4.6

The document correctly identifies the miss-match between housing targets set in the regional plan and local provision within developed areas of Rochford. There is pressure on the green belt as a result, and some relaxation should be sought

Green Belt reallocations should follow advice in PPG2. The Green Belt Vision is explained, clearly, at Section 6.

The housing trajectory includes provision for sites identified in the SHLAA to come forward in the period from 2006 to 2015. Approximately 50% of dwellings to be delivered from this source, comprise existing employment sites that have been identified for redevelopment, which would contribute a total of 325 dwellings. On closer examination of these sites, which are the subject of separate representations to Policy ED3, they would not appear to be entirely deliverable. Their inclusion has not been founded on a robust or credible evidence base, and is therefore unjustified.

In the absence of the SHLAA, (which has not yet been published), the Chamber supports minimum development of the green belt. Every effort must be made to identify brown field sites. It is felt that the allocation of the number of dwellings proposed for the settlement of Rochford is disproportionately high compared to that of other major settlements, i.e. Rayleigh/Hockley/Hawkwell. Access to parts of the green belt would be advantageous, promoting a more healthy lifestyle.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION SEPTEMBER 2009

Iceni Projects Ltd (Iceni) has been instructed by Colonnade Land LLP (Colonnade) to submit representations to the Rochford Local Development Framework Core Strategy Submission (CSS).

a) Overview

It is our conclusion that the CSS is not justified, effective or consistent with national policy, as required by Planning Policy Statement 12: Creating Strong Safe and Prosperous Communities through Local Spatial Planning (PPS12) and is therefore vulnerable to being found unsound by an Inspector through the Examination in Public.

b) Background and Summary

These representations follow those made by Iceni on behalf of Colonnade to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, submitted via letter dated 17 December 2008. In this regard, we would request that the Council confirms that the representations made to the Preferred Options Core Strategy will be taken into account alongside the current representations, particularly as there are a number of cross references between the two sets of representations.

It is not considered necessary to reiterate the content of the previous representations, as they were made at the appropriate stage and will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate in due course, but it is inevitable that certain elements will require restating where it is not clear that they have been taken into account in the production of the CSS. For clarity, therefore, Colonnade feel that it is appropriate to clarify the 'in-principle' issues that were raised in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, recognising that these issues were raised in the context of a wider and more coherent justification made within the representations:

• Further cross-referencing of the recommendations made within the evidence base is required;
• Greater focus should be placed on promoting Rochford as the principal settlement within the District;
• Coombes Farm is the most logical location for residential development abutting the urban area of Rochford and as such warrants recognition as a general location for residential development;
• The allocation of Three Ashes Farm for employment generating uses will be pursued;
• Recognition that it is not realistic to expect residential allocations to be met mainly on Brownfield sites, nor should the intensification of smaller sites in residential areas be pursued;
• Many of the sites identified as suitable for residential development will not be viable and will not come forward for development within the timescales anticipated;
• The failure to provide the necessary justification for the proposed infrastructure improvements sought in Appendix H1;
• The inclusion of an affordable housing exception policy was sought; and
• The need to identify sites capable of delivering employment growth in the short term.

Following assessment of the CSS presented by the Council for consultation prior to submission to the Secretary of State, Colonnade considers the Plan to be 'unsound' as the document consistently fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12. For clarity, PPS12 confirms that to be 'sound' a Core Strategy should be JUSTIFIED, EFFECTIVE and consistent with NATIONAL POLICY and defines 'justified' as "founded on a robust and credible evidence base" and "the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives" and 'effective' as "deliverable", "flexible" and "able to be monitored".

The rationale for the above is identified in the remainder of these representations, which are provided in the interests of ensuring the Council delivers a strong, robust and logical Core Strategy that guides the future development of the District in a justified and effective manner.

b) Colonnade

As the Council is aware from previous submissions to the Local Development Framework, Colonnade is a strategic land company with a particular interest in the future development of the District as a consequence of a number of sites that it controls, particularly around Rochford.

The Council will also be aware that Colonnade has recently submitted an outline planning application for the residential development of the land at Coombes Farm, Rochford to provide a sustainable urban extension comprising up to 326 residential dwellings, with associated accesses and community uses. Whilst the planning application process is clearly separate from the Local Development Framework production process, Colonnade wishes to continue the promotion of the site as a suitable location for residential development.

Accordingly, these representations focus on the legal requirements and tests of soundness associated principally with the Housing and Employment chapters of the CSS, with reference where appropriate to the sites that are controlled by Colonnade, the outline planning application at Coombes Farm and other issues where relevant.

c) Housing

i. Date of Adoption

The CSS assumes an adoption date of 2010 and plans for the provision of housing to 2025.

Taking account of the potential delays to the adoption of the Plan, including the Examination process, it would be more appropriate for the CSS to provide sufficient flexibility to allow for delays in its adoption. Colonnade considers an adoption date of 2011 for the CSS is a more realistic target.

Taking account of the advice in Paragraph 4.13 of PPS12, which states that the time horizon for the Core Strategy should be "at least 15 years from the date of adoption" it would be appropriate for the CSS to plan for the provision of housing to 2026 at the earliest. As such, Colonnade does not consider the CSS to be 'flexible' in the context of the tests of soundness in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12.

ii. Housing Delivery

However, setting the above aside, the Housing Chapter identifies the minimum housing delivery target for the period 2001 to 2021 of 4,600 dwellings as set out in the East of England Plan, with the annual average requirement of 250 dwellings per annum to extend provision from 2021 to 2025. It also confirms that the residual target for the period 2006 to 2021 is 3,790 dwellings, taking account of the delivery of 810 dwellings in the period 2001 to 2006, and a further 618 dwellings have been completed between 2006 and 2008.

This leaves a residual housing provision target of a minimum of 3,172 dwellings in the period 2008 to 2021. Taking into account the required provision beyond 2021, the residual housing provision target in the period 2008 to 2025 is a minimum of 4,172 dwellings. The disparity between these figures and those provided within the CSS are explained by the rounding down of the annual average delivery requirement in the period 2006 to 2021 to 250 dwellings per annum, compared with the actual figure of 252.67.

The table at Paragraph 4.6 of the CSS identifies the source of housing provision that will meet the identified minimum requirements and includes figures for 'Extant Planning Permissions' and 'Existing allocations/other appropriate sites identified in Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment'. These figures, along with the actual completions within the period are combined to produce the figure for the 'Total without Green Belt release' figure.

Setting aside the concern regarding under-provision associated with the rounding down of the annual average delivery requirement in the period 2006 to 2021, the CSS fails to identify the sites that will contribute to the 'Extant Planning Permissions' provision. The identification of the sites that will contribute to the 'Extant Planning Permissions' should be provided in the context of the findings of the Inspector in the appeal by Asprey Homes [APP/G5180/A/07/2043219/NWF] who determined that the reliance on a delivery rate of 100% is unsafe [IR287].

Furthermore, at the time of writing these representations, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2009 has not been published. It is impossible therefore for a full assessment of the proposed housing provision to be undertaken to confirm whether the CSS is 'founded on a robust and credible evidence base' [test of soundness in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12].

iii. Redevelopment of Employment Sites

Paragraph 4.14 of the CSS refers to the identification of the four employment sites that are considered by the Council to be suitable for redevelopment to residential use. However, the failure to publish the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2009 either before or alongside the publication of the CSS means that the assumptions made by the Council as to the suitability, availability, viability and deliverability of the sites cannot be assessed.

It has been necessary, therefore, to review the assumptions made in the Rochford Urban Capacity Study 2007 (UCS) regarding the sites. Within the section of the UCS entitled 'Redevelopment of Established Employment Land' [pages 22 & 23] includes a list of those sites assessed, their indicative capacities and the probability of residential development coming forward at the sites within the plan period (identified elsewhere as 2001 - 2021). The list includes the four sites identified in the CSS of Eldon Way/Foundry Estate, Hockley; Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, Rayleigh; Stambridge Mills; and Star Lane Industrial Estate, Great Wakering.

In total, the UCS identifies an indicative residential redevelopment capacity of 486 units on the four sites (118, 220, 60 and 88 respectively). Of these, it identifies the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate and Stambridge Mills as having a 'high' probability of coming forward for development in the Plan period (2001 - 2021), which would deliver 280 residential dwellings using the Council's own figures. The Star Lane Industrial Estate (referred to in the UCS as the Star Lane Brickworks) is identified as having a 'medium' probability of coming forward for development in the Plan period, with capacity to deliver 88 residential dwellings. It is unclear, therefore, where the figure for 'Existing allocations/other appropriate sites identified in Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment'.

Set against this is the identification of these four sites in the CSS as being capable of delivery for residential development within the Plan period, with 671 units delivered between 2006 and 2015 and a further 506 units between 2015 and 2021.

The UCS also states in the same section that:

"There are considerable areas of land in the district that are currently allocated for, and in use as, employment land. The redevelopment of such sites for residential use would reduce demand for residential development on greenfield sites, but would at the same time create a need for alternative sites to be found for employment. Such an approach, which would be likely to require the decontamination of existing employment land to make it fit for residential use, together with development of a greenfield site and implementation of additional infrastructure to serve the new employment area, may well be unsustainable." [our emphasis]

The UCS appears to confirm therefore, that not only would the redevelopment of the four sites listed in the CSS be unlikely within the Plan period, but also potentially unsustainable. In this regard, it is notable that the promoters of Stambridge Mills sought the Screening Opinion of the Council as to whether Environmental Impact Assessment of the planning application for the redevelopment of the site for residential use was required in 2007, but to date are yet to submit a planning application for the redevelopment of the site.

In light of this, Colonnade does not consider the CSS is 'the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives' [test of soundness in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12], which include the provision of residential development in East Rochford.

iv. Strategic Housing Growth to the East of Rochford

Furthermore, whilst paragraph 2.62 of the CSS identifies concern relating to the identification of locations to the east of Rochford for development on the basis that 'vehicular movements would inevitably be directed through Rochford's historic core', the CSS later identifies Stambridge Mills as a suitable site for residential redevelopment.

In light of the evident conflicts between the evidence base provided in support of the CSS and the absence of other evidence, the CSS is not considered 'sound' in the context of the tests of soundness in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12.

v. Housing Trajectory

Paragraph 4.28 of the CSS confirms that policies H1, H2 and H3 of the CSS will deliver housing supply as illustrated in the Housing Trajectory at Appendix H2. This Housing Trajectory is transposed from the 2008 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR).

Whilst on the face of it, the Housing Trajectory appears to confirm that the Council can meet its requirement to identify a five year housing supply, many of the sites identified within the AMR do not conform to the guidance issued by CLG in August 2008, on the assessment of a five year land supply. The guidance identifies sites that can be included within the five year assessment of housing supply as:

"those that are allocated for housing in the Development Plan, sites that have planning permission (outline or full planning permission that has not been implemented) and specific, unallocated brownfield sites that have the potential to make a significant contribution to housing delivery during the 5 year period".

Table 4.10: Projected Net Completions of the AMR confirms that the five year housing land supply figure includes sites from 'other land allocated for residential purposes', which are based on land allocations outside existing settlements. However, it should be clarified that these land allocations are not currently allocated for housing development in an adopted Development Plan. As such, these unallocated greenfield sites that are yet to make significant progress through the planning system should be discounted and the five year housing land supply recalculated.

The table below has been prepared to confirm the extent of the shortfall should the sites from 'other land allocated for residential purposes' be removed from the calculation of the Rochford five year housing land supply, in accordance with the guidance issued by CLG:

Recalculated Five Year Housing Land Supply (2009 - 2014):

Year
1st April 2009 to 31st March 2010
Predicted Delivery (A)
106 dwellings
Allocations on 'other land allocated for residential purposes' (B)
0
Residual delivery (A-B)
106 dwellings
Delivery Shortfall
0

Year
1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011
Predicted Delivery (A)
217 dwellings
Allocations on 'other land allocated for residential purposes' (B)
150
Residual delivery (A-B)
67 dwellings
Delivery Shortfall
150

Year
1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012
Predicted Delivery (A)
544 dwellings
Allocations on 'other land allocated for residential purposes' (B)
300
Residual delivery (A-B)
244 dwellings
Delivery Shortfall
300

Year
1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013
Predicted Delivery (A)
395 dwellings
Allocations on 'other land allocated for residential purposes' (B)
375
Residual delivery (A-B)
20 dwellings
Delivery Shortfall
375

Year
1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014
Predicted Delivery (A)
300 dwellings
Allocations on 'other land allocated for residential purposes' (B)
300
Residual delivery (A-B)
0 dwellings
Delivery Shortfall
300

TOTAL

Predicted Delivery (A)
1,562 dwellings

Allocations on 'other land allocated for residential purposes' (B)
1,125 dwellings

Residual delivery (A-B)
437 dwellings

Delivery Shortfall
1,125 dwellings

The above table confirms that the removal of the 'other land allocated for residential purposes' from the calculation of the Rochford five year housing land supply leaves the Council with a minimum net additional housing delivery of 437 dwellings, which equates to a supply of 1.7 years based on the adjusted annual delivery target of a minimum of 255 net additional dwellings per annum. As such, the Council is failing to meet its requirement to demonstrate a five year housing land supply in accordance with PPS3 and the supporting guidance provided by CLG. It is notable that the recent application by David Wilson Homes at Land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell identifies an even greater shortfall in the Council's five year housing land supply.

In addition to the above, the AMR does not include a commentary on how deliverability has been assessed against the requirements of paragraph 54 of PPS3.

Furthermore, the guidance from CLG confirms that the windfall sites cannot be relied upon in demonstrating a five year supply unless a Local Planning Authority can demonstrate genuine local circumstances exist to allow this exception. However, the second paragraph of the section entitled 'Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Supply' confirms that the estimated completions in the years 2008 to 2013 includes estimated yields through 'intensification' coming forward in future years. With reference to the definition of 'intensification' on page 13 of the AMR, it appears that the 'Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Supply' also includes provision for windfall sites. As such, the Council is required to demonstrate the 'genuine local circumstances exist to allow this exception'.

The pressures on delivery and need for additional sites are more acute when it is considered that an average delivery rate of 204 dwellings per annum was achieved during a strong period of housing market growth. In view of the current economic downturn, and significant problems faced within the housing market, the Council should seek to identify appropriate and deliverable sites to meet its regional housing target provision commitments. Suitable sites would include Coombes Farm, which has been positively promoted for development through the LDF process.

It may, therefore, be more appropriate for the Council not merely to allocate sufficient sites to meet the minimum targets set down by the East of England Plan, but to identify a reservoir of land capable of coming forward for development should the sites identified through the CSS and Allocations Development Plan Documents (DPD) fail to come forward for development within the anticipated timescales.

vi. Appendix H1

As set out in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, there is continuing concern that the list of improvements to infrastructure required in support of residential development as set out in Appendix H1 fails to provide the necessary justification for its inclusion. Whilst the preamble seeks to clarify why the infrastructure is sought, the inclusion of this list should be fully justified, otherwise it is of little value. Furthermore, it would be of benefit to provide further details of the existing community infrastructure provision and capacity within the evidence base.

The failure to provide the necessary justification for its inclusion means that the CSS will not be 'founded on a robust and credible evidence base' [test of soundness in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12].

d) Character of Place

As set out in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, Colonnade considers that, with respect to the requirement to produce and adhere to Development Briefs for large residential developments, as set out in Policy CP1, the Council should not seek to impose further demands on developers where existing regulations provide sufficient requirements regarding design. In this instance, Design and Access Statements provide sufficient design guidelines for developments and there is no additional information provided in the policy or supporting text that clearly sets out the justification for this requirement.

e) Green Belt

With reference to the comments regarding the redevelopment of employment sites under the 'Housing' section above and the requirement to allocate sufficient land to meet the minimum housing provision targets as required by the East of England Plan, Colonnade considers that the chapter on Green Belt, and policy GB1 in particular, fails to provide the necessary evidence base that will allow it to be monitored effectively.

It is inherent that the proposed redevelopment of previously developed employment sites for residential use in order to reduce the requirement to allocate previously undeveloped land for residential use will displace these employment uses. In turn, therefore, the separate allocation of previously undeveloped Green Belt to accommodate the compensatory employment provision is required. This is accepted in principle at paragraph 11.11 of the CSS.

Without providing clarification of the anticipated quantum of land required to accommodate the provision of housing and compensatory and new employment land, it is not possible to monitor the performance of policy GB1.

However, using the Council's figures in the table setting out the breakdown of the housing provision figures in Chapter 4 of the CSS (assuming that actual completions and extant permissions are all on previously developed land), setting aside the displacement of employment uses referred to above, approximately 42% of the required minimum housing provision target is capable of being accommodated on previously developed land (2,005 units from a total of 4,750). As such, the Council is required to provide at least 58% of the required minimum housing provision target on the Green Belt (2,745 units from a total of 4,750).

If these figures are adjusted to take account of the displacement of employment uses (assuming the provision of an equal quantity of land is required to compensate for the employment land that is redeveloped), this figure changes to 17.5% on previously developed land and 82.5% on Green Belt (828 and 3,922 units from a total of 4,750 respectively). Even allowing for the achievement of higher densities of employment on new developments, the figures above are unlikely to change significantly.

Furthermore, the table in Chapter 4 also confirms that no previously developed land will be available for development beyond 2021, or 2015 if account is taken of the displacement of the employment uses.

In light of this, not only does Chapter 6 fail to provide the necessary evidence base that will allow it to be monitored effectively, it is also necessary to consider whether it presents the most appropriate strategy for addressing the required release of Green Belt land to accommodate the defined housing and employment delivery targets to 2025 and beyond as necessary. Colonnade considers a more robust approach that is flexible and capable of being monitored, would be to clearly identify those sites capable of delivery in the short term, which for the avoidance of doubt includes those sites being promoted by Colonnade, with a reservoir of alternative sites set aside for future growth.

As set out in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, Colonnade considers that the inclusion of an affordable housing exception policy within the CSS will aid the delivery of community housing within rural areas. However, the CSS does not contain such a policy, or adequately address the issue of community housing within rural areas and the CSS is not considered to provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the delivery of essential rural housing.

f) Environmental Issues

Colonnade has concerns regarding the justification for and effectiveness of a number of the policies contained within the Environmental Issues chapter, as follows:

• Policy ENV1: The Council fails to identify how it will "maintain, restore and enhance" the sites of nature conservation importance that are identified, or how the performance of this policy will be monitored;
• Policy ENV3: In the context of the advice at paragraph 4.32 of PPS12 regarding the reformulation of national policies, Colonnade does not consider that this policy is required; and

• Policy ENV9: As set out in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, Colonnade does not consider that the necessary evidence base has been provided to justify a policy that seeks to go above and beyond the policy targets for the Code for Sustainable Homes as set out by Central Government.

g) Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism

Policy CLT1 refers to the requirement for residential and employment development to contribute to the infrastructure identified in Appendix CLT1 through Standard Charges.

However, whilst the general principle of securing planning obligations through the application of standard charges is broadly accepted, the list of infrastructure requirements set out in Appendix CLT1 is not supported by sufficient evidence base to identify its robustness and credibility. As such, Colonnade does not consider either policy CLT1 or Appendix CLT1 is justified in the context of PPS12.

It is also noted that, despite the clarification sought by Colonnade at the Core Strategy Preferred Options stage, the CSS fails to confirm what information should be contained within Health Impact Assessments, which are required by policy CLT4. Once again, Colonnade requests further clarification of what is involved in the assessment and the expected outputs, which will provide greater clarity and will allow the policy to be monitored.

h) Transport

Policy T8 confirms that the Council will apply minimum parking standards. As set out in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) is clear regarding the imposition of parking standards.

Paragraphs 52-56 of PPG13 confirm that the Local Planning Authorities should apply maximum not minimum parking standards. In order to satisfy the legal requirements set out in PPS12, the policy must reflect PPG13 to promote sustainable transport choices and further provide incentives for developers to locate further residential land closer to local service centres by requiring maximum parking standards for residential developments.

i) Economic Development

As set out in the representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, the land at Three Ashes Farm provides an excellent opportunity to deliver employment growth in the short term and may be a suitable site for the 'Eco-Innovation Centre' that is being promoted by the Council. Its identification as a suitable location for strategic employment growth, or the provision of an Eco-Innovation Centre, would accord with the general principles of the policies contained within Chapter 11.

The identification of Purdeys Industrial Estate as fit for purpose (in paragraph 11.32 and the Council's 2008 Employment Land Study 2008) and therefore it should be maintained and if possible expanded, is welcomed and Colonnade considers that Three Ashes Farm could deliver this expansion, providing a natural extension to Purdeys Industrial Estate and being strategically located close to the Airport.

Three Ashes would address the negative impacts that the nearby residential area experiences from the existing Industrial Estate by providing a buffer between established uses and the residential area with less intensive employment activities. The highways analysis that has been carried out has suggested that it would not have an adverse impact on roads and congestion. Furthermore, there are very few opportunities for businesses to expand and Three Ashes could provide this opportunity.

j) Conclusions

Following the submission of representations to the Preferred Options Core Strategy, Colonnade is disappointed to note that the CSS fails to take account of the majority of the issues raised in their representations.

In addition, Colonnade considers the plan to be 'unsound' as the document consistently fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12 and respectfully requests that the Council notifies Iceni, on behalf of Colonnade, of the future arrangements for the Examination of the Core Strategy. Furthermore, Colonnade wishes to take this opportunity to formally register a request to appear at all stages of the Examination in Public, including the pre-hearing meeting and any planned hearing sessions whereby issues raised in the context of this letter are to be discussed. Please confirm this request, and that the representations made to the Preferred Options Core Strategy will be taken into account alongside the current representations, by way of return to this letter.

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

See accompanying Strutt & Parker Planning Document and Cannon Consulting Initial Highways Access and Accessibility Statement.

(Council ref AE27 and AE27a)

Representation submitted in relation to proposed allocation of housing to the south west of Rayleigh and attendance required at examination to support the allocation of this site which is not in the submission document (see other responses to core strategy).

See accompanying Strutt and Parker Planning Document, Cannon Consulting Transport Assessment and Flood Risk, Drainage and Services Report.

Council Ref AE29, AE29a and AE29b.

Representation submitted in relation to proposed allocation of housing to the south west of Hullbridge. Attendance at examination to support this allocation.

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.

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.