3. The Green Belt and Countryside

New Policy DMxx: Sustainable Food Systems


2.X.1 Food is one of the essentials for life and food security is of increasing concern, as

highlighted in the Government's Food 2030 strategy and the Foresight Report "The

Future of Food and Farming: challenges and choices for global sustainability".

For example, supporting sustainable food systems underpins the aims of the Bristol Core Strategy to

deliver a prosperous, cohesive and sustainable city.

The National Planning Policy Framework highlights the benefits of agricultural land.

Paragraph Objectives 2, para 3.2, 3.9-3.10, Policy DM10, Figure 3

Whilst under Objectives, Rochford council propose limited extensions to settlements to prevent coalescence of same and at Paragrpahs 3.2 to prevent settlements merging, there is contradiction - under Landscape Character council propose at para 3.9-3.10, Figure 3, 3 landscape character areas: farmland, coastal and South Essex Coastal Towns - completely involved Rayleigh and Rochford (plus slight extensions) with Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - effectively creating a conurbation, abolishing any green belt involved. So called SECT is denoted "least sensitive to change", mixed, but unified by overall dominance of urban development, with frequent views of an urban skyline", marked by masts, pylons and a "decline in countryside management". At paras. 3.23, 25, 30, Policy DM10, virtually all development is to go in SECT. (Clearly the Hockley Area Action Plan proposals are intended to make central Hockley a huge national shopping centre to serve such conurbation.)

This negates pious proposals to avoid impact of new development on character of an area set out in Housing chapter at paras 2.7-8 and promotion of Parish Plans etc to guide developers at para 2.10, all of which can be regarded with due scepticism in view of creeping urbanisation apparently sought.

Paragraph Objectives 2, para 3.2, 3.9-3.10, Policy DM10, Figure 3

Whilst under Objectives, Rochford council propose limited extensions to settlements to prevent coalescence of same and at Paragrpahs 3.2 to prevent settlements merging, there is contradiction - under Landscape Character council propose at para 3.9-3.10, Figure 3, 3 landscape character areas: farmland, coastal and South Essex Coastal Towns - completely involved Rayleigh and Rochford (plus slight extensions) with Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - effectively creating a conurbation, abolishing any green belt involved. So called SECT is denoted "least sensitive to change", mixed, but unified by overall dominance of urban development, with frequent views of an urban skyline", marked by masts, pylons and a "decline in countryside management". At paras. 3.23, 25, 30, Policy DM10, virtually all development is to go in SECT. (Clearly the Hockley Area Action Plan proposals are intended to make central Hockley a huge national shopping centre to serve such conurbation.)

This negates pious proposals to avoid impact of new development on character of an area set out in Housing chapter at paras 2.7-8 and promotion of Parish Plans etc to guide developers at para 2.10, all of which can be regarded with due scepticism in view of creeping urbanisation apparently sought.

Paragraph Objectives 2, para 3.2, 3.9-3.10, Policy DM10, Figure 3

Whilst under Objectives, Rochford council propose limited extensions to settlements to prevent coalescence of same and at Paragrpahs 3.2 to prevent settlements merging, there is contradiction - under Landscape Character council propose at para 3.9-3.10, Figure 3, 3 landscape character areas: farmland, coastal and South Essex Coastal Towns - completely involved Rayleigh and Rochford (plus slight extensions) with Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - effectively creating a conurbation, abolishing any green belt involved. So called SECT is denoted "least sensitive to change", mixed, but unified by overall dominance of urban development, with frequent views of an urban skyline", marked by masts, pylons and a "decline in countryside management". At paras. 3.23, 25, 30, Policy DM10, virtually all development is to go in SECT. (Clearly the Hockley Area Action Plan proposals are intended to make central Hockley a huge national shopping centre to serve such conurbation.)

This negates pious proposals to avoid impact of new development on character of an area set out in Housing chapter at paras 2.7-8 and promotion of Parish Plans etc to guide developers at para 2.10, all of which can be regarded with due scepticism in view of creeping urbanisation apparently sought.

Paragraph Objectives 2, para 3.2, 3.9-3.10, Policy DM10, Figure 3

Whilst under Objectives, Rochford council propose limited extensions to settlements to prevent coalescence of same and at Paragrpahs 3.2 to prevent settlements merging, there is contradiction - under Landscape Character council propose at para 3.9-3.10, Figure 3, 3 landscape character areas: farmland, coastal and South Essex Coastal Towns - completely involved Rayleigh and Rochford (plus slight extensions) with Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - effectively creating a conurbation, abolishing any green belt involved. So called SECT is denoted "least sensitive to change", mixed, but unified by overall dominance of urban development, with frequent views of an urban skyline", marked by masts, pylons and a "decline in countryside management". At paras. 3.23, 25, 30, Policy DM10, virtually all development is to go in SECT. (Clearly the Hockley Area Action Plan proposals are intended to make central Hockley a huge national shopping centre to serve such conurbation.)

This negates pious proposals to avoid impact of new development on character of an area set out in Housing chapter at paras 2.7-8 and promotion of Parish Plans etc to guide developers at para 2.10, all of which can be regarded with due scepticism in view of creeping urbanisation apparently sought.

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.

Rayleigh Town Council has no significant reason to object to the content of each of the items incorporated in section 3 The Green Belt and Countryside.

We particularly support the long term aim "The Green Belt remains predominantly undeveloped and open in character".

DM10 generally supported

DM11, DM12 & DM13 are generally supported but CPC is concerned that several existing businesses in the Green Belt in Canewdon Parish already have an unacceptable adverse effect on highway safety, the amenity of nearby residential occupiers and important wildlife habitats. Rural diversification should not put even more pressure on the road network and such uses should not be allowed where weight restricted roads need to be used. Canewdon does not have good links to the highway network because of the narrow country lanes and weight restrictions.

With regard to DM15, the use of the roads in Canewdon for horse riding is both dangerous and increasing in frequency and all proposed sites for further stables in Canewdon should have easy access to bridleways and/or sufficient land to meet all the exercise needs of the horses.

DM17, DM18, DM19, DM20, DM21 & DM22 are supported so long as they are robustly imposed.

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

In order to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and to more clearly support Rochford District Council's objectives for the historic environment additional text should be included in the Document, to read,
* Chapter 4, Vision, page 61 - insert additional text into the Vision to read,
Short term:
* Local, regional and national sites of historic environment importance are protected
Medium Term
* Local, regional and national sites of historic environment importance are being both protected and enhanced
Long term
* Historic environment assets are protected and managed for the future and are an integral part of the local sense of Place.