2. Housing, Character of Place and Residential Amenity

This Representation maintains that the DMD is unsound on the basis of Representations and Submissions previously made regarding one of the DMD sub-documents on which the DMD depends and is referred to in the DMD under :Section 2. Housing Character of Place and Residential Amenity.
Sub-item: Housing, 2.14.

The Hanover Land Trust for which this representation is made, understands that the said sub-document will be subject to an Inspector's Public Examination in September 2013 where it is deemed a more detailed Representation will be made and considered at that time.

Paragraph 2.2 to 2.6

Apart from Rochford, Rayleigh and Conservation settlements, historic character, sense of place, existing character established streetscene, surrounding built environment, important buildings in Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon, have been ignored so far where development is concerned, so what good will this document do for them?

Paragraph 2.10

Encouragement of preparation of Parish Plans is futile. During the first decade of the 2000s, such initiative was adopted and Parish Plans were produced, with local consultation and submitted to the District Council. But they were ignored, certainly where Hockley was concerned, probably elsewhere too. Local people are not going to believe the Council now.

"Provision of guidance to developers" is derisory, particularly if such plans must be endorsed by the council before they can be used (who might decide to cancel them).

Paragraph 2.17, 2.19, Policy DM2, Figure 2

"random" sampling of District densities from a couple of hectares in each area gives intentionally misleading result - Hockley is shown as much denser (therefore more urbanised than anywhere else in the District. Diagram may not be "overly prescriptive" but will encourage developers to take advantage and claim right to further densification of Hockley.

Paragraph 2.17, 2.19, Policy DM2, Figure 2

"random" sampling of District densities from a couple of hectares in each area gives intentionally misleading result - Hockley is shown as much denser (therefore more urbanised than anywhere else in the District. Diagram may not be "overly prescriptive" but will encourage developers to take advantage and claim right to further densification of Hockley.

Paragraph 2.17, 2.19, Policy DM2, Figure 2

"random" sampling of District densities from a couple of hectares in each area gives intentionally misleading result - Hockley is shown as much denser (therefore more urbanised than anywhere else in the District. Diagram may not be "overly prescriptive" but will encourage developers to take advantage and claim right to further densification of Hockley.

Paragraph 2.21

It is difficult to envisage "small gaps" between houses

Paragraph 2.23

In the past, 'backland' development was tolerated, provided 'tandem' development didn't result from that. Now it is frowned on regardless. Is this because Rochford Council want existing 'frontland' dwellings demolished to facilitate complete block redevelopments and urbanisation?

Paragraph 2.24

A pair of semis of local height could, for example, stand instead of replacement of dwelling by 3 storey flats now being proposed along busy Southend Road Hockley.

Paragraph 2.21

It is difficult to envisage "small gaps" between houses

Paragraph 2.23

In the past, 'backland' development was tolerated, provided 'tandem' development didn't result from that. Now it is frowned on regardless. Is this because Rochford Council want existing 'frontland' dwellings demolished to facilitate complete block redevelopments and urbanisation?

Paragraph 2.24

A pair of semis of local height could, for example, stand instead of replacement of dwelling by 3 storey flats now being proposed along busy Southend Road Hockley.

Paragraph 2.21

It is difficult to envisage "small gaps" between houses

Paragraph 2.23

In the past, 'backland' development was tolerated, provided 'tandem' development didn't result from that. Now it is frowned on regardless. Is this because Rochford Council want existing 'frontland' dwellings demolished to facilitate complete block redevelopments and urbanisation?

Paragraph 2.24

A pair of semis of local height could, for example, stand instead of replacement of dwelling by 3 storey flats now being proposed along busy Southend Road Hockley.

Paragraph 2.21

It is difficult to envisage "small gaps" between houses

Paragraph 2.23

In the past, 'backland' development was tolerated, provided 'tandem' development didn't result from that. Now it is frowned on regardless. Is this because Rochford Council want existing 'frontland' dwellings demolished to facilitate complete block redevelopments and urbanisation?

Paragraph 2.24

A pair of semis of local height could, for example, stand instead of replacement of dwelling by 3 storey flats now being proposed along busy Southend Road Hockley.

Paragrah 2.35 to 2.46, Table 4, 4th paragraph of Policy DM5

Paras 2.35 to 2.37 are misleading in appearing to protect local residents from intrusive artificial light into eg. Bedrooms all night, such comfort not borne out by succeeding paragraphs.

Paras. 2.38 to 2.41, all of Table 4 minus the last paragraph, are a straight crib from defendants' submission in a law case where they sought to justify all night illumination of an executive house close with several lamp posts that lit up neighbouring bedrooms, by quoting ILE Environmental Zone Guidance, plus misleading pictures, to suggest the immediate area was urban, so nuisance was in order. (Opponents' adviser had shown otherwise and offered ILE guidance on Curfew to solve the problem). Use of a misleading defence in an LPA Management Development document appears to aid developers at others' expense and is not acceptable. Nor is paragraph 2.42 rejection of ILE 'Curfew' guidance, from same case (reducing or switching off at agreed time) as unreasonable, inappropriate, found to be acceptable. Planning guidance does not obviate nuisance anywhere, rural or urban.

Paragraph 2.44 says lighting should be "minimum necessary for safety and working purposes". That's fine in daytime for residential or commercial purposes. But at night - 'residential safety and security':- closes have high walls, electronic gates; they and other dwellings have alarms, CCTV (latter no longer need artificial light), so 24 hour lighting is unnecessary, though closes could have short stemmed downward lights ('full cut off') for nocturnal access. "Working hours":- Residential premises are not commercial/industrial and should not have intrusive working at night.

RDC Replacement Plan 2006 - unlike 2013 Development Management document, ordains rejects Light Pollution and does not differentiate between so called 'Zones' through the District, at paragraphs 11.21 to 11.22. It's Policy PN 7 stipulates lighting schemes should be submitted as part of any planning application. Any schemes adversely affecting: Residential and commercial areas, nature conservation, highway safety, night sky would be refused. But 2013 Development Management document at paragraph 2.45 says: "A detailed lighting scheme should accompany all full planning applications.but may not always be necessary", leaving the way open for anything.

Contrary to 2013 document, 2006 Replacement Plan does not influentially set out ILE Environmental Zones in full, but instead paragraph 11.23 says "developers should also note contents of Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution". A footnote has a list of sources, including ILE Environment Zones, to which ILE append a caveat: "NB These notes are intended as guidance only values given should be given consideration with all other factors in lighting design. Lighting is a complex subject with both objective/subjective criteria to be considered. Notes are therefore no substitute for professionally assessed, designed lighting, where may be conflicting visual requirements need to be balanced" - a very different picture from blanket setting out of Zones in 2013 Plan document. Light Pollution details in 20130 Development Management consultation are even briefer.

It is apparent in this and other matters that the Council are biased in favour of developments, past and future, against existing residents. Disturbingly this and other environmental problems have arisen to a number of existing dwellings following nearby development for which Council and other statutory bodies have denied responsibility. If that to make them leave so intrusive development can be extended?

Paragrah 2.35 to 2.46, Table 4, 4th paragraph of Policy DM5

Paras 2.35 to 2.37 are misleading in appearing to protect local residents from intrusive artificial light into eg. Bedrooms all night, such comfort not borne out by succeeding paragraphs.

Paras. 2.38 to 2.41, all of Table 4 minus the last paragraph, are a straight crib from defendants' submission in a law case where they sought to justify all night illumination of an executive house close with several lamp posts that lit up neighbouring bedrooms, by quoting ILE Environmental Zone Guidance, plus misleading pictures, to suggest the immediate area was urban, so nuisance was in order. (Opponents' adviser had shown otherwise and offered ILE guidance on Curfew to solve the problem). Use of a misleading defence in an LPA Management Development document appears to aid developers at others' expense and is not acceptable. Nor is paragraph 2.42 rejection of ILE 'Curfew' guidance, from same case (reducing or switching off at agreed time) as unreasonable, inappropriate, found to be acceptable. Planning guidance does not obviate nuisance anywhere, rural or urban.

Paragraph 2.44 says lighting should be "minimum necessary for safety and working purposes". That's fine in daytime for residential or commercial purposes. But at night - 'residential safety and security':- closes have high walls, electronic gates; they and other dwellings have alarms, CCTV (latter no longer need artificial light), so 24 hour lighting is unnecessary, though closes could have short stemmed downward lights ('full cut off') for nocturnal access. "Working hours":- Residential premises are not commercial/industrial and should not have intrusive working at night.

RDC Replacement Plan 2006 - unlike 2013 Development Management document, ordains rejects Light Pollution and does not differentiate between so called 'Zones' through the District, at paragraphs 11.21 to 11.22. It's Policy PN 7 stipulates lighting schemes should be submitted as part of any planning application. Any schemes adversely affecting: Residential and commercial areas, nature conservation, highway safety, night sky would be refused. But 2013 Development Management document at paragraph 2.45 says: "A detailed lighting scheme should accompany all full planning applications.but may not always be necessary", leaving the way open for anything.

Contrary to 2013 document, 2006 Replacement Plan does not influentially set out ILE Environmental Zones in full, but instead paragraph 11.23 says "developers should also note contents of Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution". A footnote has a list of sources, including ILE Environment Zones, to which ILE append a caveat: "NB These notes are intended as guidance only values given should be given consideration with all other factors in lighting design. Lighting is a complex subject with both objective/subjective criteria to be considered. Notes are therefore no substitute for professionally assessed, designed lighting, where may be conflicting visual requirements need to be balanced" - a very different picture from blanket setting out of Zones in 2013 Plan document. Light Pollution details in 20130 Development Management consultation are even briefer.

It is apparent in this and other matters that the Council are biased in favour of developments, past and future, against existing residents. Disturbingly this and other environmental problems have arisen to a number of existing dwellings following nearby development for which Council and other statutory bodies have denied responsibility. If that to make them leave so intrusive development can be extended?

Paragrah 2.35 to 2.46, Table 4, 4th paragraph of Policy DM5

Paras 2.35 to 2.37 are misleading in appearing to protect local residents from intrusive artificial light into eg. Bedrooms all night, such comfort not borne out by succeeding paragraphs.

Paras. 2.38 to 2.41, all of Table 4 minus the last paragraph, are a straight crib from defendants' submission in a law case where they sought to justify all night illumination of an executive house close with several lamp posts that lit up neighbouring bedrooms, by quoting ILE Environmental Zone Guidance, plus misleading pictures, to suggest the immediate area was urban, so nuisance was in order. (Opponents' adviser had shown otherwise and offered ILE guidance on Curfew to solve the problem). Use of a misleading defence in an LPA Management Development document appears to aid developers at others' expense and is not acceptable. Nor is paragraph 2.42 rejection of ILE 'Curfew' guidance, from same case (reducing or switching off at agreed time) as unreasonable, inappropriate, found to be acceptable. Planning guidance does not obviate nuisance anywhere, rural or urban.

Paragraph 2.44 says lighting should be "minimum necessary for safety and working purposes". That's fine in daytime for residential or commercial purposes. But at night - 'residential safety and security':- closes have high walls, electronic gates; they and other dwellings have alarms, CCTV (latter no longer need artificial light), so 24 hour lighting is unnecessary, though closes could have short stemmed downward lights ('full cut off') for nocturnal access. "Working hours":- Residential premises are not commercial/industrial and should not have intrusive working at night.

RDC Replacement Plan 2006 - unlike 2013 Development Management document, ordains rejects Light Pollution and does not differentiate between so called 'Zones' through the District, at paragraphs 11.21 to 11.22. It's Policy PN 7 stipulates lighting schemes should be submitted as part of any planning application. Any schemes adversely affecting: Residential and commercial areas, nature conservation, highway safety, night sky would be refused. But 2013 Development Management document at paragraph 2.45 says: "A detailed lighting scheme should accompany all full planning applications.but may not always be necessary", leaving the way open for anything.

Contrary to 2013 document, 2006 Replacement Plan does not influentially set out ILE Environmental Zones in full, but instead paragraph 11.23 says "developers should also note contents of Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution". A footnote has a list of sources, including ILE Environment Zones, to which ILE append a caveat: "NB These notes are intended as guidance only values given should be given consideration with all other factors in lighting design. Lighting is a complex subject with both objective/subjective criteria to be considered. Notes are therefore no substitute for professionally assessed, designed lighting, where may be conflicting visual requirements need to be balanced" - a very different picture from blanket setting out of Zones in 2013 Plan document. Light Pollution details in 20130 Development Management consultation are even briefer.

It is apparent in this and other matters that the Council are biased in favour of developments, past and future, against existing residents. Disturbingly this and other environmental problems have arisen to a number of existing dwellings following nearby development for which Council and other statutory bodies have denied responsibility. If that to make them leave so intrusive development can be extended?

Paragrah 2.35 to 2.46, Table 4, 4th paragraph of Policy DM5

Paras 2.35 to 2.37 are misleading in appearing to protect local residents from intrusive artificial light into eg. Bedrooms all night, such comfort not borne out by succeeding paragraphs.

Paras. 2.38 to 2.41, all of Table 4 minus the last paragraph, are a straight crib from defendants' submission in a law case where they sought to justify all night illumination of an executive house close with several lamp posts that lit up neighbouring bedrooms, by quoting ILE Environmental Zone Guidance, plus misleading pictures, to suggest the immediate area was urban, so nuisance was in order. (Opponents' adviser had shown otherwise and offered ILE guidance on Curfew to solve the problem). Use of a misleading defence in an LPA Management Development document appears to aid developers at others' expense and is not acceptable. Nor is paragraph 2.42 rejection of ILE 'Curfew' guidance, from same case (reducing or switching off at agreed time) as unreasonable, inappropriate, found to be acceptable. Planning guidance does not obviate nuisance anywhere, rural or urban.

Paragraph 2.44 says lighting should be "minimum necessary for safety and working purposes". That's fine in daytime for residential or commercial purposes. But at night - 'residential safety and security':- closes have high walls, electronic gates; they and other dwellings have alarms, CCTV (latter no longer need artificial light), so 24 hour lighting is unnecessary, though closes could have short stemmed downward lights ('full cut off') for nocturnal access. "Working hours":- Residential premises are not commercial/industrial and should not have intrusive working at night.

RDC Replacement Plan 2006 - unlike 2013 Development Management document, ordains rejects Light Pollution and does not differentiate between so called 'Zones' through the District, at paragraphs 11.21 to 11.22. It's Policy PN 7 stipulates lighting schemes should be submitted as part of any planning application. Any schemes adversely affecting: Residential and commercial areas, nature conservation, highway safety, night sky would be refused. But 2013 Development Management document at paragraph 2.45 says: "A detailed lighting scheme should accompany all full planning applications.but may not always be necessary", leaving the way open for anything.

Contrary to 2013 document, 2006 Replacement Plan does not influentially set out ILE Environmental Zones in full, but instead paragraph 11.23 says "developers should also note contents of Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution". A footnote has a list of sources, including ILE Environment Zones, to which ILE append a caveat: "NB These notes are intended as guidance only values given should be given consideration with all other factors in lighting design. Lighting is a complex subject with both objective/subjective criteria to be considered. Notes are therefore no substitute for professionally assessed, designed lighting, where may be conflicting visual requirements need to be balanced" - a very different picture from blanket setting out of Zones in 2013 Plan document. Light Pollution details in 20130 Development Management consultation are even briefer.

It is apparent in this and other matters that the Council are biased in favour of developments, past and future, against existing residents. Disturbingly this and other environmental problems have arisen to a number of existing dwellings following nearby development for which Council and other statutory bodies have denied responsibility. If that to make them leave so intrusive development can be extended?

Paragraph 2.54 to 2.56, Policy DM7

Residents have no faith in reintroduction of RDC Local List:-

1. It was unilaterally abolished by RDC to enable demolition of a centrally distinctive historic building in 2004, which, inconveniently for planners/developers, was on the Local List. We were told that government "now frowns on Local Lists", of which dictate other Local authorities had not heard and had no plans to abolish theirs. No sooner was the said building demolished than we learned from RDC "government now approves of Local Lists" and proposals for its reintroduction were set in train.

2. Local Lists idea seems to have no reliable basis in law, owners merely being "encouraged" not to demolish.

3. Consultation document prior to reintroduction proposed removing most items from the former List to be found in Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - this fits too nicely with their incorporation into 'South Essex Coastal Towns', Figure 3 of Green Belt and Countryside chapter of this document, with creeping urbanisation and conurbation of said settlements.

Natural England welcomes the short, medium and long term visions for the district and is broadly in agreement with the policies presented in this section, including those relating to the design of new developments, light pollution and telecommunications. However, we advise you to refer to our previous response regarding recommendations for changes in wording within Objective 7 (previously 8), Draft Policy DM1 and Paragraph 2.39, Environmental Zone 1 (in relation to lighting). We note our changes have been incorporated into the Telecommunications section. It is important to ensure that the retention of the green belt is not at the expense of areas that support wildlife within the town, including locally designated wildlife areas (local wildlife sites/county wildlife sites), brownfield sites and undesignated areas that provide both habitat for wildlife and ecological continuity. Gardens and allotments are also important, both in terms of increasing the biodiversity value associated with new developments and improving the health and wellbeing of residents. We advise that these points should be reflected within the medium/long range vision.

We read the document carefully, but can find no policy that protects/enhances your existing community facilities. We therefore find the document to be unsound because it does not reflect the National Planning Policy Framework which states at item 70 on page 17 that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should plan for the use of shared space and guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community.

The 38 policies are very specific and some deal with aspects of the NPPF, but we suggest there should be a District-wide policy for all your community facilities including a description of what is mean by this term which would obviate the need to provide examples. So that guidelines are clear and consistent we recommend this succinct all-inclusive description:
community facilities provide for the health and wellbeing, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

Canewdon Parish Council strongly supports the medium/long term vision "A range of high-quality, sustainable new dwellings that meet the needs of local people of all social groups are in place and integrated into communities that have a strong sense of place" and "The vast majority of the District's Green Belt remains undeveloped".

And the objectives "Prioritise the redevelopment of appropriate brownfield sites for housing, to minimize the release of Green Belt land for development", "Ensure the delivery of housing which caters for the needs of all communities in terms of tenure, type and location" and "Ensure that appropriate infrastructure accompanies new housing development".

DM1, DM2 & DM3 are generally supported. DM4 & DM5 are particularly supported

ROCHFORD DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SUBMISSION DOCUMENT

Thank you for your letter dated 3 June 2013, consulting Natural England on the Rochford Development Management Submission document.

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.

General Comments

Overall we are satisfied that the above DPD adequately considers the impacts on the natural environment. We previously commented (on the Rochford District Development Management DPD Preferred Policy Options) on 27 February 2012 and note that whilst many important amendments have been made to this document following our advice, some of our previous recommendations were not
taken into account. We have referred to these again below but would recommend that this response is read in conjunction with our previous response (our reference 43442).

1. Introduction

Natural England has no specific comments relating to the Introduction section.

2. Housing, Character of Place and Residential Amenity

Natural England welcomes the short, medium and long term visions for the district and is broadly in agreement with the policies presented in this section, including those relating to the design of new developments, light pollution and telecommunications. However, we advise you to refer to our previous response regarding recommendations for changes in wording within Objective 7 (previously 8), Draft Policy DM1 and Paragraph 2.39, Environmental Zone 1 (in relation to lighting). We note our changes have been incorporated into the Telecommunications section.

It is important to ensure that the retention of the green belt is not at the expense of areas that support wildlife within the town, including locally designated wildlife areas (local wildlife sites/county wildlife sites), brownfield sites and undesignated areas that provide both habitat for wildlife and ecological continuity. Gardens and allotments are also important, both in terms of increasing the biodiversity value
associated with new developments and improving the health and wellbeing of residents. We advise that these points should be reflected within the medium/long range vision.

3. The Green Belt and Countryside

We welcome the short, medium and long term visions, particularly in terms of protecting the openness and character of the greenbelt, green tourism and new strategies for improving access to the countryside. However, we find that, whilst protection for areas of nature conservation is frequently referred to in this section, enhancement is not. We consider that the section should be updated to
reflect the need for protection and enhancement, for example in the following sections:

Objective 1 should read as follows:
'Continue to protect and enhance biodiversity whilst protecting the openness and character of the District's Green Belt'.

In the Green Tourism section (page 46), we would recommend that a paragraph is added detailing how funds raised by green tourism may be used to protect and enhance sites of ecological importance.

We also recommend that further provisions are included in Draft Policy DM23, Conservation Areas and the Green Belt, to protect and enhance areas of biodiversity and geodiversity interest when defining what should be considered acceptable development.

Also note our comments in the previous section regarding brownfield sites and ecological linkages.

4. Environmental Issues

We broadly agree with the vision, objectives and policies in this section, including Policy DM27, Species and Habitat Protection, Policy DM25 Trees and Woodlands and Policy DM26, Other important landscape features. In our view the policies in this section are all well considered and sufficiently comprehensive.

We recommend that Point 3 in the short term vision should read:
'Local, national and international sites of nature conservation importance are protected and enhanced.' It is noted that enhancement is included as a medium term aim, but enhancement should actually be reflected in current, as well as in future decision making.

The vision

Natural England advises you to add a bullet on improving ecological connections between local and national sites and the wider countryside, which should build in detail over the short, medium and long term visions. This is in view of the aims of the NPPF to improve the network of wildlife areas within the UK, in accordance with the findings of 'Making Space for Nature' (2012) and the Natural Environment
white paper (2012).

We trust that the comments above are helpful. For any correspondence or queries relating to this consultation response please do not hesitate to contact me using the details below. For all other correspondence, please contact the Natural England consultations email address at consultations@naturalengland.org.uk

The Document should give positive support for the improvement and expansion of existing schools. Schools evolve over time to reflect changes in educational practice and operational requirements that better meet, and improve, future educational quality and standards. This results in proposals for remodelling and reconfiguration of school sites that are likely to require extension of buildings beyond the existing built footprint on school sites. It may not be possible to obtain the required educational outcomes without using parts of school playing fields which may be designated also as lying within the Green Belt.
Retaining Green Belt status for school playing fields would not offer sufficient flexibility to attain the intent of Core Strategy Objective 2 (Page 90) due to some school expansion proposals necessarily extending across the Green Belt boundary. Core Strategy Policy CLT2 (Primary Education, Early Years and Childcare Facilities) and Policy CLT3 (Secondary Education) do not fill the void. Consequently, a new and additional policy should be added to the Document, to read,

'Policy *****: Existing Education Provision
The re-modelling and expansion of primary and secondary schools, including necessary development on school playing fields will be supported to meet local need.'

With supporting text, to read,

'There are 21 existing primary schools and 4 secondary schools (July 2012) in the District. There is a need for these important facilities to continue to be fit for purpose to deliver high standard education provision. Where schools are retained in education use the Council will support their re-modelling and expansion to meet local need.'