Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.

Rochford District Core Strategy Preferred Options Draft - Representations on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC

I refer to the above consultation document and set out below our comments on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC:

Spatial Vision

* Para 2.6 - we support the stated objective of providing a mix of housing, but we consider that specific mention should be given to the need for specialist housing to meet the various needs of different sectors of the community. We suggest the opening sentence should read "Residents will see new development schemes incorporating a mix of housing to meet the needs of all sectors of the community and required local facilities ..."
* Paras 2.23 and 2.24 - we support these paragraphs for the reasons stated above. Providing for the housing needs of the elderly and other groups is not something that should only happen in 15 years time, however, hence our suggestion that paragraph 2.6 be altered as suggested above.

Strategic Buffers Between Settlements

* We support the concept and broad extent of the strategic buffers shown on the Key Diagram and listed at Section 4.2

Upper Roach Valley

* Para 4.3.3-4.3.8 - We welcome the Council's stated intention of producing a Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport and the surrounding area, which includes part of the Upper Roach Valley. However, we are concerned that the proposed text makes no reference to the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which represents a major 'brownfield' site within the Green Belt, and an opportunity for redevelopment in a manner that meets the Council's wider objectives for bringing forward a range of housing opportunities, and helping to deliver enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley.

* We suggest an additional sentence should be added to paragraph 4.3.3, as follows: "The Joint Area Action Plan will also need to consider the future of the Cherry Orchard Brickworks, which forms a large area of previously developed land within the AAP area." We also suggest an additional bullet point to the text box at paragraph 4.3.8, to state:

§ "The Council will bring forward proposals for the redevelopment of the Cherry Orchard brickworks site as part of the comprehensive proposals for the Area Action Plan"

Housing Numbers and Phasing

* Para 4.5.9 - This paragraph begins by stating the Council's objection to its East of England housing allocation. The Council's previous objection is a matter of public record, and it is not really necessary to restate this as part of the Core Strategy, which is a forward looking plan for the delivery of the housing requirement. We suggest the first two sentences of paragraph 4.5.9 be deleted.

* Para 4.5.10 - This paragraph refers to the Council's stated intention to release land from the Green Belt on the edge of settlements which does not have a significant impact on the Green Belt. If as stated the intention is to minimise the impact on the Green Belt, then it is primarily the relative Green Belt merits of land that are the most significant factor, not whether the land is on the edge of a settlement (which in itself is something of an imprecise term). We also suggest that as a guiding philosophy for the subsequent selection of development sites at the Site Allocations stage, the twin criteria of "edge of settlement" and "no significant impact on the Green Belt" are somewhat limited (particularly when much of the urban edges of the district are subject to other environmental and policy constraints). We suggest instead that paragraph 4.5.10 be redrafted to set out more fully the considerations that will be applied to the selection of sites beyond the existing urban area, and which inter alia we would suggest would include;

(a) The relative impact of development on the purposes of the Green Belt;
(b) The ability of the site to accommodate development in physical and environmental terms;
(c) The potential for the re-use of previously developed land; and
(d) The relative sustainability of the proposed development, and its ability to contribute towards the spatial vision.

General Development Locations

* Para 4.6.3 - 4.6.23 - Whilst we agree with the general settlement hierarchy identified in paragraphs 4.6.3-4.6.5, we disagree with the crude methodology subsequently established for the distribution of development. Specifically:

(1) We do not see that any justification exists for the expansion of second tier settlements, if land exists at first tier settlements, and which would be more sustainable. The analysis provided by the Council already accepts that the spatial strategy should not be based upon dividing up the growth on the basis of an "equal share", and that the objectives of sustainable development should come first. In each of the second tier settlements there is likely to be some scope for new development by means of infilling and redevelopment within the existing settlement boundaries, but even were that not the case, we cannot see any evidence to support 10% of the district's growth being directed to locations that the Council acknowledges are not particularly sustainable settlements.

(2) The subsequent analysis that divides up the 90% of new homes proposed between the first tier settlements is also unjustifiably crude and unnecessary. There is no need for this Core Strategy to set out at this stage a distribution between the three main settlements, even if that is "indicative" and particularly not where it relies upon a methodology that does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base to support its conclusions. The selection of the sites at the Site Allocations DPD should be based upon a set of relevant criteria, such as we suggest above, and it should be the application of those criteria and the subsequent selection of the most beneficial/sustainable development sites that should dictate the distribution of development between the three main settlements, not the use of such a crude and subjective distribution at the Core Strategy stage.

Meeting Housing Needs

* As noted previously, the vision for the Strategy identifies the desirability of meeting a wide range of housing need. Although section 4.7 deal with affordable housing, sections 4.5 and 4.6 make no mention of the need for a range of housing opportunities to be provided to meet the needs of all sections of the community. When read in conjunction with the Council's statement at paragraph 4.5.9, to the effect that the Council never wanted this level of housing anyway, the whole of this section comes across as being focussed on the easiest way to deliver the requisite number of homes, rather than any recognition of the opportunities that exist from the East of England allocation to provide positively for a range of new housing to meet the needs of current and future generations. Providing the East of England housing requirement should not be a simple exercise of mathematics, but should be about genuinely striving to achieve a better range and choice of housing to benefit the community. We suggest an additional section on Meeting Housing Needs should be inserted, to refer to the above objectives and to link back to the Strategic Vision, perhaps incorporating the issue of Affordable Housing under the same general heading.

Health Impact Assessment

* Para 4.9.9 - this paragraph refers to Health Impact Assessments with major applications, but it is not clear from the supporting text what this refers to or why such assessments are justified.

Energy Conservation

* We generally support the intentions of this section, but query the suggested inclusion at 4.2.11 of a policy requiring all new development to be carbon neutral - it is not clear from the draft Plan what that actually means, what it involves, what type of development it would refer to, and whether it is actually deliverable in practice.

Compulsory Purchase

* We note the Council's proposal to use compulsory purchase powers if need be to secure its objectives (including in relation to the expansion of the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park). Any individual CPO would obviously need to be justified, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case, and we question the need for a specific policy or statement in the Core Strategy regarding possible locations for the use of CPO powers. Although paragraph 4.13.8 attempts to explain why the first option of "no CPO policy" has been rejected, the explanation offered does not actually justify why a Core Strategy policy is required, in our view.

Cherry Orchard Brickworks Site

* As set out in our original submissions to the Issues and Options draft, we enclose a brochure providing a summary of our proposals for a Retirement Village at Cherry Orchard. This development would assist in meeting the housing needs of the district on a large 'brownfield' site, in accordance with the objectives of the strategy, and with particular regard to the growing requirement for specialist accommodation for the elderly.
We trust the above comments will be taken into account in advance of the preparation of the Submission Draft DPD.