Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY PREFERRED OPTIONS
REGULATION 26

REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF CROWSTONE PROPERTIES LTD.

In Part 1 of these representations, we set out our general response to the document as a contribution to the wider debate relating to the District as a whole.

We have already registered our Client Company's interest in securing the release of a site on the western side of Ashingdon for residential development through the Local Development Framework (LDF) process. In Part 2, therefore, we briefly comment on the relevance of the document and our Part 1 representations to the site.

PART 1 : GENERAL RESPONSE
We will be broadly endorsing the approach being followed by the Council in accommodating the District's required share of regional growth but with certain queries and caveats. We firstly, therefore, endorse the following :-

* The Spatial Vision (paras. 2.1- 2.29), which charts the evolution of the District over three 5 year periods and provides a positive long term perspective.

* The focus on existing larger settlements to absorb growth. (para. 4.6.6 and 4.6.14 - 4.6.23).

* The protection of the open landscape and free-standing settlements. (4.2.1 et seq.).

Our reservations are as follows:-

• The introduction of the concept of "strategic buffers between settlements" seems superfluous. Green Belt designation and
associated policies are and will remain effective in ruling out inappropriate development which might otherwise lead to the coalescence of settlements by the erosion of important buffers
or green wedges or by blurring the distinction between settlements
and the countryside. The introduction of a further local designation
will not add anything to the level of protection that already exists.

• There is currently uncertainty and some ambiguity as to whether the Council intends to review the Green Belt boundary in order to make provision for future housing requirements. The phrase "need to retain
the green belt boundary" in paragraph 4.2.2, for example, could be read as an intention to retain the existing boundary or a future reviewed and amended boundary. The position statement in paragraph 4.5.10, however, does suggest that some Green Belt land on the edge of settlements will be required, but again this is not explicit as it refers generally to impact on the Green Belt rather than to the need to utilise Green Belt land per se. We acknowledge, however, that paragraph 4.2.6 does seem to strongly hint that some Green Belt land will need to be released.

• Flood risk issues are not addressed. Flood defence and PPG25 considerations are currently being underplayed. (These feature strongly in neighbouring Maldon District's draft LDF which highlights the possible impact of rising sea levels on human and natural resources). Given the attention rightly devoted to "climate change" and "sustainable development", it is surprising that flood risk does not feature as a key issue - especially as this is a factor that must be taken into account in determining future locations for growth.

In summary, therefore,:-

• We seek the deletion of the text in the first bullet point in paragraph 4.2.7 on the basis that "strategic buffers" would be superfluous having regard to the strict nature and proven effectiveness of Green Belt designations;

• We seek greater clarity and commitment to a review of the Green Belt boundary in order to ensure growth can be absorbed in the most sustainable locations; and

• We identify the need for a clear statement on the likely influence of flood risk considerations on the future of built-up areas, homes, workplaces and habitats.

In Part 2 which follows, we briefly highlight the relevance of certain points in the document and our Part 1 representations to our Client Company's Land Bid site.

PART 2

LAND BID - LAND OFF RECTORY AVENUE, ASHINGDON

We attach as ANNEX EGA1 a Land Bid submission dated 22 February 2007. We now briefly comment on a few points of relevance arising from our representations in Part 1.

Firstly, Rochford/Ashingdon is identified as one of the main settlements which will absorb the majority of growth. After Rayleigh, Rochford/Ashingdon is expected to accommodate the second largest number of new dwellings in the District.

Secondly, although currently within the Green Belt and in the gap between Ashingdon and Hockley, the Land Bid site would, if released, provide a logical and alternative permanent Green Belt boundary. The Land Bid site can be partly used to extend the cloak of woodland and open space on the western edge of Ashingdon to provide an attractive and physical defensible Green Belt boundary.

Thirdly, the land is outside any flood risk area.

We therefore consider the Land Bid site remains in broad conformity at this stage with the emerging Core Strategy.

Chartered Town Planner
July 2007