4.9

It is true to say that these "settlements" do have their own identities and although not functionally separate from their neighbours, such identities would surely disappear and no individual invisible boundaries would remain should such immense development as required by the Core Strategy be implemented. As the higher tiers are already being more developed it does not make sense to increase the development in such areas in the future.

Introduction 4.9 Spatial Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities

Quote from Core Strategy Document:
"These settlements/groups of settlements can be divided into four tiers, with the settlements in the higher tiers being more developed, subject to greater housing demand/need, and generally more suitable to accommodate additional housing for the reasons described above. The settlement hierarchy is as follows":
Tier Settlements
1 Rayleigh; Rochford/Ashingdon; Hockley/Hawkwell
2 Hullbridge; Great Wakering
3 Canewdon
4 All other settlements

In total, the document places 1020 dwellings in Rawreth (accepting the untruth statement that 550 are not actually in Rayleigh and 250 are not actually in Hullbridge). The other 220 dwellings are included using the proposal to be built on the brown-field site currently known as Rawreth Industrial Estate which is also in Rawreth.
The statement here does not portray the truth and therefore is unsound on the grounds, as stated in the document, "that the higher tiers are generally more suitable to accommodate additional housing for the reasons described above".
The table clearly shows that Rawreth is in Tier 4, thus not qualifying for a high level of development.
When RDC are questioned on this at council meetings, they always seem to skirt round it and never provide a satisfactory answer.

We support the proposed settlement hierarchy, and recognition by the Council that the higher tiers should be subject to greater housing demand/need because of their sustainable credentials. This should be reflected in the proposed housing distribution.

We support the four tiers of settlement hierarchy with the first tier comprising of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley. Hockley has already been identified as one of those settlements with a good range of services and facilities as well as access to public transport.

LDF - Preferred Options - Rayleigh conurbation.
On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of objection to the final draft of Rochford District Councils Core Strategy Preferred Options document.
Firstly, at no time has the Parish of Rawreth been included or mentioned in any "Tier" on page 33 of the document, the criteria for allocation of houses - within the Core Strategy. If it had been included it should have been in Tier 4 and this is, therefore, UNSOUND.
The Parish Council believes that to develop 550 houses in one place within area no: 144, land to the north of London Road and then to add a further 220 to the Rawreth Industrial Estate area will totally destroy the character and rural outlook of Rawreth and surrounding areas. It will destroy the residents' "strong sense of identity within their own settlement" and is, therefore, UNSOUND.
The huge development of 550 houses is totally unacceptable. The land north of London Road is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such. Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.

The Parish Council believe a proportion of the houses required to be built in our area should compliment and enhance Rawreth, cause as little extra congestion to our already heavily overcrowded roads as possible and provide a pleasant environment for those people wishing to move to the area. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford" and is the "strategic buffer" between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the Core Strategy document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns, however a development of this size immediately erodes the buffer between Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford, starts coalescence, destroys the rural character of Rawreth and, therefore, is UNSOUND.

The Core Strategy Document details Rochford District Councils priorities and objectives and details how the role of the Core Strategy features in achieving these. In support of the Parish Councils observations and alternative proposals they comment as follows.
Page 5 "Fostering greater community cohesion"
Development of land between Rawreth Lane and north of London Road will not give any community cohesion at all, it will simply be an extension to the west of Rayleigh giving residents no real sense of belonging, they will live within the Parish of Rawreth, yet they will be considered as living in Rayleigh as has been proved with other developments along Rawreth Lane such as Laburnum Way.
Page 12 "Priority 5 Essex roads are safer less congested and everyone has access to essential services"

The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and the proposed development on land to the north of London Road will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On numerous occasions this year incidents within and on the outskirts of the Parish have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 1/2 miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. Rawreth Parish Council understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 - a very dangerous junction.

Beeches Road/Watery Lane is also shown in the document as a new cyclist route. Surely this is a conflict of interest, a road widening/straightening proposal coupled with a cycle route.
Page 33 "Tier Settlements"
Nowhere in the Core Strategy Document is Rawreth Parish actually mentioned, it features in the "all other settlements tier 4" and is referred to as "land north of London Road Rayleigh" or "West Rayleigh" yet, the housing allocation of 550 dwellings between 2015 and 2021 and the 220 planned for the Rawreth Industrial Estate is the largest that any area is taking. Rawreth Parish currently has 380 dwellings and an electorate of 812, yet the proposed housing figures are set to increase the overall number of dwellings in the Parish by 203%.
Pages 34 to 36 "The efficient use of land for housing" and "Extensions to residential envelopes and phasing"
The Core Strategy Document states that "the Council recognises the importance of making best use of brownfield land" and "whilst the Council acknowledge that the housing requirement stipulated in the East of England Plan is a minimum, it must also be mindful of the need to maintain Green Belt as far as possible" yet the proposed 550 houses on the land north of London Road will all be built on Green Belt land of high agricultural value. The document states that "the Council will direct development to the most sustainable locations on the edge of settlements having regard to:"
"The potential to avoid areas of constraint (such as areas at risk of flooding, sites of ecological importance"
"The historical, agricultural and ecological value of land"
"The potential to create a defensible Green Belt Boundary and
"The avoidance of coalescence with neighbouring settlements"
Yet these key factors all seem to have been ignored when choosing the site to the north of London Road and, therefore, the proposal is UNSOUND. The Parish of Rawreth has a history of flooding, the land in Rawreth Lane will drain into the already overloaded brook system and the Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Heavy rain earlier in the year resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

Page 42 "Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation"
This section details the need for an allocation of 15 pitches by 2011, it also states that they "will examine the potential of current unauthorised sites to meet this need" and that "sites will be allocated in the west of the District" The west of the District is in fact Rawreth, but yet again the Parish name has not been detailed. The Parish already has an unauthorised site which is the subject of an enforcement case and although well kept is on the brow of a hill on a main highway with restricted access which Essex County Council have already raised concerns about, this is not a site that should be considered as part of the requirement due to its location, but also, why is the allocation of all 15 pitches being detailed to one area?

Page 43 to 44 "Appendix 1"

Details of all the infrastructure to accompany residential development is listed, yet there are no detailed costs, have these been done? And are these achievable? Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

Page 57 "Strategies, Activities and Actions - The Green Belt"
The document states that "The Council will continue to support the principals of restricting development in the Green Belt, as set out in PPG2 and will preserve the character and openness of the Green Belt" it further states that "a small proportion of the District's Green Belt will have to have its designation reviewed to allow development" The entire development of 550 houses planned for land north of London Road is all on Green Belt land as is the land at Hullbridge, how does this equate to a "small proportion"?
The Councils own Policy GB1- Green Belt Protection states "The Council will allocate the minimum amount of Green Belt land necessary to meet the District's housing and employment needs" and that they will "direct development away from the Green Belt as far as is practicable and will prioritise the protection of the Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt".
This area of land confirms all 5 purposes of the national PPG2 - Green Belt:-
It prevents the unrestricted sprawl of western Rayleigh
It provides a barrier to prevent the ultimate merging of Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford
It assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
It preserves the setting and special character of historic towns
Assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
Rawreth Parish Council have observed that there are a number of sites that were put forward in the "Call for Sites" that are pre-used brownfield land in the Green Belt land, and as such would prove beneficial and in their opinion should have been considered for development. Their non-inclusion as "brownfield" sites makes the current proposals UNSOUND:
Site No; 73 Hambro Nursery a site of approximately 3.93 hectares, coupled with the adjacent site Clovelly, would provide between 200 and 250 houses in an area of approximately 4.85 hectares this area would have good access directly from the A1245 and if expanded north westward to include land up to and around the Village Hall, approximately another 2.08 hectares could produce between 50 and 80 further houses. This area could be accessed either from the slip road (Chelmsford Road) to the south of the Nevendon Garage or from Church Road.
Both of these sites would remove the need for extra traffic along the A129 and Rawreth Lane which are both already operating well over maximum capacity. This development would require a footbridge for pedestrians, cyclists and horses over the A1245.
Rawreth Parish Council believe these proposals would be sensible infill of these areas and would be on "Brownfield" sites where current businesses are not particularly progressive and would not result in the loss of many jobs. Our figures are quite conservative and we believe that if these sites were chosen a much reduced number of houses would need to be built "North of London Road" on Green Belt land.
Phase 2 - With regard to the houses that are proposed for the Northeast corner of Rawreth/Hullbridge, the Parish Council are concerned that any development would cause considerable extra congestion to the immediate roads. We understand that the thoughts are to "straighten" and improve parts of Watery Lane and Beeches Road to provide access to and through Battlesbridge - a conservation area. Recent experience of deep flooding in Watery Lane with the road closed for several days on 3 occasions in the early part of 2009 proves that this proposal is completely unsustainable. The local drainage systems simply cannot take the amount of run-off experienced now and with further development this would increase the problem.
If this development is to go ahead, the Parish Council believe that a relief road should be built, from the end of Watery Lane, skirting to the west of the Rayleigh Park Estate, crossing Rawreth Lane at a mini-roundabout and entering a vastly improved A129 at approximately Lower Barn Farm. This would take any necessary traffic in and out of the area efficiently.
The Parish Council further believe that the Michelins Farm site No: 49 would be an ideal site for the Rawreth Industrial Estate. This would adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District and would provide excellent road and transport links. Rawreth Parish Council also proposed that the land opposite Michelins Farm could be used to re-site the illegal Gypsy/Traveller site that is currently situated on the busy A1245. The land opposite Michelins Farm would not only be a much safer site for Gypsy/Traveller pitches, but the correct use of the land would also ensure the environmental improvement of the site as a whole.
All of the above proposals were submitted to Rochford District Council, but they were not taken into consideration in the final draft resulting in the predominant use of Green Belt land for development, bounded by already congested roads and, therefore, the proposals are UNSOUND.

LDF - Preferred Options - Rayleigh conurbation.
On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of objection to the final draft of Rochford District Councils Core Strategy Preferred Options document.
Firstly, at no time has the Parish of Rawreth been included or mentioned in any "Tier" on page 33 of the document, the criteria for allocation of houses - within the Core Strategy. If it had been included it should have been in Tier 4 and this is, therefore, UNSOUND.
The Parish Council believes that to develop 550 houses in one place within area no: 144, land to the north of London Road and then to add a further 220 to the Rawreth Industrial Estate area will totally destroy the character and rural outlook of Rawreth and surrounding areas. It will destroy the residents' "strong sense of identity within their own settlement" and is, therefore, UNSOUND.
The huge development of 550 houses is totally unacceptable. The land north of London Road is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such. Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.

The Parish Council believe a proportion of the houses required to be built in our area should compliment and enhance Rawreth, cause as little extra congestion to our already heavily overcrowded roads as possible and provide a pleasant environment for those people wishing to move to the area. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford" and is the "strategic buffer" between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the Core Strategy document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns, however a development of this size immediately erodes the buffer between Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford, starts coalescence, destroys the rural character of Rawreth and, therefore, is UNSOUND.

The Core Strategy Document details Rochford District Councils priorities and objectives and details how the role of the Core Strategy features in achieving these. In support of the Parish Councils observations and alternative proposals they comment as follows.
Page 5 "Fostering greater community cohesion"
Development of land between Rawreth Lane and north of London Road will not give any community cohesion at all, it will simply be an extension to the west of Rayleigh giving residents no real sense of belonging, they will live within the Parish of Rawreth, yet they will be considered as living in Rayleigh as has been proved with other developments along Rawreth Lane such as Laburnum Way.
Page 12 "Priority 5 Essex roads are safer less congested and everyone has access to essential services"

The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and the proposed development on land to the north of London Road will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On numerous occasions this year incidents within and on the outskirts of the Parish have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 1/2 miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. Rawreth Parish Council understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 - a very dangerous junction.

Beeches Road/Watery Lane is also shown in the document as a new cyclist route. Surely this is a conflict of interest, a road widening/straightening proposal coupled with a cycle route.
Page 33 "Tier Settlements"
Nowhere in the Core Strategy Document is Rawreth Parish actually mentioned, it features in the "all other settlements tier 4" and is referred to as "land north of London Road Rayleigh" or "West Rayleigh" yet, the housing allocation of 550 dwellings between 2015 and 2021 and the 220 planned for the Rawreth Industrial Estate is the largest that any area is taking. Rawreth Parish currently has 380 dwellings and an electorate of 812, yet the proposed housing figures are set to increase the overall number of dwellings in the Parish by 203%.
Pages 34 to 36 "The efficient use of land for housing" and "Extensions to residential envelopes and phasing"
The Core Strategy Document states that "the Council recognises the importance of making best use of brownfield land" and "whilst the Council acknowledge that the housing requirement stipulated in the East of England Plan is a minimum, it must also be mindful of the need to maintain Green Belt as far as possible" yet the proposed 550 houses on the land north of London Road will all be built on Green Belt land of high agricultural value. The document states that "the Council will direct development to the most sustainable locations on the edge of settlements having regard to:"
"The potential to avoid areas of constraint (such as areas at risk of flooding, sites of ecological importance"
"The historical, agricultural and ecological value of land"
"The potential to create a defensible Green Belt Boundary and
"The avoidance of coalescence with neighbouring settlements"
Yet these key factors all seem to have been ignored when choosing the site to the north of London Road and, therefore, the proposal is UNSOUND. The Parish of Rawreth has a history of flooding, the land in Rawreth Lane will drain into the already overloaded brook system and the Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Heavy rain earlier in the year resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

Page 42 "Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation"
This section details the need for an allocation of 15 pitches by 2011, it also states that they "will examine the potential of current unauthorised sites to meet this need" and that "sites will be allocated in the west of the District" The west of the District is in fact Rawreth, but yet again the Parish name has not been detailed. The Parish already has an unauthorised site which is the subject of an enforcement case and although well kept is on the brow of a hill on a main highway with restricted access which Essex County Council have already raised concerns about, this is not a site that should be considered as part of the requirement due to its location, but also, why is the allocation of all 15 pitches being detailed to one area?

Page 43 to 44 "Appendix 1"

Details of all the infrastructure to accompany residential development is listed, yet there are no detailed costs, have these been done? And are these achievable? Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

Page 57 "Strategies, Activities and Actions - The Green Belt"
The document states that "The Council will continue to support the principals of restricting development in the Green Belt, as set out in PPG2 and will preserve the character and openness of the Green Belt" it further states that "a small proportion of the District's Green Belt will have to have its designation reviewed to allow development" The entire development of 550 houses planned for land north of London Road is all on Green Belt land as is the land at Hullbridge, how does this equate to a "small proportion"?
The Councils own Policy GB1- Green Belt Protection states "The Council will allocate the minimum amount of Green Belt land necessary to meet the District's housing and employment needs" and that they will "direct development away from the Green Belt as far as is practicable and will prioritise the protection of the Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt".
This area of land confirms all 5 purposes of the national PPG2 - Green Belt:-
It prevents the unrestricted sprawl of western Rayleigh
It provides a barrier to prevent the ultimate merging of Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford
It assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
It preserves the setting and special character of historic towns
Assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land
Rawreth Parish Council have observed that there are a number of sites that were put forward in the "Call for Sites" that are pre-used brownfield land in the Green Belt land, and as such would prove beneficial and in their opinion should have been considered for development. Their non-inclusion as "brownfield" sites makes the current proposals UNSOUND:
Site No; 73 Hambro Nursery a site of approximately 3.93 hectares, coupled with the adjacent site Clovelly, would provide between 200 and 250 houses in an area of approximately 4.85 hectares this area would have good access directly from the A1245 and if expanded north westward to include land up to and around the Village Hall, approximately another 2.08 hectares could produce between 50 and 80 further houses. This area could be accessed either from the slip road (Chelmsford Road) to the south of the Nevendon Garage or from Church Road.
Both of these sites would remove the need for extra traffic along the A129 and Rawreth Lane which are both already operating well over maximum capacity. This development would require a footbridge for pedestrians, cyclists and horses over the A1245.
Rawreth Parish Council believe these proposals would be sensible infill of these areas and would be on "Brownfield" sites where current businesses are not particularly progressive and would not result in the loss of many jobs. Our figures are quite conservative and we believe that if these sites were chosen a much reduced number of houses would need to be built "North of London Road" on Green Belt land.
Phase 2 - With regard to the houses that are proposed for the Northeast corner of Rawreth/Hullbridge, the Parish Council are concerned that any development would cause considerable extra congestion to the immediate roads. We understand that the thoughts are to "straighten" and improve parts of Watery Lane and Beeches Road to provide access to and through Battlesbridge - a conservation area. Recent experience of deep flooding in Watery Lane with the road closed for several days on 3 occasions in the early part of 2009 proves that this proposal is completely unsustainable. The local drainage systems simply cannot take the amount of run-off experienced now and with further development this would increase the problem.
If this development is to go ahead, the Parish Council believe that a relief road should be built, from the end of Watery Lane, skirting to the west of the Rayleigh Park Estate, crossing Rawreth Lane at a mini-roundabout and entering a vastly improved A129 at approximately Lower Barn Farm. This would take any necessary traffic in and out of the area efficiently.
The Parish Council further believe that the Michelins Farm site No: 49 would be an ideal site for the Rawreth Industrial Estate. This would adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District and would provide excellent road and transport links. Rawreth Parish Council also proposed that the land opposite Michelins Farm could be used to re-site the illegal Gypsy/Traveller site that is currently situated on the busy A1245. The land opposite Michelins Farm would not only be a much safer site for Gypsy/Traveller pitches, but the correct use of the land would also ensure the environmental improvement of the site as a whole.
All of the above proposals were submitted to Rochford District Council, but they were not taken into consideration in the final draft resulting in the predominant use of Green Belt land for development, bounded by already congested roads and, therefore, the proposals are UNSOUND.

PPS12 (paras. 4.5, 4.15 and 4.16) states that Core Strategies should make clear spatial choices and take a long term view which is flexible so it can respond to changes in circumstances during the plan period. The submitted Rochford Core Strategy fails to do this which means it fails the soundness tests of being justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

The strategy is unsound since it does not include a policy setting out the settlement strategy. Whilst paragraph 4.9 of the Core
Strategy explains the four tiers of settlements in Rochford, this should be elevated to policy status and provide confirmation that the majority of new development will be directed to the tier 1 settlements (Rayleigh, Rochford / Ashingdon and Hockley / Hawkwell) with progressively less dwellings allocated to each subsequent tier. This is an essential bedrock of the strategy which is missing. Without such a policy, there is no guidance on where additional development land should be found if identified sites fail to come forward as expected. This means that the strategy fails to provide both guidance and flexibility.

Changes to make the plan sound.
New Housing policy H* "The location and scale of development in the District should comply with the Settlement Hierarchy. The Hierarchy
should also be used by infrastructure providers to guide investment decisions.

Q7. Continuation

Settlement Type
Town
Function
Major focus for development in the District.
Suitable for the largest scale of development.
Settlements included
Rayleigh, Rochford / Ashingdon,Hockley / Hawkwell

Town
Rural Service Centre
Function
Main focus for development outside the towns.
Suitable for development that would reinforce the settlement's role as a provider of services for a wider rural area.
Settlements included
Hullbridge, Great Wakering

Settlement Type
Primary Village
Function
Secondary focus for development in the rural area; suitable for a scale of development to serve that settlement and its immediate area.
Settlements included
Canewdon

Settlement Type
All other settlements
Function
Not suitable for development other than that which is small scale and for local needs."
Settlements included
All other settlements

It is considered that our participation at the oral part of the public examination would assist the Inspector for two main reasons
- Sellwood Planning has a detailed knowledge of the Rochford area, appeared at the last Local Plan Inquiry and was a participant at the RSS public examination. This direct knowledge of the local area and the statutory Development Plan may be of assistance to the Inspector
- Sellwood Planning has experience in promoting major schemes through Core Strategies (eg. 7,000 dwellings in Ashford, 5,750 dwellings in Dover, 2,500 dwellings in Horsham and 1,200 dwellings in Newmarket) and the emerging
body of evidence of what constitutes a sound Core Strategy and what is unsound. Our experience indicates that, in a number of respects, the submitted Core Strategy is unsound in its present form.

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.