Self-Build and Custom-Build Homes

In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:
Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not. If they have not been completed, do not say so.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously and I shall submit it again as an appendix to this document.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do not look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Air quality now has increased importance. The EU is threatening to fine our government because its plans to improve air quality in a large number of cities and towns are inadequate. Just waiting and hoping that things get better will not do!

If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

I refer you again to the plan that I append to this document to significantly reduce congestion and improve air quality in Rayleigh town centre. This could be achieved in much less time than waiting for all the existing vehicles to be replaced.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.




Appendix

A proposal for the reduction of traffic congestion in central Rayleigh and consequent improvement of air quality

Air pollution is an acknowledged problem in central Rayleigh and just today the high court have ruled that the government must do more to reduce it, particularly NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. A major cause of air pollution in Rayleigh is traffic queuing on Crown Hill and creeping forward one vehicle at a time - engines continually running and repeated hill starts which are particularly bad for NOx emissions. Many recent cars and buses have automatic engine stop when stationary so that if traffic is held at a red light emissions will be significantly reduced. This feature will become commonplace over the next few years.

The pedestrian crossing at the top of Crown Hill and the mini roundabout at its junction with the High Street must be eliminated in order to cure this problem. This proposal achieves that and improves traffic flow in Websters Way as well as eliminating most traffic from the central part of the High Street.

1. Close the High Street to traffic between the Crown and Half Moon/ Church. Allow access for taxis to the existing taxi lagoon only. Allow access for delivery vehicles but perhaps only at specified times. This will be a shared space and so 10 MPH speed limit.
2. Block off access from Bellingham Lane and Church Street to the High Street.
3. Replace the mini roundabout at the Crown Hill / High Street junction with a swept bend with limited access to and from the High Street (see 1) with give way lines on the outside of the bend.
4. Replace mini roundabouts at the High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road/ Websters Way junctions with traffic lights.
5. Replace the zebra crossing at the top of Crown Hill with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
6. Remove the pedestrian crossing outside the Spread Eagle. This is no longer needed as people can cross from The Crown to the taxi lagoon.
7. Replace the zebra crossing across Eastwood Road outside Marks and Spencer with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
8. Replace the zebra crossing across Websters Way near to Eastwood Road with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
9. Arrange for coordinated control of the two new sets of traffic lights, and the four light controlled pedestrian crossings (Crown Hill, Websters Way, and two in Eastwood Road). *
10. Remove the pedestrian crossing in the centre of the High Street as it is no longer needed.
11. Remove the traffic lights at the Junction of Websters Way and High Street and the pedestrian crossing across the High Street as they are no longer needed. Retain the pedestrian crossing across Websters Way. This junction becomes a swept bend and will be free flowing for traffic except when pedestrians are crossing.
12. Access for wedding cars and hearses to the church will be unaffected except that they will have to use London Hill instead of Bellingham Lane to/from Church Street.
13. Access to the Mill Hall and its car parks will be via London Hill and Bellingham Lane. A new exit will be required from the windmill car park to London Hill adjacent to Simpsons solicitors. **
14. Provide parking for disabled people in Bellingham Lane between the Mill hall and its previous junction with the High Street. Create a small turning circle where the junction used to be.
15. Create a layby in Websters Way for buses heading for Hockley or Bull Lane.
16. The loading bay outside Wimpy will become the bus stop for the No 9 bus.
17. The No 1 bus is a problem as it will no longer be able to stop in the High Street or Websters Way and the first stop in the High Road is too far from the town centre. A new bus layby will be needed outside Pizza Express. ***
18. Install traffic lights at the junction of Downhall Road and London Road, incorporating the existing light controlled pedestrian crossing.
19. Install traffic lights at the junction of London Hill and London Road / Station Road. Traffic lights will not be needed at the junction of The Approach and London Road if the lights either side of this junction are phased correctly.

* There are potentially some problems which arise because there will be traffic lights at junctions where the limited space available prohibits the use of a right turn lane or a left filter lane and there are pedestrian crossings nearby. The traffic lights at High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road / Websters Way will each need to have a phase when traffic from all three directions is stopped and both the adjacent pedestrian crossings are open for pedestrians. This phase will only need to occur when a pedestrian has requested it at either of the adjacent crossings. When there is a lot of pedestrian traffic it will be necessary to synchronise both junctions so that the "all traffic stopped" phase occurs at both junctions at the same time.

** Some drivers will complain that in order to get to the Mill Hall they have to go down Crown Hill and up London Hill, although they could park in Websters Way car park or the market car park and walk. However, people approaching Rayleigh along the London Road will have easier access to the Mill Hall car parks and will not enter the town centre at all, reducing congestion and pollution.

*** Considering traffic coming up Crown Hill, it will be advantageous to arrange that when the pedestrian crossing on Crown Hill goes red to stop traffic there is a delay of several seconds before the light at the High Street/ Eastwood Road junction and the Eastwood Road pedestrian crossing turn red. This should empty this section of road and allow a bus in the layby to pull out without disrupting the traffic flow up Crown Hill.

Response by the House Builders Federation to the Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation

Thank you for consulting the Home Builders Federation (HBF) on the Development Management Plan. The HBF is the principal representative body of the housebuilding industry in England and Wales and our representations reflect the views of discussions with our membership of national and multinational corporations through to regional developers and small local housebuilders. Our members account for over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year.

Duty to Co-operate

The Duty to Co-operate (S110 of the Localism Act 2011 which introduced S33A into the 2004 Act) requires the Council to co-operate with other prescribed bodies to maximise the effectiveness of plan making by constructive, active and on-going engagement. The high level principles associated with the Duty are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paras 156, 178 - 181) and in twenty three separate paragraphs of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). In determining if the Duty has been satisfactorily discharged it is important to consider the outcomes arising from the process of co-operation and the influence of these outcomes on the Local Plan. One of the required outcomes is the delivery of full objectively assessed housing needs (OAHN) for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (HMA) as set out in the NPPF (para 47) including the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with sustainable development (NPPF para 182).
The Council considers itself to be in an HMA with Basildon, Castle Point and Southend-on-Sea. We would not disagree with this HMA but it must be recognised that there will be linkages with other neighbouring HMAs that could lead to it being reasonable for housing needs from outside the HMA to be met within Rochford. However, it would appear that there are particularly challenges facing the South Essex HMA. The recent decision by Castle Point Borough Council to unilaterally reduce the amount of homes they will seek to deliver is one such challenge. This would suggest that there is a need for strong co-operation between the authorities in deciding how the housing needs of the HMA will be met. We therefore welcome the efforts that are being made to improve co-operation across the South Essex HMA. There is clearly the appetite for joint working that can deliver shared outcomes when necessary, as was the case for the Joint Area Action Plan for London Southend Airport. A similar degree of positive and effective co-operation must be given to the issue of meeting housing needs and we welcome any positive steps that are taken in this direction. One such step has been the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). However, whilst this is a reasonable start it we would suggest that the Council seeks to secure greater certainty that housing needs will be met within the HMA. The MOU should establish tangible outputs or agreement as to how development needs will be met and where which is a key requirement of co-operation as set out in paragraph 179 of the NPPF which states:

"Joint working should enable local planning authorities to work together to meet development requirements which cannot be wholly met within their own areas - for instance because of a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the principles and policies of this Framework"

It is important to remember that paragraph 181 of the NPPF states that co-operation should result in "... a final position where plans are in place to provide the land and infrastructure necessary to support current and projected future levels of development". The Council should look to ensure that this is the goal of any co-operation and if achieved can be considered to have fulfilled both the legal and policy elements of the duty to co-operate.

The need for market and affordable homes

Objectively assessed needs

The approach set out in the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment update would appear to be a sound basis for assessing housing needs. The outcome of this study is an objectively assessed housing need (OAN) for Rochford of between 331 and 361 dwellings per annum (dpa). The higher figure is a 41% uplift on the 2014 based household projections. The higher estimate of OAN establishes a level of housing needs that is similar to the Government's expectations for Rochford if the standard methodology where to be applied, as such we would urge the Council to prepare a plan to meet the higher OAN. In seeking to meet this level of need the Council have identified three options on page 38 of the consultation document:

A. meet our own needs as far as possible given environmental and other constraints
B. Work with other neighbouring LPAs to ensure the needs of the HMA are met
C. Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be made available to residents of Rochford first.

The first two options set out are not options but fundamental requirements of the plan making process as established in paragraphs 14 and 47 of the NPPF. The key question for the Council is how will it meet its own OAN as well as ensure the needs of the HMA are met in full. To achieve this the Council will have to co-operate with its partners in the HMA to establish an effective strategic approach to housing delivery. Given that the HMA has already seen one authority, Castle Point BC, attempt to reduce its housing requirement without consulting with other authorities in the HMA it is imperative that more robust systems for co-operation are established as soon as possible.
Whilst the Council are right to consider the constraints on development within the District it should not seek to restrict its housing requirement solely on the basis of environmental capacity, as is alluded to in paragraph 6.29. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out that there are three dimensions to sustainable development and the Council will also need to consider the social and economic advantages that arise from meeting housing needs. In particular the Council will need to consider whether they are able to mitigate against any negative environmental impacts or indeed whether the social and economic benefits outweigh any negative environmental impacts. As such the Environmental Capacity Study 2015 prepared by the Council may inform the consideration of development options as part of the Sustainability Appraisal but it should not be used as the basis to establish the District's housing requirement.

What will be essential is for the Council to undertake an assessment of the planning constraints to development as established in footnote 9 to paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In particular we consider it essential that the Council undertakes a review of its Green Belt to understand the degree to which land under this designation continues to support the purposes as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF and to consider whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would support amendments to the current boundary. When considering exceptional circumstances we recommend that the Council refers to the case of Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078. This case highlighted the importance of considering housing needs and supply against the strength of the Green Belt when assessing whether exceptional circumstances are present. So whilst the Government have stated that housing need on its own are not likely to constitute exceptional circumstances, they would be sufficient where land is not performing strongly against the purposes of Green Belt. We would also add that the worsening affordability of housing in the District would also contribute to the argument that there are exceptional circumstances to amend Green Belt boundaries in Rochford. If the Council has not already begun the process of reviewing the Green Belt we would recommend that work is taken forward with some urgency.

With regard to option c, the Council cannot seek to apply a "Rochford First" approach to the sale of market homes. Such an approach is fundamentally opposed to the operation of the free market. Just as residents of Rochford are permitted to buy homes in any other part of the Country, so people from elsewhere should be permitted to purchase homes in Rochford. Whilst the HBF have worked with the Mayor of London and our members to establish a voluntary scheme to promote homes in London for the first 3 months on which they are marketed solely to those living and working in the Capital we must stress that this is a voluntary scheme and not one that has been established though the plan making process. We do not consider it appropriate to have a planning policy that would restrict sales in this manner, in fact we would consider it beyond the scope of the planning system to prevent a developer from selling homes to any willing buyer. We would therefore strongly suggest the Council does not take forward option C on page 38.

Affordable homes

The Council must set their affordable housing policy at a level that does not affect the viability of development within their area or push it to the margins of viability. This means that despite the Council's statement in paragraph 6.32 that delivering a lower proportion of affordable housing is not a reasonable option it may need to consider such an approach. In fact PPG encourages this in paragraph 10-007 which states:
"Emerging policy requirements may need to be adjusted to ensure that the plan is able to deliver sustainable development."

Until the necessary evidence is available it is not possible to determine the correct approach to regarding the level of affordable housing that should be provided. The level of affordable housing that development can reasonably support will vary in relation to the infrastructure required, the nature of the development strategy being taken forward and other policies in the plan, such as the optional technical standards discussed below, will all reduce the potential contribution development can make toward supporting affordable housing and must be tested before the Council considers its options.

If the Council wishes to improve the provision of affordable housing it also has the option of increasing the allocation of land for residential development. PPG sets out in paragraph 2a-029 that an:

"... increase in the total housing figures included in the local plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes"
We would therefore encourage the Council to consider the option of increasing the overall supply of land to a level that not only meets the need for affordable housing but also establishes a reasonable level of affordable housing contribution. However, any policy must not require contributions from developments of fewer than 10 units and less than 1000 sqm. Any policy, such as option C on page 39 of the consultation document would, that seeks to do so would not be consistent with the written ministerial statement of the 2 March 2015 and paragraph 23b-031 of PPG.

Homes for older people and Adults with disabilities

Any policy on optional accessibility standards will need to be full justified, as required by paragraph 56-007 in PPG, on the basis of need, viability and the accessibility and adaptability of the existing housing stock. In particular the Council needs to consider the impact on viability of delivering both the lower and higher accessibility standards set out in part M4 of the Building Regulations. Whilst on their own the costs may not appear significant the cumulative impact of these costs alongside those for affordable housing, infrastructure, open space, energy efficiency etc. that the Council have suggested will be required is significant. It should also be noted that paragraph 56-009 of PPG states that: "Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling." The Council should therefore not apply the higher level Part M4(3) to market homes.

Delivering Housing needs

Meeting housing needs

All the options set out at paragraph 6.48 should be considered and it is likely that a mix of these options will be required in order to meet the development needs of the District, and potentially offer opportunities to meet housing needs from elsewhere in the HMA if necessary. It is also important as part of the development of the local plan to ensure that the Council provides a mix of development opportunities. The Government set out in the Housing White Paper the importance it places on ensuring there are opportunities for small and medium sized house builders as well as large volume house builders. As such it will be important to allocate a range of different sites and not rely on strategic allocations to deliver the vast majority of the Council's housing needs. The allocation of small site not only provides opportunities for SME developers it also improves rates of delivery as smaller sites can be developed more quickly enabling the Council to maintain a five year land supply prior to strategic sites coming on line.

Bungalows

We do not consider it appropriate to set a target for the development of bungalows. Bungalows will have a much larger footprint than two and three story homes of the same floor area and as such have a significant impact on viability due to the reduction in the number of units that can be delivered on a site. The Council must also remember that there is a need to maximise development on each site and the delivery of bungalows will significantly reduce the capacity of each site. This will require the Council to release more land or set higher density targets than the 30 dwellings per hectare, as identified as an option on page 50, if it is to meet housing needs.

Housing Mix

We would agree that the current policy in the Core Strategy provides no real guidance to applicants as to what a policy compliant scheme would look like. The NPPF in paragraph 17 and 154 is clear that the local plan, and the policies it contains, should support effective and efficient decision making with policies that provide a clear indication as to how a decision maker should react. We would therefore support option B which would provide clear guidance with the flexibility to vary the mix on the basis of viability.

The continued application of the nationally described space standard will need to be fully justified as required by paragraph 56-020 of the NPPF on the basis of need and viability. Should the Council consider it to have sufficient evidence we would recommend that any policy is sufficiently flexible to vary these standards to support higher densities in appropriate locations. Well-designed homes can easily meet the needs of many individuals and families whilst being below the nationally described space standards and the Council should ensure it has the ability to support such developments.

Design and building efficiency

Paragraph 10.63 sets out seven options with regard efficiency standard in buildings. The HBF does not generally object to local plans encouraging developers to include renewable energy as part of a scheme, and to minimising resource use in general, however it is important that this is not interpreted as a mandatory requirement. This would be contrary to the Government's intentions, as set out in ministerial statement of March 20151, the Treasury's 2015 report 'Fixing the Foundations2' and the Housing Standards Review, which specifically identified energy requirements for new housing development to be a matter solely for Building Regulations with no optional standards. As such we would support option G not to have a policy on energy efficiency standards. Any other approach would be inconsistent with the Government's approach to building standards which it limits to those optional technical standards set out in PPG.

Self-build and custom housebuilding

In considering its options for the delivery of self and custom build housing the Council needs to consider the approaches set out in PPG. Whilst this suggests developing policies in local plans for self-build and custom housebuilding it also outlines that the need for Council to consider:

 Using their own land

 Engaging with land owners to encourage them to consider self-build and custom housebuilding and facilitating access where a land owner is interested

 Working with custom build developers to maximise opportunity

Further guidance is also provided in para 57-14 of PPG which sets out the need for Council's to consider how they can support the delivery of self-build plots through their housing strategy, land disposal and regeneration functions. This would suggest that the Council needs to set policies that support and encourage land owners and developers to bring forward plots the emphasis should be on the local authority using their own land and as part of their overall housing strategy finding the necessary plots. We therefore consider option A to be inconsistent with national policy as it seeks to impose a proportion of self-build plots on land owners and developers rather than facilitating, encouraging and incentivising the delivery of serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding. We would recommend that the option D is the most appropriate with regard to approach taken in the local plan.
Should the Council choose to have a policy it will be important to consider what should happen to self-build plots should they not be sold. Where it is agreed that self-build plots will be provided on sites as part of any S106 agreement the policy must set out that any unsold will revert to the developer after 6 months of it being offered on the open market to be delivered as part of the overall scheme. We would also recommend that if development of a purchased plot has not commenced within three years of purchase that the buyer be refunded and the plot reverts to the developer. It is important that plots should not be left empty to detriment of its neighbours or the development as a whole.

Parking standards

Whilst Government policy supports the use of minimum parking standards for residential development there is also a drive for higher density residential development around transport hubs. In order to achieve higher densities and ensure schemes remain viable it may be necessary to reduce parking requirements in sustainable locations below stated minimums. We would therefore recommend that any policy state that where appropriate development will be permitted below minimum standards. This would ensure the policy is sufficiently flexible to support sustainable and viable development, all of which are key elements the NPPF, specifically paragraphs 7, 14, 39 and 173.

We hope these comments are of assistance in taking the plan forward to the next stage of plan preparation and examination. Should you require any further clarification on the issues raised in this representation please contact me.

*THIS REPRESENTATION HAS AN ATTACHMENT*

ROCHFORD DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN - ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION (13 DEC 2017 - 7 MARCH 2018) - Persimmon Homes Representations

1.Introduction

Persimmon Homes welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Issues & Options version of the Rochford Local Plan.

Persimmon Homes are one of the UK's leading builders of new homes with a track record of delivery in the eastern region. They are particularly active in Essex therefore a developer with significant experience of both market and planning issues in the area, as well as being a 'user' of the development plan.

2Scope of representations

Persimmon Homes are promoting residential development at the following sustainable site that would assist Rochford meet its housing needs;

-Land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh (Site ID CSF087) - this 4.18 ha site was advanced as part of the 2015 call-for-sites. Submitted alongside this letter of representation is a 'Site Deliverability Statement: Development at Land south of Kingswood Crescent, Persimmon Homes, February 2018'.

3Representations

Duty to Co-operate
One of the required outcomes of the Duty to Co-operate is the delivery of full objectively assessed housing needs (OAHN) for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (HMA) as set out in the NPPF (para 47) including the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with sustainable development (NPPF para 182).

The Council defines its Housing Market Areas as including Basildon, Castle Point and Southend-on-Sea.

Local Authorities comprises Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock and Essex County Council have formed the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA). We note that as of the end of 2017 ASELA have prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Part of the aims of ASELA is to 'Open up spaces for housing, business and leisure development by developing a spatial strategy'.

It is evident from the experience at Castle Point that certain authorities have expressed a desire not to meet their full OAHN. It remains to be seen the establishment of this body will provide effective governance and a mechanism by which to ensure genuine co-operation to meet full OAHN. Many adjoining authorities within the northern part of Essex have not had to factor in meeting housing growth from ASELA Authorities and are significantly more advanced with their development plans than the majority of South Essex Authorities.

The need for market and affordable homes

Para 5.11 (p27) Strategic Priority 1

We are concerned that the Council's 'Strategic Priority 1: The homes and jobs needed in the area' is too narrow in its scope and does not accord with the NPPF

'To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs through prioritising the use of previously developed land first and working with our neighbours in South Essex'.

This implies that there is two routes to meeting housing and jobs; (1) opportunities on brownfield sites and (2) meeting unmet need via the Duty to Co-operate. The plans strategic policies should seek to deliver 'the homes and jobs needed in the area' in accordance with para 156 of the NPPF. The Council do not have the evidence to establish that it cannot meet its own development requirements. This strategic policy is unduly narrow and restrictive, does not accord with the NPPF and is not supported by evidence.

The issues and options document does not identify that the Council will undertake a Green Belt review. In terms of accommodating sustainable development that allows future generations to meet their needs, an assessment should be made of the wider sustainability issues of meeting its full OAHN housing requirements together with an assessment against the Green Belt purposes. This may lead to the identification of land released from the Green Belt to provide a portfolio of sites and is an arguable 'exceptional circumstance' for reviewing the boundary. The NPPF seeks to align Green Belt boundary review with sustainable patterns of development (paragraph 84).
There is a risk that constraining growth to previously developed land would not enable the Council to address its other strategic objectives, including supporting future housing need and addressing affordability issues (Objective 2) and supporting economic growth (Objectives 3 and 4). Unduly limiting growth would also not support Strategic Priorities 2 and 3 as this would limit growth in the economy and the opportunity to lever investment in infrastructure.

Strategic Priority 1 does not accord with the Governments policy to significantly boost housing supply. The draft amendments to the NPPF also sets out an expectation for objectively assessed needs to be accommodated unless there are strong reasons not to, including any unmet needs from neighbouring areas.

Objectively assessed needs

Council's SHMA identified objectively assessed housing need (OAN) for Rochford of between 331 and 361 dwellings per annum (dpa). 361 dpa is a 41% uplift on the 2014 based household projections. This level of housing is similar to the Government's standard methodology target.

The consultation identifies three options (p38):

A.meet our own needs as far as possible given environmental and other constraints

B.Work with other neighbouring LPAs to ensure the needs of the HMA are met

C.Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be made available to residents of Rochford first.

These are not mutually exclusive options. The first two are requirements of the NPPF.

As detailed above, we are concerned that the Council's Strategic Priority has been too narrowly framed and is not NPPF compliant. In addition, the Council should commit to a Green Belt review to help it assess the extent it can meet full OAHN and comply with para 14 of the NPPF.

In relation to Option 'c', we consider that there is no national planning policy support to limit a percentage of market homes to qualifying residents of Rochford. Furthermore, such a policy would be anti-competitive and discriminatory. It is relevant to note that no surrounding authorities, including those within the HMA, have policy that seeks to restrict occupation of market homes. Such a policy should impede social mobility, including the need to provide houses to support economic growth.

The Council should plan to meet full OAHN which will ensure that the needs of Rochford are met in full, including for those who aspire or need to live in the borough in the future. We strongly suggest that the Council does not advance option 'C' as to do so would risk the soundness of the plan.

Affordable Homes (p39 - 6.32)

In line with the NPPF, the development plan needs to be deliverable. Levels of affordable housing need to be informed by an assessment of housing need and what developments can viably support. Para 173 of the NPPF is clear that 'the scale of development identified in the
plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened'.

The Council should look to establish the level of affordable housing based on a thorough understanding of development viability. As there is a high level of need, the Council should assess the potential to deliver a higher housing figure as this would increase the total supply.

Homes for older people and Adults with disabilities

Any policy on optional accessibility standards will need to be fully justified, as required by paragraph 56-007 in PPG, on the basis of need, viability and the accessibility and adaptability of the existing housing stock.

Council needs to consider the impact on viability of the scale of obligations and policy burdens sought, including delivering both the lower and higher accessibility standards set out in part M4 of the Building Regulations.

Part M4(3) should not be application to market homes. PPG states: "Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling."

(Paragraph 56-009).

Delivering our Need for Homes (p46)

We note the existing settlement hierarchy.

It is too early in the process to discount any of the options set out at para 6.48. It is considered that the Council should not unduly constrain itself and needs to fully investigate the options based on robust evidence. We consider that the Council should undertake a review of its Green Belt and assess the extent to which this could assist in meeting the full OAHN.

In terms of option 'E' 'A new settlement', the Council will need to consider the extent to which this could be delivered within the plan period, the associated complexities and the critical mass needed to ensure it would be sustainable.

Good Mix of Homes (p46-48)

We support Option A which retains a flexible approach to the type of market homes delivered. It is considered that a target a mix for affordable homes is appropriate, subject to flexibility to ensure that it can reflect the specific circumstances of the site.

Option C - The current adopted plan contains minimum habitable floorspace standards within Table 3. Whilst the 'National Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards' have superseded these by default, it is relevant to note that the Council Standards were derived from HCA and are in the most part are not as high as the NPSS. Therefore the previous plan assessed a less onerous standard.
Paragraphs 174 and 177 of the NPPF make it clear that via the Local Plan process LPAs should assess the cumulative impact of policy burden, including housing standards, to ensure that it does not put implementation of the plan at serious risk.

The new Ministerial Statement stated the following: "The optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Guidance."

Accompanying this, Paragraph 001 Reference ID:56-001-20150327 of the NPPG made it clear that LPAs will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans. Paragraph 002 Reference ID 56-002-20160519 of the NPPG confirms that LPAs should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment.

The new NPPG section provided substantial guidance in terms of the implementation of the new regime including specific advice on the individual standards which are discussed below.

NPPG sets out clear criteria which Councils must satisfy in order to adopt optional NDSSs over and above the requirements of Building Regulations.

Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

*need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.

*Viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.

*timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions.

The guidance effectively sets out three stages which must be overcome to ensure the NDSSs are only applied where needed and impacts are fully considered.

In the recently Housing White Paper the Government have confirmed their view that the fundamentals of the Building Regulations system remain sound and that important steps were taken in the last Parliament.

In relation to Space Standards, paragraph 1.55 states that "the use of minimum space standards for new development is seen as an important tool in delivering quality family homes. However the Government is concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. For example, despite being highly desirable, many traditional mews houses could not be built under today's standards.
We also want to make sure the standards do not rule out new approaches to meeting demand, building on the high quality compact living model of developers such as Pocket Homes. The Government will review the Nationally Described Space Standard to ensure greater local housing choice, while ensuring we avoid a race to the bottom in the size of homes on offer."

The above confirms the Government's intentions to review NDSSs. This does not have any immediate impact upon Colchester's emerging plan. However, it does demonstrate the Government's unease with a one size fits all approach and its desire to ensure greater local housing choice. Unfortunately, introduction of the NDSSs would narrow the choice available at the expense of affordability and viability.

Option E - We do not consider it appropriate to include a requirement for bungalows. This would reduce the density of development. In addition, modern homes are often capable of adaptable to assist accessibility.

In terms of density (p50), we support the Council's use of minimum density to ensure efficient use of land. The Council will need to ensure it is clear as to where higher minimum densities would be appropriate and assess where these should apply. If higher densities are applied in certain locations, policies should be framed to ensure that there is a recognition that new development may be of a scale and density which is distinct from the prevailing character of the area.

Renewable Energy Generation (p98)

The cost of any additional measures will need to be factored into an assessment of viability.

Planning Obligations and Standard Charges (p99)

The Council should ensure that reliance upon s106 with the associated pooling restrictions do not impede growth. The options do not consider the role of CIL.

Early Years and Childcare Provision (P109)

It is considered that whilst expanding existing education facilities may play a role, the scale of development may warrant identifying sites for education purposes. It is considered that this option should not be ruled out.

Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation (p115)

The Council should not only review its policy, but look at the opportunities that development brings to secure new open space and Green Infrastructure.

As detailed in the attached promotional document, the development of part of land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh (CSF087) provides the opportunity to formalise footpath routes and improve access to Green Infrastructure in this locality.
Green Belt (p121)

As detailed above, the Council needs to consider its options to meet its full OAHN, including the implications for the Green Belt in doing so. The Council need to undertake a review of its Green Belt to understand the degree to which land under this designation continues to support the purposes as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF and to consider whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would support amendments to the current boundary.

It is considered unhelpful to frame the options in relation to the current Core Strategy which addresses a different plan period and does not seek to meet the current OAHN.

Good Design and Building Efficiency (p135)

Paragraph 10.63 sets out seven options with regard efficiency standard in buildings.

We support option G not to have a policy on energy efficiency standards. Any other approach would be inconsistent with the Government's approach to building standards which it limits to those optional technical standards set out in the PPG.

Mix of Affordable Homes

It is evident that the Council needs to deliver more housing, including affordable housing. We consider that the Council's policy needs to be reviewed in light of evidence of need, viability and changes to national guidance. The government introduced 'affordable rent' in 2011 and this needs to be reflected in policy.

Self Build and Custom Homes

Emphasis should be on the local authority using their own land and as part of their overall housing strategy finding the necessary plots. Option A is inconsistent with national policy as it seeks to impose a proportion of self-build plots on developers. We recommend that the option B is the most appropriate.

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt (p156)

As part of the Green Belt review the Council should look at opportunities to develop previously developed sites in the Green Belt. In undertaking this exercise, the Council should look at the opportunities this presents to build sustainable extensions to settlements and the benefit that may arise in terms of providing affordable housing within settlements that may not otherwise arise. Sites of former glasshouses and redundant agricultural buildings close to or within settlements offer opportunities for housing.

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of these representations.