sustainable. However, for surface access reasons it would be inappropriate to encourage travel from Rochford's main settlements to what essentially would be a rural location for general employment uses. Whilst sustainable access would be improved by a railway station and better bus links, there is no evidence to suggest that a sustainable surface access strategy for non related employment development at the Airport can be achieved. Paragraph 11.22 explains the critical importance of a
railway station to the delivery of the strategy yet the Transport Chapter and
Implementation Chapter provide neither a policy nor an assessment of deliverability. It is also notable that the South Essex Rapid Transit Policy T4, as set out at paragraph 10.16, notes that Rochford is not proposed to be served but may be served in future phases. This uncertainty is no way to plan for a major employment land supply strategy in the District. In relation to PPS12, the ability to deliver sustainable green field employment sites away from the top tier settlements of Hockley/Hawkwell, Rochford and Rayleigh is unsound.

Policy ED3

We fully support the first sentence of the Policy and note the apparent contradiction with the statements in Policy H1 and elsewhere which seeks to develop on alternative uses at industrial estates such as Eldon Way.

This contradiction is evidence in the second paragraph of Policy ED3. In our
representations on Policy H1 we have explained why it is not sound to diminish the employment stock at Eldon Way and the importance of maintaining a dominance of employment type uses at this estate. These arguments are not repeated here.

We note the sentiments of the third paragraph and in accordance with our
representations elsewhere are of the view that this sentence should be revised to explain that Eldon Way will accommodate principally employment type uses. As noted elsewhere uses which are an alternative to employment would diminish this highly sustainable employment site and this is unsound when assessed against National Policy.

Policy ED4 - Future Employment Allocations

In part, the de-allocation strategy is not supported as it is considered unsound when set against sustainability criteria. In relation to the Eldon Way Industrial Estate it is considered critical to the ongoing sustainability of this settlement that employment uses are maintained at this location. It is close to the railway station, bus routes and local residential areas from which the opportunity exists for employees to walk or cycle to work. Its location adjacent to the Town Centre offers opportunity for some retail and leisure development to complement the centre and to maintain a supporting function. These sustainable benefits would not occur with the deallocation of Eldon Way or the significant erosion of its employment floorspace. Whilst redevelopment of the employment site to achieve new employment is supported, the dominant land use should continue to be employment use. As a consequence, the 18ha of land required for employment in this policy is considered to be excessive and the policy should be reviewed to explain that redevelopment of existing employment sites for primarily new employment development will be
encouraged.

Policy T4

It is noted that the South Essex Rapid Transit policy, as elaborated upon at
paragraph 10.16 notes that Rochford is not served but may be served in future phases. This uncertainty is contrary to the delivery principles of soundness and directly puts at issue the employment land supply strategy in the District which is founded on sustainable access to new sites. In relation to PPS12, the ability to deliver sustainable green field employment sites away from the top tier settlements of Hockley, Rochford and Rayleigh is unsound.

Appendix H1, CTL1 - Infrastructure

It is recognised that necessary infrastructure provision is an important part of creating a sustainable development and in that context appendix H1 is supported. The supporting text notes that the table at Appendix H1 is not exhaustive and in that context it is very important that the framework properly distinguishes between what should be provided as part of new development schemes and what shouldn't. It is therefore essential that the framework acknowledges the importance of Circular 05/05 and the tests which say that provision of infrastructure and/or contributions should be:

* Relevant to planning
* Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning
terms
* Directly related to the proposed development
* Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed
development
* Reasonable in all other respects

As is made clear (Paragraph B9 of Circular 5/05) contributions should not be used to make good existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision. Nor are they to be used to secure contributions to the achievement of wider planning objectives that are not necessary for consent to be granted. In that context the Core Strategy should set this out as its policy framework.

Policy GB1 - Green Belt

The objectives of this policy are supported, although as noted in other
representations the SCS is unsound as it does not meet the tests in relation to
justification, compliance with national policy or effectiveness of strategy.

Policy GB1 mentions the objective to allocate the minimum amount of Green Belt land necessary. The policy should link to the requirements of PPG2 and RSS which are discussed in relation to the representations on Policy H2 and H3. The policy should set out a timeframe for the review and why Rochford requires a Green Belt review (what the exceptional circumstances are in this District that justify a review of local boundaries. The policy should be amended to set out a 2031 time frame and this may require the SCS to have an extended life span beyond 2021.

We would recommend the deletion of the word character since Green Belt
designation is not related to landscape character as currently drafted. For clarity we would also recommend that the Policy or its supporting text explain that a Green Belt review will takes place in support of an allocations document (paragraph 6.6) in order to identify an appropriate new boundary. This is particularly necessary given the commitment to a Green belt review in the adopted Local Development Scheme.

Policy CLT1 - Planning Obligations and Standard Charges

In view of the need to test fully the basis on which standard charges are based it is important that any document produced is in a development plan document that enables an examination in public. The policy should explain this in order that when the document is produced it accords with Policy and is based on sound evidence.

ENV9 - Code for Sustainable Homes

Object. The advice from the Department of Communities and Local Government is that the new requirement to have a rating against the Code does not make it mandatory to build a Code home or to have each new home assessed against the Code. It does however mean that all buyers of new homes be given clear information about the sustainability of the new home. A house builder can do this in one of two ways:

- they can chose to build a Code home, have that home assessed against the
Code and provide the home buyer with a Code certificate stating the star rating the home has achieved
- or, they can chose to build to current building regulations standards, not to pay for an assessment and instead download a nil-rated certificate of non-assessment (also referred to as a nil-rating) to provide to the home buyer.

As such the Rochford policy requirement that coding 3 be achieved by 2010 and Code 6 by 2013 is out of step with Government advice. The policy wording should explain that it is just the coding that is a requirement of new homes and not necessarily that new homes should be constructed to achieve a standard.

The current Government objectives are for the code to be introduced over a
reasonable period with development to be code 3 by 2010, code level 4 by 2013 and code level by 2016. In this regard the policy, as drafted, seeks to achieve code 6 by 2013 and consequently compresses the code requirements into a shorter time scale with the costs associated expected to be subsumed within the housing market though higher prices. This is not a realistic strategy for the delivery of sustainable homes and we consider that the policy should be revised to extend the period of compliance but to also make it more flexible based on local circumstances.

Research undertaken on behalf of the Housing Corporation and English
Partnerships, published in February 2007 'A cost review of the code for sustainable homes' reveals that code 6 is unlikely to be unattainable given existing technologies and that achieving code 5 could result in a 12% to 20% increase in costs that would have to be passed onto the consumer. Given the variability of the housing market with peaks and troughs, it is unlikely that the housing market would be able to subsume this level of price increase.

The code system policy as currently drafted does not have regard to site
circumstances and so many of the requirements could be difficult to meet. For
example, micro electricity generation on site may be difficult to achieve where local circumstances deter the capture of wind or solar power. If more expensive technologies are required to generate power than is the norm then costs will rise. There may be other competing reasons why designs cannot include certain sustainability measures if housing sites are in sensitive landscape and historic locations. Alternatively there may be significant development costs associated with site specific circumstances and so viability of the site's development becomes a valid consideration. By insisting on the code for sustainable homes other policy objectives such as affordable housing at particular rates and other contributions may need to be reconsidered. Consequently, we are of the view that this policy should be drafted in a
manner which enables site specific circumstances to be taken into account. As noted above the Government explains that the code is a certification requirement and does not necessarily mean that buildings are constructed in accordance with a code level.

It is also important to note that it is not the purpose of planning legislation to duplicate other legislation. In this regard, the policy should accept that the Building Regulations will be the main vehicle for implementing this policy and that unless the coding requires external development then there will be no need to specify what is to be carried out in a planning application.