Schedule of minor amendments (2011)

The evidence base for the localtion of RDC prefferred sites does not stand scrutiny. Despite representations made RDC has not been forthcoming in explaining why the selected preffered sites have been selected over other areas deemed as being not suitable. This was raised as a representation during the core strategy public consultation stage.
RDC has not properly considered all alternate options. I submitted a site under the call for sites exercise from RDC to support the production of the core strategy and DPD. These were not properly considered. RDC did not visit the site until a day after releasing the core strategy for public consultation. In the draft allocations document my site was not accurately reported, and the council had made unsubstantiated negative comment which they have still to provide an answer to.
RDC has not changed a single word of their core strategy document despite the hundreds of representations that have been made. Nor has it provided responses to representations made. In fact there is no evidence that RDC have considered representations at all.
Furthermore I think that it is foolish to signoff a core strategy given that changes likely with the advent of the Localism bill. I consider the development and adoption of RDC's core strategy and dpd to be counter to the localism bill. How will local residents have their say over the future development of their home area if RDC have already made arrangement for years into the future.
RDC have utilised a policy of identifying a limited number of relatively large sites. The reason for this predudice has not been explained in the evidence base. Why not smaller but more numerous sites around the edge of the current built area. Instead we have large development areas, few in number which will result in a largescale expanded sprawl to existing settlements. The RDC strategy will result in settlements merging (Rayleigh and Rawreth). True costs have not been defined to support the provision of the infrastructure necessary for RDC's strategy.
RDC strategy relies on development of productive farmland which is not necessary. RDC proposes to allow development in some areas where no or little current infrastructure exists, rather than re-using the infrastructure that is already in place. History has shown that some of the selected areas are prone to flooding and have flooded since the core strategy has been authored. These minor amandments do nothing to correct an undemocratic, flawed, undesireable, costly strategy which the residents of Rochford will be stuck with forever.
The core strategy cannot be justified, will not be effective, and is not consistent with national policy. This document is therefore the same. Rather than repeat the reasons (yet again) only for them to be ignored, I can only request that you revisit them and a proper response made. I see no evidence of any consideration. No one appears to have listened to any of the representations.

H7 does not comply with RSS policy H3 as the 15 pitches needed by 2011 have not been provided and the deadline to meet the need is extended in full to 2018. How can there be said to be a 5 year supply of land for Gypsy-Travellers when the land needed for an immediate need identiifed in July 2009 does not have to be found until 2018?
This form is really difficult to use.
I only discovered these further changes by chance following a recent planning appeal
I no longer have any confidence in this process. It is quite scary how impossibly complex this has become. How does the Council expect the public to respond?.
How can the Core Strategy be sound when it has failed to do what is required by RSS policy?
It is not accepted that there has been a low need for Gypsy-Travellers in this district justifying review in 2018 ie in 5 years not 15 years. This is not supported by the number of appeal and families living on unauthorised sites.
If the Council not required to provide a 15 year supply of land for Gypsy sites to be PPS3/PPS12 compliant ie to 2027. Why should Gypsy-Travellers not be treated the same as housing land allocations?
The Council should have brought forward a site allocation DPD as advised by C 1/2006 to meet the immediate need.

In CSSMA 2 3 Vision
Historic should be added to read
Preserving and enhancing the special natural, HISTORIC, and built characteristic of Rochford District,

I object with particular respect to the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers sites. Whilst I accept that there are positive benefits for the provision of 'official' sites for these people, the method and process for arriving at any planning decisions is too vague, and could still entail fragmented use of small pockets of Green Belt land which are totally unsuitable to meet the needs of both the Gypsies/travellers and the affected local community.

The new Vision statement in section 3 is a mix of aspiration and detailed proposals. References to "a new primary school in Rochford", "a new primary care centre", "a new primary school in Rayleigh" or "the ECO-Enterprise Centre" are too specific and inappropriate to a general vision for the district. Indeed I am not sure if all of these are really 'strategic'.
Targets of 'at least one new facility a year being developed' are also inappropriate to a vision and a hostage to fortune.
Where reference is made to elements wholly or partially outside the control of the council such as SERT or the Airport Joint Area Action Plan, this should be made clear as these groups could adversely affect delivery of the vision. Indeed with the continuing gloomy forecasts for the economy it is more than possible that plans will be deferred or even cancelled whatever Rochford Council may wish.
There should be commitment within the vision to more involvement from the residents of the district in council policy and decision making. Whilst recent consultations have been better publicised, residents need to be convinced that their views are being listened to and taken into account when formulating policy and taking decisions.

Is it acceptable that a build rate which has increased from 190 pa from 250 pa, nothwithstanding a difference in timeline that must surely be adjusted, is tabled just a minor amendment? No, it is not and this consultation has not been presented appropriately to the public. This is misleading.

2800 homes on greenbelt by 2025 with no realistic supporting infrastructure condemns our future to misery. Roads are already congested and schools, hospitals and other public services and infrastructure will not cope. This is not sustainable development. The people of Rochford do not support the Core Strategy and in particular are against the provision of 15 Traveller and Gypsy pitches. The Core Strategy should have been withdrawn and local people consulted on their wishes, rather than follow the plan of the unelected, undemocratic East of England Regional Assembly.

P87 Point 3 - unclear and needs defining
P90 9.13 - No government policy to back this up - future school building programmes cancelled. Core Strategy stated improvements and expansion will take place, additional school places would be required to support the proposed new housing envisaged.
P110 10.30 - the move to minimum parking standards would only increase on street parking and no reduce vehicle ownership
Appendix CSSMA2 - 3 Vision. The statements short, medium and long term were subject to interpertation and not sufficiently defined

On behalf of our clients, Stolkin and Clements (Southend) LLP, who own the Tithe Park site, and whom we represented at the recent Core Strategy Examination hearings, we would like to make the following comments on the Core Strategy Schedule of Minor Amendments.

The Core Strategy Schedule of Minor Amendments proposes to revert back to the East of England Plan housing target of 250 dwellings per annum. Stolkin and Clements (Southend) LLP welcome this, the RSS is currently still in place and PPS12 requires that Core Strategies must be in general conformity with the RSS in order to be legally compliant.

However, Stolkin and Clements (Southend) LLP continue to object to the proposed locations for housing. As currently drafted, Policies H1, H2 and H3 are neither justified nor consistent with national policy.

A sustainable urban extension to Southend in the location of the Tithe Park site could be a preferred choice compared with the provision of large housing extensions to existing villages and small towns elsewhere in Rochford District. Tithe Park site is available, deliverable, and suitable for residential development and, by virtue of its location, its development can have advantages in terms of sustainability, accessibility, landscape and environmental issues and, whilst it will involve the rolling back of the green belt boundary, new defensible boundaries can be provided.

Overall, our client's position remains unchanged and therefore we consider the Core Strategy with the Schedule of Minor Amendments to be unsound.

In order to ensure flexibility, this policy needs to make reference to Policy H3 in case locations allocated under Policy H2 do not come forward in the required timeframe or deliver the required number of dwellings

My attached 'response pages', questions are asked because the proposals made are not clearly understood or explained, for example pages 21, 49 and 50 relating to the accommodation for Gypsies & Travellers, which also has caused confusion relating to the calculations made for justifying the number of sites over the state periods and also the 'justification' which needs explanation.
Pages 18,87 and 91 refer to the Health facilities, but no explanation is given to the fact that the PCT are to be abolished but no indication of it's replacement - I would prefer that the Core Strategy Document embrace every eventuality particularly the important services affecting the Health Service.
Pages 38, 46,,63,69,72, 86,101, 111, 112 & 124 refer to services' separated into 'short', 'medium 'and long terms, but no time or the terms are not indicated to allow some basic judgement by the community..
Page 90 item 9.13 - Schools. No more works to schools will be carried out - my thoughts are that that this is unwise and gives the impression that not enough thought was given to this changed policy, it wiklll affect the local Authorities forward planning budgets, associated services and the affect on the building fabric through deterioration. Many more items are stated on the attached pages, hopefully these can be observed.
Page 23 item 1.29. Affordable Housing. 80% of local market rent may not be affordable by the basic wage earners. The better option may be to set a 'maximum' development cost by allowing the Developers to provide alternative swift and alternative materials to drive down the average unit cost. This is not described to give a 'comfort' zone to the Community that every avenue has been considered.

Note only: There is no mention of the impact that the impending 'Localism Bill' will have on all questions related to development and other crucial 'regulations'. Would it be preferable to delay the presentation to allow the debate to be arranged for public consultation.
Page 97. Item 9.45. The question I put to you is: if green belt not affected why allow erosion of the green belt for house development without discussing the use of available 'brown field' land.
Page 105 Item 10.13 and 'after 10.13' - the Time factor has not been given for design and implementation of the transport Strategy.
Page 117 Item 11.22. Airport master Plan (2005) indicates a runway length of 1610m. I believe that negotiations between the two local Authorities and other parties resulted in agreement to increase the length of the runway to accommodate wide and long bodied aircraft - this is not mentioned.
Page 132 Item H1. Homes Development - are the deleted items incorporated elsewhere, if important how will this affect future development plans being considered by the local Authorities in 'forward planning'
Pages 133 to 135 & 137 - items H2 to H4, H6 & 7. Council record Planning permission Granted etc. Are travellers sites etc.' considered or are they separated, not indicated. Site and interpretation of the 'Single data List' is of interest but is not given in this document. Do nut understand the term given - 'Lifetime Homes Standard and no references provided to peruse.
Page 140 item GB1. Allocation Development Plan etc.- there is no mention of using 'brownfield' land
Page 143 Item ENV3. The reasons or apologies not given for Planning Applications being allowed contrary to Environment Agency advice on Flood Risk/ water quality.
Page 150 item CLT4. Council use of 'Developers contributions' to provide Health care etc. Did the panel discuss or debate that the 'contributions' received would undoubtedly be reflected in the development costs thereby pushing up the eventual sale price or indeed 'rental' cost.
Page 153 item CLT9. Is the 'policy ' of not maintaining or enhancement of the Rayleigh leisure center afacilities acceptable - this is not explained. The provision of Leisure facilities- may- be monitored - this is the wrong word perhaps.

Pages 155, 158 to 160, 164 & 165. There are referencing errors between the Main & Amendment documents however, there could well be some more which I did not have enough time to check.

Page 155 & 157. Items T1 & T6. Enhancement of cycle ways and footpaths - The annual 'targets' not mentioned.
Page 156 item T3. Proportion of development- a priority list not given ie. Hospitals, firestations, police stations etc.
Page 159 Item ED1. Employment levels in the District used as and indication of 'success'. What measures apply if 'unsuccessful' - this is not explained.

Foreword
With regard to the Foreword, this sets out the position as it is at present, highlighting the recent circumstances which have led to the delay in the adoption of the Core Strategy. This is inappropriate for the opening paragraphs of a development plan document, which may only be temporary until a review takes place, but sends out the wrong message to a district that needs growth to meet increasing needs. The Foreword should be rephrased accordingly.

Policies H2 and H3
The Government's emerging National Planning Policy Framework document, which is a material consideration, states that at the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as 'a golden thread' running through both plan making and decision taking. Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible.
In particular, local planning authorities should:
* prepare Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs
should be met, and with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or
other economic changes
* approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay;
They go on to state planning should proactively drive and support the development that the country needs, and that every effort should be made to identify and meet the housing, business, and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. In our response to both the CS Submission and Proposed Changes, and indeed at the Examinations, we pointed out that the Council do not propose a rationale for choosing the sites included within Policies H2 or H3 or how each site will meet specific local needs across the district in the timeframe identified, and that the artificial phasing of sites could lead to delays in the delivery of new housing. The delay in adopting the current Core Strategy is testimony to the delays that can occur in reacting quickly to rapid shifts in need or demand. In addition, it was noted for instance that allocations in the first 10 years of the CSS are focused on eastern areas of the district, with no greenfield development at all in the west of the district. This would have an adverse effect on existing infrastructure, such as roads with Core Strategy Topic Paper 2 identifying that these sites appear to have issues with congestion on Ashingdon Road and on the B1013. Concentration in one
part of the district ie one housing sub-market would also affect delivery, with housebuilders competing in the same area and would also affect the spatial delivery of affordable housing would be detrimentally affected. We argued therefore that in our view, there should a balanced approach, spreading growth across the district during all phases of the CS. In particular, we noted that sites included within policy H2 are those that by implication more deliverable and have less impact on infrastructure provision and existing communities. It is known that the Rayleigh West Water Treatment Works (where land SW Hullbridge will drain to) has spare capacity, whereas the Rayleigh East WTW (where the sites identified in the first 10 years will drain to) does not. Given the need for a new school and highway infrastructure at West Rochford, together with the need to redevelop employment sites at London Road Rayleigh, it is difficult to see how these statement can be substantiated, given the evidence that set out above that land at Hullbridge is by comparison unconstrained, with minimal new infrastructure required. Indeed, the Council
have demonstrated there is evidence of convenience undertrading in Hullbridge, which suggests that one or more shops is under threat, particularly as the projections is for leakage to increase, according to studies undertaken on their behalf, and a delay in the delivery of new development could threaten the retention of existing retail services. In addition, according to Essex County projections, existing primary schools have substantial capacity, again which can only be remedied by an influx of pupils. A delay in development in Hullbridge will lead to further decline in pupil places, and a threat to the schools themselves.
As a consequence, we concluded that Hullbridge positively needs growth to maintain
facilities and services, and that any reduction or loss of these would be a major adverse impact on the sustainability of the area and Plan. In our view, the further 18 month delay engendered principally by the CS Proposed Changes, together with the Government's emphasis on growth and removing constraints to development, mean that both policies H2 and H3 should have been reviewed to address the immediate and growing housing shortfall. The inclusion of the Hullbridge site unlike many others, has the ability to deliver and meet these needs quickly, and should not be phased accordingly. As a consequence, the Council and ultimately the Inspector are respectfully requested accepting the Minor Amendments and moving towards a swift adoption of the Core Strategy, subject to the changes highlighted above.

We write with regard to the current consultation on the September 2011 "Minor
Amendments" to the Core Strategy to register our objection to two elements of the proposed amendments, namely:
(1) The additional text added as the "Forward" to the document, and specifically the
fourth paragraph of that additional text; and
(2) The additional text added to paragraph 10.13 and new paragraph 10.14 relating to the production of an additional SPD relating to Transportation matters.
We deal with our two objections in turn below.

Changes to the "Forward"
The new Foward has been added to explain the evolution of the Core Strategy, and in particular to explain why an early review of the Core Strategy is needed.
For the most part, it is a factual account of the events that led to a shortfall in the Plan period. However, the 4th paragraph also contains in the 2nd and 3rd sentences an attempt to provide a justification for the quantum of housing set out in the Draft Review of the East of England Plan, and by association, an attempt to justify why this revised housing provision was belatedly introduced to the Core Strategy.
The revised East of England housing figures were never subject to Examination, and were never adopted, and neither has there been any endorsement of that level of housing provision that we are aware of through the Rochford Core Strategy Examination process. The 2nd and 3rd sentences of the 4th paragraph are therefore highly misleading, since they give undue weight to the untested draft East of England Plan figures, and inappropriate in a context whereby the promised early review of the Core Strategy will need to comply with new national policy, and of course in so doing will need to be based upon an objective assessment of housing need (including migration), and in that context, the old draft EoEP housing figures will have little relevance. We therefore consider that the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the 4th paragraph are unsound because they are not Justified, and should be deleted in their entirety, or if retained, should be qualified to explain that the draft EoEP figures were not adopted, and that in any event the Core Strategy review will need to be based upon a fresh and thorough analysis of housing need, rather than on the old draft EoEP figures.
(2) New Transportation SPD
As previously drafted, paragraph 10.13 refers to the production of a joint Transport Strategy between the Council and Essex County Council, to which there is of course no objection. The amendment to paragraph 10.13 states that this Transport Strategy is now to have the status as an SPD. Moreover, new paragraph 10.14 states that this SPD will have as one of its functions the purpose of examining the transport infrastructure requirements of the new strategic housing developments.
Our concerns in respect of these changes are twofold. Firstly, emerging national policy in the form of the draft NPPF makes clear that SPD in the future only be produced "where their production can help to bring forward sustainable development at an accelerated rate" (para 21). The proposed additional SPD in this case will
add an extra tier of policy that will serve to delay much-needed new development (there is still a significant shortfall in the Council's five year housing requirement).
Moreover, the site specific and indeed strategic infrastructure requirements for the main strategic development sites can be sorted out as part and parcel of the normal planning application process, since it is only through that medium that the detailed effects of the development on the local highway network will be fully assessed, and the appropriate mitigation brought forward. The Transport Strategy may provide some guidance on the expected improvements, but it cannot provide the sort of in-depth site specific analysis for all sites to make any meaningful assessment, and therefore in any event the role assigned to the document under the second part of paragraph 10.14 will not be possible.
On that basis, the proposed paragraph 10.14 and the amendment to 10.13 to refer to SPD are not sound because they conflict with national policy in the draft NPPF, and, in so far as the changes relate to using the SPD to set the transport framework for strategic housing sites, not Justified, since the most appropriate alternative is to use the planning application process to determine site specific transportation requirements. We consider that the reference to SPD in paragraph 10.13 should be deleted, and new paragraph 10.14 deleted, but at the very least the last sentence in paragraph 10.14 should be deleted.

We write in response to the recent invitation by yourself to provide further representations to the soundness and legal compliance of the proposed minor amendments. We do acknowledge that you have requested that further representations on the minor amendments relate solely to the soundness and legal compliance of the proposed minor amendments, and we endeavor to keep our comments as focused as possible, however, in this context, you will recall that to date, we have submitted numerous representations on behalf of our client, Fairview New Homes Ltd, and notwithstanding the 'further representations' below, we would request that you continue to consider all previous submissions.

Given our clients' interest in land to the the 'South West of Rayleigh' as being a suitable location for future housing development, comment relate primarily to the implications of the minor amendments in this context.

Firstly, we would support the fact that although the Core Strategy does not cover the plan period requirement of 15 years, given the delay in its adoption, that Rochford District Council has committed itself to an early review to ensure that it covers the required period. We would however suggest that this is more definitive, in so far as the review should cover specific matters, such as housing delivery. However, our main concerns are that the proposed locations for extension to residential envelopes, will not in our opinion deliver the short term housing need, or indeed, the full plan period requirement.

With respect to the Councils decision to pursue the 'strategic' location of 'North of London Road, Rayleigh' this does not in our view allow the delivery of much needed housing that would conform to the requirements and tests of PPS3.

It is concerning that Rayleigh, a Tier 1 settlement, has no strategic delivery in the first 5 years of the plan period. Although there is now an inherent disparity between the first 5 years of the 'plan period' and subsequent 'periods' (given that the adoption of the Core Strategy - if found sound - will be 2 years into the 'plan period', earlier comments made on behalf of our client concluded that the objectives of PPS3 para 54, of ensuring that land to be delivered in the first 5 years of the plan (and indeed, in years 6-10) should be deliverable, have not been met.

We note that to be considered 'deliverable', sites (or general locations) should at the point of adoption of the plan be available, suitable and achievable. We continue to question the evidence base that leads the Council to this conclusion.

On this point, the Council is totally reliant on the 'Land North of London Road' to deliver 550 units, where it is acknowledged that this site is subject to flooding, requires relocation or grounding of high voltage overhead power lines, is located further away from Rayleigh than other alternatives, and will require significant infrastructure to be delivered, before housing can be delivered.

When this is considered in light of PPS3 paras' 52 and 60, Councils are required to take a flexible approach that will ensure a continuous 5 years supply is maintained. Our Client has now long argued that this flexibility is not present in the Core Strategy, even considering the proposed minor amendments.

We specifically note that the Council have favoured a location for developments in a Tier 1 Settlement, which is less sustainable than other alternatives considered, is frustrated by environmental considerations, and will be reliant on significant infrastructure to ensure delivery - to which we are sure the Inspector is aware of the infrastructure issues associated with West Rayleigh. Taking this in light of the recently published Draft NPPF, the proposals, in our view, are not consistent with this [Government] Guidance (which carries weight);
1. A general presumption in favour of 'sustainable development'
2. An additional 20% supply of housing should be identified to cover the first5 years of the plan, which means land suitable to deliver an additional 250 homes should be identified in the first 5 years, which will now run to 2017 (not 2015)

We also note that the sub text to para 109 of the Draft NPPF considered that for a site to be deliverable it must also take into account that 'it will provide acceptable returns to a willing land owner and a willing developer.... taking account od all likely infrastructure, standards and other costs'. This further causes us to be concerned as to the ability for the site to be delivered in a timely fashion, and therefore contribute tot he required level of housing.

We note that the fundamental principles of PPS3 and those contained in the Draft NPPF are those of 'deliverability' and certianty', based on evidential analysis. There is no acknowledgement that more modest green belt releases, on sites that are more sustainable, can contribute to the overall housing supply. We are concerned that the minor amendments proposed by the Council do not consider this, especially where alternatives can support the requirements of the Draft NPPF, and where such sites are less constrained.

Rochford District Countil has accepted that they will need to release green belt to accommodate the required growth, but this appears to have been tackled through an approach that does not accord with fundamental principles of sustainability, and guidance such as PPS3 and the recently released Draft NPPF.

To further reinforce this concern, we note that PPG2 sets out the underlying principles as to the function and role of the green belt, and when considering alternate locations for development (through the Core Strategy), the Council have overlooked smaller more moderate releases that clearly do not perform any green belt function (i.e. anomalies), in favour of more significant releases [that are contrary to the roles of the green belt]. It is our view that a sustainable and flexible approach to ensuring that the Core Strategy can deliver the required housing, is to adopt a combination of both approaches.

Moving on to the second point; the Draft NPPF at para 109 introduces the need to identify a further 20% of the 5 year housing supply (an additional years' worth) which will ensure competition and choice in the market. The Council has only identified a single location in a Tier 1 settlement, and thus, this represents a significant failure to comply (and be in general conformance with the NPPF), that will need to be rectified in an immediate review of the housing provision.

A further consideration in the approach to a sound and deliverable plan [the Core Strategy] is the 'resilience' or realism' (the essence of para 109 of the Draft NPPF) of the plan to respond to changing circumstances, especially so in the current economic climate. Rochford have through their assessment of alternative locations around their Tier 1 Settlement (Rayleigh) discounted more suitable and more sustainable options, in favour of a heavily constrained site, that whilst it may have the ability to provide for perhaps a greater mix of uses, is undoubtedly considered to be questionable as to the point of deliverability, and thus, does not meet the requriement of PPS3 para 54, as being achievable at the point of adoption of the Core Strategy.

Current and emerging guidance is heavily focussed on growth, and to encourage growth, Plan Makers and Decision Makers are encouraged to apply the 'golden thread' principle of the presumption in favour of a sustainable development. To encourage growth, all alternatives must be considered through an evidence based approach. This has not been the case undertaken by Rochford, as has been demonstrated by our clients' previous responses to the consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum in July of this year.

Furthermore, we are concerned that there is no recognition of immediate housing need / shortfalls. We note that the 'Housing Trajectory by Source (2001-2021)' on page 62 of the Core Strategy (published version including amendments) shows that the overall assumed delivery for 09/10 would be 106 units, and that for 10/11 this would be 229 units. Having cross referenced this with the published 09/10 AMR, this confirms that actual delivery in 09/10 was 86 units (20 lower than assumed at the publication of the Core Strategy), and that the revised target for the following year, 10/11, would be reduced to 57 units (172 units less than assumed).

Clearly this significant shortfall has to be made up, sooner rather than later, and it does not appear that the Core Strategy achieves this objective. This approach is reinforced in para 5.4 of the East of England Plan, which urges Planning Authorities to reach the annual requirement as quickly as possible, so as to allow any shortfall to be made up thereafter.

Para 110 of the Draft NPPF states that local plans should be prepared '... on the basis that objectively assessed development needs should be met, unless the adverse impacts would ... demonstrably outweigh the benefits...' (underlining added for my emphasis). Our previous submissions on behalf of my client have shown that the Council have failed to objectively and evidently discount the reasonable alternatives, and have progressed their preferred options without reference to para 4.36 of PPS12 which states that Core strategies must be jusitfiable, and, they must be the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

We note that guidance in PPS12, at para 4.52, states that a Core Strategy that is 'sound' will be JUSTIFIED (based on a robust and credible evidence base, and, will be the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives), EFFECTIVE (being deliverable, flexible and able to be be monitored) and, must be CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY. We therefore feel that the Core Strategy cannot be found sound.

At this concluding stage of the consultation on the Core Strategy, in wanting to assist in moving forward, whilst my client has considerable concerns over the ability for the Council to be able to demonstrate the required level of housing supply, in locations that are considered to be sustainable and appropriate, through detailed assessment under current guidance, it may be more positive for the Council to accept that in addition to the strategic locations identified (and without prejudice to my clients' concerns raised with regards to these) that in combination with more modest releases (to be determined through the Site Specific Allocations DPD - such as the land South West of Rayleigh) of the 'inner green belt boundary' that will serve to provide flexibility (conforming with PPS12), deliverability (conforming to PPS3) and most of all, embracing the emerging National Planning Policy Framework objectives.

On the basis, whilst we believe the current Core Strategy remains unsound for the matters raised in the earlier consultations and above, we feel that an amendment along the lines of the preceding paragraph, could be considered to go some way towards improving the Core Strategy so that is may be found Sound.

We write to the publication of the Schedule of Amendments to the Core Strategy to set out representations on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP (CLLLP).

These representations have been prepared in direct response to the Schedule of Amendments to the Core Strategy. However, they draw from representations submitted on behalf of CLLLP to previous consultations on the Core Strategy, which have ultimately let to the preparation of the Schedule of Amendments. These consultations have been numerous, but the central message contained within these representations is that the Core Strategy remains unsound.

The current Schedule of Amendments to the Core Strategy does not change the view of CLLLP that the Core Strategy is unsound. Furthermore, they support the contentions made within the representations of CLLLP to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Addendum June 2011 that the exercise was merely an ex post facto decision to justify a predetermined strategy. The retrospective application by Rochford District Council of the Sustainability Appraisal came too late in the DPD process to enable it to have made comparative value judgements between alternative growth areas.

Indeed, within the tabulated schedule of amendments, the justification for the change made to paragraph 1.29 of the Core Strategy states that the SA Addendum June 2011 was produced '... in light of the development in case law on Strategic Environmental Assessments.' The representations of CLLLP to the SA Addendum June 2011 specifically noted concern that the document referred in paragraph 1.3 to '... new case law arising from this ruling', which in itself confirmed that the consultant engaged to undertake the SA Addendum and previous versions of the SA neither understood nor applied the requirements of the SEA Directive. It must be implied from the justification included for the change to paragraph 1.29 that the Council has suffered a similar failure regarding the requirements of the SEA Directive.

It is also relevant to note at this stage that the submitted version of the SA Addendum July 2011 (as submitted to the Inspector on 26 July 2011 following a short consultation between 13 June and 11 July) contained only very minor changes to the text as a result of the consultation. Of particular interest is the change to paragraph 2.6 of the submitted SA Addendum, which confirms that:

'... whilst the SA findings are considered by the Council in its selection of options and form part of the evidence supporting the LDF, the SA findings are not the sole basis for a decision; planning and feasibility factors play a key role in the decision-making process.'

This clarifies that it is not just the findings of the SA process that fed into the decisions taken by the Council regarding the broad locations for growth. However there remains a disconnect in the decision making process as the Council has been unable to produce evidence of processes that resulted in the rejection of East Rochford as a broad location for housing growth. The evidence of the decision making processes that led to the selection of the broad locations for housing growth has not been made publicly available, so despite clarifying that the SA was only part of the process, and in itself a flawed part in the process (for reasons set out in the representations of CLLLP to the SA Addendum dated 8 July 2011), it is unable to confirm that the broad locations for housing growth and all reasonable alternatives were objectively assessed against a number of key indicators, including their effect on highways, landscape and the Green Belt.

Another minor change to the SA Addendum confirms the curious differences contained within the assessment of the housing development options for Rochford/Ashingdon. The addition of the text '... therefore it won't project out into open landscape' with reference to Location 5, SA Objective 8 is not accompanied by comparable changes to the assessment of SA Objective 8 for Locations 1 and 3. Were the assessment of Location 1 and 3 to have been undertaken in a truly objective and robust manner, Location 1 would have been marked down for constituting a very significant incursion into the open countryside and Location 3 would have been marked up to reflect its connection with the urban form and the level of surrounding development.

These matters provide further evidence to justify the contention of CLLLP that the exercise as a whole was an ex post facto decision to justify a predetermined strategy.

Appendix CSSMA 1 confirms that the plan period will not cover a 15 year period in accordance with the requirements of existing and emerging national policy requirements. Whilst this matter has been referred to in correspondence between the Inspector and the Council, it remains the case that PPS12 requires the plan to cover a period of at least 15 years, more if necessary.

In the context of the accepted need for Green Belt release to accommodate housing growth in Rochford, the proposed adoption of a plan that covers a period of less than 15 years is considered to be unsound and contrary to national planning policy. The guidance on the identification of Green Belt boundaries contained within PPG2 and the emerging National Planning Policy Framework confirms the importance that the plan considers the intended performance of Green Belt boundaries in the long term. They should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period and Local Planning Authorities should satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period.

The Core Strategy fails each of these aims by proposing a short term plan that fails to establish Green Belt boundaries that are capable of enduring in the long term.

All of the above must also be placed in the context of the quote from the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Transportation regarding the need for further Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy on the Core Strategy Examination page of the Council's website, which states:

'You will know that the process surrounding the development and adoption of our Core Strategy has been significantly delayed due to factors beyond this Council's control, such as 'Cala vs. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government', the High Court Judgement which ruled against the Secretary of State's instruction to disregard the Regional Spatial Strategy.

There has been a more recent court ruling relating to 'The Forest Heath Core Strategy' and their Sustainability Appraisal. We intend to ensure that we conform to the findings and ruling of this court judgement, and as such there will need to be a review of our own sustainability appraisal; unfortunately this will inevitably lead to a further short delay.

Whilst this is frustrating, it will have the advantage of ensuring that our core strategy coincides with the Royal assent of the Coalition Government's Localism Bill thus revoking the Regional Spatial Strategy once and for all.

It it high time that this lengthy saga was brought to a satisfactory conclusion; this will remove doubt, cease speculation and provide a surety of knowledge as to precisely how our District will develop up to and including 2031' [our emphasis].

This statement confirms that the Council has an ulterior motive in producing this additional work. It implies that the Council has no intention of progressing the Core Strategy in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. Rather it implies that the Council will, at the earliest opportunity, seek to scale back housing provision targets significantly.

The recent actions of the Council have confirmed that the Core Strategy has been prepared against a body of evidence that was not subject to robust or compliant SA. This has fundamentally affected the ability of the Council to make property informed and thereby valid strategic judgements regarding important aspects of housing growth and provision - matters that go to the heart of the Core Strategy DPD.

Finally, we confirm that we reserve the right to show correspondence relating to the matters raised by this letter to the Court at a subsequent date.

Although we agree with the general locations and phasing of residential properties over the plan period covered by this policy; we note that since the last version of the document (Core Strategy Submission - Schedule of Changes) the contribution that the South East Ashingdon location will make to the housing supply in the second time period covered by this policy has been removed.

In light of the current economic conditions and the need to maintain an adequate supply of housing land, the policy should adopt a flexible approach with regards the timing and release of land for residential development in order to ensure a 5-year housing supply.

In addition, within the draft National Planning Policy Framework ('NPPF') there is a further requirement that the supply of housing land should make an allowance of at least 20% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

The inclusion of 200 dwellings from South East Ashingdon in the period 2015-2021 would equate to the additional 20% of housing land advocated in the draft NPPF.

Support the need to maintain flexibility in the delivery of residential development in order to maintain a 15 year supply of housing land, however, it may be necessary for locations identified in this plan for the period post 2021 to be brought forward in order to maintain a five year supply of deliverable housing land in accordance with the required housing trajectory.