The Role of the Development Management Development Plan Document

No Observations

I write on behalf of my client, The Garden Centre Group, owners of Raleigh Garden Centre, Eastwood Road, Rayleigh.

This site has been put forward as a potential housing site as part of the Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment since it would be appropriate as a minor extension to the residential envelope within a sustainable location, allowing the Council to meet its housing needs (the majority of which lie in Rayleigh) without detriment to the character and amenities of the area.

It is also considered that the site's sustainable location, well served by public transport links and close to a major centre of population renders it appropriate to provide a small scale employment site to meet local employment needs and as such it has also been advanced through the Site Allocations DPD process (Your reference 21551).

However, prior to the Council's formal publication of the Land Allocations DPD, my client recognises that the site is located within the Green Belt where general policies of restraint apply. My client is generally supportive of the terms of the policies contained in the Green Belt chapter of the Development Management DPD and in particular the fact that the Council's Vision includes support for existing businesses within the Green Belt which are recognised as being important to the local economy.

It is considered that this approach is consistent with recent Ministerial advice which indicates the need for the planning system to contribute towards a swift return to economic growth and that local authorities should use the opportunity of producing up to date development plans to be 'proactive in driving and supporting the growth that this country needs'.

However, it is noted that criteria (iii) of draft Policy DM10 states that 'where an extension is proposed it will not result in a disproportionate increase in floorspace over and above that of the original building'. The explanatory text to this policy indicates that the 'original building' will be taken as at 1948 where plans exist, or on the basis of the current building, in the absence of any evidence of extensions.

It is considered that such a requirement that any extension should not be disproportionate to the original, has the potential to discriminate against long established businesses who have sought to respond to the changing needs of the market over many years. It fails to take into account that within certain sectors, unless a business is allowed to provide modern facilities in line with those of competitors, it risks losing market share and becoming unviable.

Government advice makes clear that Local Planning Authorities should take into account the range of economic, environmental and social benefits associated with a development and that these can include indirect benefits such as those resulting from consumer choice and the robustness of the local economy as a function of business productivity (Ministerial Statement 'Planning for Growth' 23/03/2011).

Accordingly, it is considered that criteria iii of draft Policy DM10 should be omitted and instead each application should be judged on its own merits having regard to all the other provisions of this policy and the development's impact upon the openness of the Green Belt, not just as a factor of the floor area proposed.

Whilst the Development Management DPD Preferred Policies provides for expansion opportunities for existing businesses within the Green Belt, I am concerned to note at Paragraph 3.17, the Council's view that retail development (other than farm shops as per Core Strategy Policy GB2) is not considered an acceptable form of rural diversification in the Green Belt or in rural areas beyond the Green Belt.

This approach fails to take account of the specialist role that certain retail uses such as nurseries and garden centres have and their potential contribution towards the health of the rural economy. Such retail uses are very distinct in character, being best suited to a countryside location and tending to sell low value, bulky products that are not economically viable to retail within the High Street. Typically, they also require a high proportion of open land for the display of plant material which can be provided without detriment to the open character of their location.

It is recognised that the Council's adopted Core Strategy Policies adopt a sequential test towards new retail development, aiming to concentrate it within existing town centres in order to enhance their vitality and viability in accordance with the aims of PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.

This 'town centre first' approach is echoed in the draft National Planning Policy Framework published in July 2011, however this also states (inter alia) at paragraph 6 that Local Planning Authorities should "set policies for the consideration of retail or leisure proposals which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres".

Garden Centres and nurseries comprise a form of retailing which is generally incompatible with a town centre location given their space requirements and low yield to floorspace ratio. Accordingly the Council should include a specific policy relating to the creation of new, and expansion of existing garden centres and nurseries within rural locations, in order to accord with recent Government advice.

Paragraph 81 of the draft NPPF indicates that 'planning policies should support sustainable economic growth in rural areas by taking a positive approach to new development'. However, it is recognised that in order to accord with this advice in its totality, together with adopted policy advice in PPS4 and PPG2, only new retail development which did not have an adverse impact upon the viability or vitality of local retail centres, or the open character of the surrounding land, could be acceptable.

PPS4 sets out a number of management policies which are required to be applied in the determination of applications for retail development in order that the Local Planning Authority has sufficient evidence to conclude whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon local Town Centres. It is considered that these tests, together with the advice contained within PPG2 and PPS7 are sufficient to determine the acceptability of any new garden centre or nursery related development.

Accordingly, it is requested that a specific Development Management policy be included, recognising the specialist retail role played by nurseries and garden centres, their need for a countryside location and their potential contribution to the rural economy.

The wording of this policy should provide a positive and constructive approach to the creation of new or extension of existing garden centres or nurseries within rural areas where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of nearby towns or district shopping centres and where the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the character or amenities of the rural area.

The suggested wording for such a policy is set out below:

Policy DM - Nurseries and Garden Centres located with the Green Belt or the Countryside beyond the Green Belt.
New or expanded nurseries or garden centres will be permitted provided:
o They would not undermine the viability or vitality of nearby town or district shopping centres or other local shopping facilities;
o The development has been designed to minimise its impact on the character, appearance and openness of the Green Belt or the rural land beyond the Green Belt in which it is situated.

I would be grateful if these comments could be taken into consideration in the finalising of the Council's Development Management DPD and look forward to being kept informed of all emerging policy documents.

A. General

The Development Management DPD elaborates the Core Strategy policies with both documents needing to be read in conjunction with each other. It would be useful if a cross referenced list or a diagram could be included to provide a more efficient easy reference of all the policy information which will inform decisions. This would help users not familiar with accessing the documents on a regular basis, especially those planning small scale developments.

B. School Development

1. Core Strategy Policy CLT2 ("Primary Education, Early Years and Childcare Facilities") and Policy CT3 ("Secondary Education") address the need for new educational infrastructure associated with new residential development. However, there could well be situations where existing schools need to expand to respond to local circumstances or changing forecasts. Planning applications would then need to be considered against the development management policies within the LDF and in this respect the Development Management DPD consultation document does not assist development at existing educational facilities.

A specific Development Management Policy should be introduced that provides policy support to the expansion of existing schools to meet educational needs. There is occasionally a need to use existing playing fields when expanding existing schools and in this respect the policy should explicitly acknowledge this possibility. The addition of a specific policy would accord with the Government's positive support for education development within the August Policy Statement "Planning for Schools".

The consultation DPD was not accompanied by a detailed Proposals Map to identify the application of its policies. Nevertheless, school sites should be identified as such on the Proposals Map so that appropriate educational development is not restricted, for instance, by a Green Belt designation within which school expansion would be deemed "inappropriate development" in policy terms.

2. Page 8: The School Organisation Plan has been renamed 'Commissioning School Places in Essex' and the current edition is 2011-16.

3. Page 66: the provision of safe direct walking and cycling routes to schools should be included in the vision.

C. BREEAM Assessments

Whilst support is provided to sustainable construction it is noted that the Plan identifies (page 56) a medium term vision that non-residential developments should meet the BREEAM rating of 'Very Good' as a minimum. Essex County Council, with considerable experience in BREEAM assessments, is of the view that more efficient results can be achieved without recourse to BREEAM. The County Council would welcome the opportunity to discuss an appropriate policy approach to sustainable construction with the District Council in place of adherence to BREEAM accreditation.

D. Historic Environment

The recognition of the whole of the historic environment within the Preferred Policy Options Document and most of the relevant draft policies is welcomed. The benefits gained from consulting the Rochford Historic Environment Characterisation project when considering the management and enhancement of the districts environmental quality is well recognised by Section 2, sub section 2.9

The wording for historic environment issues used in the relevant draft polices are supported in respect of,

Draft Policy DM1 (vii)
Draft Policy DM10 (i)
Draft Policy DM11 (i)
Draft Policy DM13 (v)
Draft Policy DM14 (vi)
Draft Policy DM15 (iv)
Draft Policy DM21 (v)
Draft Policy DM23
Draft Policy DM25
Draft Policy DM28

There are three draft polices which would benefit from amendment to address historic environment issues,

a) Draft Policy DM3: Infilling and Intensification, Proposals for infilling, residential intensification or 'backland' development - given that this type of development may occur within historic centres within towns or villages, the policy should include an additional bullet to read,
Any development would not be detrimental to landscape character or the historic environment

b) Draft Policy DM6: Telecommunications - the first sentence of Bullet ii) should be extended by addition of the words 'or historic environment' to clarify and confirm the policy status of the description of 'an undesirable location' set out in parentheses earlier in the sentence.

c) Draft Policy DM12 Conversion of Existing Agricultural and Rural Buildings in the Green Belt - Bullet vi) should also include reference to local listed farm buildings, to read,
vi) where the conversion of listed and local listed agricultural and rural buildings is proposed it should,
(a) not negatively impact on the quality of the listed structure; and
(b) not affect the integrity of the existing structure. A structural engineers report should accompany any application for conversion of a Listed Building

Addition of this reference would make Policy DM12 consistent with Policy DM7 Local List which states 'alterations to buildings included on the Local List must complement the individual character of the building or group of buildings and retain important features or characteristics which make the building(s) worthy of local listing'.


Library Service

The ECC Library Service currently operates from several sites within Rochford District - in Rayleigh, Rochford, Hullbridge and Great Wakering. Service provision of Libraries is based on current population. Any major housing development would be of significant interest in terms of new/additional library provision/services as per ECC's Developer Contribution criteria

The Parish Council support the document and especially the change in policy regarding the green belt and houseboats and hope that the document will not be affected by the Localism Bill.

Dear Mr Scratton

Development Management DPD Preferred Policy Options Document Consultation

In my capacity as Chair of Southend District for Campaign for Protection of Rural Essex of which I am also a Trustee, I would take this opportunity to comment on the above document together with its Sustainability Appraisal :-

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
DM1 Design of New Developments
All proposed amendments are fully supported.
DM 2 Density of New developments
We have concerns that the flexible approach which is the preferred option on a site by site basis could result in increase in number of appeals, overdevelopment and/or setting of unacceptable precedent. In our view there should be either an upper limit or some more definitive guidance given on acceptable maximum levels of density.


DM 5 Light Pollution
This policy is welcomed and the proposed 1 no amendment is supported.

DM 9 Development on Edge of Conservation Areas
We have concerns that the term a 'balanced approach' lacks any proper definition. Risk here of adjacent developments creeping up too close to conservation areas and that the quality of those areas could be adversely affected.
DM 10 Existing Businesses in the Green Belt
We have concerns that the omission of a cap of 25% with decisions to be made on a case by case basis could be open to argument and a resultant increase in planning appeals. We would prefer to see some definitive guidance given. The other 2 no proposed amendments are supported.
DM 12 Conversion of Existing Agricultural Buildings in the Green Belt
We have concerns that decisions made solely on a case by case basis could lead to an increase in planning appeals. All 4 no proposed amendments are supported and in particular amendment no 1.
DM 16 Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt
The principle of a cap of 25% on increase in floor space is supported but always on condition that all 3 no proposed amendments are incorporated. Presumably the statistic relates to internal floor space?
DM 19 Basements in the Green Belt
The principle of a cap of 25% on increase in floor space is supported but always on condition that all 3 no proposed amendments are incorporated and in particular amendment no 3. Presumably the statistic should relate to internal floor space?
DM 20 The Replacement or Rebuild of Existing Dwellings in the Green Belt
It has been noted that policy on new build development is covered within Core Strategy where an indicative figure of 1% of the District Green Belt is cited which we would support.
Preferred option is supported as also is the proposed single amendment.
DM 21 Extension of Domestic Gardens in The Green Belt
Preferred option is supported as also is the proposed single amendment.

DM 24 Other Important Landscape Features
Preferred option is supported as also is the proposed single amendment.
DM 26 Traffic Management
Preferred option is supported as also is the proposed single amendment.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PREFERRED POLICY OPTIONS DOCUMENT
Vision & Objectives
The vision and objectives are supported and in particular to 'prioritise re-development of brownfield sites for housing to minimise the release of Green Belt' and also to 'ensure the minimum amount of Green Belt is allocated to meet the districts housing and employment needs'
Generally
We do recognise that a minimum amount of green belt will need to be reallocated for appropriate alternative uses to meet the district's housing and employment needs.
However we would question whether the maximum target of 1% of District total as stated within the Core Strategy should be repeated here for the avoidance of any doubt in interpretation of the statement.
Our comments listed above under the DM sections of the Sustainability Appraisal will apply equally to the corresponding Draft Policy Statements provided within the DMD.

Yours sincerely,
RICHARD THOMSON (FRICS)
Chair of CPRE (Southend Branch)
CPRE (Essex County Branch)

1. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

1.19 Proposal for this makes no difference. Consultation, then LPA will do as they planned anyway.

1.23 In spite of sustainable community strategy - promoting a green district - hundreds of dwellings are proposed for the green belt, plus densification of settlements.

2. HOUSING, CHARACTER OF PLACE AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

Vision - short, medium, long term
If a number of residential developments are completed to meet local needs, why a whole lot more? We have not heard the outcome of the Local List consultation. Much of the historical built environment has been destroyed in eg Hockley

Objectives
No.6 "..appropriate infrastructure to accompany new development" - this can only be achieved by more destruction.
Nos.4,7,8 It is proposed to prioritise brownfield development to minimise green belt use, new development to respect built environment. Unfortunately RDC has already allowed/encouraged huge buildings out of scale with existing, intentionally to make a precedent to delete local traditional buildings. These outsize characters will now be the 'respected' built environment. "Built heritage" is already being eroded, many character dwellings have been cleared away in Hockley. Some say these had huge gardens as excuse to demolish, redevelop, but some had hardly any.

HOUSING, DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS

2.2,2.4,2.6 "protection of settlement characteristics" may apply in Rochford, Rayleigh, Paglesham etc, but such items are still being destroyed elsewhere. Ashingdon, Hockley, Hawkwell will become a conurbation.
Draft Policy DM1 - Design of New Developments "should respect character of locality" - I'm afraid this is shutting stable door after horse has gone and it still goes on. Each decade is marked by plans to redevelop the same patch over again.

DENSITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS
2.15 "..ensuring effective use of existing housing stock" usually means demolition, including of traditionally rural scaled dwellings, replaced by mansions.
Figure 2 - average density from random samples Why is Hockley marked as having the highest density? Is this LPA's plan for the future of Hockley?

INFILLING AND RESIDENTIAL INTENSIFICATION

2.19 "Infilling defined as filling the 'small gaps' between existing groups of dwellings with new development" - in other words, demolition, town cramming, densification. What 'small gaps'? In 2010 we learned homes/gardens will no longer be designated brownfield and automatically planned for redevelopment. But it seems PPS3 has overridden this - so demolish one home and build more in its place, provided there is a tiddly bit of garden. "..where it conforms to existing street pattern.." - first allow mansions, then make the rest conform to that?

2.20 This is a contradiction - you admit "infilling/intensification can have negative impact" and town cramming, so a "restrictive approach" is needed, but demolishing one and replacing with more amounts to the same thing.

2.21 "Backland development where development proposed to rear of existing dwellings in large back gardens ..inappropriate due to tandem relations..intensification..detriment to neighbouring dwellings". One takes the point, but this is why people resort to this kind of thing, precisely to prevent builders/planners demolishing them, that results in home loss, more town cramming, etc. People are on a hiding to nothing if they don't protect themselves with something. It seems heads you lose, tails you lose.

2.22 Demolishing one, to replace with more, as alternative to 'backlands' results in more demolition, town cramming - you don't seem to get away from demolition. Replacement of bungalow with flats is discouraged, but LPA were happy to replace a period house with 11 flats.




LIGHT POLLUTION

2.33 "Inappropriate lighting can create..pollution. affect local character, cause stress, anxiety for those adversely affected". A pity you didn't consider these rules in time. An RDC letter of January 2004 said private 10' lamp posts were ok in planning, but RDC not responsible for "the light emitting from the top of them"!

2.35 ".full horizontal cut off (prevention of light spillage into adjoining areas)" [specifically should mean prevention of light spillage in bedrooms from adjacent development ].

2.36- 2.40 I disagree with your arrangements for EZ1, 2, 3 - viz. "EZ3 - within development boundaries". According to Institute of Lighting Engineers rules, EZ1 is dark - National parks, etc, EZ2 is low district brightness - industrial, residential rural areas, EZ3 is medium district brightness, small town industrial, residential suburbia. This is not the same as your idea of EZ1 full darkness, EZ2 green belt, EZ3 residential.
"Lighting proposals permitted if proposer can demonstrate..scheme is minimum needed for security and/or working purposes". So it is usual to be working at 3am at a residential property for example? As for security, there are such things as electronic gates, burglar alarms, CCTV can be lit by infrared spot lights. If idiots must have lights on all night, they could have, say, 3-4ft high lamps, with total cut off above that height, so all light is directed downwards for access, rather than lighting up the whole walls, roof etc - and everyone else nearby as well. Incidentally it has been proved that if you light up a property to that extent, neighbouring properties are much darker at ground level than they would be, so making them vulnerable to burglary.

2.40 RDC considers ILE Curfew (reducing light at late night, circa 11pm) "unreasonable"
as RDC will decide how much trespass is allowed for working/security at 3 am!

Table 3 (amended from ILE Guidance) I hope you have to put up with EV 10 LUX in your bedroom windows all night. The whole idea of light pollution rules is to prevent that.

I note careful protection of Listed buildings, conservation areas etc. Could we all be so protected?

2.42 Apparently a detailed scheme is not always considered necessary - why not?

Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2006 is ignored. Incidentally lighting in adopted, public roads, as opposed to private development schemes, is excluded from the ACT. However, complaints from residents around UK about street lights (as in the public street) have resulted in public lights being amended, but RDC doesn't apply this to private developments apparently.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Nature and Conservatrion
Trees and Woodlands

4.11-4.13
Draft Policy DM24
Development resulting in loss of trees etc, this should be mitigated. Unfortunately we all know that that means - TPO trees, hedgerows replaced by 'sticks'.

Subject: Development Management DPD 2012 Consultation - Concerns and Significant Issues in the Rural Community.
The issues below are considered to be pertinent and of concern to the farmers/landowners in the Rochford District and important for rural businesses to be able to move forward.
* Development within the Green Belt
The vast majority of rural property and farm buildings owned by local farmers/landowners, sits within the Green Belt. This gives rise to a planning process that is very one-sided and at times, illogical. It should be noted that very often, these buildings are in fact the workplaces of those trying to make a living within the local rural community.
The NFU asks that the application process relating to applications within the Green Belt be reviewed and amended.
Applications should not be delegated automatically to the Planning Officers who under the current 'black and white' policy will almost certainly recommend refusal. Instead, Green Belt applications should be put before the Council Members to consider and to give them the option of bringing any applications before the Committee for review and, if deemed appropriate, for further discussion in the Chamber.
* Re-use of Redundant Buildings
The change of use of traditional buildings to residential is often the only positive re-use that can be given to these types of buildings. The policy that exists at the moment is unrealistic as it states that residential is not preferred. This doesn't reflect national policy.
The requirement to run through a marketing exercise to prove that there is no commercial demand for a building is unnecessary and costly to rural businesses. Other authorities in the county are accepting commercial lack of viability on the basis of agent's reports without the need to carry out a staged marketing report.
Most landowners consider the re-use of traditional buildings to provide residential takes pressure off the number of new houses to be provided on green field sites. The re-use to residential often gives the buildings a new lease of life and maintains the traditional character in the landscape.
* Change of use to Industrial
The ongoing problem of change of use to industrial is the location of buildings and whether or not they are sustainable. Most rural buildings in the District are not serviced by bus routes and therefore this should not be the sole criteria to determine whether a use is appropriate or not.
There is strong demand for industrial units in rural areas because many of the population live in the rural area and like to work close to home. This is particularly pertinent in relation to small one-man-band businesses which are starting up and are looking for low cost units to keep their business overheads down.
The wider definition of appropriate uses in the Green Belt, as defined under the draft National Planning Policy Guidance, should be incorporated into the Core Strategy at the earliest opportunity, once this policy becomes adopted.
It is encouraging to note the introduction of limited infill within Green Belt villages and also the ability for the replacement of existing buildings, subject to there being no material increase in the size of the buildings. This will enable rural businesses in rural locations to upgrade existing facilities without being met by the previously onerous Green Belt restrictions. Local policy should be updated to reflect these changes.
Whilst we support the principle of the Green Belt in protecting the wider countryside, there should be more flexibility in terms of previously developed sites where there are existing commercial activities.
* Transport
To support rural businesses, there needs to be significant investment in the transport infrastructure and road network within the district.
Of particular concern is the lack of investment in the local rural bridges. This potentially creates both massive and costly inconvenience (as well as hazards) to those rural businesses which need to use lorries or transport, heavy farm machinery and laden trailers as part of their everyday or at the very least, seasonal business activities.
* Listed Buildings
With the forthcoming changes to requirements for Energy Performance Certificates for listed buildings, there needs to be some support from the Council for businesses trying to upgrade existing properties, for example farming businesses who let cottages will be faced with increasing costs to improve the energy performance of properties.
The planning authority and listed building adviser should work with local businesses to ensure that these properties can be made energy-efficient without unnecessary delay. By way of example, double glazing should now be encouraged not resisted.
* Local List
The addition of many buildings on to the Local List without notification of the landowners direct has caused frustration. It is understood letters went to "The Occupier" of them not the owner of such properties. Many of these buildings do not have special architectural merit and as a consequence are not listed.
It is questioned whether their additional layer of control is necessary and there is grave concern it will be a further burden to rural businesses. The consultation process should be re-run because several owners are still completely unaware of the proposals.
The Local List, in whatever form, must never be allowed to carry similar restrictive powers to a full and formal listing and should not be used by planning officers to strengthen their arguments when attempting to refuse legitimate applications.
* Renewables
The Council should strongly encourage renewables within the district. The potential for landowners to invest in renewables such as wind or biomass or anaerobic digestion should be encouraged and not dismissed simply on the grounds of Green Belt inappropriate development.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DPD: PREFERRED POLICY OPTIONS
Thank you for your letter dated 16 January 2012, consulting Natural England on the Rochford Development Management DPD: Preferred Policy Options.
As you know, Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Overall, we are satisfied that the above DPD adequately considers the impacts of proposed development on the natural environment. A recurring issue that drew our attention was the lack of set time frames for the short, medium and long term visions in each chapter. We recommend that the time periods for the short, medium and long term visions are defined at the outset of each chapter.
The following comments may be of assistance in drafting the pre-submission consultation document.
1. Introduction
Natural England has no specific comments relating to the Introduction section.
2. Housing, Character of Place and Residential Amenity
Natural England supports both the short and medium - long term visions for the district, particularly with regard to the provision of sufficient infrastructure, that the vast majority of the District's Green Belt remains undeveloped and the District's distinctive character is retained.
With regard to the Objectives, Natural England recommends that Objective 8 is amended to read: 'Ensure that new development respects and makes a positive contribution towards the built and natural environment.'
Paragraph 2.5 should identify how the Development Management DPD will seek to reduce the District's carbon emissions and address climate change through planning.

Natural England supports the provisions contained in paragraph 2.11 which aim to mitigate developmental effects on climate change. Natural England suggests that text is inserted to provide guidance on how new buildings are to be designed to adapt to the effects of climate change such as increased flood risk etc.
With regard to Draft Policy DM1 - Design of New Developments, we would suggest that the wording of the first two lines is amended to read 'The design of new developments should reflect the character of the locality to ensure a positive contribution to the surrounding natural and built environment and residential amenity.' Natural England supports points i-xii which set out what the design and layout of proposed development should take into consideration, specifically provision of greenspace and impact on the natural environment including sites of nature conservation importance. Natural England suggests that this section goes further to state that proposed development 'should make appropriate provision for the management of land for nature conservation and the enjoyment of areas of wildlife and geological interest.'
With regard to Infilling and Residential Amenity, Natural England considers it important to note the visual and recreational amenity value of gap sites when considering residential infilling.
With regard to Light Pollution, Natural England supports the statement that 'this type of pollution can have a detrimental effect on ecology and wildlife, obscure vision of the stars, and introduce a suburban feel into rural areas which can thus affect local character and cause stress and anxiety for those adversely affected.' Natural England also supports the three Environmental Zones which set out how applications for lighting proposals will be assessed. We suggest that in paragraph 2.37 (Environmental Zone 1) the text be altered to state that, in Environmental Zone 1, 'lighting proposals that neighbour or are near enough to significantly affect areas of nature conservation importance...will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where the applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that unavoidable effects will be minimised through mitigation measures.'
At paragraph 2.44, regarding telecommunications, it is stated that 'Adequate provision will be balanced against ensuring that there are no unacceptable effects on the natural and built environment...' Natural England suggests that the Council elaborates on what unacceptable effects are considered to be, i.e. are slight negative effects considered to be unacceptable or would the term 'unacceptable' be reserved for any significant negative effect?
Natural England supports the broad thrust of Draft Policy DM6 - Telecommunications. However, we suggest that, at paragraph ii, it is stressed that if sited in an undesirable location, telecommunications proposals will only be considered in exceptional circumstances where it has been demonstrated that there are no suitable alternative sites for the development of telecommunication systems.
3. The Green Belt and the Countryside
Natural England supports the vision for the Green Belt and Countryside in Rochford District, in the short, medium and long term. With regard to the objectives, it is advised that Objective 1 is amended to read 'Continue to protect and enhance biodiversity whilst protecting the openness and character of the District's Green Belt.'
With regard to paragraph 3.6, it is suggested that the Council clarifies the meaning of 'other nature conservation designations...' to provide an understanding that does not rely upon having to consult the SEA Baseline Information Profile.
Natural England broadly supports Draft Policy DM13 - Green Tourism. However, we suggest that point (iii) is amended to read '...the impact on important areas of nature conservation, including any potential
disturbance to nearby sites recognised for their importance for biodiversity or geodiversity importance...'
Regarding Agricultural, Forestry and Other Occupational Dwellings, it is recommended that the text in paragraph 3.43 is amended to read 'Careful consideration should be given to the siting of new dwellings to ensure that they meet the identified functional need, but are also well-related to existing buildings and the surrounding natural landscape.'
Natural England broadly supports Draft Policy DM21 - Extension of Domestic Gardens in the Green Belt provided that such extensions do not detrimentally affect the openness of the Green Belt or the conservation value or protection of natural areas of local wildlife value, or sites of national and international importance, as set out in point (vi) of the Policy.
Natural England suggests that further provisions are included in Draft Policy DM22 - Conservation Areas and the Green Belt to protect and enhance areas of biodiversity and geodiversity interest when defining what should be considered acceptable development.
4. Environmental Issues
With regard to the short term vision for Environmental Issues, it is suggested that the text at point 3 is amended to read 'Local, national and international sites of nature conservation importance are protected and enhanced to maintain their biodiversity, geodiveristy and wildlife value.'
At point 3 of the medium term vision, it is suggested that the term 'unnecessary development' is elaborated to include examples of development which would be considered as such, e.g. campsites.
Natural England supports Draft Policy DM24 - Trees and Woodland, specifically in relation to the provision that new woodland creation should be sought, where appropriate.
5. Transport
Natural England broadly supports the general thrust of this Chapter, particularly in its efforts to minimise the impact of traffic on rural character through the reduction of dependency on private cars.
6. Economic Development
Natural England has no specific observations or comments on this chapter.
7. Retail and Town Centres
Natural England would like to see a description of how open space and nature conservation are to be catered for in the urban areas of the District. We note the absence of any provision for recreational space in the town centre, which should be included in the Objectives section.

Rochford District Council: Development Management DPD - Preferred Policy Options Document SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GRID
National Grid has appointed AMEC (formerly Entec) to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regards to the current consultation on the above document.

Overview - National Grid
National Grid is a leading international energy infrastructure business. In the UK National Grid's business includes electricity and gas transmission networks and gas distribution networks as described below.
Electricity Transmission
National Grid, as the holder of a licence to transmit electricity under the Electricity Act 1989, has a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical transmission system of electricity and to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity.
National Grid operates the national electricity transmission network across Great Britain and owns and maintains the network in England and Wales, providing electricity supplies from generating stations to local distribution companies. We do not distribute electricity to individual premises ourselves, but our role in the
wholesale market is key to ensuring a reliable and quality supply to all. National Grid's high voltage electricity system, which operates at 400,000 and 275,000 volts, is made up of approximately 22,000 pylons with an overhead line route length of 4,500 miles, 420 miles of underground cable and 337 substations.
Separate regional companies own and operate the electricity distribution networks that comprise overhead lines and cables at 132,000 volts and below. It is the role of these local distribution companies to distribute electricity to homes and businesses.
To facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity, National Grid must offer a connection to any proposed generator, major industry or distribution network operator who wishes to generate electricity or requires a high voltage electricity supply. Often proposals for new electricity projects involve
transmission reinforcements remote from the generating site, such as new overhead lines or new development at substations. If there are significant demand increases across a local distribution electricity network area then the local network distribution operator may seek reinforcements at an existing substation or a new grid supply point. In addition National Grid may undertake development works at its existing substations to meet changing patterns of generation and supply.
Gas Transmission
National Grid owns and operates the high pressure gas transmission system in England, Scotland and Wales that consists of approximately 4,300 miles of pipelines and 26 compressor stations connecting to 8 distribution networks. National Grid has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and
economical transmission system for the conveyance of gas and respond to requests for new gas supplies in certain circumstances.
New gas transmission infrastructure developments (pipelines and associated installations) are periodically required to meet increases in demand and changes in patterns of supply. Developments to our network are as a result of specific connection requests e.g. power stations, and requests for additional capacity on our network from gas shippers. Generally network developments to provide supplies to the local gas distribution network are as a result of overall demand growth in a region rather than site specific developments.
Gas Distribution
National Grid also owns and operates approximately 82,000 miles of lower-pressure distribution gas mains in the north west of England, the west Midlands, east of England and north London - almost half of Britain's gas distribution network, delivering gas to around 11 million homes, offices and factories. National Grid does not supply gas, but provides the networks through which it flows. Reinforcements and developments of our local distribution network generally are as a result of overall demand growth in a region rather than
site specific developments. A competitive market operates for the connection of new developments.
National Grid and Local Development Plan Documents
The Energy White Paper makes clear that UK energy systems will undergo a significant change over the next 20 years. To meet the goals of the white paper it will be necessary to revise and update much of the UK's energy infrastructure during this period. There will be a requirement for:
an expansion of national infrastructure (e.g. overhead power lines, underground cables, extending substations, new gas pipelines and associated installations); and
new forms of infrastructure (e.g. smaller scale distributed generation, gas storage sites). Our gas and electricity infrastructure is sited across the country and many stakeholders and communities have an interest in our activities. We believe our long-term success is based on having a constructive and sustainable relationship with our stakeholders. Our transmission pipelines and overhead lines were originally routed in consultation with local planning authorities and designed to avoid major development areas but since installation much development may have taken place near our routes. We therefore wish to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of Development Plan Documents
(DPDs) which may affect our assets including policies and plans relating to the following issues:
any policies relating to overhead transmission lines, underground cables or gas pipeline installations;
site specific allocations/land use policies affecting sites crossed by overhead lines, underground cables
or gas transmission pipelines;
land use policies/development proposed adjacent to existing high voltage electricity substation sites
and gas above ground installations;
any policies relating to the diverting or undergrounding of overhead transmission lines;
other policies relating to infrastructure or utility provision;
policies relating to development in the countryside;
landscape policies; and
waste and mineral plans.
In addition, we also want to be consulted by developers and local authorities on planning applications,
which may affect our assets and are happy to provide pre-application advice. Our aim in this is to ensure
that the safe and secure transportation of electricity and gas is not compromised.
National Grid infrastructure within Rochford District Council's administrative area
Electricity Transmission
National Grid's high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines / underground cables within Rochford District Council's administrative area that form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales include the following:
4VB line - 400kV route from Braintree substation in Braintree to Rayleigh substation in Rochford
ZT line - 132kV route from Bradwell substation in Maldon to Rayleigh via Rayleigh substation in Rochford
PJA line - 132kV route from Rayleigh substation in Rochford to Rayleigh
PJB line - 132kV route from Rayleigh substation in Rochford to Rayleigh
The following substations are also located within the administrative area of Rochford District Council:
Rayleigh substation - 400kV and 132kV
National Grid has provided information in relation to electricity transmission assets, including maps and GIS shape files showing their broad locations, via the following internet link:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNW
Gas Transmission
National Grid has no gas transmission assets located within the administrative area of Rochford District
Council.
Electricity and Gas Distribution
UK Power Networks owns and operates the local electricity distribution network in Rochford District Council's administrative area.
Contact details for UK Power Networks can be found on the Energy Networks website: www.energynetworks.org
National Grid Gas Distribution owns and operates the local gas distribution network in the Rochford District Council area. If you require site specific advice relating to our local gas distribution network then information should be sought from: National Grid Plant Protection
Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us. In addition the following publications are available from the National
Grid website or by contacting us at the address overleaf:
National Grid's commitments when undertaking works in the UK - our stakeholder, community and amenity policy;
specification for Safe Working in the Vicinity of National Grid High Pressure Gas Pipelines and Associated Installations - Requirements for Third Parties; and
A sense of place - design guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines.

1. The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. The Trust is the UK's leading woodland conservation charity. We have three aims: to enable the creation of more native woods and places rich in trees; to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future; and to inspire everyone to enjoy and value woods and trees. We own over 1,000 sites and have 300,000 members and supporters.

2. The Woodland Trust is delighted to see Draft Policy DM24 - Trees and Woodlands and in particular the implied need to avoid development on ancient woodland. We would, however, like Policy DM24 to be more explicit with regard to protection of ancient woodland.

3. The Biodiversity Strategy for England (Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England's Wildlife & Ecosystem Services, Defra 2011, see 'Forestry' para 2.16) states that - "We are committed to providing appropriate protection to ancient woodlands and to more restoration of plantations on ancient woodland site".

4. In addition The Government's Natural Environment White Paper - The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (HM Government, July 2011, para 2.56) states that: "The Government is committed to providing appropriate protection to ancient woodlands...." and the draft National Policy Planning Framework clearly states: "...planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland..." (DCLG, July 2011, para 169).

5. We fully support the inclusion of the Natural England publication Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland (Issued 23 February 2011) and feel that greater weight needs to be placed on paragraph 3.1 (page5) of this document which states "Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable resource of great importance for its wildlife, its history and the contribution it makes to our diverse landscapes. Local authorities have a vital role in ensuring its conservation, in particular through the planning system. This advice aims to help you, the local planning authority, to meet your obligations to protect ancient woodland from damage or loss by development. This is with particular regard to the requirements under PPS9 which states: "Local Planning Authorities should not grant planning permission for any development ...".

6. In terms of compensatory measures, it is impossible to replace ancient woodland as this habitat has evolved over centuries and it is impossible to replace hundreds of years of ecological evolution by planting a new site or attempting to translocate them. For these reasons the Trust believes ancient woodland must be given absolute protection under this plan, and this or any similar restrictive caveat should be deleted.

Planning Potential acts on behalf of our client Fairview New Homes who have an interest in a parcel of land described as land off Poyntens Road in Rayleigh. As you are aware, we are of the view that the land 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 recently adopted Core Strategy. The comments below are made in line with representations submitted previously during other public consultation opportunities, and specifically, those made in response to the DMD DPD in April 2010.

Whilst our client generally supports the approach taken within the DMD DPD we would like to put forward the following specific comments.

Habitable Floorspace for New Developments

It is the view of Fairview New Homes that further floorspace standards in addition to the Housing Quality Indicators (HQI) are not required as proposed in Table 2 preceding Draft Policy DM4. The HQIs were promoted by DETR and the National Housing Federation to be used 'as a flexible management tool of housing quality used by consumers and developers alike for new and existing stock in both the public and private sectors'. Since the conception of the standards in 1998 they have been progressively refined and updated. As a result the HQI standards have become the accepted and understood figures by both public and private sectors of the development industry. It is understood that the HQI standards are currently only applicable to affordable housing schemes; however, these standards can easily be used in parallel for privately funded scheme rather than introducing duplicate standards.

As mentioned, representations were submitted on behalf of Fairview New Homes in regards to the Development Management DPD consultation in April 2010. Our client maintains the view that further floorspace standards in addition to the Housing Quality Indicators (HQI) are not required as proposed under Draft Policy DM4 and Table 2 'Minimum Floorspace Standards', and that these are not necessary, and would request their omission, or, reference to the generic "HQI standards" rather than specific standards.