Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

I write on behalf of my client Fairview New Homes Ltd.

Fairview New Homes Limited (FNH) is a leading house builder that specialises in the provision of new housing on previously developed land to provide accommodation at the more affordable end of the market. They are therefore very familiar with the issues arising out of the redevelopment of previously developed land and the costs that can often be involved. They are also a major provider of affordable housing and therefore it is hoped that their views will be appropriately taken on board during the progression of the LDF.

In relation to the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document, please find below on behalf of FNH the following comments:

Housing Numbers & Phasing

FNH considers that the most suitable and sustainable approach for the Council should be both the re-use of previously developed land and at the same time some greenfield land in sustainable locations. Further housing development is necessary, and Green Belt areas on the periphery of an urban area should be considered for housing. FNH would therefore support the option in paragraph 4.5.10 that would allow the release of land on the edge of settlements.

This approach is in accordance with PPG2 on Green Belts that states in paragraph 2.8 "...encroachment of the Green Belt may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries are drawn too excessively tightly around existing built up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have." PPG2 therefore suggests taking land out of the Green Belt that borders existing settlements.

FNH would request that the Council establishes a policy framework that would support the release of land Green Belt land on the edge of existing settlements for housing development.

FHN also request that the Council considers non-housing sites for residential development if they come forward for redevelopment.

Some non-housing sites in the Borough may be better used for housing or mixed-use development and so employment and commercial land should be released for housing where it no longer fulfils its commercial use. Paragraphs 38 and 44 of PPS3 require local planning authorities to consider whether sites that are currently allocated for commercial use be more appropriately re-allocated for housing development. Such an approach would support the deliverability of housing in the Borough. Through the re-use of non-housing sites for residential development, the Council would accord with paragraph 40 of PPS3, which states that a key objective for Local Planning Authorities is to continue to make effective use of land that has been previously developed.

FNH consider that the Council should allow for the release of such land only for housing if it is surplus to requirements.

Affordable Housing

Fairview object to the 'possible' option whereby 30% of all new homes in the district be affordable on all sites unless such a site is considered to be a rural exception site.

FNH consider it necessary to state that any affordable housing targets should be indicative and set at a maximum negotiation level at which point the characteristics and constraints of a site can be discussed with the local authority to determine an appropriate level of affordable housing for the development. This will accord with PPS3, which states that housing targets should reflect the economic viability of land for housing within the area taking into account risks to delivery.

FNH request that it is stated within the document and through policy that the level of affordable housing in development schemes is determined with regard to individual site characteristics such as site costs and constraints as well as financial viability.

FNH therefore consider that the affordable housing mix on new development sites should therefore be negotiated on a site by site basis.

Detailed Design Brief

FNH would object to the requirement that a detailed design brief on all major planning applications be submitted in advance of a planning application. This is an unreasonable request, particularly as Design and Access Statements are a compulsory requirement. The submission of a planning brief would constitute additional information that would add extra cost to the development.

Whilst it is right and proper that the level of design quality is considered within policy terms, it should not however stifle housing delivery. Design initiatives sometimes create an additional cost to the developer and together with Section 106 requirements, this could make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites would not come forward. FNH consider that the design of a particular scheme should be discussed and negotiated with the local planning authority at an early stage on a site-by-site basis.

Code for Sustainable Homes

FNH object to the inclusion of the Central Government's "Code for Sustainable Homes" initiative into the Core Strategy.

Fairview considers that the "Code for Sustainable Homes" (2006) initiative should remain voluntary as stated in the document and that Councils cannot require developers to comply with it. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.



Lifetime Homes Standard

FNH consider that requirements relating to lifetime homes standards in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Health Impact Assessment

FNH consider that requirements relating to the submission of a Health Impact Assessments with planning applications for new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Carbon Neutral Developments

FNH would object if a particular provision is stipulated in the Core Strategy for residential developments to be carbon neutral.

Whilst recognising that the construction industry need to become more proactive in promoting and incorporating the use of environmentally friendly technology in the built environment, whereby FNH has gone as far as to introduce a wide range of renewable energy measures in its recent developments. The use of a "blanket" policy to provide renewable technology should not stifle regeneration and development. Such rigid requirements may make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites may not come forward to be developed. Moreover, where difficult sites are being regenerated and the costs are significant, other issues may be more important to reduce, for example contamination and affordable housing. The viability of delivering schemes must be a priority.

FNH therefore require renewable energy generation to be negotiated on a site by site basis, taking into consideration the characteristics and viability of the site.

Fairview object to the 'probable' option whereby all new housing development to include renewable energy provision (page 38). Whilst it is right and proper that energy and sustainable issues are considered, they should not stifle regeneration and development. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority. FNH are of the view that this should be assessed on a site-by-site basis and should not be applied to all residential developments. FNH therefore object to such requirements unless the policy makes it clear that viability will be an issue to be considered.

Water and Energy Conservation

FNH consider that initiatives relating to water and energy conservation in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

I trust that Fairview's comments on the Core Strategy Preferred Options shall be considered, however should you require clarification on any matters raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I write on behalf of my client Fairview New Homes Ltd.

Fairview New Homes Limited (FNH) is a leading house builder that specialises in the provision of new housing on previously developed land to provide accommodation at the more affordable end of the market. They are therefore very familiar with the issues arising out of the redevelopment of previously developed land and the costs that can often be involved. They are also a major provider of affordable housing and therefore it is hoped that their views will be appropriately taken on board during the progression of the LDF.

In relation to the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document, please find below on behalf of FNH the following comments:

Housing Numbers & Phasing

FNH considers that the most suitable and sustainable approach for the Council should be both the re-use of previously developed land and at the same time some greenfield land in sustainable locations. Further housing development is necessary, and Green Belt areas on the periphery of an urban area should be considered for housing. FNH would therefore support the option in paragraph 4.5.10 that would allow the release of land on the edge of settlements.

This approach is in accordance with PPG2 on Green Belts that states in paragraph 2.8 "...encroachment of the Green Belt may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries are drawn too excessively tightly around existing built up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have." PPG2 therefore suggests taking land out of the Green Belt that borders existing settlements.

FNH would request that the Council establishes a policy framework that would support the release of land Green Belt land on the edge of existing settlements for housing development.

FHN also request that the Council considers non-housing sites for residential development if they come forward for redevelopment.

Some non-housing sites in the Borough may be better used for housing or mixed-use development and so employment and commercial land should be released for housing where it no longer fulfils its commercial use. Paragraphs 38 and 44 of PPS3 require local planning authorities to consider whether sites that are currently allocated for commercial use be more appropriately re-allocated for housing development. Such an approach would support the deliverability of housing in the Borough. Through the re-use of non-housing sites for residential development, the Council would accord with paragraph 40 of PPS3, which states that a key objective for Local Planning Authorities is to continue to make effective use of land that has been previously developed.

FNH consider that the Council should allow for the release of such land only for housing if it is surplus to requirements.

Affordable Housing

Fairview object to the 'possible' option whereby 30% of all new homes in the district be affordable on all sites unless such a site is considered to be a rural exception site.

FNH consider it necessary to state that any affordable housing targets should be indicative and set at a maximum negotiation level at which point the characteristics and constraints of a site can be discussed with the local authority to determine an appropriate level of affordable housing for the development. This will accord with PPS3, which states that housing targets should reflect the economic viability of land for housing within the area taking into account risks to delivery.

FNH request that it is stated within the document and through policy that the level of affordable housing in development schemes is determined with regard to individual site characteristics such as site costs and constraints as well as financial viability.

FNH therefore consider that the affordable housing mix on new development sites should therefore be negotiated on a site by site basis.

Detailed Design Brief

FNH would object to the requirement that a detailed design brief on all major planning applications be submitted in advance of a planning application. This is an unreasonable request, particularly as Design and Access Statements are a compulsory requirement. The submission of a planning brief would constitute additional information that would add extra cost to the development.

Whilst it is right and proper that the level of design quality is considered within policy terms, it should not however stifle housing delivery. Design initiatives sometimes create an additional cost to the developer and together with Section 106 requirements, this could make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites would not come forward. FNH consider that the design of a particular scheme should be discussed and negotiated with the local planning authority at an early stage on a site-by-site basis.

Code for Sustainable Homes

FNH object to the inclusion of the Central Government's "Code for Sustainable Homes" initiative into the Core Strategy.

Fairview considers that the "Code for Sustainable Homes" (2006) initiative should remain voluntary as stated in the document and that Councils cannot require developers to comply with it. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.



Lifetime Homes Standard

FNH consider that requirements relating to lifetime homes standards in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Health Impact Assessment

FNH consider that requirements relating to the submission of a Health Impact Assessments with planning applications for new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Carbon Neutral Developments

FNH would object if a particular provision is stipulated in the Core Strategy for residential developments to be carbon neutral.

Whilst recognising that the construction industry need to become more proactive in promoting and incorporating the use of environmentally friendly technology in the built environment, whereby FNH has gone as far as to introduce a wide range of renewable energy measures in its recent developments. The use of a "blanket" policy to provide renewable technology should not stifle regeneration and development. Such rigid requirements may make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites may not come forward to be developed. Moreover, where difficult sites are being regenerated and the costs are significant, other issues may be more important to reduce, for example contamination and affordable housing. The viability of delivering schemes must be a priority.

FNH therefore require renewable energy generation to be negotiated on a site by site basis, taking into consideration the characteristics and viability of the site.

Fairview object to the 'probable' option whereby all new housing development to include renewable energy provision (page 38). Whilst it is right and proper that energy and sustainable issues are considered, they should not stifle regeneration and development. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority. FNH are of the view that this should be assessed on a site-by-site basis and should not be applied to all residential developments. FNH therefore object to such requirements unless the policy makes it clear that viability will be an issue to be considered.

Water and Energy Conservation

FNH consider that initiatives relating to water and energy conservation in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

I trust that Fairview's comments on the Core Strategy Preferred Options shall be considered, however should you require clarification on any matters raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I write on behalf of my client Fairview New Homes Ltd.

Fairview New Homes Limited (FNH) is a leading house builder that specialises in the provision of new housing on previously developed land to provide accommodation at the more affordable end of the market. They are therefore very familiar with the issues arising out of the redevelopment of previously developed land and the costs that can often be involved. They are also a major provider of affordable housing and therefore it is hoped that their views will be appropriately taken on board during the progression of the LDF.

In relation to the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document, please find below on behalf of FNH the following comments:

Housing Numbers & Phasing

FNH considers that the most suitable and sustainable approach for the Council should be both the re-use of previously developed land and at the same time some greenfield land in sustainable locations. Further housing development is necessary, and Green Belt areas on the periphery of an urban area should be considered for housing. FNH would therefore support the option in paragraph 4.5.10 that would allow the release of land on the edge of settlements.

This approach is in accordance with PPG2 on Green Belts that states in paragraph 2.8 "...encroachment of the Green Belt may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries are drawn too excessively tightly around existing built up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have." PPG2 therefore suggests taking land out of the Green Belt that borders existing settlements.

FNH would request that the Council establishes a policy framework that would support the release of land Green Belt land on the edge of existing settlements for housing development.

FHN also request that the Council considers non-housing sites for residential development if they come forward for redevelopment.

Some non-housing sites in the Borough may be better used for housing or mixed-use development and so employment and commercial land should be released for housing where it no longer fulfils its commercial use. Paragraphs 38 and 44 of PPS3 require local planning authorities to consider whether sites that are currently allocated for commercial use be more appropriately re-allocated for housing development. Such an approach would support the deliverability of housing in the Borough. Through the re-use of non-housing sites for residential development, the Council would accord with paragraph 40 of PPS3, which states that a key objective for Local Planning Authorities is to continue to make effective use of land that has been previously developed.

FNH consider that the Council should allow for the release of such land only for housing if it is surplus to requirements.

Affordable Housing

Fairview object to the 'possible' option whereby 30% of all new homes in the district be affordable on all sites unless such a site is considered to be a rural exception site.

FNH consider it necessary to state that any affordable housing targets should be indicative and set at a maximum negotiation level at which point the characteristics and constraints of a site can be discussed with the local authority to determine an appropriate level of affordable housing for the development. This will accord with PPS3, which states that housing targets should reflect the economic viability of land for housing within the area taking into account risks to delivery.

FNH request that it is stated within the document and through policy that the level of affordable housing in development schemes is determined with regard to individual site characteristics such as site costs and constraints as well as financial viability.

FNH therefore consider that the affordable housing mix on new development sites should therefore be negotiated on a site by site basis.

Detailed Design Brief

FNH would object to the requirement that a detailed design brief on all major planning applications be submitted in advance of a planning application. This is an unreasonable request, particularly as Design and Access Statements are a compulsory requirement. The submission of a planning brief would constitute additional information that would add extra cost to the development.

Whilst it is right and proper that the level of design quality is considered within policy terms, it should not however stifle housing delivery. Design initiatives sometimes create an additional cost to the developer and together with Section 106 requirements, this could make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites would not come forward. FNH consider that the design of a particular scheme should be discussed and negotiated with the local planning authority at an early stage on a site-by-site basis.

Code for Sustainable Homes

FNH object to the inclusion of the Central Government's "Code for Sustainable Homes" initiative into the Core Strategy.

Fairview considers that the "Code for Sustainable Homes" (2006) initiative should remain voluntary as stated in the document and that Councils cannot require developers to comply with it. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.



Lifetime Homes Standard

FNH consider that requirements relating to lifetime homes standards in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Health Impact Assessment

FNH consider that requirements relating to the submission of a Health Impact Assessments with planning applications for new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Carbon Neutral Developments

FNH would object if a particular provision is stipulated in the Core Strategy for residential developments to be carbon neutral.

Whilst recognising that the construction industry need to become more proactive in promoting and incorporating the use of environmentally friendly technology in the built environment, whereby FNH has gone as far as to introduce a wide range of renewable energy measures in its recent developments. The use of a "blanket" policy to provide renewable technology should not stifle regeneration and development. Such rigid requirements may make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites may not come forward to be developed. Moreover, where difficult sites are being regenerated and the costs are significant, other issues may be more important to reduce, for example contamination and affordable housing. The viability of delivering schemes must be a priority.

FNH therefore require renewable energy generation to be negotiated on a site by site basis, taking into consideration the characteristics and viability of the site.

Fairview object to the 'probable' option whereby all new housing development to include renewable energy provision (page 38). Whilst it is right and proper that energy and sustainable issues are considered, they should not stifle regeneration and development. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority. FNH are of the view that this should be assessed on a site-by-site basis and should not be applied to all residential developments. FNH therefore object to such requirements unless the policy makes it clear that viability will be an issue to be considered.

Water and Energy Conservation

FNH consider that initiatives relating to water and energy conservation in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

I trust that Fairview's comments on the Core Strategy Preferred Options shall be considered, however should you require clarification on any matters raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I write on behalf of my client Fairview New Homes Ltd.

Fairview New Homes Limited (FNH) is a leading house builder that specialises in the provision of new housing on previously developed land to provide accommodation at the more affordable end of the market. They are therefore very familiar with the issues arising out of the redevelopment of previously developed land and the costs that can often be involved. They are also a major provider of affordable housing and therefore it is hoped that their views will be appropriately taken on board during the progression of the LDF.

In relation to the Core Strategy Preferred Options consultation document, please find below on behalf of FNH the following comments:

Housing Numbers & Phasing

FNH considers that the most suitable and sustainable approach for the Council should be both the re-use of previously developed land and at the same time some greenfield land in sustainable locations. Further housing development is necessary, and Green Belt areas on the periphery of an urban area should be considered for housing. FNH would therefore support the option in paragraph 4.5.10 that would allow the release of land on the edge of settlements.

This approach is in accordance with PPG2 on Green Belts that states in paragraph 2.8 "...encroachment of the Green Belt may have to be allowed in order to accommodate future development. If boundaries are drawn too excessively tightly around existing built up areas it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have." PPG2 therefore suggests taking land out of the Green Belt that borders existing settlements.

FNH would request that the Council establishes a policy framework that would support the release of land Green Belt land on the edge of existing settlements for housing development.

FHN also request that the Council considers non-housing sites for residential development if they come forward for redevelopment.

Some non-housing sites in the Borough may be better used for housing or mixed-use development and so employment and commercial land should be released for housing where it no longer fulfils its commercial use. Paragraphs 38 and 44 of PPS3 require local planning authorities to consider whether sites that are currently allocated for commercial use be more appropriately re-allocated for housing development. Such an approach would support the deliverability of housing in the Borough. Through the re-use of non-housing sites for residential development, the Council would accord with paragraph 40 of PPS3, which states that a key objective for Local Planning Authorities is to continue to make effective use of land that has been previously developed.

FNH consider that the Council should allow for the release of such land only for housing if it is surplus to requirements.

Affordable Housing

Fairview object to the 'possible' option whereby 30% of all new homes in the district be affordable on all sites unless such a site is considered to be a rural exception site.

FNH consider it necessary to state that any affordable housing targets should be indicative and set at a maximum negotiation level at which point the characteristics and constraints of a site can be discussed with the local authority to determine an appropriate level of affordable housing for the development. This will accord with PPS3, which states that housing targets should reflect the economic viability of land for housing within the area taking into account risks to delivery.

FNH request that it is stated within the document and through policy that the level of affordable housing in development schemes is determined with regard to individual site characteristics such as site costs and constraints as well as financial viability.

FNH therefore consider that the affordable housing mix on new development sites should therefore be negotiated on a site by site basis.

Detailed Design Brief

FNH would object to the requirement that a detailed design brief on all major planning applications be submitted in advance of a planning application. This is an unreasonable request, particularly as Design and Access Statements are a compulsory requirement. The submission of a planning brief would constitute additional information that would add extra cost to the development.

Whilst it is right and proper that the level of design quality is considered within policy terms, it should not however stifle housing delivery. Design initiatives sometimes create an additional cost to the developer and together with Section 106 requirements, this could make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites would not come forward. FNH consider that the design of a particular scheme should be discussed and negotiated with the local planning authority at an early stage on a site-by-site basis.

Code for Sustainable Homes

FNH object to the inclusion of the Central Government's "Code for Sustainable Homes" initiative into the Core Strategy.

Fairview considers that the "Code for Sustainable Homes" (2006) initiative should remain voluntary as stated in the document and that Councils cannot require developers to comply with it. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.



Lifetime Homes Standard

FNH consider that requirements relating to lifetime homes standards in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Health Impact Assessment

FNH consider that requirements relating to the submission of a Health Impact Assessments with planning applications for new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

Carbon Neutral Developments

FNH would object if a particular provision is stipulated in the Core Strategy for residential developments to be carbon neutral.

Whilst recognising that the construction industry need to become more proactive in promoting and incorporating the use of environmentally friendly technology in the built environment, whereby FNH has gone as far as to introduce a wide range of renewable energy measures in its recent developments. The use of a "blanket" policy to provide renewable technology should not stifle regeneration and development. Such rigid requirements may make some schemes unviable and as a consequence important housing sites may not come forward to be developed. Moreover, where difficult sites are being regenerated and the costs are significant, other issues may be more important to reduce, for example contamination and affordable housing. The viability of delivering schemes must be a priority.

FNH therefore require renewable energy generation to be negotiated on a site by site basis, taking into consideration the characteristics and viability of the site.

Fairview object to the 'probable' option whereby all new housing development to include renewable energy provision (page 38). Whilst it is right and proper that energy and sustainable issues are considered, they should not stifle regeneration and development. Such initiatives are a cost to the developer and the viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority. FNH are of the view that this should be assessed on a site-by-site basis and should not be applied to all residential developments. FNH therefore object to such requirements unless the policy makes it clear that viability will be an issue to be considered.

Water and Energy Conservation

FNH consider that initiatives relating to water and energy conservation in new developments should be negotiated on a site by site. Such initiatives should not be enforced through policy as they constitute an additional cost to the developer. The viability of delivering housing schemes must be a priority.

I trust that Fairview's comments on the Core Strategy Preferred Options shall be considered, however should you require clarification on any matters raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.

We are instructed by our client Fairview New Homes Ltd, to submit comments on the published Preferred Options Core Strategy Document, and these are set out below. For ease of reference specific references have been made in accordance with the paragraph numbers as contained in the published document.

Core Strategy Issues: The Green Belt and Strategic Buffers Between Settlements, Housing Numbers and Phasing and General Development Locations

In addition to the stated Preferred Option, the subsequent supporting text in Paragraph 4.2.6 states that the Council will 'consider releasing land where it fails to fulfil green belt objectives', which is clearly not reflected in the Preferred Option.

There is thus inconsistency between this text and the Preferred Option. The flexibility of the supporting text is paramount to the ability to deliver housing over the plan period, and further, its importance in the ability to assist with other plan objectives, such as land that is suitable for housing, as this will assist in delivering the required number of new dwellings across the district and is given support by my client.

This flexibility is essential in larger settlements, such as Rayleigh where 1800 new dwellings are required across the 15 year plan period, as stated at Paragraph 4.6.10.

Further, release of small areas of Green Belt surrounding larger settlements will allow a concentration of development in key areas. The larger existing urban areas, for example, Rayleigh provide the most suitable locations to take future development and infrastructure. Support is therefore given to the sentiments provided at Paragraph 4.6.6 regarding the future sustainability in Rochford and development locations. Further support is clear at Paragraph 4.6.15, where reference is made to top tier settlements being best placed to accommodate expansion.

In addition, Paragraph 4.6.8 outlines the need for focusing new development on the most sustainable sites 'around' the largest and most established settlements. Concentrating development in these areas, which may require the release of parts of the Green Belt, will allow for increased protection and delineation of the Green Belt and a reduced need for development in other smaller areas surrounded by Green Belt.

Without this required flexibility in the policy approach, no assessment can be made as to the appropriate release of land that is be suitable and required for housing, nor as to the requisite phasing/hierarchy that would inform such release.

It is, therefore, proposed due to the above reasons that a formal policy be included within the Core Strategy to allow the review of the Green Belt, as necessary, so as to provide flexibility in, and ability to, meeting the Districts development needs, and that this policy should define the phasing/hierarchy of release. A policy of this nature would, additionally, provide support in maintaining the settlement hierarchy outlined at Paragraphs 4.6.3 - 5.

Core Strategy Issue: Affordable Housing

Although the percentage requirements are in line with guidance provided in PPS3, the National Guidance also states that an overall plan wide target should be set (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 1). Consideration should be had towards individual locations and specific sites depending on the findings of the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (PPS3 Paragraph 29 Part 3). As a result it is suggested that the above preferred option contain an element of flexibility and negotiation to bring the policy in line with National Guidance.

As well as resulting in a policy that would be consistent with National policy affordable housing would then be able to be provided in the most suitable areas, for example in the most sustainable locations with established infrastructure. A policy containing an element of negotiation would also be more sensitive to local housing need as it fluctuates throughout the Council's administrative area rather than a blanket approached as outlined in the preferred option.

Once again there is inconsistency between the supporting text and the preferred options. Paragraph 4.7.2 considers that LPAs must 'negotiate' for the inclusion of an element of affordable housing provision on larger sites. However, there is no mechanism to provide any negotiation in the Council's affordable housing preferred options.

Further, the second point of the preferred options required that affordable housing be spread throughout new development. Whilst my client is sure you are aware, management is a real issue for social landlords, and often it is not practical to adopt a 'pepper pot' approach.

Core Strategy Issue: Landscaping

Whilst it is understood that it is appropriate and important for the Council to seek environmental improvements as part of new developments, the requirement made would have to specific and in relation to the development. The Council make reference to this in the supporting text at Paragraph 4.11.5 and Fairview New Homes believe that explicit reference should be made within the preferred option. In addition mechanisms would need to be put in place to enable varying provisions relevant to each situation.

In addition, PPS3 states at Paragraph 54 that LPAs should prioritise deliverable sites for development. Care should be taken to ensure that the preferred option for landscaping does not result in extensive financial costs that prohibit the development of deliverable sites identified as part of the housing trajectory. This issue could be avoided by providing a specific and negotiable policy concerning landscaping.

Core Strategy Issue: Energy and Water Conservation and Renewable Energy

Support is given to the Council's intention to reduce the need to travel and encourage energy efficient transport. Concentration of development surrounding existing larger settlements in the district will facilitate this provision. A larger population will provide a greater number of people to make use of public transport services and as a result increased funding to improve services with regards to energy efficiency.

Allowing further development around settlements with existing transport infrastructure would provide the most sustainable option. Development in this location would also reduce the overall need to travel due to the proximity of existing employment, services and other facilities. This is in line with comments made above regarding General Development Locations. This is clearly supported by Paragraph 37 Part 2 of PPS3. It is, therefore, proposed that the preferred option should make reference to sustainable locations supporting public transport.

Fairview New Homes would like to object on a number of grounds, set out below, that the Council's preferred option that all new development in the district is carbon neutral is unrealistic and unobtainable. Whilst it is important and achievable to include an element of renewable energy provision in all developments, as noted at Paragraph 4.12.6, this is not comparable to requiring carbon neutral development.

Although the Council's concerns are understood, it should be included in the preferred option that carbon neutral development will not be possible on all sites and that there is an element of variation. It is recognised in the text at Paragraph 4.12.8 that locations vary and this should be carried through to the preferred option. A further limiting factor is the cost of providing a carbon neutral development. Development on certain sites will become unfeasible and investment in the area will as a result become threatened.

It is also unclear from the preferred options or supportive text the Council's priority regarding other Core Strategy Issues. For example, would the Local Authority accept development that was not carbon neutral in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period?

Core Strategy Issue: Compulsory Purchase and Planning Obligations

Fairview New Homes is aware of the need of Planning Obligations attached to planning permissions. However, the Council should be mindful of meeting the five tests set out Paragraph B5 of Planning Circular 05/05, in that planning obligations should be relevant, necessary, directly related to the proposals, of an appropriate scale and reasonable.

Core Strategy Issue: Community, Leisure and Tourism Facilities

Support would like to be given to the Council's preferred options regarding community, leisure and tourism facilities, provided that there is compliance with Paragraph 4.14.7 of the supporting text. As the LPA recognise it is important that proposals are judged against material considerations and that this judgement is carried through to adoption of the document.

On behalf of our client we would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this submission and have due regard to these comments when making changes to the Core Strategy prior to the submission of the document.