Policy CP1 - Design

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

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

a) Overview

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

b) Background and Summary

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

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

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

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

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

b) Colonnade

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

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

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

c) Housing

i. Date of Adoption

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

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

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

ii. Housing Delivery

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

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

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

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

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

iii. Redevelopment of Employment Sites

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

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

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

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

The UCS also states in the same section that:

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

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

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

iv. Strategic Housing Growth to the East of Rochford

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

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

v. Housing Trajectory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOTAL

Predicted Delivery (A)
1,562 dwellings

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

Residual delivery (A-B)
437 dwellings

Delivery Shortfall
1,125 dwellings

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

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

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

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

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

vi. Appendix H1

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

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

d) Character of Place

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

e) Green Belt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f) Environmental Issues

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

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

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

g) Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism

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

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

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

h) Transport

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

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

i) Economic Development

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

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

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

j) Conclusions

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

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

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

New developments should promote good, high quality design, which should have a good relationship with its surroundings.

ROCHFORD LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY SUBMISSION DOCUMENT

Thank you for your letter dated 21 September 2009 consulting English Heritage on the above document. Our comments are set out below.

CHAPTER 4 HOUSING

Vision and objectives
While we note that character of place is addressed in chapter 5, it is important that this consideration is recognised as relevant within the Housing chapter. Paras 2.33, 2.69 and 2.73 also recognise the importance of character and sense of place in the built environment. We recommend that this consideration should be integrated into the vision and objectives for housing in order to improve the clarity of the plan, and its consistency with advice in PPS1.

Recommendation:
The following amendments are suggested:
- Vision in five years: add 'settlement character' after 'infrastructure'
- Vision by 2025: add 'and places' after 'communities' in bullet 1
- Objectives: In objective 2 amend to '...sustainable locations, enhancing sense of place and having regard to..'
- Para 4.19: Amend bullet 5 to read 'The historical, agricultural and ecological value of land, and settlement character'

CHAPTER 5 CHARACTER OF PLACE

We strongly support this section and policies CP1, CP2 and CP3. In the absence of policy coverage for listed buildings and scheduled monuments we recommend that para 5.9 should refer to PPGs 15 and 16, as well as draft PPS15.

CHAPTER 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

We welcome the references the historic environment in the objectives and in policies ENV1 and ENV2.

Policy ENV6 Large Scale Renewable Energy Projects

We consider that this policy should refer to the historic interest of sites to reflect the advice in PPS22 more appropriately.

Recommendation: amend the first bullet in policy ENV6 to read '...it's ecological, historic or landscape value...'

CHAPTER 11 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Policy ED2 London Southend Airport
We understand that the grade I listed church in the vicinity of the runway will be protected in any proposals for expansion of the airport and the Core Strategy policy does not suggest otherwise. We will respond to the detail of proposals for the airport through responses to consultations on the Joint Area Action Plan and any planning applications.

In the interests of clarity, the above comments where we suggest changes to the Core Strategy should be recorded as objections to the soundness of the plan in terms of consistency with national guidance. However, we hope that it will be possible to agree amendments on these points prior to the public examination.

We would be happy to discuss any of these comments if you would find this useful.

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.

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.