Brownfield Residential Land Allocations

Whilst it is accepted that a number of existing employment sites may be appropriate for redevelopment for alternative uses, it is not considered that for all four sites this represents the most appropriate option; particularly when the proposed replacement employment sites are not in as sustainable locations. In addition, a number of the proposed employment sites would not satisfy the locational requirements of the NPPF.

Cogent has undertaken a review of the Rochford housing land supply. It is concerned that the Council may not be able to identify a five year supply of deliverable housing sites that accords with the NPPF and recent appeal decisions.

Furthermore, Cogent is concerned that the housing provision targets contained within the Core Strategy, and by extension within the housing land supply numbers, do not meet the requirement of the NPPF to meet the 'full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing' (paragraph 47).

Such concerns with housing land supply are magnified where delivery from identified sites is constrained and levels of in-migration are comparatively high. The SADPD includes a number of examples of where housing land supply is likely to be constrained, but we draw particular attention to the identified constraints at BFR3, SER2 and SER9b

Recent figures released by the Office for National Statistics published in respect of the 2011 Census have confirmed an increase in the population of the UK as a whole, with a particular emphasis on London, the South East and East of England.

The findings of the Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) within their assessment of the Greater Essex Demographic Forecasts in March 2012 provide further evidence of the anticipated population growth within Essex. They confirm that the sub-national population projections (SNPP), Migration-led and Economic scenarios identified the need for significantly higher annual housing provision figures than those which the adopted Rochford District Council Core Strategy currently allows for.

It is on this basis that we are currently preparing an objective assessment of housing needs for Rochford and surrounding local planning authority areas with a view to addressing the housing needs of the contiguous market area in the period to 2031. We would be pleased to discuss the results of the assessment with the Council as soon as practicable.

Cogent maintains control freehold ownership of land to the south of Stambridge Road, also referred to on occasions as Coombes Farm, which it considers to be both suitable and available for residential development. It is considered to occupy a sustainable location in close proximity to Rochford Town Centre within which a wide range of public services, community facilities and public transport networks can be accessed with ease.

It is significant that the land under the control of Cogent falls outside of an area considered to be at risk of flooding and also excludes land indicated as the future potential extent of the Southend Airport Public Safety Zone.

Draft Representations to be submitted to RDC Site Allocations DPD
On Behalf of Landhold Capital

The following responds to the Submission Draft of the Site Allocations document on behalf of Landhold Capital who the Council will be aware have land interests to the southwest and west of Hullbridge, and who have taken an active role in both the process towards the adopted Core Strategy, and in the earlier draft of the Site Allocations DPD.

We held a number of discussions with officers prior to the Committee and a number of clarifications were made in the addendum. The following section takes account of the addendum that was agreed and which forms part of the consultation document.

Brownfield Residential Land Allocations

In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Inspector's Report on the Core Strategy, the Inspector noted that as part of the Examination process, concerns had been expressed as to the likelihood of the various employment sites coming forward.

At paragraphs 20 and 26, the Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy had sufficient flexibility to accommodate a shortfall in delivery (for example at the disputed employment locations), both because there was flexibility in the timing of the release of the strategic growth locations set out in CS Policies H2 and H3, and flexibility in terms of the quantum of development that could be delivered at the broad locations (paragraph 27 specifically refers).

The Core Strategy does not put any notional cap on the quantum that could be delivered at the broad locations, nor does it set out that any shortfall in one location can only be addressed within that same location.

The same uncertainties exist in respect of the delivery of the brownfield sites now, as they did when the CS Inspector issued her report. However, this Site Allocations DPD seeks to remove the flexibility from the broad locations, by introducing ineffective and arbitrary limitations on the growth locations, in conflict with the CS and the basis upon which it was found sound.


Settlement Extension Residential Land Allocations

'
Paragraphs 3.4 to 3.6 make clear that between 2006 and 2021 the Council is required to accommodate 3,790 dwellings at an approximate average of 250 dwellings per year. Post 2021, the District is required to continue the development rate of 250 dwellings per year, and that accordingly, the Core Strategy sets out the approach to housing distribution to 2025. It goes on to say that the District's housing supply includes extant permissions and sites already allocated for housing, but additional land needs to be allocated, including appropriate brownfield sites previously allocated for employment use (see chapter 2) and Green Belt land, and points out that the detailed housing supply is set out in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2012 which the Council say will be monitored regularly through the Annual Monitoring Reports.

In our view, given the delay between the adoption of the Core Strategy due to the legal challenge, and the progress of the Submission SADPD, the current housing position should be identified to keep the document as up to date as possible, and to react to any potential shortfall.

In terms of delivery, table 2 reiterates the phasing of the Hullbridge site into 2 areas, one 2015 to 21, and the remainder post 2021.

As set out in previous representations and developed below, we consider that, particularly given the infrastructure requirements and social benefits identified as part of the requirement for the Hullbridge scheme, particularly in the early stages (eg para 3.171 requires for example that youth, community and leisure facilities should be provided within the first phase of the development), then it makes no sense not to allow for the site to be developed in one go, particularly given the additional costs of stopping and starting again, which would potentially increase the costs of developing the site. There will be significant set up and related preliminary costs as a result of the period of inactivity and that this amount could be available for social provision if the development of the site runs straight through, and indeed the period of inactivity would be so short as to be of no real benefit in terms of spreading out the development to meet the policy.

Allowing for securing outline planning permission, securing release of conditions and reserved matters approval, site set up and infrastructure, together with a development programme for the first 250 dwellings, would in our view would take us to mid 2019, which would if the policy were strictly adhered to, mean a 2 year break before we could deliver again in accordance with the policy. Advance infrastructure for future phases at the start would be both cost effective, and mean that the delivery rate for homes would be accelerated in the later years. The Council's approach could therefore cause a delay in the delivery of housing units, increase costs and therefore not be sustainable and potentially affect the Council's housing delivery strategy.

The Core Strategy Inspector accepted the Council's land supply position only on the basis that the strategic growth locations had flexibility to accommodate shortfalls arising elsewhere (and on the basis of a promised early review, arising from the shortfall in the length of the Plan period itself).

Paragraph 3.10 introduces a flexibility cap of 5%. There is no such 5% limit in the CS, and given the reason why the CS Inspector considered flexibility was needed, it is evident that a 5% flexibility cap is inadequate and inappropriate.

Our comments here apply equally to all settlements, but taking Hullbridge as an example, the strategic growth area allocation is 500 units and the 5% flexibility allowance equates to just 25 dwellings. The Council relies heavily on the brownfield sites to deliver a significant proportion of its housing requirement, yet even the Inspector has raised concerns on whether these can deliver, and has accepted the Core Strategy on the basis of the implied flexibility within.

For the above reasons, we consider that the introduction of the 5% cap fails the test of soundness for all four reasons i.e. this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared, Justified, Effective or consistent with National Policy, or indeed with the Core Strategy.


Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge

We fully support the identification of the site within the Submission draft. However, we would raise the following points in relation to the details under Policy SER6:

1. In relation to paragraph 3.163, we have objected to the artificial constraint of 5% flexibility, as site conditions, capacities, density and other opportunities and constraints have yet to be fully informed by a master plan.

2. With regard to figure 12, we don't believe there should be a hard line on a plan for pre and post 2021 development, as any phasing should be informed by site opportunities and constraints, and by the master plan approach set out in the point above. The plan itself may introduce an additional constraint to the proper delivery of the site in addition to those identified above, and should be replaced with something simpler along the following lines:




3. We do not disagree with the need for appropriate open space provision. However the green and play space areas identified in paras 3.167 to 3.169 have not been justified by separate analysis and should be the subject of explanation within the text.

4. In para 3.172 it states that the exact nature of community facilities will be the subject of agreement with the Council at the appropriate time, yet para 3.173 establishes a minimum area. As with green and play spaces, this either needs specific justification, or removal to be discussed at the appropriate time.

We would also make the point in relation to the front-end provision of open spaces and facilities that this effectively pre-judges the most appropriate location for such facilities within the development to meet the needs of future residents, and this should both be derived as the consequence from the master plan approach suggested above, yet to be undertaken, and provides further justification for not fixing a line on a plan which formalises the locations of phases SER6a and b.

5. In para 3.176, the retail requirement should be reworded to state there is a possibility it could be investigated rather than a requirement, given that a fundamental part of our case to the Core Strategy was that this scheme would assist in anchoring existing town centre shops, which are undertrading.

6. In para 3.177, we don't of course object to the transport statement but as it will be a requirement of the planning application in any case, and as such we would question why is it referred to here.

7. In para 3.182, the reference to Malyons Lane as a preference for an access should be removed as this is a matter that should be explored through detailed masterplanning and detailed public consultation.

8. We are concerned by the text at paras 3.184 and 5 as it appears that the Council are confusing the transmission network and the treatment facility. There are two wastewater treatment works; Rayleigh West and Rayleigh East. The sewers crossing our site (which we will discharge into) drain to Rayleigh West Waste Water TW which, according to the Council's evidence base (specifically the September 2011 Water Cycle Study), has adequate capacity to accept and treat the additional flows arising from the proposed level of growth. Furthermore our pre-development enquiry with Anglian Water back in 2010 indicated that the existing sewers crossing our site (transmission network) have sufficient capacity to accommodate the flow from the proposed development.