Policy H4 - Affordable Housing

We support the proposal that 35% of developments is a suitable target for provision of affordable under S106.

We also would welcome the inclusion of rural exception sites as an option for affordable housing and the publication of Housing Need Studies where appropriate.

By restricting the provision of affordable housing to sites over 15 units, 35% affordable housing will not be achieved overall. This is contrary to the RSS and therefore unsound and not legally compliant.

A comprehensive policy. Clarity may be helped by separating policy text from the supportive text.

Shelter objects to this Policy for the reason that although paragraph 4.30 recognises and supports the regional requirement for at least 35% of new housing to be affordable this Policy will not achieve this. This is because the Policy only requires 35% of housing to be affordable on developments with 15 or more units. As a result, the lack of any requirement for smaller developments will mean that overall less than 35% of new housing will be affordable. Also, the target needs to take into account those larger developments where for reasons of economic unviabilty the requirement cannot be met.

Affordable housing could be better constructed using alternative building methods and efficient use of sustainable materials. The Chamber have concerns that the large proportion of this type of dwelling will not enhance the trade in the district. It is felt that the socio economic structure of the mixture of development is misguided.

Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not justified: not found on a robust evidence base, and (iii) not effective; not deliverable/flexible.

We are pleased to see that the policy includes the ability for the possible relaxation of the proposed minimum percentage requirements for affordable housing where a viability review/economic viability calculations justifies this. This is particularly pertinent in the current economic climate. Affordable housing is just one of potentially a large range of planning obligation or infrastructure requirements for larger development sites, and the combined cost implications of such requirements need to be taken into account to ensure that a site does not become unviable.

However, national planning policy set out in PPS 3 paragraph 29 requires that local authorities take account of economic viability when setting affordable housing targets in their Local development documents. The target of at least 35% affordable housing for developments of 15 or more units must therefore be based upon/justified by a robust and up-to date local viability appraisal undertaken by the council.

The council do not seem to have undertaken its own Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment. It seems that you are relying on the East of England figure which in itself suggests no understanding of viability issues locally, and The Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing market Assessment which is not a viability appraisal document (see paragraph 4.30 of the Core Strategy).

With no viability assessment the policy is unsound and does not comply with the requirements of PPS 3. An Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment must be undertaken to inform the appropriate percentage requirement of affordable housing.

Furthermore, the wording on viability in the policy should be objective, and we submit that it should be amended so that subjective wording is deleted.

The following amendments should be made:

• Delete at the beginning of the policy the words "at least"
• Delete within the first sentence of the third paragraph the word "highly", and in the same sentence (third line of the paragraph), the word "definitely"
• Delete the words "rendering the site undeliverable" from the same sentence (4th line of that paragraph)

We also consider that the balance of affordable housing specified as "80% social housing and 20% intermediate" is too high (no shared ownership), but that in any case, should not be specified in this policy. Affordable housing need changes over time. Therefore we suggest that the policy should state that the make up of affordable housing should be determined at the time at which a detailed masterplan or planning application is considered for a site (certainly for larger sites), based on identified affordable housing needs at that time.

We would also comment that the insistence on a minimum level of affordable housing for a site should not be used to hold up delivery of those housing requirements set within the East of England Plan (the importance of delivering RSS housing requirements often seems to get forgotten in debates about affordable housing percentages). Housing delivery is an equally important national issue.

It is noted that on qualifying developments the policy seeks that affordable units are 'pepper potted' throughout the development. However, it is recommended that on such developments the affordable housing (both social rented and intermitted tenure) are clustered in groups of 6 to 10 units throughout the development in order to aid with ongoing management and maintenance undertaken by RSL or other body.

With regards the need for affordable housing the Council has set a target that 35% of all new housing should be affordable. Whilst, the policy acknowledges that as a result of the current market conditions, it may not be viable to achieve 35% affordable housing on all sites, therefore, this target may be relaxed where it can be demonstrated that this target would undermine the viability of a particular development; as worded the test to seek a relaxation to the 35% is too restrictive.

Amend second sentence of first paragraph as follows:

....These affordable dwellings shall be tenure-blink and well integrated into the layout of the new residential development and clustered in groups of 6 to 10 units throughout the development in order to aid with on going management and maintenance undertaken by RSL or other body.

Amend first sentence of second paragraph as follows:

The requirement for the provision of affordable housing will only be relaxed in circumstances, where it can be demonstrated, for example, where constraints make the on-site provision impossible, or where it can be demonstrated that the 35% provision will be economically unviable, rendering the site undeliverable...

We consider the DPD is potentially unsound depending on the final selection of specific sites or site in South West Hullbridge.

Please see attached statements 1, 2, 3 and 4 evidential statement.

The precise wording should correlate to the proposal of the attached statements, although the issue may be resolved by publication of the allocations development plan document.

Oral participation will depend on whether the proposed site is included in the allocation development plan document for specific sites for future development, if the proposed site is included oral participation will not be required or necessary.

The policy is unsound in that the 35% affordable housing target does not appear to be supported by an assessment of viability
as required by the Blyth Valley BC - v - Persimmon Homes (North East) Ltd (2008) High Court case.

The policy can only be made sound by undertaking a viability assessment of affordable housing levels in the District.

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.

1.0 Instruction and Introduction

1.1 Charles Planning Associates Limited (Chartered Town Planners) is Instructed by Swan Hill Homes Limited (Swan Hill) to prepare and submit representations on their behalf in respect of the Rochford District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Submission (September 2009) Development Plan Document.

1.2 The comments refer to the relevant sections and policy designations in the Submission document, as appropriate.

1.3 The comments set out in this submission are intended to assist the District Council in taking forward its Local Development Framework. It is our intention to continue to be involved in the LDF preparation process and we look forward to the opportunity to comment further at the Examination to the Core Strategy.

1.4 If you have any queries regarding the content of this submission then please do not hesitate to contact:

Peter Kneen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
Planner

2.0 Housing:
Policy H1 - The Efficient Use of Land for Housing

2.1 Swan Hill recognises the importance of seeking to concentrate new developments mainly in the existing urban areas, on previously developed land where possible, particularly in view of the Government seeking to ensure 60% of all such new developments are on previously development land (PDL).

2.2 However, given the character of the District, and the strategic housing requirement of the East of England Plan, Swan Hill supports the approach that the Council must also make provision for additional development on the edge of existing settlements on greenfield sites, particularly in the most sustainable locations. As such, Swan Hill supports that where feasible, the redevelopment of existing employment sites for residential/employment purposes can make a contribution towards the strategic housing requirement, provided that sufficient additional employment land is brought forward to ensure the stability of employment levels in the District, and to ensure employment growth meets the East of England Plan requirements.

2.3 Swan Hill considers that Policy H1 should include consideration that new extensions to existing settlements have regard to their potential impact on the wider characteristics and openness objectives of the Green Belt.

Policy H2 - Extensions to Residential Envelopes and Phasing

2.4 Swan Hill generally supports the approach taken by the Council in this policy. As set out above, Swan Hill consider the Council's acknowledgment that housing requirements should be met through the allocation of land on the edge of the existing settlements is the most suitable way forward to meeting the Council's strategic housing requirement and complies with the advice in PPS3.

2.5 The need for suitable greenfield urban extensions represents the best way forward for the Council to meet its strategic housing requirement, as set out in the East of England Plan. Swan Hill supports the recognition that the potential supply of alternative previously developed sites is limited, without detrimentally affecting the character of the District, and therefore the best way forward is the use of sustainable greenfield urban extensions to the existing settlements of the District.

2.6 However, Swan Hill consider that a fundamental consideration that the District Council should consider relates to the potential impact of the urban extensions on the Green Belt policy has been somewhat overlooked. The wider sustainability credentials of the settlements of the District should only be one of many key considerations for determining the level of expansion. In view of the proximity of Southend-on-Sea to all the main settlements of the District, and the influence this has on the likely location many people would travel for employment and leisure, sustainability of many of the settlements is not a key overarching factor, and greater weight should be placed on the potential impact on the openness of the Green Belt, as this cannot be remedied if development occurs in the wrong location.

2.7 As such, Swan Hill considers that determining the location of growth for the main settlements should be to identify those locations where the impact on the wider setting of the Green Belt can be minimised. Further justification for those general locations chosen should be identified in Policy H2. In this regard, Swan Hill has serious concerns regarding the removal of Land South West of Great Wakering as a viable option for the growth of the settlement. The development of this area of Great Wakering, in addition to the potential redevelopment of the Star Lane Industrial Estate could provide a more comprehensive development, whilst ensuring that the wider openness of the Green Belt is maintained. Land South West of Great Wakering is significantly better placed to limit the impact on the wider Green Belt than Land West of Great Wakering, and could contribute to the provision of an important amenity and wildlife site for the local community.

2.8 In addition, Swan Hill consider that the Council now has no reserve provision in the event that any of the existing employment sites set out in Policy H1 fail to come forward for development within the envisaged timescale. Further, Land West of Great Wakering has not been identified in the SHLAA as a deliverable site to help meet the strategic housing requirement, contrary to the requirement set out in PPS3.

2.9 As such, Swan Hill would support the provision of suitable sites which could be safeguarded for future development in the likelihood of a shortfall in supply.

Policy H3 - Extensions to Residential Envelopes Post 2021

2.10 As set out above, Swan Hill supports the overall approach the Council has taken towards the provision of sustainable urban extensions as a suitable means of meeting their strategic housing requirement. However, as set out for Policy H2 above, Swan Hill has serious concerns regarding the removal of several proposed sites set out in the October 2008 Preferred Options Core Strategy, without any guarantee of the ability to deliver those sites set out in Policy H1.

2.11 As also considered above, the inclusion of West of Great Wakering for 250 dwellings should not be included ahead of South West of Great Wakering, in view of the fact that the site is not identified in the SHLAA as available, suitable and achievable as required by PPS3, and thus is not supported by a robust and creditable evidence base for its inclusion as a strategic site for development.

2.12 Whilst Swan Hill acknowledge that alterations to Policy H1 has resulted in the removal of some locations for growth in Policy H3 (as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal), Swan Hill does not consider that the most appropriate locations have been chosen.

2.13 In addition to the matters raised above, the use of West of Great Wakering would also result in the loss of valuable agricultural land, which clearly in a Green Belt location, should be less suitable for development than other sites, such as South West of Great Wakering, which would have limited impact on the wider Green Belt policy, and not result in the loss of valuable agricultural land.

2.14 Finally, in respect of Policies H1, H2 and H3, all of the above comments are based on our interpretation of the Submission Version Core Strategy when compared to the October 2008 Version of the Core Strategy. Without the ability to undertake a detailed assessment of the Council's SHLAA, it is not possible to clarify the proposed Core Strategy position regarding the proposed direction of growth proposed for the settlements in the District. As such, Swan Hill reserves the right to make additional representations regarding the proposed Policies H1, H2 and H3 following the publication of the SHLAA in due course.

Policy H4 - Affordable Housing

2.15 In general terms, Swan Hill supports the approach taken by the Council towards the provision of affordable housing for new residential developments. The Policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

Policy H5 - Dwelling Types

2.16 Swan Hill supports the policy provision of H5, and considers that the approach taken by the Council for this policy represents a suitably flexible alternative to stipulating percentages of dwelling mix, sought by some local authorities. The Policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

Policy H6 - Lifetime Homes

2.17 In regard to this policy, Swan Hill objects to the Council's policy where all new dwellings should be provided to the Lifetime Homes Standard. Whilst it is acknowledged that the UK has an aging population, Swan Hill considers that seeking to provide Lifetime Homes on all sites is considered to be overly onerous for proposed developers, particularly when considering the requirement for all car parking spaces to be suitable for disabled users, which could result in more schemes becoming unviable. Therefore, the provision of a percentage of Lifetime Homes should be considered through negotiations with the Council at the planning application stage, and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

3.0 Character of Place:
Policy CP1 - Design

3.1 The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (As Amended) makes the submission of a Design and Access Statement for most types of planning applications a Statutory requirement, and as such, the provision of a Design Brief represents a pre-requisite of all major planning applications.

3.2 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure the provision of good, high quality developments that reflect local characteristics and distinctiveness, this ideology is supported by Swan Hill.

4.0 The Green Belt:
Policy GB1 - Green Belt Protection

4.1 Following the amendments to the wording of the Policy since the October 2008 Preferred Options Core Strategy, Swan Hill is now generally supportive of Policy GB1 and its supporting text. However, as expressed above, it is important that where alterations to the Green Belt boundary occur as a result of the extension of the settlements to meet the strategic housing requirement, both the minimal amount of land is taken and where that land is taken for development, it represents the best available land which has a minimal impact of the wider openness characteristic of the Green Belt.

5.0 Environmental Issues:
Policy ENV3 - Flood Risk

5.1 Swan Hill generally supports the approach set out in Policy ENV3 regarding ensuring development accords with the sequential test of PPS25. The Policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

Policy ENV4 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

5.2 Following the revisions from the October 2008 Preferred Options Core Strategy, Swan Hill now generally supports the approach set out in Policy ENV4. The Policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

Policy ENV8 - On-site Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation

5.3 Whilst Swan Hill recognises the importance of reducing carbon emissions, particularly in new housing developments, and the role this can play in reducing the nations overall Greenhouse emissions. As such Swan Hill is generally supportive of Policy ENV8. It is noted that Policy ENG1 of the East of England Plan sets out sets out a threshold of developments comprising 10 or more dwellings. Swan Hill consider it important for the District Council to justify the reduction in the threshold level.

5.4 Further, no assessment of Policy ENV8 has been set out in the Sustainability Appraisal which justifies the change in threshold from that of Policy ENG1 of the RSS.

Policy ENV9 - Code for Sustainable Homes

5.5 Following the revisions from the October 2008 Preferred Options Core Strategy, Swan Hill now generally supports the approach set out in Policy ENV9. The Policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

6.0 Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism:
Policy CLT1 - Planning Obligations and Standard Charges

6.1 Swan Hill generally supports the overall approach the Council has taken in Policy CLT1. It is considered Policy CLT1 sets out a degree of flexibility to ensure that all sites are considered on a site-by-side basis, assessing the individual merits of each planning application, in order to ensure the levels of contributions applicable meet the five tests of Circular 05/05. The Policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

Policies CLT5 - Open Space;
CLT7 - Play Space;
CLT8 - Youth Facilities; and,
CLT10 - Playing Pitches

6.2 Swan Hill supports the need for new residential developments to incorporate a degree of new publicly accessible open space, children's play space, youth facilities and playing pitches, and as such, generally supports the policy approaches taken by the Council.

6.3 However, it is important that whilst the Council may seek to undertake an assessment of providing standard charges for new development, which, as set out in Policy CLT1, this should be based on thorough public consultation and consideration and sound justification. Swan Hill consider that within the provision of a standard charge, it is important that such provision allows for a degree of flexibility to ensure that each site is assessed individually and on its own merits. This is particularly important for those sites close to existing open spaces and facilities. As such, the levels of open space and recreation facilities required in the 'standard charge' should be based on an up-to-date PPG17 Open Space assessment, which should be used to form a key consideration in the levels of provision likely to be required in the standard charge system proposed.

7.0 Transport:
Policy T1 - Highways

7.1 Swan Hill supports the overall objectives set out in Policy T1 requiring developments to be located and designed to reduce the reliance on the private car and to meet the infrastructure needs generated by development or seek to help achieve these needs is acceptable in principle.

7.2 Swan Hill recognises the importance of providing sufficient infrastructure provision to meet the requirements of development, and that where developments have insufficient consideration of impact on existing infrastructure, they should be considered unacceptable and contrary to National policy guidance. However, Swan Hill considers it important to emphasise that the developer's role should not be seen as a means to meet existing shortfalls in provision.

Policy T3 - Public Transport

7.3 Swan Hill is generally supportive of the policy approach set out in T3, however, as set out in paragraph 7.2 above, it is important that the District Council do not consider that it is the developer's responsibility to resolve existing shortfalls in provision of public transport, and any contribution towards additional public transportation provision should only be to mitigate against the additional level of demand likely from the development proposed.

Policy T5 - Cycling and Walking

7.4 Swan Hill supports the general approach to this policy, as Swan Hill recognises the importance of promoting the use of alternatives to the private car. The policy provision acknowledges the need to ensure relevant contributions in the event of additional travel demands generated by individual developments, whilst also setting out additional aspirations for the cycle network in the District.


7.5 As such, Swan Hill considers this policy accords with the advice of National Policy and is therefore considered sound by Swan Hill.

Policy T8 - Parking Standards

7.6 The Council has recently (January 2007) adopted SPD on the requirements for parking standards, and as such, Swan Hill generally supports the policy approach chosen by the Council. As set out in the SPD, whilst Swan Hill generally supports the approach taken by the District Council towards setting residential parking standards, in that the Council has recognised that in the suburban areas, even with some access to public transport, the majority of residents will rely on the use of private cars. However, Swan Hill has concerns over the failure of the District Council to comply with the provisions of PPG13: Transport (2001) which sets out that Local Planning Authorities should not set minimum standards for car parking. Whilst it is acknowledged that PPS3 sets out provision for the consideration of local circumstances, it is considered that the Council has not justified this deviation from PPG13's maximum standard.

7.7 Whilst it is acknowledged that such justification may become apparent through the work currently being undertaken by Essex County Council, until such time, the District Council should only seek to apply the maximum standards indicated in PPG13. However, Swan Hill recommends that the District Council make provisions in the wording of the Policy to allow for changes in the event that future policy on car parking standards need to reflect the County standard, following the completion of the County Council review.

8.0 Economic Development:
Policies ED3 - Existing Employment Land
ED4 - Future Employment Allocations

8.1 In respect of Policies ED3 and ED4, Swan Hill notes that they have changed considerably since the October 2008 Preferred Options document, in that they are site specific regarding the location of the proposed redevelopment of existing employment sites. These four sites are also identified in Policy H1 - Efficient Use of Land, and in general, Swan Hill supports the approach to the redevelopment of these sites (where feasible) based on the assessments of the sites set out in this version of the Core Strategy.

8.2 However, Swan Hill has concerns that these policies might not be considered suitably sound given that insufficient opportunity has been allocated for consultation on their redevelopment. Without the SHLAA being publically available prior to the consultation on this Core Strategy, an insufficient evidence base has been provided to corroborate that these sites are neither suitable or deliverable to meet the test of soundness requirements.

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.

Iceni submitted representations to the Core Strategy Strategy Submission (CSS) document on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP (CLLLP) in October 2009. In reviewing the document, it was considered that the document consistently fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the table following Paragraph 4.52 of PPS12 particularly with regard to the requirement to find the document justified, that is 'founded on a robust and credible evidence base'; effective, that is 'deliverable and flexible' and consistent with national policy. To clarify this matter further, the representations of CLLLP confirm that:
* The plan fails to cover at least 15 years from the date of adoption since the CSS should look to plan for the provision of housing up to 2026 at the earliest.
* At the time of the submission of representations to the CSS, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2009 had not been published. As a consequence, representations to the CSS did not include an opportunity to comment on the information contained within this document. In this regard, the CSS consultation document was not supported by a robust, transparent and credible evidence base.
*The Stambridge Mills site is identified within the CSS policy H1 for high density residential development. The site lies wholly in Flood Zone 3 and identification of this site is considered inappropriate as there is no evidence provided within the consultation package that the Sequential Test and the Exception test have been applied. The absence of an evidence base means that poligy H1 is not justified, effective, or consistent with national policy (in particular the requirements of paragraph 14-20 of PPS25).
*The CS is not supported by a compliant Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The CSS is reliant on the Thames Gateway South Essex SFRA which was produced in accordance with PPG25. In the absence of a PPS25 compliant SFRA the CSS is neither 'justified' nor consistent with national policy and is therefore unsound.
*As a consequent of the two points above, Stambridge Mills is not considered to be deliverable within the context of paragraph 54 of PPS3. Consequently the CSS is not consistent with PPS3 and is not flexible enough to ensure the CSS can meet minimum housing targets contained within the East of England Plan.

The full case of the CLLLP is set out in the representations to the CSS and separately in representations to the SHLAA which we understand were not registered by the Council.

It is also noted that representations submitted by the Environment Agency indicates similar concerns in relation to the Stambridge Mills site in the context of the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting Green Belt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risk to life and property.

In order to produce a legally compliant and sound CSS, the Council should:
To make the document jusfitied:
*Re-open the consultation on the CSS in order that the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment can be considered within the consultation package;
*Delay the Core Strategy in order that the Council can produce an up to date and PPS25 compliant SFRA
To make the document effective:
*Undertake a Sequential Test and Exception test to ensure that the Stambridge Mills site is suitable for residential development and conforms with the requirements of PPS 25
To make the document in accordance with national policy:
*Identify sufficient sites in the event that identified housing sites are found to be undeliverable or undevelopable in accordance with PPS3;
*Undertake the sequential and exception tests as required by PPS25
*Produce an SFRA as required by PPS25

Iceni, on behalf of CLLLP seek the opportunity to present their representations in full on the Core Strategy due to the wide ranging implications and significant nature of the objections to date.