Should any of the sites included within Appendix 1 be considered further for allocation?

Appendix 1 does not exist!

Site 207 has many advantages over the large sites preferred by RDC, or others detailed in appendix a as follows:
- It would not necessitate development on productive agricultural land.
- It is not prone to flooding.
- It would not result in a single large extension to the existing residential envelope of Rayleigh and is therefore more compliant with the government's greenbelt policy. i.e. a purpose of Greenbelt is to "Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas", unlike RDC's single preferred location in Rayleigh.
- Would not significantly reduce the "openness of the countryside" to the extent that RDC's other preferred locations or others in appendix a would. The site is currently a private residential garden with no public access.
- Would not require substantial investment in infrastructure before dwellings could be provided as infrastructure bordering onto the site could be re-used. Little or no additional infrastructure would be required. All domestic services are already present on the site and adequate local capacity exists.
- Would provide a better level of integration with the existing local community as opposed to overwhelming local communities with large areas of new housing.
- Good public transport, walkways and local services already exist in the area within easy walking distance.
- The site has other residential development on three of the four sides of it already.
- The current line of the Greenbelt would require only minor change as two of the four sides of the area bordering the property boundary are not green belt.
- Would not result in neighbouring communities in merging as is the case with the North London Road location preferred by RDC. Rayleigh will merge with Rawreth under RDC's preferred location
- Make better use of existing green and open spaces by locating dwellings within walking distance of nearby parks and woodlands, without the need to use a car.
The rationale that has been employed to date by RDC focuses in on a limited number of large sites to obtain the desired number of dwellings. The benefits of utilising more numerous smaller sites around the existing residential areas has not been investigated fully. This approach warrants further investigation, and is surely essential to ensure the RDC residents are provided with the best possible solution.
Site 207 has not been properly considered by RDC because it is relatively small. I have raised an official complaint with regards this with Shaun Scrutton and the local government ombudsman as RDC should have undertaken evaluation of all sites submitted for consideration with the necessary level of diligence and transparency.

I do not believe there are any other sites that need to be included in the proposed allocations. Moreover I believe that, in line with the overall objectives of the planning framework, it should be clear that once the Allocations DPD has been adopted, any sites that may have been proposed during the development of the plan which have not been included in the Allocations DPD are unlikely to be given permission to proceed as sufficent allocations have been identified to fullfil all Rochford's needs for the planning period. This should be reflected in a specific Development Management policythat goes beyond the general policies in the Core Strategy. In this way there will greater clarity for both developers and the community on what developements are likely to take place where.

Call for Sites Allocations 129 - Lime House Nursery Industrial Park which is located on the south-eastern edge of Rayleigh offers a more sustainable alternative strategic housing option than many of the larger sites, and employment re-allocations proposed by the Council, for the following reasons:

- The site comprises predominantly previously developed land, which is characterised by the remnants of a former large scale horticultural operation which is now used as a small industrial park and Garden Centre. Sequentially, the site should be considered ahead of the larger Green Belt releases proposed in the higher order settlements.
- The development of the site will not result in the loss of high quality agricultural land which is in production, unlike land to the north of London Road, Rayleigh.
- The site is capable of development without causing undue harm or reducing the openness of the Green Belt in this location, much of which has already been substantially eroded by the nature of the existing uses at the site.
- The proposed development of the site will not result in the potential for coalescence with Rayleigh and Eastwood. The Southend administrative boundary is located beyond the eastern boundary of the site and therefore the land does not provide a physical separation function between the two settlements. In any event, the Eastwood Road frontage is continually built up - there is no physical break. The proposed masterplan envisages the retention of a green wedge of land extending in a north - south direction along the eastern boundary running through the site - which would be protected from built development, and opened up for amenity use for the enjoyment of the public. The site does not provide a defensible strategic boundary.
- The site is of low ecological value, and new development could provide the opportunity to increase biodiversity across the site.
- Vehicular access into the site is achievable, and new development can be served by existing utilities and services.
- The site is not prone to flooding, and sequentially offers a better alternative than Stambridge Mills or part of land to the north of London Road, Rayleigh.
- It is accepted by the Council and previous Inspectors that the site is accessible, and is within an easy walking distance of local facilities and the Town Centre. There is good public transport and footpaths adjacent to the site.
- There is existing capacity at nearby local schools to accommodate this level of housing growth; the development would not require substantial infrastructure investment or enabling works.
- The site is adjoined by existing residential development on 3 of the 4 boundaries, and development would form part of a well established residential area, as opposed to a large single strategic site, which is more difficult to integrate with an existing community.

Rochford's Core Strategy is overly reliant on the redevelopment of four existing employment sites which are not currently developable, and a limited number of large strategic housing sites which will require extensive infrastructure to enable their delivery. An alternative strategy would be to utilise a number of smaller sites such as Lime House Nursery Industrial Park (Site 129) on the edge of existing residential areas in higher tier settlements that can use existing infrastructure and facilities. This approach is more sustainable than that currently being proposed by the Council.

YES - Locations 117, 118, 119, 162 and 204 (duplicated at 47) all based around the Victor Gardens area in Hawkwell (not Hockley) have the potential between them to deliver up to 293 dwellings. They have been rejected on the grounds they are fairly detached from local services and schools, and not located well in relation to the transport network. I don't know who made the assessment but this location is nearer to schools, shops and the train station and better located in terms of the transport network than the currently selected proposals at Rectory road locations SH1,SH2,SH3,SH4. Additionally the Clements Hall leisure centre and its associated playing field adjoin this area so it is factually incorrect to state the site is not within proximity of leisure facilities. There are several access roads out from this site to the main highway since it is located onto an existing residential estate.

I accept that site Location ref 180 rejected on the grounds 'The site is located within the boundaries of a Special Landscape Area' but cannot understand the rejection 'the site is not located within the Councils preferred locations for development as stated within the Core Strategy Submission Document' when it is just across the road from the proposed locations at Rectory road of SH1,SH2,SH3,SH4. Additionally regarding proximity to local services again factually incorrect to state 'The site is not in proximity to schools' when it is actually closer to schools than the locations proposed at Rectory road of SH1,SH2,SH3,SH4.

YES - Locations 101 and 102 very well positioned and must be considered together - I note 101 has been rejected as is not located with a preferred location for residential development as set out within the Core Strategy Submission Document' yet just across the railway line is location 102 which will be examined as part of Hockley Area Action Plan. I suggest both sites be considered whether as part of Action plan or not, between them they have much to offer not least their position located in close proximity to Hockley centre. Good access to bus and railway links.

Allocations 58, 62,189, and 190 all at the end of Canewdon View road have a combined potential to deliver upto 122 dwellings. Although I appreciate they are a short car journey away from schools, shops, GPs and leisure facilities. I wonder if a development here would bring some financial input to create some closer local facilities for all the current residents. There is access to the highway network and a bus route which could do with some help to create a more frequent service - maybe this development would regenerate the whole area? Even to go as far as including site allocation 103 which would deliver another 126 dwellings - making this an attractive proposition for any developer.

Allocation site 30 is located in close proximity to Hockley centre, with good access to bus and railway links hence reducing dependency on the car, and schools. This site could deliver 50 dwellings and is an extension of an existing residential development and should be considered. There have been many residential developments in this area in the past not least of course the much controversial Etheldore and wood avenue estate so I do not understand how it is now rejected as not within the preferred location.

Allocation site 33 is a grassed area located within very close proximity to the new railway station and London Southend Airport. The site is bounded to the west and north by residential dwellings of Rochford and to the east by agricultural fields and to the south by playing pitches. This site is reasonably well related to Rochford centre and services. The site can deliver 126 dwellings. It is very well located and absolute madness not to be considered just as it is not situated within a proposed strategic location for housing in the emerging Core Strategy. The other rejection statement 'that there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rochford / Ashingdon with Southend' is absolute nonsense as development in this site would not create any possible coalescence. I seriously question the validity of the core strategy strategic locations surely you need to assess the developments on their full merits and not just dismiss them because it isn't where you first thought of putting houses!!

Allocation site 121 (capable of delivering 25 dwellings which may not be enough in one go) but the greatest bonus of this site is being directly sited next door to the main GP practice for Hockley, this surgery has submitted a recent planning applications to extend its premises since engaging a number of new clinical staff but it was refused on the grounds that the car parking area would become insufficient so if site 121 was considered for development it could include a provision to extend the car parking facilities of the GP surgery and hence giving benefit to many current and future residents of the area. Thinking outside the box again of the wider benefits for everyone!

Allocation site 207 delivering 17 dwellings does mean utilising other areas in the district to deliver the total numbers but it would appear to be well located in a current residential area and would have less impact on the surrounding area. Again dismissed as 'not within the core strategy preferred location'. Are these locations so set in stone?

The Broad Area of Interest for West Hockley should be extended to include additional land to the west of Hockley including Site 47 as identified in Appendix 1 (Call for Sites). As currently presented the Broad Area of Interest is too narrowly defined and excludes genuinely sustainable and reasonable options to accommodate the (current, draft) proposal for 50 homes in the as yet unadopted Core Strategy. There are a number of reasons to justify the inclusion of land at 57 High Road, Hockley as a reasonable option to be tested in this DPD. We can advise as follows:
(1) There are no known constraints that would prevent the development of this site. It should be noted that there is an existing dwelling on the site with mature landscaping. A number of these trees can be safeguarded to ensure that development is situated within an attractive, landscaped setting. With regard to further trees to the rear, these comprise the remains of a much wider orchard, which is reaching the end of its natural life. Although these trees are an attractive part of the garden, they have no wider benefit in terms of the character and appearance of this area.
(2) We are not aware that this site is a habitat for any protected species. However, given the size of the curtilage and the mature landscaping, some of the trees could well be habitats for bats. Nonetheless, the presence of protected species is not necessarily an impediment to development but great care would need to be taken in carrying out development. It is accepted that it would be appropriate for an ecological study to be carried out to assess this matter prior to development. Additionally, the precautionary approach we are suggesting for this site in relation to bats also applies to sites WH1, WH3 and WH4 all of which include mature trees/hedgerows at an interface between development and countryside.
(3) We are not aware of an archaeological significance to the land. Furthermore the site is not within any defined flood risk zone, This site is also not within a Conservation Area nor is the existing building a listed building. There are no known contamination issues on the site.
(4) As the Local Planning Authority's assessment in Appendix 1 states, the site is well related to services, within walking distance of Hockley and close to the railway station. The site has good access onto the highway network at High Road in stark contrast to the five site options currently being presented in the consultation document. The site is within 100 metres from bus stops. The site is also only a 20 minute walk from Hockley railway station. Furthermore, there is very good access, within walking distance, to schools and local shops.
(5) It is recognised that the site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Local Planning Authority has previously recognised in the Local Plan that this is an area with a more urban character, due mainly to its urban fringe location. The current Local Development Framework process is examining options which will result in allocations in the Green belt to meet development needs. PPG2 'Green Belts' is clear on the purpose of green belts and the use of land in green belts. To include this site as a reasonable option to test through consultation would not undermine the purpose of green belts. The site is already borded on 3 sides by residential development and as such it would not result in coalescence. The site is already in residential use and therefore the wider countryside would be safeguarded (unlike options WH1, WH3 and WH4). Furthermore development of the site would not adversely affect the setting of or the character or Hockley in this location. The Green Belt is designated to retain attractive landscapes, retain land in agricultural use, secure nature conservation interests and allow for opportunities for sport/recreation. This does not apply in the case of 57 High Road, which is an established residential property and its domestic curtilage. As the consultation document concedes sites WH3 and WH4 will not provide for a defensible and logical boundary to the Metropolitan Green Belt unlike our client's site at 57 High Road.
(6) In conclusion to Site 47 in Appendix 1 the site has been solely dismissed as a reasonable option as not being ".....situated in a proposed location for housing as set out in the emerging Core Strategy". As stated elsewhere, this is a premature conclusion because the scale, settlement hierarchy and location of housing development has yet to be determined and is the subject of soundness representations. We would reiterate that Site 47 is available, deliverable and suitable for residential development. The site can be developed in a way which retains the compact character of the settlement in stark contrast to sites WH1, WH3 and WH4. It would not result in the loss of employment or productive premises as in the case of options WH2 and WH5. To not test the site as part of this consultation, solely on the basis of yet to be adopted policy, is premature and should be revisited and tested through additional consultation at which point our client's land should be given a high priority.

There are a number of sites located opposite and within the new residential development on Rawreth lane (28, 35, 89, 91 and 203) so these are located in close proximity to public transport, supermarket, schools and leisure centre and only a very short car journey away from Rayleigh Town Centre, there is also good access to the main highways. This location once again is not in the proposed strategic location for housing as set out in the Core Strategy but yet it should be considered as a very viable location and should be in the Core strategy. Also in consideration of the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, Rayleigh being allocated for residential status which is next door to the same development areas.Developments here would not have significant impact on the roads and infrastructure of any of the other district locations, this area is well located and has benefited well from recent developments. The combined sites have the capability to deliver some 650 dwellings. Please I ask you to reconsider the strategic locations set out in the core strategy in sympathy of the lack of infrastructure within the villages and town centres and consider the other locations where very viable large sites have been identified.

Allocation site 19 with the potential to deliver 2386 dwellings, one huge greenbelt site requiring great investment but satisfying almost the entire allocation requirements for the whole district.
I wonder if anyone has considered this in any great detail but here is a site that can basically become a community entity in its own right, because of the size it would invite great interest and investment which would provide money to deliver a significant highways improvement along Rawreth lane providing links to the A127, A130 etc. The site also has the main London Liverpool Street railway line running in parallel to it so investment can be sought for a new train station which would also serve the residents of Hullbridge as well as reducing the number of car journeys taken to Rayleigh or Hockley to access the rail network. It has the potential to provide new schools (possibly even a secondary one), additional leisure facilities and another shopping centre. I don't consider a development here would have any significant impact on any other areas in the district and the loss of just one greenbelt location is surely better than several across the district which would impact significantly on more services and people than this one location would. Maybe calling it South Hullbridge reduces the impact of losing a greenbelt location and provides some individual identity and recognition to the district of Hullbridge.

My objection is based on loss of local wildlife, loss of natural greenbelt land, lack of road infrastructure, increased traffic, (I live on the London Road and traffic is already very busy, I have 3 young children and often worry about them), oversubscribed schooling/ Doctors surgery, increased crime / anti-social activity that works hand in hand with increased house dwellings within compact area.

Consultation on Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Documents

1. Thank you for inviting the Highways Agency to comment on the Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Documents for Rochford District Council.

2. As you may have noted from our previous correspondence, the Highways Agency is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's motorway and all-purpose trunk road network, collectively known as the Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

3. In spatial planning and development control terms, we have a duty to safeguard the operation of the motorway and trunk road network as set out in the DfT circular 02/2007 (Planning and the Strategic Road Network). The circular encourages the Highways Agency to work co-operatively with Local Planning Authorities within the framework of the Government's policies for planning, growth areas, regeneration, integrated transport and sustainability. We look to your Council's Local Development Framework (LDF) to promote strategies, policies and land allocations which will support alternatives to the private car.

4. In the case of Rochford there are no trunk roads within the District, although there are two strategic corridors namely the A13 and A127/A1159 which connect into the M25 motorway network at junctions 30 and 29 respectively. Sections of these routes are currently heavily congested, particularly during peak periods, and operate under considerable levels of network stress. Therefore it is important to the Highways Agency that the impact of development proposals in the Rochford area is considered within the context of future impact on the M25 and the A13 Trunk Road.

5. Please see below our comments on the individual Development Plan Documents.

Allocations Development Plan Document

6. The Highways Agency is concerned that the majority of sites included in the DPD appear to be in areas with limited access to sustainable transport modes, therefore resulting in higher levels of car usage and ultimately increased impact on the strategic road network. We note from the individual Site Allocation Assessments at Appendix A to the DPD only a handful of sites were considered to either;

'promote more sustainable transport choices both for people and moving freight' or

'promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, cycling and walking'.

We would therefore question whether some of the sites are in accord with Government sustainable development policies that amongst other things seek to promote travel by means other than private car, and reduce carbon emissions.

7. It is the Highways Agency view that in advance of this DPD moving to its next stage, the traffic and transport implications of sites to be taken forward are assessed to an appropriate level of detail. This assessment should be in accordance with the advice issued to Local Planning Authorities in the Eastern Region by the Highways Agency in August 2007, the Department for Transport Circular 02/2007 Planning and the Strategic Road Network and the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment (March 2007). It is also the Highways Agency view that Local Development Documents that have not been the subject of an assessment of potential transport impact may be regarded as unsound on the grounds of insufficient evidence base.

Development Management Development Plan Document

8. The Highways Agency consider that Policy DM1 should include a criteria relating to housing being sited in areas where access to day to day facilities are available by public transport, walking and cycling, thereby reducing the need to travel by private car.

9. As stated in the Transport section of the DPD, the District does suffer from high levels of private car ownership and dependency, which results in congestion and pollution. The Highways Agency therefore consider that Policy DM26 would be enhanced by the inclusion of a requirement for an assessment of the potential impact of development on the highway network, together with mitigation measures that may be required. The supporting text should include reference to the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007).

10. The Highways Agency also consider that Policy DM26 could be further enhanced by the requirement for a Travel Plan to be considered as part of traffic management.

11. I trust you will find our comments helpful, but please do not hesitate to get in touch with any questions.

Firstly my own interest is in site 16, 287 Daws Heath Road Rayleigh, which I own with my niece and nephew.

Ref site 5 and 16: Your conclusion on both sites says they offer minimal contribution to housing targets.

It should be noted that our area of land map has been used when indicating site 5 area of land, as these two sites (5 and 16) are in fact adjoining. This gives the impression that the combined sites are smaller than in fact they are. Before any final decision is made this fault should be rectified and the two sites reconsidered as your conclusion has been made on incorrect information.

When these two sites are combined and reconsidered it would in fact provide some potential dwellings of 40-60 (your own estimates).

To take this point further, your conclusion for site 71 offers the same statement as above, however it does go on to say that 'Development of this site would mean that several other sites would need to be developed in order to fulfil the housing targets.' I would point out that this site at its north-east boundary virtually meets site 5. If these three sites were to be considered together there would then be the potential for 72-98 houses which must give a strong case for reconsideration of your conclusion.

These points seem to pose the question as to why, in your documents, these site pages are so far apart.

Finally your conclusion points out that 'there is a need to avoid coalescence of Rayleigh with Eastwood'. These sites are three quarters of a mile from the boundary, yet on the Eastwood Road there is less than a quarter of a mile break.

Conclusion: The conslusions have been drawn from inaccurate information and fail to take account of the wider potential and close proximity of other sites.

We wish this letter to be regarded as a formal note of protest and objection at a possible change of Green Belt land into a residential dwelling site for 170 properties. The grounds for our objections are as follows:

1. The planned change of use from green belt to development represents a further erosion of our local countryside and further narrows the green space between Rayleigh and Hockley.

2. The proposed development of 170 houses will cause major road access problems to the Hockley road which is already one of the busiest in the county. If the proposal intends to turn Napier Road into an exit route, then this will be an intrusion of existing local residents rights and lead to yet another cut through from the Hockley Road. Wellington Road was never intended to be a main through road.

3. Infrastructures for local families such as sewerage, water supply, power are already stretched as indeed are health care facilities and schools.

4. Rayleigh's existing road systems are already choked at rush hour and school run times of the day and with all the other development proposals for Hall Road Rochford and therefore with out any new road proposals, the traffic through Rayleigh will continue to deteriorate. Parking which is now a major problem in Rayleigh can only get worse.

We understand that the owner of the site under discussion is now a retired overseas resident, albeit that he has a residence in Wellington Road. He is not interested in local residents interests but in accumulating a substantial profit. Green belt land should be preserved and not allowed to disappear under concrete.

Other representations to the emerging DPD submitted on behalf of The Aston Unit Trust and Mr John Needs have objected to the
publication of this document prior to adoption of the Core Strategy. Amongst the many objections to the Core Strategy there are
a significant number questioning the choices and locations of the selected strategic sites and putting forward other strategic sites.
Other objectors are stating that the Core Strategy should not identify all greenfield land releases as strategic releases, leaving no
small residential releases to be identified through the Allocations DPD process. Until the Core Strategy Inspector has reported on
these objections there is no sound basis for the preparation of the Allocations DPD.

However, The Aston Unit Trust and Mr John Needs are promoting the merits of a residential land release to the south of Wellington Road, Rayleigh (map attached) through the Core Strategy. In view of this, it is also appropriate to promote this site at this stage in the Allocations DPD process.

The site was considered by the Council as Site No 34 and the analysis noted

- 6.48 hectares (117 - 170 dwellings)
- "well related to Rayleigh Town Centre and services"
- "low probability of flooding (Zone 1)"
- that it could deliver a high quality sustainable community
- that it could promote town centre vitality and viability
- that it could achieve sustainable levels of porsperity and economic growth
- that it could promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, cycling and walking.

The site is controlled by the two promoting landowners and no third party land is required. As a consequence, the site is both
available and deliverable.

Given the above positive factors, there is no evidential basis for the Council's conclusion that

"it would not contribute towards the balanced approach to housing distribution advocated in the Core Strategy and there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rayleigh with Hockley. Green Belt development could weaken the openness of the Green Belt and should only be released if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages".

This conclusion will be strongly contested at the Core Strategy public examination.

Please find attached a representation to the Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options consultation submitted on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek land south of Rayleigh put forward as a site residential site allocation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Regulation 25 Statement has been produced by Ransome and Company in response to the Rochford District's Council Allocations DPD: Discussion and Consultation document. We act on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek to put forward land south of Rayleigh as a residential site allocation. The site location plan is attached to the statement in Appendix 1. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.

Appendix 1

1.2 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn previously submitted separate representations to the 'Call for Sites' consultation and both requested to be contacted on future LDF consultations. It is noted that the Council misrepresented the sites put forward in terms of location and also failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn on the Council's LDF consultations. The Council has consequently been in breach of the Planning Regulations 2004 as amended. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this statement.

1.3 This site should be considered alongside 'Land south of Wyburn Primary School' which is put forward as a residential site allocation under a separate cover. The two sites are both highly sustainable and collectively could deliver important benefits to Rayleigh.

1.4 Mr Lambourn has also submitted a separate representation that partially includes some of the land that constitutes 'Land south of Rayleigh'.

1.5 This Regulation 25 Statement puts forward land south of Rayleigh as a site allocation within the Rochford Allocations DPD. This Statement is structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the procedural matters that the Council has been in breach of during the LDF process.
Section 3 sets out the site context for land south of Rayleigh.
Section 4 describes the proposed site allocation at land south of Rayleigh in the context of the Green Belt.
Section 5 considers the Council's housing land supply.
Section 6 considers the sites the Council has suggested as site allocation options.
Section 7 sets out the overall conclusions of the Statement.

SECTION 2: PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn submitted separate representations to the Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation in 2007. Both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn requested that they be contacted for future LDF consultations. Neither Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn were informed of the Rochford Core Strategy Pre-Submission consultation and as such were not given the opportunity to make representations on the soundness of the spatial strategy set out in the Core Strategy. By not informing Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn, the Council are in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended. The Core Strategy is consequently unsound on procedural matters. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

2.2 The Council have also misrepresented the representation submitted by Mr Maughan. This site was not recorded accurately and in fact the wrong site was accredited to Mr Maughan. For a matter of correctness both sites are now to be considered as one site and the site location plan is set in Appendix 1 of this report.

Appendix 1

2.3 In addition, the assessment of Mr Maughan's site wrongly states that this site would affect an existing recreational use and a public right of way. There are no public rights of way over this land and this site is not used for recreational purposes.

2.4 In respect to the procedural breach, Paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified about further LDF consultations and importantly the submission of a DPD to the Core Strategy, a request that was undertaken by both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.5 Paragraph 28 relates to the submission of the DPD. Part (e) of this paragraph states that the Council must give notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State. The Council did not do this as they failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.6 In addition, as significant landowners with land that adjoins Rayleigh and that they have requested to be notified by the Council, Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn should be consulted as General Consultation Bodies under the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This point has been clarified in paragraph 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008 which states that a local planning authority must notify general consultation bodies who may have an interest in the subject of the proposed DPD. It is also stated that the local planning authority must consider whether it is appropriate to invite representations from persons who are resident and/or carrying out business in their area and invite each of those bodies to make representations to the DPD.

2.7 Paragraph 32 considers the handling of site allocation representations. The Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation constitutes a consultation under the planning regulations. Under part (2) of paragraph 32 it is stated that as soon as reasonably practicable after the consultation period the local planning authority must make a site allocation representation available for inspection. This site allocation must be sent to the DPD bodies and appropriate notifications, as listed in the regulations, must be made. Paragraph 33 states that any person may make representations regarding the site allocation put forward. The Council are in breach of the planning regulations under paragraph 32 and 33 as they have inaccurately recorded the sites and stated false information about the sites put forward by Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn. Appendix 1 of the the Site Allocations Issues and Options document does not include the site put forward by Mr Maughan and instead considers the adjacent scrap site that Mr Maughan did not include in his representation. The Council has also inaccurately drawn the site boundaries put forward by Mr Maughan. This point has also been clarified under paragraph 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008.

SECTION 3: THE PROPOSED SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The proposed site extends to 6.4 hectares and is located to the south of the urban area of Rayleigh. This site has the potential to deliver up to approximately 190 market and affordable dwellings. The proposed main access into the site would be from Eastwood Road with a secondary access from South View Road.

3.2 The proposed site is located just 1 mile from Rayleigh town centre and 1.4 miles from Rayleigh Train Station which provides convenient public transport connections to Southend-on-Sea, Stratford and London Liverpool Street. A number of bus routes operate along Eastwood Road, with a bus stop adjacent to the proposed access. This provides good and convenient public transport accessibility to Rayleigh Town Centre and Rayleigh Train Station.

3.3 The site is well located to the main centres of employment in Rayleigh being located in close proximity to the town centre but is also just 800 metres by foot from Brook Street Industrial Estate or approximately 1.5 miles by bike or car.

3.4 The site adjoins the urban edge of Rayleigh to the south. The site abuts the rear boundary line of the dwellings located along South View Road and Eastwood Road.

3.5 The boundaries of the proposed site ensure that this site is enclosed. The eastern boundary is characterised by a mature wooded area that prevents views into the site and would also create a natural and defensible boundary for a future development. The southern boundary also has a mature tree line edge that screens the site from the A127 carriageway. The proposed site is located adjacent to an established small commercial site at its south-western boundary. The remainder of the western boundary is also characterised by a mature tree and hedge line. The site is enclosed by the mature landscaping along its boundary which prevents views into the site and provides natural screening.

3.6 The southern part of the proposed site is currently used for non-commercial grazing whilst the northern part has no function. The site has no beneficial agricultural function and no viable equestrian function.

3.7 There are no public footpaths or rights of way that cross this site and the site has no recreational value.

3.8 The proposed site is connected to existing utilities infrastructure.

3.9 The proposed site would be accessed from Eastwood Road.

SECTION 4: THE GREEN BELT

4.1 The site on land south of Rayleigh is currently designated as Green Belt in the Rochford Local Plan. It is considered that this designation is no longer relevant to this site. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Very special circumstances to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm to the Green Belt needs to be demonstrated for development on Green Belt land. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 outlines the intentions of Green Belt planning policy and states that the most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness.

4.3 Appendix 1 of this statement provides an illustrative demonstration of the enclosed nature of this site. It is clear that this site is enclosed and that there is a very limited degree of openness and as such this site does not fulfil the requirements of PPG2. The proposed site does not have any public footpaths running through it and is enclosed by the adjacent urban area of Rayleigh and the dense wooded area to the south, east and west. There are no views across the site from a public viewpoint.

4.4 The boundaries of the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh would create a more permanent or robust defensible boundary for the Green Belt at this location. The eastern and western boundary of the site contains a mature thick wooded area that provides a defensible boundary. The southern boundary is characterised by a mature landscaping with A127 carriageway running adjacent to the boundary. This road and the existing mature landscaping provides defensible boundary to the south.

4.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists the five purposes of the Green Belt:

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.6 With reference to point 1 above, the proposed site is located adjacent to the southern edge of Rayleigh. A scrapyard is located adjacent to the site on the south-eastern boundary. This site constitutes a previously developed site within the Green Belt and provides an urban setting to the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh. It is considered that the containment of the site by the A127 carriageway and the mature landscaping along the boundary are important characteristics which ensure that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.

4.7 In defining Green Belt boundaries, PPG2 advises that such boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features, such as roads and tree lines. It is considered that because the proposed site is enclosed by the mature landscaping on the eastern and western boundary and by the A127 carriageway, the site would have a robust and defensible boundary to the Green Belt, were residential development to be allocated at this site. The allocation of the proposed site for residential development would not make adjacent Green Belt land vulnerable to development.

4.8 Point 2 above states that the Green Belt will prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. With reference to the second purpose, a distance of 0.25 miles separates Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea at the closest point. The eastern edge of this proposed site is 0.5 miles from the boundary of Southend-on-Sea and would not bring Rayleigh any closer to Southend-on-Sea. Furthermore, the dense and mature landscaping along the proposed sites eastern boundary provides a robust barrier which prevents Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea from ever merging.

4.9 Point 3 requires the Green Belt to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The enclosed nature of the site would prevent encroachment. The loss of this site is essential for Council to meet its housing minimum housing targets.

4.10 Point 4 requires the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The historic core of Rayleigh is centred along the High Street. Historically, Rayleigh has developed by building on open land to that surrounds the town centre, particularly in the post war years, such that the original historic core is surrounded by more modern development. In these circumstances, the application site does not perform a function in preserving the setting of the historic centre of Rayleigh.

4.11 Point 5 states that the Green Belt is required to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This point is not applicable in this instance given the need for a release of Green Belt in Rochford District to meet housing targets.

4.12 Therefore it is considered that the site does not perform any of the Green Belt functions set out in PPG2. If the site were to be allocated for residential, the unrestricted sprawl of built-up area of Rayleigh would not follow, nor would Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea merge. The mature wooded area to the east of the proposed site together with the mature landscaping along the boundary edge and the A127 carriageway to the south would act as a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary and development on the site would not encourage or justify further encroachment into open countryside.

SECTION 5: ROCHFORD'S HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

5.1 This section provides a brief overview of land supply in Rochford with a focus upon the national planning policy, Rochford Core Strategy Submission document and Rochford's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
a) National Planning Policy Context

5.2 Paragraph 2 of PPS3 states that a principal aim of this policy document is to create a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Paragraph 7 states that Local Planning Authorities will need to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

5.3 Paragraph 11 states that policies in development plan documents should be evidence-based and land availability should be assessed through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In respect to the five-year supply, paragraph 54 states that Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. It is stated that for sites to be considered deliverable, sites should:
Be Available - the site is available now.
Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

5.4 Paragraph 55 states that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. Strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period should also be identified. Paragraph 56 states that to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged.

5.5 Annex C of PPS3 provides further information on the evidence base required as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It is stated that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:
Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.
Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments.
Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.
Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.
Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.
Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.
b) Rochford's Core Strategy Submission Document

5.6 The East of England Plan requires a minimum of 4,600 dwellings to be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore housing needs to be identified for the period to 2024.

5.7 The 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) examined the supply of housing land and, although identified some capacity from extant permissions and other appropriate sites, also ascertained that Green Belt would have to be reallocated in order to meet the requirements of the East of England Plan. It is stated that 2,745 dwellings are required on Green Belt land between 2006 and 2024. This is in addition to the 2,005 dwellings to be delivered on previously developed land.

5.8 The Core Strategy sets out the general locations for housing development. The Council state that the primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure; access to services; facilities; housing demand/need; deliverability; public transport/possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints; need to protect areas of landscape value, ecological importance and high quality agricultural land. The Council states that it seeks balance the distribution of housing by focusing growth upon the higher tier settlements.

5.9 The population of Rochford District is unevenly distributed with the largest settlement being Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people, 38% of the District's residents. As such the Council identified Rayleigh as a primary tier settlement as it contains a range services and facilities including good public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy however notes that their housing needs evidence indicates that 44% of the housing need in the borough originates from Rayleigh. This provides a strong basis in which to focus housing development upon Rayleigh.

5.10 Despite what is said in the Core Strategy, it is clear that Council has failed to consider a balanced approach to housing delivery. However the Council's proposed housing locations do not reflect this statement as the scattered approach around the district will deliver housing away from public transport and key services and will lead to unsustainable patterns of growth. The Council's own evidence states that 44% of the need for housing is focused on Rayleigh, yet Rayleigh will only deliver 19% of housing on Green Belt sites. Indeed 57% of the Green Belt housing site allocations is focused outside the primary tier settlements. This will result in increased car movements between the settlements and will have an unsustainable impact upon the existing infrastructure.

5.11 There is a need for the Council to identify and significant increase in the housing provision for Rayleigh to meet the socio-economic objectives set out in the Rochford Core Strategy Submission draft.

c) Rochford's Housing Land supply (2001 to 2024)

5.12 The Council's SHLAA noted that there is an inadequate housing supply in the district over a fifteen year period to 2024 and as such there is a requirement for the allocation of Green Belt land for residential development. The SHLAA identifies a requirement to allocate 2,477 dwellings on Green Belt land in the period to 2024.

5.13 The Rochford Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008 to 2009 demonstrates that Rochford has failed to deliver 309 dwellings of the required 1,840 between 2001 and 2009. The Council's SHLAA also suggests that 1,658 dwellings will be delivered between 2009 and 2014/15. The Council will also have to deliver 3,759 dwellings between 2009 and 2024.

5.14 It is considered that the land supply assessments used to indicate how these targets will be delivered is not based on a robust assessment and consequently it is clear that the Council cannot meet its housing supply requirements and that a significant dwelling shortfall will develop which will have significant implications for the future delivery of housing in Rochford.

5.15 It is considered that the Council's SHLAA and AMR do not provide an accurate assessment of the strategic housing land supply in Rochford and that in fact the future housing supply situation is worse than recorded. It is considered that the Council's SHLAA fails to take to account of:
Current housing market conditions in Rochford;
The time duration of the planning process i.e. from pre-application to completion;
The build out rates of housing sites; and
Site specific constraints.

5.16 The Council is unable to demonstrate a robust up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. The failure of the AMR to take account of these key matters is discussed below.

5.17 Rochford's annual East of England Plan housing supply requirement is to deliver 230 dwellings per annum. Between 2001 and 2009 this figure was met and exceeded on just two occasions, in 2005/06 and 2006/07. During this period Rochford was required to deliver 1,840 dwellings to meet the East of England housing supply requirement however just 1,531 dwellings were completed, resulting in a housing completion shortfall of 309 dwellings or a housing under-supply of 1.34 years.

5.18 The Council's housing trajectory set out in AMR states that over the next 5 years, annual housing per year will exceed 218 dwellings per annum. This level of growth is optimistic and does not reflect market trends in Rochford. It is a forlorn hope that housing supply could match its pre-credit crunch delivery rates over the five years given that during the pre-credit crunch years prior to 2007/08 Rochford was only able exceed its annual target on just two occasions. The Council has not provided any information that can justify how the housing market will be able to absorb the increased housing delivery that exceeds historical delivery records during a period when financial credit was more readily available.

5.19 The Council initiated a consultation titled 'Call for Sites', asking landowners and developers to put forward sites for consideration. This exercise was undertaken between January 2007 and April 2009. The Council's SHLAA states that these sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and achievability. However the land south of Rayleigh was not assessed and therefore it is clear that the Council is misleading in its assessment.

5.20 The SHLAA states that there is capacity within the District to accommodate 1,273 dwellings between 2009 and 2024 from outstanding planning permissions and other appropriate brownfield sites. This leaves an outstanding balance of 2,477 dwellings to be built by 2024 on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt.

5.22 The Council's SHLAA document and its AMR have failed to take account market factors that affect the delivery housing when consider housing supply to 2024. In particular the Council has not taken account the time delays caused by the planning system and the ability of the housebuilding industry to build out sites.

5.23 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007) was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to asses housing land supply in the UK. In consideration of timing from planning application submission to project completion, the Calcutt Review it was considered that the average time taken between planning application submission to construction completion is as follows:
Schemes of 15 to 49 units - 35.3 months
Schemes of 50 to 149 units - 39.4 months
Schemes of 150+ units - 44.6 months

5.24 This assessment does not include pre-application preparatory work which is cited in the Callcutt Review as taking 15.4 months on average for all schemes and 25.1 months for schemes of 150+ units.

5.25 The AMR and the SHLAA also do not make an accurate assessment of build out rates for specific sites and it is apparent that these documents do not understand the market forces that dictate the build-out rates. It is clear that in their assessment the Council has used an arbitrary figure that is not based on substantiated evidence. The 'Housing Markets and Planning Analysis Expert Panel - Factors Affecting Housing Build-out Rates: A report by Professor David Adams and Dr Chris Leishman' (the Housing Build-Out Rate Report) sought to determine the speed at which approved housing sites are developed.

5.26 Paragraph 2.4 of this report states that the research results suggest that the average optimal sales rate is about 59 units per annum for greenfield houses and 67 for brownfield apartments. Paragraph 2.5 states that most builders generally appear to set a target of between 40 and 80 units built and sold from each outlet annually. Paragraph 6.2 states that a typical strategy of most companies was to aim for a build and sales rate of about one unit per week on greenfield sites and slightly higher than this on brownfield sites and that this rate reflects the institutional structure of the British housebuilding industry in which fierce competition for land requires controlled and phased release of new development to ensure that the ambitious development values necessary to capture land in the first place are actually achieved when new homes are eventually sold.

5.27 Whilst the SHLAA has only recently been published, it is considered that it is not robust as the site assessment has not sufficiently taken into consideration the deliverability of sites as there is no technical evidence that demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between local housing markets and housing supply.

5.28 The AMR and SHLAA assessment of sites are optimistic and simplistic in their assessment of construction start dates and build-out rates. The housing land supply in Rochford is in fact worse than that set out in the AMR and SHLAA documents. Based on the assumptions using well founded national research it is clear that the Council has over estimated to the delivery of at least three sites identified within their SHLLAA and AMR. These sites are addressed below:
North London Road - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2016/17 and that 550 dwellings will be delivered by 2019/20. The Council's projected delivery rate exceeds that cited by Government research. Assuming that the start date is correct it likely that site would take up to 9 years to deliver with 60 dwellings delivered per annum. At least 120 dwellings would be delivered in the period post 2024.
West Rochford - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2012 and that 600 dwellings will be delivered by 2016/17. The Council project that 200 dwellings will be delivered in 2013/14 and that build out rates exceed 100 in four of the five years. This assumption is unrealistic and does not take account of the ability of the construction industry to deliver new dwellings. The start date is optimistic as it takes at least 2-years on large sites exceeding 150 dwellings from planning to start date. The first dwellings that would be completed, assuming a planning application is submitted in 2010, in 2013. Given the current stage of this DPD consultation it is unlikely that this site have a start date pre-2016. It is also highly optimistic that 600 dwellings would be delivered within 5-years as stated by the Council. Government research indicates that it would take up to 10 years to deliver this site. It is likely that the majority of this site will be delivered at the end of the 15-year period and that at least 120 dwellings will be delivered post 2024.
South West Hullbridge - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2019/20 and that 250 dwellings will be delivered by 2021 and a further 250 dwellings to be delivered post 2021. If the start date is correct then this site will only be able to deliver 120 dwellings by 2021 and 260 dwellings post 2024.

5.29 The housing supply over estimation amounts to at least 500 dwellings or an undersupply of over 2-years of housing. It is clear therefore that Council needs to identify more housing sites. It is necessary for the Council to allocate more residential sites to ensure that sufficient sites are available to meet the minimum housing requirements set out in the East of England Plan.

SECTION 6: THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSED OPTIONS

6.1 This section considers the options for residential development put forward by the Council in the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation. The comments in respect to these sites are follows:
a) North of London Road, Rayleigh

6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.

6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.

b) West Rochford

6.6 My clients do not object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Rochford to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients object to identification of land west of Rochford and Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4 as a suitable option.

6.7 This site is characterised by open agricultural land that forms the gateway into Rochford from Hockley and Hawkwell. Neither of the options would be appropriate and constitutes urban sprawl that conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:

The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rochford in a visually prominent location that links Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.
The proposed options will result in the development of land that provides an important gap that prevents the coalescence of Rochford with Hawkwell and Southend-on-Sea.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.8 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

c) South Hawkwell

6.9 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hawkwell as development at this location will result in unrestricted development that threatens to create a sense of coalescence with Rochford, particularly given that the Council proposes development to the west of Rochford. Consequently my client objects to Options SH1, SH2, SH3 and SH4 as a suitable option for residential development.

6.10 This site is characterised by its wooded character that provides an important green lung for this part of Essex. Each of the proposed options will result in the destruction of an important wooded area. It is considered that this location cannot support the quantum of development suggested within the Issues and Options consultation document.

d) East Ashingdon

6.11 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon and all the proposed options as this location is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh, the primary settlement in Rochford District.

6.12 Each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.13 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.14 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

e) South West Hullbridge

6.15 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hullbridge as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District and development at Hullbridge would fail to meet the housing need that exists in Rayleigh. The quantum of development at this location is broadly similar to that proposed for Rayleigh, however the Council's own evidence demonstrates that 44% of the identified housing need in the borough comes from Rayleigh. The Hullbridge options therefore constitute a mismatch between location and the need and demand for housing. My clients consequently object to options SWH1, SWH2, SWH3 and SWH4.

6.16 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Hullbridge at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.18 This Green Belt location is also constrained by its location in proximity to the River Croach and the impact of flooding.

6.19 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

f) South Canewdon

6.20 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Canewdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to options SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4.

6.21 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Canewdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.22 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.23 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

g) South East Ashingdon

6.24 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location would have a detrimental impact the character of the countryside. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to Options SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4.

6.25 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.26 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.27 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

h) West Great Wakering

6.28 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Great Wakering as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location and that the proposed quantum of development is disproportionate when considered against the size of the settlements in Rochford District and against the locations of identified housing need. West Great Wakering is remote from the rest of the district and has poor transport links. Residential development at the quantum proposed would result in a significant increase in the number car trips in this part of South East Essex, My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District which has the greatest proportion of identified need and has good public transport access. My clients consequently object to options WGW1, WGW2, WGW3, WGW4 and WGW5.

6.29 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.30 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.31 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 We request that land south of Rayleigh be allocated as a residential site within the Site Allocations DPD. This statement has demonstrated that:
1. The proposed site is well located to Rayleigh and would meet the Council's housing objectives and will assist in delivering housing to meet the Council's identified housing need in Rayleigh.
2. The proposed site would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives set out in PPG2.
3. The Council has under-estimated the amount of housing required on Green Belt sites to meet the districts housing requirements and consequently the Council needs to identify more housing locations and sites.
4. The Council's proposed residential sites are inappropriate as they constitute sites that conflict with PPG2 and the dispersed nature of these sites would result in unsustainable development away from public transport and key services that will lead to significant increases in car movements. Furthermore these sites would not assist in relieving the housing need in Rayleigh as identified by the Council.

Please find attached a representation to the Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options consultation submitted on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek land south of Rayleigh put forward as a site residential site allocation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Regulation 25 Statement has been produced by Ransome and Company in response to the Rochford District's Council Allocations DPD: Discussion and Consultation document. We act on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek to put forward land south of Rayleigh as a residential site allocation. The site location plan is attached to the statement in Appendix 1. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.

Appendix 1

1.2 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn previously submitted separate representations to the 'Call for Sites' consultation and both requested to be contacted on future LDF consultations. It is noted that the Council misrepresented the sites put forward in terms of location and also failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn on the Council's LDF consultations. The Council has consequently been in breach of the Planning Regulations 2004 as amended. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this statement.

1.3 This site should be considered alongside 'Land south of Wyburn Primary School' which is put forward as a residential site allocation under a separate cover. The two sites are both highly sustainable and collectively could deliver important benefits to Rayleigh.

1.4 Mr Lambourn has also submitted a separate representation that partially includes some of the land that constitutes 'Land south of Rayleigh'.

1.5 This Regulation 25 Statement puts forward land south of Rayleigh as a site allocation within the Rochford Allocations DPD. This Statement is structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the procedural matters that the Council has been in breach of during the LDF process.
Section 3 sets out the site context for land south of Rayleigh.
Section 4 describes the proposed site allocation at land south of Rayleigh in the context of the Green Belt.
Section 5 considers the Council's housing land supply.
Section 6 considers the sites the Council has suggested as site allocation options.
Section 7 sets out the overall conclusions of the Statement.

SECTION 2: PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn submitted separate representations to the Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation in 2007. Both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn requested that they be contacted for future LDF consultations. Neither Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn were informed of the Rochford Core Strategy Pre-Submission consultation and as such were not given the opportunity to make representations on the soundness of the spatial strategy set out in the Core Strategy. By not informing Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn, the Council are in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended. The Core Strategy is consequently unsound on procedural matters. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

2.2 The Council have also misrepresented the representation submitted by Mr Maughan. This site was not recorded accurately and in fact the wrong site was accredited to Mr Maughan. For a matter of correctness both sites are now to be considered as one site and the site location plan is set in Appendix 1 of this report.

Appendix 1

2.3 In addition, the assessment of Mr Maughan's site wrongly states that this site would affect an existing recreational use and a public right of way. There are no public rights of way over this land and this site is not used for recreational purposes.

2.4 In respect to the procedural breach, Paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified about further LDF consultations and importantly the submission of a DPD to the Core Strategy, a request that was undertaken by both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.5 Paragraph 28 relates to the submission of the DPD. Part (e) of this paragraph states that the Council must give notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State. The Council did not do this as they failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.6 In addition, as significant landowners with land that adjoins Rayleigh and that they have requested to be notified by the Council, Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn should be consulted as General Consultation Bodies under the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This point has been clarified in paragraph 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008 which states that a local planning authority must notify general consultation bodies who may have an interest in the subject of the proposed DPD. It is also stated that the local planning authority must consider whether it is appropriate to invite representations from persons who are resident and/or carrying out business in their area and invite each of those bodies to make representations to the DPD.

2.7 Paragraph 32 considers the handling of site allocation representations. The Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation constitutes a consultation under the planning regulations. Under part (2) of paragraph 32 it is stated that as soon as reasonably practicable after the consultation period the local planning authority must make a site allocation representation available for inspection. This site allocation must be sent to the DPD bodies and appropriate notifications, as listed in the regulations, must be made. Paragraph 33 states that any person may make representations regarding the site allocation put forward. The Council are in breach of the planning regulations under paragraph 32 and 33 as they have inaccurately recorded the sites and stated false information about the sites put forward by Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn. Appendix 1 of the the Site Allocations Issues and Options document does not include the site put forward by Mr Maughan and instead considers the adjacent scrap site that Mr Maughan did not include in his representation. The Council has also inaccurately drawn the site boundaries put forward by Mr Maughan. This point has also been clarified under paragraph 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008.

SECTION 3: THE PROPOSED SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The proposed site extends to 6.4 hectares and is located to the south of the urban area of Rayleigh. This site has the potential to deliver up to approximately 190 market and affordable dwellings. The proposed main access into the site would be from Eastwood Road with a secondary access from South View Road.

3.2 The proposed site is located just 1 mile from Rayleigh town centre and 1.4 miles from Rayleigh Train Station which provides convenient public transport connections to Southend-on-Sea, Stratford and London Liverpool Street. A number of bus routes operate along Eastwood Road, with a bus stop adjacent to the proposed access. This provides good and convenient public transport accessibility to Rayleigh Town Centre and Rayleigh Train Station.

3.3 The site is well located to the main centres of employment in Rayleigh being located in close proximity to the town centre but is also just 800 metres by foot from Brook Street Industrial Estate or approximately 1.5 miles by bike or car.

3.4 The site adjoins the urban edge of Rayleigh to the south. The site abuts the rear boundary line of the dwellings located along South View Road and Eastwood Road.

3.5 The boundaries of the proposed site ensure that this site is enclosed. The eastern boundary is characterised by a mature wooded area that prevents views into the site and would also create a natural and defensible boundary for a future development. The southern boundary also has a mature tree line edge that screens the site from the A127 carriageway. The proposed site is located adjacent to an established small commercial site at its south-western boundary. The remainder of the western boundary is also characterised by a mature tree and hedge line. The site is enclosed by the mature landscaping along its boundary which prevents views into the site and provides natural screening.

3.6 The southern part of the proposed site is currently used for non-commercial grazing whilst the northern part has no function. The site has no beneficial agricultural function and no viable equestrian function.

3.7 There are no public footpaths or rights of way that cross this site and the site has no recreational value.

3.8 The proposed site is connected to existing utilities infrastructure.

3.9 The proposed site would be accessed from Eastwood Road.

SECTION 4: THE GREEN BELT

4.1 The site on land south of Rayleigh is currently designated as Green Belt in the Rochford Local Plan. It is considered that this designation is no longer relevant to this site. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Very special circumstances to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm to the Green Belt needs to be demonstrated for development on Green Belt land. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 outlines the intentions of Green Belt planning policy and states that the most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness.

4.3 Appendix 1 of this statement provides an illustrative demonstration of the enclosed nature of this site. It is clear that this site is enclosed and that there is a very limited degree of openness and as such this site does not fulfil the requirements of PPG2. The proposed site does not have any public footpaths running through it and is enclosed by the adjacent urban area of Rayleigh and the dense wooded area to the south, east and west. There are no views across the site from a public viewpoint.

4.4 The boundaries of the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh would create a more permanent or robust defensible boundary for the Green Belt at this location. The eastern and western boundary of the site contains a mature thick wooded area that provides a defensible boundary. The southern boundary is characterised by a mature landscaping with A127 carriageway running adjacent to the boundary. This road and the existing mature landscaping provides defensible boundary to the south.

4.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists the five purposes of the Green Belt:

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.6 With reference to point 1 above, the proposed site is located adjacent to the southern edge of Rayleigh. A scrapyard is located adjacent to the site on the south-eastern boundary. This site constitutes a previously developed site within the Green Belt and provides an urban setting to the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh. It is considered that the containment of the site by the A127 carriageway and the mature landscaping along the boundary are important characteristics which ensure that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.

4.7 In defining Green Belt boundaries, PPG2 advises that such boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features, such as roads and tree lines. It is considered that because the proposed site is enclosed by the mature landscaping on the eastern and western boundary and by the A127 carriageway, the site would have a robust and defensible boundary to the Green Belt, were residential development to be allocated at this site. The allocation of the proposed site for residential development would not make adjacent Green Belt land vulnerable to development.

4.8 Point 2 above states that the Green Belt will prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. With reference to the second purpose, a distance of 0.25 miles separates Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea at the closest point. The eastern edge of this proposed site is 0.5 miles from the boundary of Southend-on-Sea and would not bring Rayleigh any closer to Southend-on-Sea. Furthermore, the dense and mature landscaping along the proposed sites eastern boundary provides a robust barrier which prevents Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea from ever merging.

4.9 Point 3 requires the Green Belt to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The enclosed nature of the site would prevent encroachment. The loss of this site is essential for Council to meet its housing minimum housing targets.

4.10 Point 4 requires the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The historic core of Rayleigh is centred along the High Street. Historically, Rayleigh has developed by building on open land to that surrounds the town centre, particularly in the post war years, such that the original historic core is surrounded by more modern development. In these circumstances, the application site does not perform a function in preserving the setting of the historic centre of Rayleigh.

4.11 Point 5 states that the Green Belt is required to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This point is not applicable in this instance given the need for a release of Green Belt in Rochford District to meet housing targets.

4.12 Therefore it is considered that the site does not perform any of the Green Belt functions set out in PPG2. If the site were to be allocated for residential, the unrestricted sprawl of built-up area of Rayleigh would not follow, nor would Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea merge. The mature wooded area to the east of the proposed site together with the mature landscaping along the boundary edge and the A127 carriageway to the south would act as a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary and development on the site would not encourage or justify further encroachment into open countryside.

SECTION 5: ROCHFORD'S HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

5.1 This section provides a brief overview of land supply in Rochford with a focus upon the national planning policy, Rochford Core Strategy Submission document and Rochford's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
a) National Planning Policy Context

5.2 Paragraph 2 of PPS3 states that a principal aim of this policy document is to create a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Paragraph 7 states that Local Planning Authorities will need to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

5.3 Paragraph 11 states that policies in development plan documents should be evidence-based and land availability should be assessed through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In respect to the five-year supply, paragraph 54 states that Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. It is stated that for sites to be considered deliverable, sites should:
Be Available - the site is available now.
Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

5.4 Paragraph 55 states that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. Strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period should also be identified. Paragraph 56 states that to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged.

5.5 Annex C of PPS3 provides further information on the evidence base required as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It is stated that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:
Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.
Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments.
Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.
Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.
Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.
Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.
b) Rochford's Core Strategy Submission Document

5.6 The East of England Plan requires a minimum of 4,600 dwellings to be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore housing needs to be identified for the period to 2024.

5.7 The 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) examined the supply of housing land and, although identified some capacity from extant permissions and other appropriate sites, also ascertained that Green Belt would have to be reallocated in order to meet the requirements of the East of England Plan. It is stated that 2,745 dwellings are required on Green Belt land between 2006 and 2024. This is in addition to the 2,005 dwellings to be delivered on previously developed land.

5.8 The Core Strategy sets out the general locations for housing development. The Council state that the primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure; access to services; facilities; housing demand/need; deliverability; public transport/possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints; need to protect areas of landscape value, ecological importance and high quality agricultural land. The Council states that it seeks balance the distribution of housing by focusing growth upon the higher tier settlements.

5.9 The population of Rochford District is unevenly distributed with the largest settlement being Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people, 38% of the District's residents. As such the Council identified Rayleigh as a primary tier settlement as it contains a range services and facilities including good public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy however notes that their housing needs evidence indicates that 44% of the housing need in the borough originates from Rayleigh. This provides a strong basis in which to focus housing development upon Rayleigh.

5.10 Despite what is said in the Core Strategy, it is clear that Council has failed to consider a balanced approach to housing delivery. However the Council's proposed housing locations do not reflect this statement as the scattered approach around the district will deliver housing away from public transport and key services and will lead to unsustainable patterns of growth. The Council's own evidence states that 44% of the need for housing is focused on Rayleigh, yet Rayleigh will only deliver 19% of housing on Green Belt sites. Indeed 57% of the Green Belt housing site allocations is focused outside the primary tier settlements. This will result in increased car movements between the settlements and will have an unsustainable impact upon the existing infrastructure.

5.11 There is a need for the Council to identify and significant increase in the housing provision for Rayleigh to meet the socio-economic objectives set out in the Rochford Core Strategy Submission draft.

c) Rochford's Housing Land supply (2001 to 2024)

5.12 The Council's SHLAA noted that there is an inadequate housing supply in the district over a fifteen year period to 2024 and as such there is a requirement for the allocation of Green Belt land for residential development. The SHLAA identifies a requirement to allocate 2,477 dwellings on Green Belt land in the period to 2024.

5.13 The Rochford Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008 to 2009 demonstrates that Rochford has failed to deliver 309 dwellings of the required 1,840 between 2001 and 2009. The Council's SHLAA also suggests that 1,658 dwellings will be delivered between 2009 and 2014/15. The Council will also have to deliver 3,759 dwellings between 2009 and 2024.

5.14 It is considered that the land supply assessments used to indicate how these targets will be delivered is not based on a robust assessment and consequently it is clear that the Council cannot meet its housing supply requirements and that a significant dwelling shortfall will develop which will have significant implications for the future delivery of housing in Rochford.

5.15 It is considered that the Council's SHLAA and AMR do not provide an accurate assessment of the strategic housing land supply in Rochford and that in fact the future housing supply situation is worse than recorded. It is considered that the Council's SHLAA fails to take to account of:
Current housing market conditions in Rochford;
The time duration of the planning process i.e. from pre-application to completion;
The build out rates of housing sites; and
Site specific constraints.

5.16 The Council is unable to demonstrate a robust up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. The failure of the AMR to take account of these key matters is discussed below.

5.17 Rochford's annual East of England Plan housing supply requirement is to deliver 230 dwellings per annum. Between 2001 and 2009 this figure was met and exceeded on just two occasions, in 2005/06 and 2006/07. During this period Rochford was required to deliver 1,840 dwellings to meet the East of England housing supply requirement however just 1,531 dwellings were completed, resulting in a housing completion shortfall of 309 dwellings or a housing under-supply of 1.34 years.

5.18 The Council's housing trajectory set out in AMR states that over the next 5 years, annual housing per year will exceed 218 dwellings per annum. This level of growth is optimistic and does not reflect market trends in Rochford. It is a forlorn hope that housing supply could match its pre-credit crunch delivery rates over the five years given that during the pre-credit crunch years prior to 2007/08 Rochford was only able exceed its annual target on just two occasions. The Council has not provided any information that can justify how the housing market will be able to absorb the increased housing delivery that exceeds historical delivery records during a period when financial credit was more readily available.

5.19 The Council initiated a consultation titled 'Call for Sites', asking landowners and developers to put forward sites for consideration. This exercise was undertaken between January 2007 and April 2009. The Council's SHLAA states that these sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and achievability. However the land south of Rayleigh was not assessed and therefore it is clear that the Council is misleading in its assessment.

5.20 The SHLAA states that there is capacity within the District to accommodate 1,273 dwellings between 2009 and 2024 from outstanding planning permissions and other appropriate brownfield sites. This leaves an outstanding balance of 2,477 dwellings to be built by 2024 on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt.

5.22 The Council's SHLAA document and its AMR have failed to take account market factors that affect the delivery housing when consider housing supply to 2024. In particular the Council has not taken account the time delays caused by the planning system and the ability of the housebuilding industry to build out sites.

5.23 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007) was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to asses housing land supply in the UK. In consideration of timing from planning application submission to project completion, the Calcutt Review it was considered that the average time taken between planning application submission to construction completion is as follows:
Schemes of 15 to 49 units - 35.3 months
Schemes of 50 to 149 units - 39.4 months
Schemes of 150+ units - 44.6 months

5.24 This assessment does not include pre-application preparatory work which is cited in the Callcutt Review as taking 15.4 months on average for all schemes and 25.1 months for schemes of 150+ units.

5.25 The AMR and the SHLAA also do not make an accurate assessment of build out rates for specific sites and it is apparent that these documents do not understand the market forces that dictate the build-out rates. It is clear that in their assessment the Council has used an arbitrary figure that is not based on substantiated evidence. The 'Housing Markets and Planning Analysis Expert Panel - Factors Affecting Housing Build-out Rates: A report by Professor David Adams and Dr Chris Leishman' (the Housing Build-Out Rate Report) sought to determine the speed at which approved housing sites are developed.

5.26 Paragraph 2.4 of this report states that the research results suggest that the average optimal sales rate is about 59 units per annum for greenfield houses and 67 for brownfield apartments. Paragraph 2.5 states that most builders generally appear to set a target of between 40 and 80 units built and sold from each outlet annually. Paragraph 6.2 states that a typical strategy of most companies was to aim for a build and sales rate of about one unit per week on greenfield sites and slightly higher than this on brownfield sites and that this rate reflects the institutional structure of the British housebuilding industry in which fierce competition for land requires controlled and phased release of new development to ensure that the ambitious development values necessary to capture land in the first place are actually achieved when new homes are eventually sold.

5.27 Whilst the SHLAA has only recently been published, it is considered that it is not robust as the site assessment has not sufficiently taken into consideration the deliverability of sites as there is no technical evidence that demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between local housing markets and housing supply.

5.28 The AMR and SHLAA assessment of sites are optimistic and simplistic in their assessment of construction start dates and build-out rates. The housing land supply in Rochford is in fact worse than that set out in the AMR and SHLAA documents. Based on the assumptions using well founded national research it is clear that the Council has over estimated to the delivery of at least three sites identified within their SHLLAA and AMR. These sites are addressed below:
North London Road - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2016/17 and that 550 dwellings will be delivered by 2019/20. The Council's projected delivery rate exceeds that cited by Government research. Assuming that the start date is correct it likely that site would take up to 9 years to deliver with 60 dwellings delivered per annum. At least 120 dwellings would be delivered in the period post 2024.
West Rochford - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2012 and that 600 dwellings will be delivered by 2016/17. The Council project that 200 dwellings will be delivered in 2013/14 and that build out rates exceed 100 in four of the five years. This assumption is unrealistic and does not take account of the ability of the construction industry to deliver new dwellings. The start date is optimistic as it takes at least 2-years on large sites exceeding 150 dwellings from planning to start date. The first dwellings that would be completed, assuming a planning application is submitted in 2010, in 2013. Given the current stage of this DPD consultation it is unlikely that this site have a start date pre-2016. It is also highly optimistic that 600 dwellings would be delivered within 5-years as stated by the Council. Government research indicates that it would take up to 10 years to deliver this site. It is likely that the majority of this site will be delivered at the end of the 15-year period and that at least 120 dwellings will be delivered post 2024.
South West Hullbridge - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2019/20 and that 250 dwellings will be delivered by 2021 and a further 250 dwellings to be delivered post 2021. If the start date is correct then this site will only be able to deliver 120 dwellings by 2021 and 260 dwellings post 2024.

5.29 The housing supply over estimation amounts to at least 500 dwellings or an undersupply of over 2-years of housing. It is clear therefore that Council needs to identify more housing sites. It is necessary for the Council to allocate more residential sites to ensure that sufficient sites are available to meet the minimum housing requirements set out in the East of England Plan.

SECTION 6: THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSED OPTIONS

6.1 This section considers the options for residential development put forward by the Council in the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation. The comments in respect to these sites are follows:
a) North of London Road, Rayleigh

6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.

6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.

b) West Rochford

6.6 My clients do not object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Rochford to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients object to identification of land west of Rochford and Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4 as a suitable option.

6.7 This site is characterised by open agricultural land that forms the gateway into Rochford from Hockley and Hawkwell. Neither of the options would be appropriate and constitutes urban sprawl that conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:

The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rochford in a visually prominent location that links Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.
The proposed options will result in the development of land that provides an important gap that prevents the coalescence of Rochford with Hawkwell and Southend-on-Sea.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.8 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

c) South Hawkwell

6.9 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hawkwell as development at this location will result in unrestricted development that threatens to create a sense of coalescence with Rochford, particularly given that the Council proposes development to the west of Rochford. Consequently my client objects to Options SH1, SH2, SH3 and SH4 as a suitable option for residential development.

6.10 This site is characterised by its wooded character that provides an important green lung for this part of Essex. Each of the proposed options will result in the destruction of an important wooded area. It is considered that this location cannot support the quantum of development suggested within the Issues and Options consultation document.

d) East Ashingdon

6.11 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon and all the proposed options as this location is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh, the primary settlement in Rochford District.

6.12 Each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.13 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.14 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

e) South West Hullbridge

6.15 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hullbridge as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District and development at Hullbridge would fail to meet the housing need that exists in Rayleigh. The quantum of development at this location is broadly similar to that proposed for Rayleigh, however the Council's own evidence demonstrates that 44% of the identified housing need in the borough comes from Rayleigh. The Hullbridge options therefore constitute a mismatch between location and the need and demand for housing. My clients consequently object to options SWH1, SWH2, SWH3 and SWH4.

6.16 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Hullbridge at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.18 This Green Belt location is also constrained by its location in proximity to the River Croach and the impact of flooding.

6.19 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

f) South Canewdon

6.20 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Canewdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to options SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4.

6.21 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Canewdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.22 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.23 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

g) South East Ashingdon

6.24 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location would have a detrimental impact the character of the countryside. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to Options SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4.

6.25 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.26 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.27 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

h) West Great Wakering

6.28 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Great Wakering as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location and that the proposed quantum of development is disproportionate when considered against the size of the settlements in Rochford District and against the locations of identified housing need. West Great Wakering is remote from the rest of the district and has poor transport links. Residential development at the quantum proposed would result in a significant increase in the number car trips in this part of South East Essex, My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District which has the greatest proportion of identified need and has good public transport access. My clients consequently object to options WGW1, WGW2, WGW3, WGW4 and WGW5.

6.29 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.30 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.31 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 We request that land south of Rayleigh be allocated as a residential site within the Site Allocations DPD. This statement has demonstrated that:
1. The proposed site is well located to Rayleigh and would meet the Council's housing objectives and will assist in delivering housing to meet the Council's identified housing need in Rayleigh.
2. The proposed site would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives set out in PPG2.
3. The Council has under-estimated the amount of housing required on Green Belt sites to meet the districts housing requirements and consequently the Council needs to identify more housing locations and sites.
4. The Council's proposed residential sites are inappropriate as they constitute sites that conflict with PPG2 and the dispersed nature of these sites would result in unsustainable development away from public transport and key services that will lead to significant increases in car movements. Furthermore these sites would not assist in relieving the housing need in Rayleigh as identified by the Council.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Regulation 25 Statement has been produced by Ransome and Company in response to the Rochford District's Council Allocations DPD: Discussion and Consultation document. We act on behalf of Mrs M. Bingley of 259 Daws Heath Road and Mr H. Johnson of 287 Daws Heath Road who seek to put forward land south of Wyburns Primary School, Rayleigh as a residential site allocation. The site location plan is attached to the statement in Appendix 1. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.

Appendix 1

1.2 Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson previously submitted representations to the 'Call for Sites' consultation and requested to be contacted on future LDF consultations. It is noted that the Council misrepresented the sites put forward in terms of location and also failed to notify Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson on the Council's LDF consultations. The Council has consequently been in breach of the Planning Regulations 2004 as amended. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this statement.

1.3 This site should be considered alongside 'Land south of Rayleigh' which is put forward as a residential site allocation under a separate cover. The two sites are both highly sustainable and collectively could deliver important benefits to Rayleigh.

1.4 This Regulation 25 Statement puts forward land south of Wyburns Primary School as a site allocation within the Rochford Allocations DPD. This Statement is structured as follows:
Section 2 sets out the procedural matters that the Council has been in breach of during the LDF process.
Section 3 sets out the site context for land south of Rayleigh.
Section 4 describes the proposed site allocation at land south of Rayleigh in the context of the Green Belt.
Section 5 considers the Council's housing land supply.
Section 6 considers the sites the Council has suggested as site allocation options.
Section 7 sets out the overall conclusions of the Statement.

SECTION 2: PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson submitted separate representations to the Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation in 2007. Both Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson requested that they be contacted for future LDF consultations. Neither Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson were informed of the Rochford Core Strategy Pre-Submission consultation and as such were not given the opportunity to make representations on the soundness of the spatial strategy set out in the Core Strategy. By not informing Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson, the Council are in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended. The Core Strategy is consequently unsound on procedural matters. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

2.2 The Council have also misrepresented the representations submitted by Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson. The two sites put forward as site allocations were not recorded accurately and in fact the wrong site was accredited to Mrs M. Bingley. For a matter of correctness both sites are now to be considered as one site and the site location plan is set in Appendix 1 of this report.

2.3 In respect to the procedural breach, Paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified about further LDF consultations and importantly the submission of a DPD to the Core Strategy, a request that was undertaken by both Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson.
2.4 Paragraph 28 relates to the submission of the DPD. Part (e) of this paragraph states that the Council must give notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State. The Council did not do this as they failed to notify Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson.

2.5 In addition, as significant landowners with land that adjoins Rayleigh and that they have requested to be notified by the Council, Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson should have been consulted as General Consultation Bodies under the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This point has been clarified in paragraph 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008 which states that a local planning authority must notify general consultation bodies who may have an interest in the subject of the proposed DPD. It is also stated that the local planning authority must consider whether it is appropriate to invite representations from persons who are resident and/or carrying out business in their area and invite each of those bodies to make representations to the DPD.

2.6 Paragraph 32 considers the handling of site allocation representations. The Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation constitutes a consultation under the planning regulations. Under part (2) of paragraph 32 it is stated that as soon as reasonably practicable after the consultation period the local planning authority must make a site allocation representation available for inspection. This site allocation must be sent to the DPD bodies and appropriate notifications, as listed in the regulations, must be made. Paragraph 33 states that any person may make representations regarding the site allocation put forward. The Council are in breach of the planning regulations under paragraph 32 and 33 as they have inaccurately recorded the sites about the sites put forward by Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson.

SECTION 3: THE PROPOSED SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The proposed site extends to 2.3 hectares and is located to the south of the urban area of Rayleigh. This site has the potential to deliver up to approximately 95 market and affordable dwellings. The proposed main access into the site would be from Daws Heath Road.

3.2 The proposed site is located just 0.9 miles from Rayleigh town centre and 1.4 miles from Rayleigh Train Station which provides convenient public transport connections to Southend-on-Sea, Stratford and London Liverpool Street.

3.3 The site is well located to the main centres of employment in Rayleigh being located in close proximity to the town centre and less than a mile by foot and car from Brook Street Industrial Estate.

3.4 The site adjoins the urban edge of Rayleigh to the south and east. The site abuts the rear boundary of Wyburns Primary School.

3.5 The boundaries of the proposed site ensure that this site is enclosed. The eastern boundary is characterised by a mature wooded area that prevents views into the site and would also create a natural and defensible boundary for a future development. The southern boundary adjoins Daws Heath Road, a road which is characterised by mature trees and hedgerows. The western and northern boundary is also characterised by a mature tree and hedge line. The site is enclosed by the mature landscaping along its boundary which prevents views into the site and provides natural screening.

3.6 The proposed site is currently used for residential purposes. The site has no beneficial agricultural function and no viable equestrian function.

3.7 There are no public footpaths or rights of way that cross this site and the site has no recreational value.

SECTION 4: THE GREEN BELT

4.1 The site on land south of Wyburns Primary School is currently designated as Green Belt in the Rochford Local Plan. It is considered that this designation is no longer relevant to this site. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Very special circumstances to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness, and "any other harm" to the Green Belt needs to be demonstrated for development on Green Belt land. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 outlines the intentions of Green Belt planning policy and states that the most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness.

4.3 Appendix 1 of this statement provides an illustrative assessment of the level openness on land south of Rayleigh It is clear that this site is enclosed and that there is a very limited degree of openness and as such this site does not fulfil the requirements of PPG2. The proposed site does not have any public footpaths running through it and is enclosed by the adjacent Wyburns Primary School and the mature landscaping along the perimeter. There are no significant views across the site from a public viewpoint.

4.4 The boundaries of the proposed site on land south of Wyburns School would create a more permanent or robust defensible boundary for the Green Belt at this location. The eastern, northern and western boundary of the site contains a mature tree and hedge line that provides a defensible boundary. The southern boundary is characterised by Daws Heath Road. This road and the existing mature landscaping provides defensible boundary to the south.

4.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists five purposes of including land in Green Belts:
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.6 With reference to point 1 above, the proposed site is located adjacent to the southern edge of Rayleigh and adjoins Wyburns Primary School. It is considered that the containment of the site by Daws Heath Road and the mature landscaping along the boundary are important characteristics which ensure that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.

4.7 In defining Green Belt boundaries, PPG2 advises that such boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features, such as roads and tree lines. It is considered that because the proposed site is enclosed by the mature landscaping, the site would have a robust and defensible boundary to the Green Belt, were residential development to be allocated at this site. The allocation of the proposed site for residential development would not make adjacent Green Belt land vulnerable to development.

4.8 Point 2 above states that the Green Belt will prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. With reference to the second purpose, a distance of 0.25 miles separates Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea at the closest point. The eastern edge of this proposed site is 0.7 miles from the boundary of Southend-on-Sea and would not bring Rayleigh any closer to Southend-on-Sea. Furthermore, the dense and mature landscaping along the proposed sites eastern boundary together with the dense wooded areas between Southend and Rayleigh provides a robust barrier which prevents Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea from ever merging.

4.9 Point 3 requires the Green Belt to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The enclosed nature of the site would prevent encroachment. The loss of this site is essential for Council to meet its housing minimum housing targets.

4.10 Point 4 requires the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The historic core of Rayleigh is centred along the High Street. Historically, Rayleigh has developed by building on open land to that surrounds the town centre, particularly in the post war years, such that the original historic core is surrounded by more modern development. In these circumstances, the application site does not perform a function in preserving the setting of the historic centre of Rayleigh.

4.11 Point 5 states that the Green Belt is required to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This point is not applicable in this instance given the need for a release of Green Belt in Rochford District to meet housing targets.

4.12 Therefore it is considered that the site does not perform any of the Green Belt functions set out in PPG2. If the site were to be allocated for residential, the unrestricted sprawl of built-up area of Rayleigh would not follow, nor would Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea merge. The mature wooded area to the east of the proposed site together with the mature landscaping along the boundary edge and the A127 carriageway to the south would act as a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary and development on the site would not encourage or justify further encroachment into open countryside.

SECTION 5: ROCHFORD'S HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

5.1 This section provides a brief overview of land supply in Rochford with a focus upon the national planning policy, Rochford Core Strategy Submission document and Rochford's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

a) National Planning Policy Context

5.2 Paragraph 2 of PPS3 states that a principal aim of this policy document is to create a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Paragraph 7 states that Local Planning Authorities will need to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

5.3 Paragraph 11 states that policies in development plan documents should be evidence-based and land availability should be assessed through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In respect to the five-year supply, paragraph 54 states that Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. It is stated that for sites to be considered deliverable, sites should:
Be Available - the site is available now.
Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

5.4 Paragraph 55 states that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. Strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period should also be identified. Paragraph 56 states that to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged.

5.5 Annex C of PPS3 provides further information on the evidence base required as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It is stated that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:
Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.
Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments.
Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.
Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.
Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.
Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.

b) Rochford's Core Strategy Submission Document

5.6 The East of England Plan requires a minimum of 4,600 dwellings to be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore housing needs to be identified for the period to 2024.

5.7 The 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) examined the supply of housing land and, although identified some capacity from extant permissions and other appropriate sites, also ascertained that Green Belt would have to be reallocated in order to meet the requirements of the East of England Plan. It is stated that 2,745 dwellings are required on Green Belt land between 2006 and 2024. This is in addition to the 2,005 dwellings to be delivered on previously developed land.

5.8 The Core Strategy sets out the general locations for housing development. The Council state that the primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure; access to services; facilities; housing demand/need; deliverability; public transport/possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints; need to protect areas of landscape value, ecological importance and high quality agricultural land. The Council states that it seeks balance the distribution of housing by focusing growth upon the higher tier settlements.

5.9 The population of Rochford District is unevenly distributed with the largest settlement being Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people, 38% of the District's residents. As such the Council identified Rayleigh as a primary tier settlement as it contains a range services and facilities including good public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy however notes that their housing needs evidence indicates that 44% of the housing need in the borough originates from Rayleigh. This provides a strong basis in which to focus housing development upon Rayleigh.

5.10 Despite what is said in the Core Strategy, it is clear that Council has failed to consider a balanced approach to housing delivery. However the Council's proposed housing locations do not reflect this statement as the scattered approach around the district will deliver housing away from public transport and key services and will lead to unsustainable patterns of growth. The Council's own evidence states that 44% of the need for housing is focused on Rayleigh, yet Rayleigh will only deliver 19% of housing on Green Belt sites. Indeed 57% of the Green Belt housing site allocations is focused outside the primary tier settlements. This will result in increased car movements between the settlements and will have an unsustainable impact upon the existing infrastructure.

5.11 There is a need for the Council to identify and significant increase in the housing provision for Rayleigh to meet the socio-economic objectives set out in the Rochford Core Strategy Submission draft.

c) Rochford's Housing Land supply (2001 to 2024)

5.12 The Council's SHLAA noted that there is an inadequate housing supply in the district over a fifteen year period to 2024 and as such there is a requirement for the allocation of Green Belt land for residential development. The SHLAA identifies a requirement to allocate 2,477 dwellings on Green Belt land in the period to 2024.

5.13 The Rochford Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008 to 2009 demonstrates that Rochford has failed to deliver 309 dwellings of the required 1,840 between 2001 and 2009. The Council's SHLAA also suggests that 1,658 dwellings will be delivered between 2009 and 2014/15. The Council will also have to deliver 3,759 dwellings between 2009 and 2024.

5.14 It is considered that the land supply assessments used to indicate how these targets will be delivered is not based on a robust assessment and consequently it is clear that the Council cannot meet its housing supply requirements and that a significant dwelling shortfall will develop which will have significant implications for the future delivery of housing in Rochford.

5.15 It is considered that the Council's SHLAA and AMR do not provide an accurate assessment of the strategic housing land supply in Rochford and that in fact the future housing supply situation is worse than recorded. It is considered that the Council's SHLAA fails to take to account of:
Current housing market conditions in Rochford;
The time duration of the planning process i.e. from pre-application to completion;
The build out rates of housing sites; and
Site specific constraints.

5.16 The Council is unable to demonstrate a robust up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. The failure of the AMR to take account of these key matters is discussed below.

5.17 Rochford's annual East of England Plan housing supply requirement is to deliver 230 dwellings per annum. Between 2001 and 2009 this figure was met and exceeded on just two occasions, in 2005/06 and 2006/07. During this period Rochford was required to deliver 1,840 dwellings to meet the East of England housing supply requirement however just 1,531 dwellings were completed, resulting in a housing completion shortfall of 309 dwellings or a housing under-supply of 1.34 years.

5.18 The Council's housing trajectory set out in AMR states that over the next 5 years, annual housing per year will exceed 218 dwellings per annum. This level of growth is optimistic and does not reflect market trends in Rochford. It is a forlorn hope that housing supply could match its pre-credit crunch delivery rates over the five years given that during the pre-credit crunch years prior to 2007/08 Rochford was only able exceed its annual target on just two occasions. The Council has not provided any information that can justify how the housing market will be able to absorb the increased housing delivery that exceeds historical delivery records during a period when financial credit was more readily available.

5.19 The Council initiated a consultation titled 'Call for Sites', asking landowners and developers to put forward sites for consideration. This exercise was undertaken between January 2007 and April 2009. The Council's SHLAA states that these sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and achievability. However the land south of Rayleigh was not assessed and therefore it is clear that the Council is misleading in its assessment.

5.20 The SHLAA states that there is capacity within the District to accommodate 1,273 dwellings between 2009 and 2024 from outstanding planning permissions and other appropriate brownfield sites. This leaves an outstanding balance of 2,477 dwellings to be built by 2024 on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt.

5.22 The Council's SHLAA document and its AMR have failed to take account market factors that affect the delivery housing when consider housing supply to 2024. In particular the Council has not taken account the time delays caused by the planning system and the ability of the housebuilding industry to build out sites.

5.23 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007) was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to asses housing land supply in the UK. In consideration of timing from planning application submission to project completion, the Calcutt Review it was considered that the average time taken between planning application submission to construction completion is as follows:
Schemes of 15 to 49 units - 35.3 months
Schemes of 50 to 149 units - 39.4 months
Schemes of 150+ units - 44.6 months

5.24 This assessment does not include pre-application preparatory work which is cited in the Callcutt Review as taking 15.4 months on average for all schemes and 25.1 months for schemes of 150+ units.

5.25 The AMR and the SHLAA also do not make an accurate assessment of build out rates for specific sites and it is apparent that these documents do not understand the market forces that dictate the build-out rates. It is clear that in their assessment the Council has used an arbitrary figure that is not based on substantiated evidence. The 'Housing Markets and Planning Analysis Expert Panel - Factors Affecting Housing Build-out Rates: A report by Professor David Adams and Dr Chris Leishman' (the Housing Build-Out Rate Report) sought to determine the speed at which approved housing sites are developed.

5.26 Paragraph 2.4 of this report states that the research results suggest that the average optimal sales rate is about 59 units per annum for greenfield houses and 67 for brownfield apartments. Paragraph 2.5 states that most builders generally appear to set a target of between 40 and 80 units built and sold from each outlet annually. Paragraph 6.2 states that a typical strategy of most companies was to aim for a build and sales rate of about one unit per week on greenfield sites and slightly higher than this on brownfield sites and that this rate reflects the institutional structure of the British housebuilding industry in which fierce competition for land requires controlled and phased release of new development to ensure that the ambitious development values necessary to capture land in the first place are actually achieved when new homes are eventually sold.

5.27 Whilst the SHLAA has only recently been published, it is considered that it is not robust as the site assessment has not sufficiently taken into consideration the deliverability of sites as there is no technical evidence that demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between local housing markets and housing supply.

5.28 The AMR and SHLAA assessment of sites are optimistic and simplistic in their assessment of construction start dates and build-out rates. The housing land supply in Rochford is in fact worse than that set out in the AMR and SHLAA documents. Based on the assumptions using well founded national research it is clear that the Council has over estimated to the delivery of at least three sites identified within their SHLLAA and AMR. These sites are addressed below:

North London Road - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2016/17 and that 550 dwellings will be delivered by 2019/20. The Council's projected delivery rate exceeds that cited by Government research. Assuming that the start date is correct it likely that site would take up to 9 years to deliver with 60 dwellings delivered per annum. At least 120 dwellings would be delivered in the period post 2024.
West Rochford - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2012 and that 600 dwellings will be delivered by 2016/17. The Council project that 200 dwellings will be delivered in 2013/14 and that build out rates exceed 100 in four of the five years. This assumption is unrealistic and does not take account of the ability of the construction industry to deliver new dwellings. The start date is optimistic as it takes at least 2-years on large sites exceeding 150 dwellings from planning to start date. The first dwellings that would be completed, assuming a planning application is submitted in 2010, in 2013. Given the current stage of this DPD consultation it is unlikely that this site have a start date pre-2016. It is also highly optimistic that 600 dwellings would be delivered within 5-years as stated by the Council. Government research indicates that it would take up to 10 years to deliver this site. It is likely that the majority of this site will be delivered at the end of the 15-year period and that at least 120 dwellings will be delivered post 2024.
South West Hullbridge - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2019/20 and that 250 dwellings will be delivered by 2021 and a further 250 dwellings to be delivered post 2021. If the start date is correct then this site will only be able to deliver 120 dwellings by 2021 and 260 dwellings post 2024.

5.29 The housing supply over estimation amounts to at least 500 dwellings or an undersupply of over 2-years of housing. It is clear therefore that Council needs to identify more housing sites. It is necessary for the Council to allocate more residential sites to ensure that sufficient sites are available to meet the minimum housing requirements set out in the East of England Plan.

SECTION 6: THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSED OPTIONS

6.1 This section considers the options for residential development put forward by the Council in the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation. The comments in respect to these sites are follows:

a) North of London Road, Rayleigh

6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.

6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.

b) West Rochford

6.6 My clients do not object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Rochford to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients object to identification of land west of Rochford and Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4 as a suitable option.

6.7 This site is characterised by open agricultural land that forms the gateway into Rochford from Hockley and Hawkwell. Neither of the options would be appropriate and constitutes urban sprawl that conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rochford in a visually prominent location that links Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.
The proposed options will result in the development of land that provides an important gap that prevents the coalescence of Rochford with Hawkwell and Southend-on-Sea.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.8 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

c) South Hawkwell

6.9 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hawkwell as development at this location will result in unrestricted development that threatens to create a sense of coalescence with Rochford, particularly given that the Council proposes development to the west of Rochford. Consequently my client objects to Options SH1, SH2, SH3 and SH4 as a suitable option for residential development.

6.10 This site is characterised by its wooded character that provides an important green lung for this part of Essex. Each of the proposed options will result in the destruction of an important wooded area. It is considered that this location cannot support the quantum of development suggested within the Issues and Options consultation document.

d) East Ashingdon

6.11 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon and all the proposed options as this location is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh, the primary settlement in Rochford District.

6.12 Each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.13 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open Page 14 Rochford Allocations DPD: Regulation 25 Statement Land South of Rayleigh
countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.14 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

e) South West Hullbridge

6.15 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hullbridge as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District and development at Hullbridge would fail to meet the housing need that exists in Rayleigh. The quantum of development at this location is broadly similar to that proposed for Rayleigh, however the Council's own evidence demonstrates that 44% of the identified housing need in the borough comes from Rayleigh. The Hullbridge options therefore constitute a mismatch between location and the need and demand for housing. My clients consequently object to options SWH1, SWH2, SWH3 and SWH4.

6.16 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Hullbridge at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.18 This Green Belt location is also constrained by its location in proximity to the River Croach and the impact of flooding.

6.19 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

f) South Canewdon

6.20 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Canewdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to options SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4.

6.21 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Canewdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.22 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.23 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

g) South East Ashingdon

6.24 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location would have a detrimental impact the character of the countryside. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to Options SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4.

6.25 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.26 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.27 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

h) West Great Wakering

6.28 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Great Wakering as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location and that the proposed quantum of development is disproportionate when considered against the size of the settlements in Rochford District and against the locations of identified housing need. West Great Wakering is remote from the rest of the district and has poor transport links. Residential development at the quantum proposed would result in a significant increase in the number car trips in this part of South East Essex, My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District which has the greatest proportion of identified need and has good public transport access. My clients consequently object to options WGW1, WGW2, WGW3, WGW4 and WGW5.

6.29 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.30 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.31 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 We request that land south of Wyburns Primary School be allocated as a residential site within the Site Allocations DPD. This statement has demonstrated that:
1. The proposed site is well located to Rayleigh and would meet the Council's housing objectives and will assist in delivering housing to meet the Council's identified housing need in Rayleigh.
2. The proposed site would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives set out in PPG2.
3. The Council has under-estimated the amount of housing required on Green Belt sites to meet the districts housing requirements and consequently the Council needs to identify more housing locations and sites.
4. The Council's proposed residential sites are inappropriate as they constitute sites that conflict with PPG2 and the dispersed nature of these sites would result in unsustainable development away from public transport and key services that will lead to significant increases in car movements. Furthermore these sites would not assist in relieving the housing need in Rayleigh as identified by the Council.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Regulation 25 Statement has been produced by Ransome and Company in response to the Rochford District's Council Allocations DPD: Discussion and Consultation document. We act on behalf of Mrs M. Bingley of 259 Daws Heath Road and Mr H. Johnson of 287 Daws Heath Road who seek to put forward land south of Wyburns Primary School, Rayleigh as a residential site allocation. The site location plan is attached to the statement in Appendix 1. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.

Appendix 1

1.2 Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson previously submitted representations to the 'Call for Sites' consultation and requested to be contacted on future LDF consultations. It is noted that the Council misrepresented the sites put forward in terms of location and also failed to notify Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson on the Council's LDF consultations. The Council has consequently been in breach of the Planning Regulations 2004 as amended. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this statement.

1.3 This site should be considered alongside 'Land south of Rayleigh' which is put forward as a residential site allocation under a separate cover. The two sites are both highly sustainable and collectively could deliver important benefits to Rayleigh.

1.4 This Regulation 25 Statement puts forward land south of Wyburns Primary School as a site allocation within the Rochford Allocations DPD. This Statement is structured as follows:
Section 2 sets out the procedural matters that the Council has been in breach of during the LDF process.
Section 3 sets out the site context for land south of Rayleigh.
Section 4 describes the proposed site allocation at land south of Rayleigh in the context of the Green Belt.
Section 5 considers the Council's housing land supply.
Section 6 considers the sites the Council has suggested as site allocation options.
Section 7 sets out the overall conclusions of the Statement.

SECTION 2: PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson submitted separate representations to the Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation in 2007. Both Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson requested that they be contacted for future LDF consultations. Neither Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson were informed of the Rochford Core Strategy Pre-Submission consultation and as such were not given the opportunity to make representations on the soundness of the spatial strategy set out in the Core Strategy. By not informing Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson, the Council are in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended. The Core Strategy is consequently unsound on procedural matters. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

2.2 The Council have also misrepresented the representations submitted by Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson. The two sites put forward as site allocations were not recorded accurately and in fact the wrong site was accredited to Mrs M. Bingley. For a matter of correctness both sites are now to be considered as one site and the site location plan is set in Appendix 1 of this report.

2.3 In respect to the procedural breach, Paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified about further LDF consultations and importantly the submission of a DPD to the Core Strategy, a request that was undertaken by both Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson.
2.4 Paragraph 28 relates to the submission of the DPD. Part (e) of this paragraph states that the Council must give notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State. The Council did not do this as they failed to notify Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson.

2.5 In addition, as significant landowners with land that adjoins Rayleigh and that they have requested to be notified by the Council, Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson should have been consulted as General Consultation Bodies under the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This point has been clarified in paragraph 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008 which states that a local planning authority must notify general consultation bodies who may have an interest in the subject of the proposed DPD. It is also stated that the local planning authority must consider whether it is appropriate to invite representations from persons who are resident and/or carrying out business in their area and invite each of those bodies to make representations to the DPD.

2.6 Paragraph 32 considers the handling of site allocation representations. The Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation constitutes a consultation under the planning regulations. Under part (2) of paragraph 32 it is stated that as soon as reasonably practicable after the consultation period the local planning authority must make a site allocation representation available for inspection. This site allocation must be sent to the DPD bodies and appropriate notifications, as listed in the regulations, must be made. Paragraph 33 states that any person may make representations regarding the site allocation put forward. The Council are in breach of the planning regulations under paragraph 32 and 33 as they have inaccurately recorded the sites about the sites put forward by Mrs M. Bingley and Mr H. Johnson.

SECTION 3: THE PROPOSED SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The proposed site extends to 2.3 hectares and is located to the south of the urban area of Rayleigh. This site has the potential to deliver up to approximately 95 market and affordable dwellings. The proposed main access into the site would be from Daws Heath Road.

3.2 The proposed site is located just 0.9 miles from Rayleigh town centre and 1.4 miles from Rayleigh Train Station which provides convenient public transport connections to Southend-on-Sea, Stratford and London Liverpool Street.

3.3 The site is well located to the main centres of employment in Rayleigh being located in close proximity to the town centre and less than a mile by foot and car from Brook Street Industrial Estate.

3.4 The site adjoins the urban edge of Rayleigh to the south and east. The site abuts the rear boundary of Wyburns Primary School.

3.5 The boundaries of the proposed site ensure that this site is enclosed. The eastern boundary is characterised by a mature wooded area that prevents views into the site and would also create a natural and defensible boundary for a future development. The southern boundary adjoins Daws Heath Road, a road which is characterised by mature trees and hedgerows. The western and northern boundary is also characterised by a mature tree and hedge line. The site is enclosed by the mature landscaping along its boundary which prevents views into the site and provides natural screening.

3.6 The proposed site is currently used for residential purposes. The site has no beneficial agricultural function and no viable equestrian function.

3.7 There are no public footpaths or rights of way that cross this site and the site has no recreational value.

SECTION 4: THE GREEN BELT

4.1 The site on land south of Wyburns Primary School is currently designated as Green Belt in the Rochford Local Plan. It is considered that this designation is no longer relevant to this site. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Very special circumstances to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness, and "any other harm" to the Green Belt needs to be demonstrated for development on Green Belt land. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 outlines the intentions of Green Belt planning policy and states that the most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness.

4.3 Appendix 1 of this statement provides an illustrative assessment of the level openness on land south of Rayleigh It is clear that this site is enclosed and that there is a very limited degree of openness and as such this site does not fulfil the requirements of PPG2. The proposed site does not have any public footpaths running through it and is enclosed by the adjacent Wyburns Primary School and the mature landscaping along the perimeter. There are no significant views across the site from a public viewpoint.

4.4 The boundaries of the proposed site on land south of Wyburns School would create a more permanent or robust defensible boundary for the Green Belt at this location. The eastern, northern and western boundary of the site contains a mature tree and hedge line that provides a defensible boundary. The southern boundary is characterised by Daws Heath Road. This road and the existing mature landscaping provides defensible boundary to the south.

4.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists five purposes of including land in Green Belts:
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.6 With reference to point 1 above, the proposed site is located adjacent to the southern edge of Rayleigh and adjoins Wyburns Primary School. It is considered that the containment of the site by Daws Heath Road and the mature landscaping along the boundary are important characteristics which ensure that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.

4.7 In defining Green Belt boundaries, PPG2 advises that such boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features, such as roads and tree lines. It is considered that because the proposed site is enclosed by the mature landscaping, the site would have a robust and defensible boundary to the Green Belt, were residential development to be allocated at this site. The allocation of the proposed site for residential development would not make adjacent Green Belt land vulnerable to development.

4.8 Point 2 above states that the Green Belt will prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. With reference to the second purpose, a distance of 0.25 miles separates Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea at the closest point. The eastern edge of this proposed site is 0.7 miles from the boundary of Southend-on-Sea and would not bring Rayleigh any closer to Southend-on-Sea. Furthermore, the dense and mature landscaping along the proposed sites eastern boundary together with the dense wooded areas between Southend and Rayleigh provides a robust barrier which prevents Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea from ever merging.

4.9 Point 3 requires the Green Belt to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The enclosed nature of the site would prevent encroachment. The loss of this site is essential for Council to meet its housing minimum housing targets.

4.10 Point 4 requires the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The historic core of Rayleigh is centred along the High Street. Historically, Rayleigh has developed by building on open land to that surrounds the town centre, particularly in the post war years, such that the original historic core is surrounded by more modern development. In these circumstances, the application site does not perform a function in preserving the setting of the historic centre of Rayleigh.

4.11 Point 5 states that the Green Belt is required to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This point is not applicable in this instance given the need for a release of Green Belt in Rochford District to meet housing targets.

4.12 Therefore it is considered that the site does not perform any of the Green Belt functions set out in PPG2. If the site were to be allocated for residential, the unrestricted sprawl of built-up area of Rayleigh would not follow, nor would Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea merge. The mature wooded area to the east of the proposed site together with the mature landscaping along the boundary edge and the A127 carriageway to the south would act as a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary and development on the site would not encourage or justify further encroachment into open countryside.

SECTION 5: ROCHFORD'S HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

5.1 This section provides a brief overview of land supply in Rochford with a focus upon the national planning policy, Rochford Core Strategy Submission document and Rochford's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

a) National Planning Policy Context

5.2 Paragraph 2 of PPS3 states that a principal aim of this policy document is to create a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Paragraph 7 states that Local Planning Authorities will need to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

5.3 Paragraph 11 states that policies in development plan documents should be evidence-based and land availability should be assessed through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In respect to the five-year supply, paragraph 54 states that Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. It is stated that for sites to be considered deliverable, sites should:
Be Available - the site is available now.
Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

5.4 Paragraph 55 states that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. Strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period should also be identified. Paragraph 56 states that to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged.

5.5 Annex C of PPS3 provides further information on the evidence base required as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It is stated that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:
Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.
Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments.
Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.
Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.
Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.
Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.

b) Rochford's Core Strategy Submission Document

5.6 The East of England Plan requires a minimum of 4,600 dwellings to be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore housing needs to be identified for the period to 2024.

5.7 The 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) examined the supply of housing land and, although identified some capacity from extant permissions and other appropriate sites, also ascertained that Green Belt would have to be reallocated in order to meet the requirements of the East of England Plan. It is stated that 2,745 dwellings are required on Green Belt land between 2006 and 2024. This is in addition to the 2,005 dwellings to be delivered on previously developed land.

5.8 The Core Strategy sets out the general locations for housing development. The Council state that the primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure; access to services; facilities; housing demand/need; deliverability; public transport/possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints; need to protect areas of landscape value, ecological importance and high quality agricultural land. The Council states that it seeks balance the distribution of housing by focusing growth upon the higher tier settlements.

5.9 The population of Rochford District is unevenly distributed with the largest settlement being Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people, 38% of the District's residents. As such the Council identified Rayleigh as a primary tier settlement as it contains a range services and facilities including good public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy however notes that their housing needs evidence indicates that 44% of the housing need in the borough originates from Rayleigh. This provides a strong basis in which to focus housing development upon Rayleigh.

5.10 Despite what is said in the Core Strategy, it is clear that Council has failed to consider a balanced approach to housing delivery. However the Council's proposed housing locations do not reflect this statement as the scattered approach around the district will deliver housing away from public transport and key services and will lead to unsustainable patterns of growth. The Council's own evidence states that 44% of the need for housing is focused on Rayleigh, yet Rayleigh will only deliver 19% of housing on Green Belt sites. Indeed 57% of the Green Belt housing site allocations is focused outside the primary tier settlements. This will result in increased car movements between the settlements and will have an unsustainable impact upon the existing infrastructure.

5.11 There is a need for the Council to identify and significant increase in the housing provision for Rayleigh to meet the socio-economic objectives set out in the Rochford Core Strategy Submission draft.

c) Rochford's Housing Land supply (2001 to 2024)

5.12 The Council's SHLAA noted that there is an inadequate housing supply in the district over a fifteen year period to 2024 and as such there is a requirement for the allocation of Green Belt land for residential development. The SHLAA identifies a requirement to allocate 2,477 dwellings on Green Belt land in the period to 2024.

5.13 The Rochford Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008 to 2009 demonstrates that Rochford has failed to deliver 309 dwellings of the required 1,840 between 2001 and 2009. The Council's SHLAA also suggests that 1,658 dwellings will be delivered between 2009 and 2014/15. The Council will also have to deliver 3,759 dwellings between 2009 and 2024.

5.14 It is considered that the land supply assessments used to indicate how these targets will be delivered is not based on a robust assessment and consequently it is clear that the Council cannot meet its housing supply requirements and that a significant dwelling shortfall will develop which will have significant implications for the future delivery of housing in Rochford.

5.15 It is considered that the Council's SHLAA and AMR do not provide an accurate assessment of the strategic housing land supply in Rochford and that in fact the future housing supply situation is worse than recorded. It is considered that the Council's SHLAA fails to take to account of:
Current housing market conditions in Rochford;
The time duration of the planning process i.e. from pre-application to completion;
The build out rates of housing sites; and
Site specific constraints.

5.16 The Council is unable to demonstrate a robust up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. The failure of the AMR to take account of these key matters is discussed below.

5.17 Rochford's annual East of England Plan housing supply requirement is to deliver 230 dwellings per annum. Between 2001 and 2009 this figure was met and exceeded on just two occasions, in 2005/06 and 2006/07. During this period Rochford was required to deliver 1,840 dwellings to meet the East of England housing supply requirement however just 1,531 dwellings were completed, resulting in a housing completion shortfall of 309 dwellings or a housing under-supply of 1.34 years.

5.18 The Council's housing trajectory set out in AMR states that over the next 5 years, annual housing per year will exceed 218 dwellings per annum. This level of growth is optimistic and does not reflect market trends in Rochford. It is a forlorn hope that housing supply could match its pre-credit crunch delivery rates over the five years given that during the pre-credit crunch years prior to 2007/08 Rochford was only able exceed its annual target on just two occasions. The Council has not provided any information that can justify how the housing market will be able to absorb the increased housing delivery that exceeds historical delivery records during a period when financial credit was more readily available.

5.19 The Council initiated a consultation titled 'Call for Sites', asking landowners and developers to put forward sites for consideration. This exercise was undertaken between January 2007 and April 2009. The Council's SHLAA states that these sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and achievability. However the land south of Rayleigh was not assessed and therefore it is clear that the Council is misleading in its assessment.

5.20 The SHLAA states that there is capacity within the District to accommodate 1,273 dwellings between 2009 and 2024 from outstanding planning permissions and other appropriate brownfield sites. This leaves an outstanding balance of 2,477 dwellings to be built by 2024 on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt.

5.22 The Council's SHLAA document and its AMR have failed to take account market factors that affect the delivery housing when consider housing supply to 2024. In particular the Council has not taken account the time delays caused by the planning system and the ability of the housebuilding industry to build out sites.

5.23 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007) was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to asses housing land supply in the UK. In consideration of timing from planning application submission to project completion, the Calcutt Review it was considered that the average time taken between planning application submission to construction completion is as follows:
Schemes of 15 to 49 units - 35.3 months
Schemes of 50 to 149 units - 39.4 months
Schemes of 150+ units - 44.6 months

5.24 This assessment does not include pre-application preparatory work which is cited in the Callcutt Review as taking 15.4 months on average for all schemes and 25.1 months for schemes of 150+ units.

5.25 The AMR and the SHLAA also do not make an accurate assessment of build out rates for specific sites and it is apparent that these documents do not understand the market forces that dictate the build-out rates. It is clear that in their assessment the Council has used an arbitrary figure that is not based on substantiated evidence. The 'Housing Markets and Planning Analysis Expert Panel - Factors Affecting Housing Build-out Rates: A report by Professor David Adams and Dr Chris Leishman' (the Housing Build-Out Rate Report) sought to determine the speed at which approved housing sites are developed.

5.26 Paragraph 2.4 of this report states that the research results suggest that the average optimal sales rate is about 59 units per annum for greenfield houses and 67 for brownfield apartments. Paragraph 2.5 states that most builders generally appear to set a target of between 40 and 80 units built and sold from each outlet annually. Paragraph 6.2 states that a typical strategy of most companies was to aim for a build and sales rate of about one unit per week on greenfield sites and slightly higher than this on brownfield sites and that this rate reflects the institutional structure of the British housebuilding industry in which fierce competition for land requires controlled and phased release of new development to ensure that the ambitious development values necessary to capture land in the first place are actually achieved when new homes are eventually sold.

5.27 Whilst the SHLAA has only recently been published, it is considered that it is not robust as the site assessment has not sufficiently taken into consideration the deliverability of sites as there is no technical evidence that demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between local housing markets and housing supply.

5.28 The AMR and SHLAA assessment of sites are optimistic and simplistic in their assessment of construction start dates and build-out rates. The housing land supply in Rochford is in fact worse than that set out in the AMR and SHLAA documents. Based on the assumptions using well founded national research it is clear that the Council has over estimated to the delivery of at least three sites identified within their SHLLAA and AMR. These sites are addressed below:

North London Road - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2016/17 and that 550 dwellings will be delivered by 2019/20. The Council's projected delivery rate exceeds that cited by Government research. Assuming that the start date is correct it likely that site would take up to 9 years to deliver with 60 dwellings delivered per annum. At least 120 dwellings would be delivered in the period post 2024.
West Rochford - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2012 and that 600 dwellings will be delivered by 2016/17. The Council project that 200 dwellings will be delivered in 2013/14 and that build out rates exceed 100 in four of the five years. This assumption is unrealistic and does not take account of the ability of the construction industry to deliver new dwellings. The start date is optimistic as it takes at least 2-years on large sites exceeding 150 dwellings from planning to start date. The first dwellings that would be completed, assuming a planning application is submitted in 2010, in 2013. Given the current stage of this DPD consultation it is unlikely that this site have a start date pre-2016. It is also highly optimistic that 600 dwellings would be delivered within 5-years as stated by the Council. Government research indicates that it would take up to 10 years to deliver this site. It is likely that the majority of this site will be delivered at the end of the 15-year period and that at least 120 dwellings will be delivered post 2024.
South West Hullbridge - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2019/20 and that 250 dwellings will be delivered by 2021 and a further 250 dwellings to be delivered post 2021. If the start date is correct then this site will only be able to deliver 120 dwellings by 2021 and 260 dwellings post 2024.

5.29 The housing supply over estimation amounts to at least 500 dwellings or an undersupply of over 2-years of housing. It is clear therefore that Council needs to identify more housing sites. It is necessary for the Council to allocate more residential sites to ensure that sufficient sites are available to meet the minimum housing requirements set out in the East of England Plan.

SECTION 6: THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSED OPTIONS

6.1 This section considers the options for residential development put forward by the Council in the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation. The comments in respect to these sites are follows:

a) North of London Road, Rayleigh

6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.

6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.

b) West Rochford

6.6 My clients do not object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Rochford to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients object to identification of land west of Rochford and Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4 as a suitable option.

6.7 This site is characterised by open agricultural land that forms the gateway into Rochford from Hockley and Hawkwell. Neither of the options would be appropriate and constitutes urban sprawl that conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rochford in a visually prominent location that links Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.
The proposed options will result in the development of land that provides an important gap that prevents the coalescence of Rochford with Hawkwell and Southend-on-Sea.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.8 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

c) South Hawkwell

6.9 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hawkwell as development at this location will result in unrestricted development that threatens to create a sense of coalescence with Rochford, particularly given that the Council proposes development to the west of Rochford. Consequently my client objects to Options SH1, SH2, SH3 and SH4 as a suitable option for residential development.

6.10 This site is characterised by its wooded character that provides an important green lung for this part of Essex. Each of the proposed options will result in the destruction of an important wooded area. It is considered that this location cannot support the quantum of development suggested within the Issues and Options consultation document.

d) East Ashingdon

6.11 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon and all the proposed options as this location is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh, the primary settlement in Rochford District.

6.12 Each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.13 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open Page 14 Rochford Allocations DPD: Regulation 25 Statement Land South of Rayleigh
countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.14 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

e) South West Hullbridge

6.15 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hullbridge as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District and development at Hullbridge would fail to meet the housing need that exists in Rayleigh. The quantum of development at this location is broadly similar to that proposed for Rayleigh, however the Council's own evidence demonstrates that 44% of the identified housing need in the borough comes from Rayleigh. The Hullbridge options therefore constitute a mismatch between location and the need and demand for housing. My clients consequently object to options SWH1, SWH2, SWH3 and SWH4.

6.16 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Hullbridge at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.18 This Green Belt location is also constrained by its location in proximity to the River Croach and the impact of flooding.

6.19 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

f) South Canewdon

6.20 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Canewdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to options SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4.

6.21 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Canewdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.22 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.23 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

g) South East Ashingdon

6.24 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location would have a detrimental impact the character of the countryside. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to Options SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4.

6.25 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.26 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.27 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

h) West Great Wakering

6.28 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Great Wakering as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location and that the proposed quantum of development is disproportionate when considered against the size of the settlements in Rochford District and against the locations of identified housing need. West Great Wakering is remote from the rest of the district and has poor transport links. Residential development at the quantum proposed would result in a significant increase in the number car trips in this part of South East Essex, My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District which has the greatest proportion of identified need and has good public transport access. My clients consequently object to options WGW1, WGW2, WGW3, WGW4 and WGW5.

6.29 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.30 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.31 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 We request that land south of Wyburns Primary School be allocated as a residential site within the Site Allocations DPD. This statement has demonstrated that:
1. The proposed site is well located to Rayleigh and would meet the Council's housing objectives and will assist in delivering housing to meet the Council's identified housing need in Rayleigh.
2. The proposed site would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives set out in PPG2.
3. The Council has under-estimated the amount of housing required on Green Belt sites to meet the districts housing requirements and consequently the Council needs to identify more housing locations and sites.
4. The Council's proposed residential sites are inappropriate as they constitute sites that conflict with PPG2 and the dispersed nature of these sites would result in unsustainable development away from public transport and key services that will lead to significant increases in car movements. Furthermore these sites would not assist in relieving the housing need in Rayleigh as identified by the Council.

Further documentation has been sent via email, today, to planning.applications@Rochford.gov.uk; with the above reference 14699.

If for any reason the documentation cannot be located please contact us on 01702 478195.

Kind Regards
Steven Kearney

Please find attached our representations with regard to the Rochford Allocations Document.

There are 3 files attached; 1) The report 2) Appendix 1 Part 1 3) Appendix 1 part 2

See paper copy for further details.

Please find attached representations to the Allocations DPD in respect of the land at West Hockley submitted by Iceni Projects on behalf of Iceni Assets.

Site put forward for West Hockley see paper copy for further details.

Colonnade considers the site at Coombes Farm should be included in the Allocations DPD as a suitable location for housing.

For further details, see paper copy.

Our client, Fairview New Homes has an interest in the land indicated (outlined in red) on the accompanying site location plan, described as land off Poyntens Road, Rayleigh. The site represents a suitable site for new residential development to be delivered in the forthcoming plan period. Fairview New Homes has sought to actively participate during all available opportunities of the Local Development Framework process, including the imminent Core Strategy Examination. The comments below are made in line with representations submitted previously during other public consultation opportunities.
Of particular reference we have, on behalf of Fairview New Homes, previously submitted representations in response to the call for sites in early 2009. Consequently the site is included in Appendix 1 to the Site Allocations Options Consultation Draft, and referenced as Site 86.
Fairview New Homes continue to consider the site suitable for residential development in order to contribute towards the District's housing supply. These representations are, therefore, concerned with the housing sites
contained within the draft site allocations document. These representations clearly demonstrate the suitability of the site proposed by Fairview New Homes for residential development. It is, therefore, requested the site is included for consideration when the second draft Site Allocation document is produced.
We would initially like to comment in response to the statements made on page 6 of the draft Site Allocations Document. In respect of the residential allocations, this is currently excessively vague and limits the usefulness of the assessments of the proposed sites at this stage. Information regarding the infrastructure requirements of each site or area is required in order to facilitate the robust assessment of the proposed sites to ensure the options are deliverable, and therefore, suitable for inclusion in the Site Allocations document.
There are a number of clear reasons indicating that allocation / identifying the land highlighted on the accompanying site location plan for residential use would be appropriate. The sustainable location of the site is recognised in Appendix 1 to the draft Site Allocations document where it is noted the site is within close proximity to Rayleigh Town Centre, and within good access to the nearby services and facilities. In addition, the site does not suffer from any known constraints to restrict or delay development. This is reflected in the Council's comments made in Appendix 1 in respect of the site.
It is noted that many of the sites being suggested as possible to deliver the Districts housing requirements, such as those North of London Road, Rayleigh and land to the West of Rochford, are located (or part located) in Flood Zone 3 (some instances Flood Zone 2). In addition, sites are also restricted by the existence of overhead power cables and foul sewer easements.
We would contend that without the benefit of either a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and / or a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment, it is not possible to identify these sites as options, when sites that may be smaller, and that are less encumbered and better located, have been assumed unsuitable.
Our client's site also offers clear benefits in its potential contribution towards the District's housing supply. Appendix 1 to the draft Site Allocations document indicates the site as being suitable for only providing up to 35 dwellings. On the basis of this figure the Council concluded the site would make a 'minimal contribution' towards housing targets. However, as set out when initially promoting the site for residential uses in April 2009, development of the site for approximately 60 dwellings was considered by Fairview New Homes to be appropriate and an efficient use of the site. Existing residential dwellings adjacent to the site stand at 3 storeys and development of this density would therefore appear entirely appropriate.
On this basis, it is considered inaccurate that the site would not contribute toward the District's housing targets. This is highlighted by the Council's own acceptance that sites in West Hockley and South Canewdon that are suitable for providing 50 and 60 dwellings respectively, contribute to the District's housing supply and have consequently been included in the draft Site Allocations document.
Further to this, it is stated in Appendix 1 to the draft Site Allocation document that as a result of the 'minimal contribution' the site would make towards housing targets 'minimal community benefits' would result from the development. However, this is also contested as it is the Council's duty to ensure mechanisms are in place to bring forward community benefits where required to meet the needs arising from new development through Development Control policies or financial obligations. This should instead be considered on a site by site basis. Contributions towards existing facilities in Rayleigh town centre, which is recognised as being easily accessible, would
be more appropriate and offer wider benefit than potential development of community facilities on site.
In terms of the current designation of the site in the Green Belt, whilst the purposes of designating Green Belt land are understood it is not considered that the development of the site indicated on the accompanying site location plan would undermine the function of the Green Belt in this location when considered against the guidance contained in PPG2. Substantial existing planting at the site boundaries encloses the site and offers the clear potential for easily creating a defensible Green Belt boundary. As a result of the existing trees the character of the site is seen more as part of the existing urban area rather than a continuation of the Green Belt arable land beyond.
It is clear from the submission Core Strategy that residential development on some Green Belt land in the District will be required in order to meet the Local Authority's housing requirements. This will have to be managed in such a way to be compliant with national guidance so as not to undermine the remaining Green Belt land. When considering the options put forward for residential development in the Green Belt the release of a great number of the sites do not offer the potential for the creation of a robust defensible Green Belt boundary for the future. For example, not one the options presented for the development of 500 homes in South East Ashingdon offers the opportunity to develop a new and appropriate defensible Green Belt boundary. Continuing to promote these options as the only alternatives for development in South East Ashingdon would be inappropriate and not in line with the intentions of PPG2. In addition, a number of the sites included as options for development in the Green Belt are functioning areas of quality arable land that would be lost.
In comparison, development of our clients' site identified in the accompanying site location plan would result in the completion of the existing residential development and a rounding off the settlement boundary in this
location rather than being seen as an intrusion into the countryside. In respect of views in and out of the site the existing boundary planting and topography of the site and surrounds determines that there are currently minimal views in either direction as a result, and as set out above, the site is currently not viewed as part of the wider countryside landscape beyond. In fact, quite the opposite as the back drop to this site is of built development. There is no reason to consider that development of the site for residential purposes would affect the relative enclosure or existing screening to alter the lack of views in or out of the site. A sensitively designed scheme would be capable of maintaining the sense of enclosure the site currently offers which acts to define the site from the countryside beyond.
To summarise, it is recognised by the Council that development on Green Belt land will be necessary during the plan period in order meet the District's housing requirements. On this basis, the site indicated on the accompanying site location plan offers an excellent opportunity to contribute towards the housing supply whilst creating a defensive Green Belt boundary. It is our clients' position that this site scores better than many other sites currently being considered. The site is sustainably located and housing on the site is deliverable in the short term when considered against the relevant guidance set out in PPS3. We, therefore, request the site is included when redrafting the Site Allocation document prior to further consultation to be suitable to deliver approximately 60 new homes.

Peggle Meadow rear of 193 Southend Road Rochford

I refer to the above and write on behalf of my client Mr G Marshall in response to the Consultation.

Many of the details of my client's land at Peggle Meadow were detailed in our response to the Submission Core Strategy (SCS), and a copy of that response is attached for ease of reference. For the reasons set out in that response, we object to both the Submission Core Strategy, and to the noninclusion of my client's land within the draft Allocations DPD.

In the Preferred Options Core Strategy, it was indicated that the Peggle Meadow land was not included for reasons of flood risk and coalescence, and sustainable transport was also mentioned. In our recent agreed Statement of Common Ground for the CS Examination, it was agreed that the developable part of the site was in flood zone 1; that the rail station opposite
was almost complete; that the site was in walking distance of local employment; and that earlier drafts of the Core Strategy did not recognise a strategic gap between Rochford and Southend, notwithstanding the fact that the proposed allocation includes a green space buffer between potential development and the Borough boundary.

Appendix 1 to the current consultation states with regard to site 33 that:

"This site is reasonably well related to Rochford centre and services, and is within close proximity to the new railway station and London Southend
Airport."

Whilst we dispute the word 'reasonably', it does at least acknowledge that the site is locationally acceptable. However, we are disappointed at the least by some of the other comments in appendix 1, which are in our view misleading at best.

With regard to the character of the site and loss of views into or out of the site, Peggle Meadow is entirely screened from outside views by mature tress and existing housing, and therefore there are minimal views in or out, shown by the
aerial photograph in the response to the SCS. The adverse score should be removed. In spite of its name, the site is an overgrown former smallholding with a number of redundant and decrepit buildings, and the loss of this
character is a positive, not a negative.

With regard to the objectives of promoting more sustainable transport choices and promoting accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, cycling and walking, it is somewhat surprising that
a site on a main bus route, opposite a new rail station, and which would facilitate the completion of a key element of a strategic cycle network, should not record a score. As you know, SUSTRANS support the development
of our site as essential in securing this link, and you have agreed this in the Statement of Common Ground.

Appendix 1 in relation to this site concludes by saying that site 33 is not situated within a proposed strategic location for housing in the emerging Core Strategy, as there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rochford / Ashingdon with Southend. It goes on to state that the site would not contribute fully to the housing targets as specified within the Core Strategy Submission Document. Aside from the fact that the concern over coalescence is disproved by both the master plan contained in our SCS response and the lack of identification of a strategic gap in this location, is the point about meeting housing targets.

At the Inquiry into the last Local Plan, we put forward a case that the Local Plan did not look forward far enough, and that promises of an early review via the LDF would not be timely enough to avoid the Council getting into
problems over housing delivery. The recent flurry of applications and appeals are a consequence of this. The consistent case put forward by the promoters of these schemes is that the release of Green Belt land is required to meet the District Council's strategic housing requirement, including maintaining a 5
year supply of housing land as required by Para 54 of PPS3, and that the Council cannot demonstrate 5 years' supply of deliverable housing land for the purposes of PPS3 without reliance upon new sites to be confirmed through
the LDF process.

The Core Strategy seeks to address the strategic housing requirements set out
in the East of England Plan 2008 up to 2025. The EEP sets a housing requirement of 250 dwellings per annum (2006 to 2021), with this annual rate to be continued beyond 2021 in advance of a review. This figure is expressed
as a minimum.

The SCS identifies a need to release land to accommodate some 3,790 dwellings between 2006 - 2021 in addition to sites already with permission or the subject of previous allocations in the Local Plan The SCS identifies a need
for 751 dwellings to be released on Green Belt land to meet requirement to 2015.

As set out in our previous representations, the Council is relying heavily on short term delivery from larger housing sites many of which also rely on the relocation of employment areas. Even the Hall Road site will not meaningfully deliver until 2013 according to their own evidence.

In addition to this, the EEP 2008 is being reviewed to extend the period to 2031
and this process was begun in Autumn 2009. Growth scenarios 1-3 would involve some 5,000 net additional dwellings being required between 2011 and 2031 in Rochford, whilst scenario 4 envisages 8,000 net additional dwellings in Rochford. The EEP Review will inevitably require additional housing to be provided in the District that is beyond that anticipated in the current Annual Monitoring Report and beyond that anticipated in the SCS which is premised on delivering 4,600 dwellings up to 2021 plus an annualised rate of 250 dwellings per annum in the period 2021 to 2026.

The revision of Green Belt boundaries must be based therefore on ensuring a flexible projection of growth to ensure that GB boundaries transcend development plan timescales and can endure in accordance with PPG2 para 2.12. This factor has not been taken into account either in the SCS or in the current consultation in ensuring that Green Belt boundaries will not need
to be altered at the end of the plan period, or whether land should be safeguarded.

The Council's cautious approach in being slow to follow regional guidance and planning for the bare minimum has caused the current shortfall, and the Council should consider allocating land such as that at Peggle Meadow which can be developed swiftly, as well as planning properly the delivery of larger sites, perhaps by reserving those with particular problems of delivery
such as west of Rayleigh.

We look forward to being involved in further drafts of the allocations document, but hope that weight is given to the above.

For further details see paper copy.