Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Thank you for inviting us to comment on your Preferred Options Report. We have scrutinised the document with a view to assessing its robustness as a basis for moving towards the submission stage, bearing in mind the tests of 'soundness' set out in paragraph 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Development Frameworks.

There is further information on assessing soundness on the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/local_dev/index.htm. As experience of the new system grows there is also an expanding body of advice and good practice available, notably the Inspectorate's 'Lessons Learnt' document (June 2007 - available via the same web link) and the Core Strategy guidance produced by the Planning Advisory Service: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/31034.

Although this material does not constitute government policy or guidance it will be helpful in considering the adequacy of the work undertaken to date and the further work required prior to submission. Indeed the Inspectorate recommends that authorities undertake a self-assessment of the soundness of their draft DPDs as they prepare their submission versions, and to make this available when they formally submit these documents.

While we welcome the steps that your Council has made in progressing the Core Strategy to the preferred options stage, our assessment suggests that significant further work is required prior to producing a submission document, if the Council is to minimise the risk of the Core Strategy being judged unsound following the examination.

For this reason our letter focuses on general issues that need to be addressed rather than detailed observations on the various options that have been set out. Nonetheless we would like these comments to be considered as formal representations, and have related them where possible to the tests of soundness set out in PPS12.

Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment (soundness test iii)

We are aware that some sustainability appraisal work has been undertaken already in support of the previous round of consultation. It is surprising that no further information appears to be available at this stage, and that the results of the sustainability appraisal are not used to support and justify the choice of preferred options. It would have been helpful for the Preferred Options Report to include a summary of the sustainability effects of each the different options, drawing upon the appraisal process. This is a potentially serious omission. At examination the authority will need to demonstrate a clear trail of options generation, appraisal, selection or rejection and the role that SA has played in this process. In our view the present consultation exercise fails to provide this trail of evidence.

You are also reminded that Local Planning Authorities are now obliged to consider whether 'Appropriate Assessment' is required during plan production, to assess the potential impacts on sites of European importance for nature conservation. Ideally the need for AA should be gauged during the Sustainability Appraisal scoping stage, with the assessment itself (if required) undertaken alongside the development and testing of options. There appears to be no evidence from the consultation material that these steps have been taken, and we would urge you to address this before moving to submission stage. Draft guidance is available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502244

A spatial plan consistent with national policy and other strategies (test iv)
The Core Strategy should be a strategic document which sets out a vision and framework for guiding the future development of the area, taking into account other plans and strategies and the spatial requirements of different service areas. As Maydo Pitt explained in her letter of 16 November last year, we would expect the process of developing preferred options to consider and present alternative scenarios for the future of the district, covering matters such as the broad distribution of development, particular directions of growth and the approach to managing key issues such as the rural environment, local economy and town centres.

While the Preferred Options Report contains a reasonable basis for an overall spatial vision, it fails to translate this into a clear set of objectives and a spatial strategy to guide the future of the district. This is evident in a number of ways:
* There is insufficient detail about the approach to be taken to the location of key uses and the future of important areas (e.g. employment, town centres);
* Many of the 'preferred options' are procedural in nature (policies will be prepared on... etc.) rather than indicating the substance of the approach to be taken;
* There is little indication of the way in which the implications of other plans and strategies (listed in the box on page 2) are to be addressed;
* Some of the policy areas suggest matters that are more appropriately dealt with through the proposed Development Control Policies DPD, although it is difficult to be specific given the lack of detail in the preferred options that are set out.

In our view significant further work needs to be undertaken in order to provide the basis for a spatial plan, and to allow stakeholders to have a say on the broad spatial choices facing the district. Given Rochford's coastal location we find it particularly surprising that there is no indication of how the strategy and policy approaches are intended to address climate change and flood risk.

We are also concerned that some of the preferred options are inconsistent with national policy, and that the report fails to provide adequate justification for these departures. In particular:
* The proposals for local landscape designations (strategic buffers, special landscape areas, area of historic landscape), which require particular justification in the context of PPS7;
* The proposed approach to the environmental performance of buildings (page 35) which fails to accord with emerging policy in Planning and Climate Change (draft supplement to PPS1).

At the same time you are reminded that policies in the Core Strategy (and elsewhere in the LDF) should not repeat statements of national policy or policies contained in the RSS. There are suggestions in some of the preferred policy approaches that such repetition could occur, although it is difficult to be specific due to the lack of detail in the document.

Regard paid to the community strategy (test v)

Although the document identifies some general influences stemming from the Community Strategy (page 9) it could do more to explain how these are carried through into the spatial strategy and preferred policy approaches.

Whether the proposals are the most appropriate in the circumstances (test viii)

In our view the Preferred Options Report does not do enough to explain and justify the proposals that it contains, posing a significant risk that a submission document flowing from it could be found unsound unless further work is done:
* It is unclear how the spatial vision (pages 4-7) links to the identified issues (page 11), or how those issues derive from the spatial portrait (pages 1-3) and evidence base. It is not sufficient simply to state that "The Council considers that the following are the key Core Strategy issues" (page 11). The spatial portrait itself appears rather superficial, fails to cross-refer to the supporting evidence base and contains some irrelevant material (e.g. the Council's corporate performance ratings);
* There is insufficient information about the way in which many of the policies will be framed (e.g. what does "some relaxation" of green belt policies for major sites, green tourism and renewable energy schemes - page 13 - actually mean?);
* Where specific details are presented, there is frequently a lack of evidence and explanation underpinning the approaches being adopted. For example: the intended distribution of housing development across the settlement hierarchy (and specific urban extensions named in para. 4.6.8); the suggested approach to accommodating gypsy and traveller needs (wholly as part of mainstream housing allocations?); the proposed requirement for 25% of housing units to meet lifetime homes standards; and the suggested target and threshold for affordable housing contributions.
* As a related point, there is often insufficient consideration or explanation of alternative options (such as those for the settlement hierarchy), and a failure to justify why alternatives have been rejected: the standard wording which appears throughout ("These alternatives have been discounted because they fail to meet sustainable development objectives, the Corporate vision and Principle Aims") is inadequate. At the same time alternative options should not be invented where no reasonable alternatives can be shown to exist; in many cases the alternatives that are presented in the Preferred Options Report are not realistic (e.g. those relating to landscape protection on page 20, or relying on windfalls/urban intensification to meet housing needs - page 22) .

Hence we consider that much more effort needs to go into identifying, justifying and assessing options. It also needs to be clear to consultees at the preferred options stage that they can still express a preference for those options that the authority proposes to reject; it is not evident to us that the present consultation satisfies this requirement.



Clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring (test viii)

In our comments at your issues & options stage (Maydo Pitt's letter of 16 November) we noted that the implementation and monitoring framework would need to be developed further as work on the Core Strategy progressed. It is disappointing to see that no progress has been made in this respect.

The Core Strategy will need to go much further than it currently does in setting out the responsibilities, timescales and risks involved in delivering the vision, objectives and policy approaches, including key infrastructure requirements, inter-dependencies and contingency measures.

Other matters

There are a number of errors in the document. The Foreword implies that this is an issues & options consultation, not the preferred options. Supplementary Planning Documents (page 10) are not DPDs. References to the draft East of England Plan are out of date following publication of the Proposed Changes in December last year. Similarly the references to national renewable energy targets (para. 4.12.5) will need updating in the light of the recent Energy White Paper.

The key diagram remains insufficiently clear. This should be a key tool in communicating the spatial strategy, but fails to set out clearly the main settlements, key infrastructure networks, directions of growth and strategic links with neighbouring areas.

Conclusion

It is very apparent that the Preferred Options Report is no more than a minor re-working of the Regulation 25 version, with preferred options now set out in place of the 'possible' and 'probable' options presented previously. Most of the remaining text remains unchanged. As our representations in this letter make clear this is an inadequate basis for moving forward to the submission stage. We find it particularly disappointing that many of the observations contained in our letter of 16 November have not been addressed.

We are conscious of the resource constraints facing the authority but consider that significant further work on options development, testing and consultation is necessary. This will inevitably require a further round of consultation on the preferred options in due course.




Please contact me should you wish to discuss anything contained in this letter, or work in relation to your LDF more generally. We would welcome early sight of any further material that you produce in due course so that informal feedback can be provided.

Thank you for inviting us to comment on your Preferred Options Report. We have scrutinised the document with a view to assessing its robustness as a basis for moving towards the submission stage, bearing in mind the tests of 'soundness' set out in paragraph 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Development Frameworks.

There is further information on assessing soundness on the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/local_dev/index.htm. As experience of the new system grows there is also an expanding body of advice and good practice available, notably the Inspectorate's 'Lessons Learnt' document (June 2007 - available via the same web link) and the Core Strategy guidance produced by the Planning Advisory Service: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/31034.

Although this material does not constitute government policy or guidance it will be helpful in considering the adequacy of the work undertaken to date and the further work required prior to submission. Indeed the Inspectorate recommends that authorities undertake a self-assessment of the soundness of their draft DPDs as they prepare their submission versions, and to make this available when they formally submit these documents.

While we welcome the steps that your Council has made in progressing the Core Strategy to the preferred options stage, our assessment suggests that significant further work is required prior to producing a submission document, if the Council is to minimise the risk of the Core Strategy being judged unsound following the examination.

For this reason our letter focuses on general issues that need to be addressed rather than detailed observations on the various options that have been set out. Nonetheless we would like these comments to be considered as formal representations, and have related them where possible to the tests of soundness set out in PPS12.

Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment (soundness test iii)

We are aware that some sustainability appraisal work has been undertaken already in support of the previous round of consultation. It is surprising that no further information appears to be available at this stage, and that the results of the sustainability appraisal are not used to support and justify the choice of preferred options. It would have been helpful for the Preferred Options Report to include a summary of the sustainability effects of each the different options, drawing upon the appraisal process. This is a potentially serious omission. At examination the authority will need to demonstrate a clear trail of options generation, appraisal, selection or rejection and the role that SA has played in this process. In our view the present consultation exercise fails to provide this trail of evidence.

You are also reminded that Local Planning Authorities are now obliged to consider whether 'Appropriate Assessment' is required during plan production, to assess the potential impacts on sites of European importance for nature conservation. Ideally the need for AA should be gauged during the Sustainability Appraisal scoping stage, with the assessment itself (if required) undertaken alongside the development and testing of options. There appears to be no evidence from the consultation material that these steps have been taken, and we would urge you to address this before moving to submission stage. Draft guidance is available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502244

A spatial plan consistent with national policy and other strategies (test iv)
The Core Strategy should be a strategic document which sets out a vision and framework for guiding the future development of the area, taking into account other plans and strategies and the spatial requirements of different service areas. As Maydo Pitt explained in her letter of 16 November last year, we would expect the process of developing preferred options to consider and present alternative scenarios for the future of the district, covering matters such as the broad distribution of development, particular directions of growth and the approach to managing key issues such as the rural environment, local economy and town centres.

While the Preferred Options Report contains a reasonable basis for an overall spatial vision, it fails to translate this into a clear set of objectives and a spatial strategy to guide the future of the district. This is evident in a number of ways:
* There is insufficient detail about the approach to be taken to the location of key uses and the future of important areas (e.g. employment, town centres);
* Many of the 'preferred options' are procedural in nature (policies will be prepared on... etc.) rather than indicating the substance of the approach to be taken;
* There is little indication of the way in which the implications of other plans and strategies (listed in the box on page 2) are to be addressed;
* Some of the policy areas suggest matters that are more appropriately dealt with through the proposed Development Control Policies DPD, although it is difficult to be specific given the lack of detail in the preferred options that are set out.

In our view significant further work needs to be undertaken in order to provide the basis for a spatial plan, and to allow stakeholders to have a say on the broad spatial choices facing the district. Given Rochford's coastal location we find it particularly surprising that there is no indication of how the strategy and policy approaches are intended to address climate change and flood risk.

We are also concerned that some of the preferred options are inconsistent with national policy, and that the report fails to provide adequate justification for these departures. In particular:
* The proposals for local landscape designations (strategic buffers, special landscape areas, area of historic landscape), which require particular justification in the context of PPS7;
* The proposed approach to the environmental performance of buildings (page 35) which fails to accord with emerging policy in Planning and Climate Change (draft supplement to PPS1).

At the same time you are reminded that policies in the Core Strategy (and elsewhere in the LDF) should not repeat statements of national policy or policies contained in the RSS. There are suggestions in some of the preferred policy approaches that such repetition could occur, although it is difficult to be specific due to the lack of detail in the document.

Regard paid to the community strategy (test v)

Although the document identifies some general influences stemming from the Community Strategy (page 9) it could do more to explain how these are carried through into the spatial strategy and preferred policy approaches.

Whether the proposals are the most appropriate in the circumstances (test viii)

In our view the Preferred Options Report does not do enough to explain and justify the proposals that it contains, posing a significant risk that a submission document flowing from it could be found unsound unless further work is done:
* It is unclear how the spatial vision (pages 4-7) links to the identified issues (page 11), or how those issues derive from the spatial portrait (pages 1-3) and evidence base. It is not sufficient simply to state that "The Council considers that the following are the key Core Strategy issues" (page 11). The spatial portrait itself appears rather superficial, fails to cross-refer to the supporting evidence base and contains some irrelevant material (e.g. the Council's corporate performance ratings);
* There is insufficient information about the way in which many of the policies will be framed (e.g. what does "some relaxation" of green belt policies for major sites, green tourism and renewable energy schemes - page 13 - actually mean?);
* Where specific details are presented, there is frequently a lack of evidence and explanation underpinning the approaches being adopted. For example: the intended distribution of housing development across the settlement hierarchy (and specific urban extensions named in para. 4.6.8); the suggested approach to accommodating gypsy and traveller needs (wholly as part of mainstream housing allocations?); the proposed requirement for 25% of housing units to meet lifetime homes standards; and the suggested target and threshold for affordable housing contributions.
* As a related point, there is often insufficient consideration or explanation of alternative options (such as those for the settlement hierarchy), and a failure to justify why alternatives have been rejected: the standard wording which appears throughout ("These alternatives have been discounted because they fail to meet sustainable development objectives, the Corporate vision and Principle Aims") is inadequate. At the same time alternative options should not be invented where no reasonable alternatives can be shown to exist; in many cases the alternatives that are presented in the Preferred Options Report are not realistic (e.g. those relating to landscape protection on page 20, or relying on windfalls/urban intensification to meet housing needs - page 22) .

Hence we consider that much more effort needs to go into identifying, justifying and assessing options. It also needs to be clear to consultees at the preferred options stage that they can still express a preference for those options that the authority proposes to reject; it is not evident to us that the present consultation satisfies this requirement.



Clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring (test viii)

In our comments at your issues & options stage (Maydo Pitt's letter of 16 November) we noted that the implementation and monitoring framework would need to be developed further as work on the Core Strategy progressed. It is disappointing to see that no progress has been made in this respect.

The Core Strategy will need to go much further than it currently does in setting out the responsibilities, timescales and risks involved in delivering the vision, objectives and policy approaches, including key infrastructure requirements, inter-dependencies and contingency measures.

Other matters

There are a number of errors in the document. The Foreword implies that this is an issues & options consultation, not the preferred options. Supplementary Planning Documents (page 10) are not DPDs. References to the draft East of England Plan are out of date following publication of the Proposed Changes in December last year. Similarly the references to national renewable energy targets (para. 4.12.5) will need updating in the light of the recent Energy White Paper.

The key diagram remains insufficiently clear. This should be a key tool in communicating the spatial strategy, but fails to set out clearly the main settlements, key infrastructure networks, directions of growth and strategic links with neighbouring areas.

Conclusion

It is very apparent that the Preferred Options Report is no more than a minor re-working of the Regulation 25 version, with preferred options now set out in place of the 'possible' and 'probable' options presented previously. Most of the remaining text remains unchanged. As our representations in this letter make clear this is an inadequate basis for moving forward to the submission stage. We find it particularly disappointing that many of the observations contained in our letter of 16 November have not been addressed.

We are conscious of the resource constraints facing the authority but consider that significant further work on options development, testing and consultation is necessary. This will inevitably require a further round of consultation on the preferred options in due course.




Please contact me should you wish to discuss anything contained in this letter, or work in relation to your LDF more generally. We would welcome early sight of any further material that you produce in due course so that informal feedback can be provided.

Thank you for inviting us to comment on your Preferred Options Report. We have scrutinised the document with a view to assessing its robustness as a basis for moving towards the submission stage, bearing in mind the tests of 'soundness' set out in paragraph 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Development Frameworks.

There is further information on assessing soundness on the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/local_dev/index.htm. As experience of the new system grows there is also an expanding body of advice and good practice available, notably the Inspectorate's 'Lessons Learnt' document (June 2007 - available via the same web link) and the Core Strategy guidance produced by the Planning Advisory Service: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/31034.

Although this material does not constitute government policy or guidance it will be helpful in considering the adequacy of the work undertaken to date and the further work required prior to submission. Indeed the Inspectorate recommends that authorities undertake a self-assessment of the soundness of their draft DPDs as they prepare their submission versions, and to make this available when they formally submit these documents.

While we welcome the steps that your Council has made in progressing the Core Strategy to the preferred options stage, our assessment suggests that significant further work is required prior to producing a submission document, if the Council is to minimise the risk of the Core Strategy being judged unsound following the examination.

For this reason our letter focuses on general issues that need to be addressed rather than detailed observations on the various options that have been set out. Nonetheless we would like these comments to be considered as formal representations, and have related them where possible to the tests of soundness set out in PPS12.

Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment (soundness test iii)

We are aware that some sustainability appraisal work has been undertaken already in support of the previous round of consultation. It is surprising that no further information appears to be available at this stage, and that the results of the sustainability appraisal are not used to support and justify the choice of preferred options. It would have been helpful for the Preferred Options Report to include a summary of the sustainability effects of each the different options, drawing upon the appraisal process. This is a potentially serious omission. At examination the authority will need to demonstrate a clear trail of options generation, appraisal, selection or rejection and the role that SA has played in this process. In our view the present consultation exercise fails to provide this trail of evidence.

You are also reminded that Local Planning Authorities are now obliged to consider whether 'Appropriate Assessment' is required during plan production, to assess the potential impacts on sites of European importance for nature conservation. Ideally the need for AA should be gauged during the Sustainability Appraisal scoping stage, with the assessment itself (if required) undertaken alongside the development and testing of options. There appears to be no evidence from the consultation material that these steps have been taken, and we would urge you to address this before moving to submission stage. Draft guidance is available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502244

A spatial plan consistent with national policy and other strategies (test iv)
The Core Strategy should be a strategic document which sets out a vision and framework for guiding the future development of the area, taking into account other plans and strategies and the spatial requirements of different service areas. As Maydo Pitt explained in her letter of 16 November last year, we would expect the process of developing preferred options to consider and present alternative scenarios for the future of the district, covering matters such as the broad distribution of development, particular directions of growth and the approach to managing key issues such as the rural environment, local economy and town centres.

While the Preferred Options Report contains a reasonable basis for an overall spatial vision, it fails to translate this into a clear set of objectives and a spatial strategy to guide the future of the district. This is evident in a number of ways:
* There is insufficient detail about the approach to be taken to the location of key uses and the future of important areas (e.g. employment, town centres);
* Many of the 'preferred options' are procedural in nature (policies will be prepared on... etc.) rather than indicating the substance of the approach to be taken;
* There is little indication of the way in which the implications of other plans and strategies (listed in the box on page 2) are to be addressed;
* Some of the policy areas suggest matters that are more appropriately dealt with through the proposed Development Control Policies DPD, although it is difficult to be specific given the lack of detail in the preferred options that are set out.

In our view significant further work needs to be undertaken in order to provide the basis for a spatial plan, and to allow stakeholders to have a say on the broad spatial choices facing the district. Given Rochford's coastal location we find it particularly surprising that there is no indication of how the strategy and policy approaches are intended to address climate change and flood risk.

We are also concerned that some of the preferred options are inconsistent with national policy, and that the report fails to provide adequate justification for these departures. In particular:
* The proposals for local landscape designations (strategic buffers, special landscape areas, area of historic landscape), which require particular justification in the context of PPS7;
* The proposed approach to the environmental performance of buildings (page 35) which fails to accord with emerging policy in Planning and Climate Change (draft supplement to PPS1).

At the same time you are reminded that policies in the Core Strategy (and elsewhere in the LDF) should not repeat statements of national policy or policies contained in the RSS. There are suggestions in some of the preferred policy approaches that such repetition could occur, although it is difficult to be specific due to the lack of detail in the document.

Regard paid to the community strategy (test v)

Although the document identifies some general influences stemming from the Community Strategy (page 9) it could do more to explain how these are carried through into the spatial strategy and preferred policy approaches.

Whether the proposals are the most appropriate in the circumstances (test viii)

In our view the Preferred Options Report does not do enough to explain and justify the proposals that it contains, posing a significant risk that a submission document flowing from it could be found unsound unless further work is done:
* It is unclear how the spatial vision (pages 4-7) links to the identified issues (page 11), or how those issues derive from the spatial portrait (pages 1-3) and evidence base. It is not sufficient simply to state that "The Council considers that the following are the key Core Strategy issues" (page 11). The spatial portrait itself appears rather superficial, fails to cross-refer to the supporting evidence base and contains some irrelevant material (e.g. the Council's corporate performance ratings);
* There is insufficient information about the way in which many of the policies will be framed (e.g. what does "some relaxation" of green belt policies for major sites, green tourism and renewable energy schemes - page 13 - actually mean?);
* Where specific details are presented, there is frequently a lack of evidence and explanation underpinning the approaches being adopted. For example: the intended distribution of housing development across the settlement hierarchy (and specific urban extensions named in para. 4.6.8); the suggested approach to accommodating gypsy and traveller needs (wholly as part of mainstream housing allocations?); the proposed requirement for 25% of housing units to meet lifetime homes standards; and the suggested target and threshold for affordable housing contributions.
* As a related point, there is often insufficient consideration or explanation of alternative options (such as those for the settlement hierarchy), and a failure to justify why alternatives have been rejected: the standard wording which appears throughout ("These alternatives have been discounted because they fail to meet sustainable development objectives, the Corporate vision and Principle Aims") is inadequate. At the same time alternative options should not be invented where no reasonable alternatives can be shown to exist; in many cases the alternatives that are presented in the Preferred Options Report are not realistic (e.g. those relating to landscape protection on page 20, or relying on windfalls/urban intensification to meet housing needs - page 22) .

Hence we consider that much more effort needs to go into identifying, justifying and assessing options. It also needs to be clear to consultees at the preferred options stage that they can still express a preference for those options that the authority proposes to reject; it is not evident to us that the present consultation satisfies this requirement.



Clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring (test viii)

In our comments at your issues & options stage (Maydo Pitt's letter of 16 November) we noted that the implementation and monitoring framework would need to be developed further as work on the Core Strategy progressed. It is disappointing to see that no progress has been made in this respect.

The Core Strategy will need to go much further than it currently does in setting out the responsibilities, timescales and risks involved in delivering the vision, objectives and policy approaches, including key infrastructure requirements, inter-dependencies and contingency measures.

Other matters

There are a number of errors in the document. The Foreword implies that this is an issues & options consultation, not the preferred options. Supplementary Planning Documents (page 10) are not DPDs. References to the draft East of England Plan are out of date following publication of the Proposed Changes in December last year. Similarly the references to national renewable energy targets (para. 4.12.5) will need updating in the light of the recent Energy White Paper.

The key diagram remains insufficiently clear. This should be a key tool in communicating the spatial strategy, but fails to set out clearly the main settlements, key infrastructure networks, directions of growth and strategic links with neighbouring areas.

Conclusion

It is very apparent that the Preferred Options Report is no more than a minor re-working of the Regulation 25 version, with preferred options now set out in place of the 'possible' and 'probable' options presented previously. Most of the remaining text remains unchanged. As our representations in this letter make clear this is an inadequate basis for moving forward to the submission stage. We find it particularly disappointing that many of the observations contained in our letter of 16 November have not been addressed.

We are conscious of the resource constraints facing the authority but consider that significant further work on options development, testing and consultation is necessary. This will inevitably require a further round of consultation on the preferred options in due course.




Please contact me should you wish to discuss anything contained in this letter, or work in relation to your LDF more generally. We would welcome early sight of any further material that you produce in due course so that informal feedback can be provided.

Thank you for inviting us to comment on your Preferred Options Report. We have scrutinised the document with a view to assessing its robustness as a basis for moving towards the submission stage, bearing in mind the tests of 'soundness' set out in paragraph 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Development Frameworks.

There is further information on assessing soundness on the Planning Inspectorate's website: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/local_dev/index.htm. As experience of the new system grows there is also an expanding body of advice and good practice available, notably the Inspectorate's 'Lessons Learnt' document (June 2007 - available via the same web link) and the Core Strategy guidance produced by the Planning Advisory Service: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/31034.

Although this material does not constitute government policy or guidance it will be helpful in considering the adequacy of the work undertaken to date and the further work required prior to submission. Indeed the Inspectorate recommends that authorities undertake a self-assessment of the soundness of their draft DPDs as they prepare their submission versions, and to make this available when they formally submit these documents.

While we welcome the steps that your Council has made in progressing the Core Strategy to the preferred options stage, our assessment suggests that significant further work is required prior to producing a submission document, if the Council is to minimise the risk of the Core Strategy being judged unsound following the examination.

For this reason our letter focuses on general issues that need to be addressed rather than detailed observations on the various options that have been set out. Nonetheless we would like these comments to be considered as formal representations, and have related them where possible to the tests of soundness set out in PPS12.

Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment (soundness test iii)

We are aware that some sustainability appraisal work has been undertaken already in support of the previous round of consultation. It is surprising that no further information appears to be available at this stage, and that the results of the sustainability appraisal are not used to support and justify the choice of preferred options. It would have been helpful for the Preferred Options Report to include a summary of the sustainability effects of each the different options, drawing upon the appraisal process. This is a potentially serious omission. At examination the authority will need to demonstrate a clear trail of options generation, appraisal, selection or rejection and the role that SA has played in this process. In our view the present consultation exercise fails to provide this trail of evidence.

You are also reminded that Local Planning Authorities are now obliged to consider whether 'Appropriate Assessment' is required during plan production, to assess the potential impacts on sites of European importance for nature conservation. Ideally the need for AA should be gauged during the Sustainability Appraisal scoping stage, with the assessment itself (if required) undertaken alongside the development and testing of options. There appears to be no evidence from the consultation material that these steps have been taken, and we would urge you to address this before moving to submission stage. Draft guidance is available on the CLG website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502244

A spatial plan consistent with national policy and other strategies (test iv)
The Core Strategy should be a strategic document which sets out a vision and framework for guiding the future development of the area, taking into account other plans and strategies and the spatial requirements of different service areas. As Maydo Pitt explained in her letter of 16 November last year, we would expect the process of developing preferred options to consider and present alternative scenarios for the future of the district, covering matters such as the broad distribution of development, particular directions of growth and the approach to managing key issues such as the rural environment, local economy and town centres.

While the Preferred Options Report contains a reasonable basis for an overall spatial vision, it fails to translate this into a clear set of objectives and a spatial strategy to guide the future of the district. This is evident in a number of ways:
* There is insufficient detail about the approach to be taken to the location of key uses and the future of important areas (e.g. employment, town centres);
* Many of the 'preferred options' are procedural in nature (policies will be prepared on... etc.) rather than indicating the substance of the approach to be taken;
* There is little indication of the way in which the implications of other plans and strategies (listed in the box on page 2) are to be addressed;
* Some of the policy areas suggest matters that are more appropriately dealt with through the proposed Development Control Policies DPD, although it is difficult to be specific given the lack of detail in the preferred options that are set out.

In our view significant further work needs to be undertaken in order to provide the basis for a spatial plan, and to allow stakeholders to have a say on the broad spatial choices facing the district. Given Rochford's coastal location we find it particularly surprising that there is no indication of how the strategy and policy approaches are intended to address climate change and flood risk.

We are also concerned that some of the preferred options are inconsistent with national policy, and that the report fails to provide adequate justification for these departures. In particular:
* The proposals for local landscape designations (strategic buffers, special landscape areas, area of historic landscape), which require particular justification in the context of PPS7;
* The proposed approach to the environmental performance of buildings (page 35) which fails to accord with emerging policy in Planning and Climate Change (draft supplement to PPS1).

At the same time you are reminded that policies in the Core Strategy (and elsewhere in the LDF) should not repeat statements of national policy or policies contained in the RSS. There are suggestions in some of the preferred policy approaches that such repetition could occur, although it is difficult to be specific due to the lack of detail in the document.

Regard paid to the community strategy (test v)

Although the document identifies some general influences stemming from the Community Strategy (page 9) it could do more to explain how these are carried through into the spatial strategy and preferred policy approaches.

Whether the proposals are the most appropriate in the circumstances (test viii)

In our view the Preferred Options Report does not do enough to explain and justify the proposals that it contains, posing a significant risk that a submission document flowing from it could be found unsound unless further work is done:
* It is unclear how the spatial vision (pages 4-7) links to the identified issues (page 11), or how those issues derive from the spatial portrait (pages 1-3) and evidence base. It is not sufficient simply to state that "The Council considers that the following are the key Core Strategy issues" (page 11). The spatial portrait itself appears rather superficial, fails to cross-refer to the supporting evidence base and contains some irrelevant material (e.g. the Council's corporate performance ratings);
* There is insufficient information about the way in which many of the policies will be framed (e.g. what does "some relaxation" of green belt policies for major sites, green tourism and renewable energy schemes - page 13 - actually mean?);
* Where specific details are presented, there is frequently a lack of evidence and explanation underpinning the approaches being adopted. For example: the intended distribution of housing development across the settlement hierarchy (and specific urban extensions named in para. 4.6.8); the suggested approach to accommodating gypsy and traveller needs (wholly as part of mainstream housing allocations?); the proposed requirement for 25% of housing units to meet lifetime homes standards; and the suggested target and threshold for affordable housing contributions.
* As a related point, there is often insufficient consideration or explanation of alternative options (such as those for the settlement hierarchy), and a failure to justify why alternatives have been rejected: the standard wording which appears throughout ("These alternatives have been discounted because they fail to meet sustainable development objectives, the Corporate vision and Principle Aims") is inadequate. At the same time alternative options should not be invented where no reasonable alternatives can be shown to exist; in many cases the alternatives that are presented in the Preferred Options Report are not realistic (e.g. those relating to landscape protection on page 20, or relying on windfalls/urban intensification to meet housing needs - page 22) .

Hence we consider that much more effort needs to go into identifying, justifying and assessing options. It also needs to be clear to consultees at the preferred options stage that they can still express a preference for those options that the authority proposes to reject; it is not evident to us that the present consultation satisfies this requirement.



Clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring (test viii)

In our comments at your issues & options stage (Maydo Pitt's letter of 16 November) we noted that the implementation and monitoring framework would need to be developed further as work on the Core Strategy progressed. It is disappointing to see that no progress has been made in this respect.

The Core Strategy will need to go much further than it currently does in setting out the responsibilities, timescales and risks involved in delivering the vision, objectives and policy approaches, including key infrastructure requirements, inter-dependencies and contingency measures.

Other matters

There are a number of errors in the document. The Foreword implies that this is an issues & options consultation, not the preferred options. Supplementary Planning Documents (page 10) are not DPDs. References to the draft East of England Plan are out of date following publication of the Proposed Changes in December last year. Similarly the references to national renewable energy targets (para. 4.12.5) will need updating in the light of the recent Energy White Paper.

The key diagram remains insufficiently clear. This should be a key tool in communicating the spatial strategy, but fails to set out clearly the main settlements, key infrastructure networks, directions of growth and strategic links with neighbouring areas.

Conclusion

It is very apparent that the Preferred Options Report is no more than a minor re-working of the Regulation 25 version, with preferred options now set out in place of the 'possible' and 'probable' options presented previously. Most of the remaining text remains unchanged. As our representations in this letter make clear this is an inadequate basis for moving forward to the submission stage. We find it particularly disappointing that many of the observations contained in our letter of 16 November have not been addressed.

We are conscious of the resource constraints facing the authority but consider that significant further work on options development, testing and consultation is necessary. This will inevitably require a further round of consultation on the preferred options in due course.




Please contact me should you wish to discuss anything contained in this letter, or work in relation to your LDF more generally. We would welcome early sight of any further material that you produce in due course so that informal feedback can be provided.