Vision
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Representation ID: 16031
Received: 28/10/2009
Respondent: Mr H Snell
Agent: Capita Symonds
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The document does not refer to any preliminary Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) work and there is no acknowledgement of an HRA on the Council's website and or from speaking to the Council's Planning Policy team. In the absence of any initial HRA work and given the proximity of growth locations to the SPA and SAC sites in Rochford at this late stage of the document preparation, it is questionable that the strategy can be delivered. Can the proposed strategy (in particular policies H2 and H3) be delivered without an adverse affect on European Habitats?
The document does not refer to any preliminary Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) work and there is no acknowledgement of an HRA on the Council's website and or from speaking to the Council's Planning Policy team. In the absence of any initial HRA work and given the proximity of growth locations to the SPA and SAC sites in Rochford at this late stage of the document preparation, it is questionable that the strategy can be delivered. Can the proposed strategy (in particular policies H2 and H3) be delivered without an adverse affect on European Habitats?
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Representation ID: 16379
Received: 22/10/2009
Respondent: Aber Ltd
Agent: Colliers International
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Vision
By 2017 - the fourth bullet point states that strategically located and planned developments are predominately situated within areas least at risk from flooding
PPS25 advises that the key aim of managing risk would seek to only permit development in areas of flood risk when there are no reasonable available sites in areas of lower flood risk.
The sequential test should be used to demonstrate that the land developed is the lowest possible risk and the exception test should only be used when it has been demonstrated that there are no available sites available on sites in lower risk areas.
The Core Strategy advises that there are available sites in lower risk areas, therefore, this proposal would be contrary to PPS25.
Vision
By 2017 - the fourth bullet point states that strategically located and planned developments are predominately situated within areas least at risk from flooding
PPS25 advises that the key aim of managing risk would seek to only permit development in areas of flood risk when there are no reasonable available sites in areas of lower flood risk.
The sequential test should be used to demonstrate that the land developed is the lowest possible risk and the exception test should only be used when it has been demonstrated that there are no available sites available on sites in lower risk areas.
The Core Strategy advises that there are available sites in lower risk areas, therefore, this proposal would be contrary to PPS25.
Amend text of the second sentence of fourth bullet:
• '... These strategically located and planned developments are situated within areas least at risk from flooding.'