Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Search representations
Results for Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4361
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
We agree with the aim within this policy in terms of avoiding "town cramming" or over intensifying limited infill or inappropriate brownfield sites, where harmful to the character of the area.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4362
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
We support the allocation of 650 units of land North of London Road, Rayleigh
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4363
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Whilst we appreciate that the Core Strategy is not the vehicle to identify the precise boundaries of these residential growth/development areas, we do however consider that the key diagram is too vague and there should be a clearer identification of growth areas. It is not possible to ascertain the extent/location of likely development areas (not just North of London Road) and therefore their relationship to existing residents/road network etc. Therefore it is difficult to know what impact any such development will have on surrounding residents/the road network etc. The Core Strategy can be fairly specific in identifying sites, even if precise boundaries are not defined.
No appropriate density ranges are given within the Core Strategy, so again it is difficult to ascertain the likely land area required to achieve the number of units required/specified.
We believe that appropriate density ranges should be specified (a separate policy).
If the total number of units specified in policy H2 is the minimum required to meet the districts (RSS) housing targets, then these figures should be expressed as minimums, rather than "approximate numbers".
Land west of Rayleigh can accommodate over and above the 650 units specified as required.
As stated above, it is not clear where, on land west of Rayleigh, these units are to be provided, but if the existing electricity power lines/pylons are seen as a western barrier to development, it must be emphasised that these can be relocated. There appears to be no reasoning/justification as to why the figure of 650 units has been chosen.
If other sources of development or sites identified in the Core strategy (or identified brownfield sites) to meet housing requirements fail to be achieved or delivered, the potential to accommodate further numbers on land west of Rayleigh should be considered.
We agree that development should be comprehensively planned, and support the principle of providing a range of other uses and infrastructure to serve any urban extension west of Rayleigh. However, such infrastructure must be reasonably associated with the impacts of the development. The scale and nature of such infrastructure that we could provide will be dependant upon the scale and nature of development accepted on the option land (see further comment re: H Appendix 1).
With regard to phasing, there should clearly be the flexibility to bring forward housing numbers currently identified for later years if delivery of housing is not meeting forecasts/ planned rates and to ensure that a constant 5 year supply of land is to be maintained.
Reference is made to the Annual Monitoring report and housing trajectory in the Implementation and Delivery section. We consider that the housing trajectory should form part of the evidence base and be available to help us and others understand forecasts/need for housing land release etc, demonstrating envisaged delivery rates. Such information will be required to support this policy and demonstrate the robustness of proposed housing delivery to the Inspector at any forthcoming EIP. A commitment should be made to review the trajectory each year, to identify whether delivery targets are being met or are seriously falling short and therefore amend phasing of provision if required.
We would suggest however that due to the limited constraints to delivery of development on land north of London Road (West Rayleigh) that all 650 units could be delivered by 2015, assuming a planning permission can be obtained soon after the adoption of the Core Strategy.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H2 - Alternative Options
Representation ID: 4364
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Rayleigh has the greatest variety and widest base of retail and other services of any settlement in Rochford. It also benefits from being the most accessible in terms of strategic highway links and capacity, and has the largest population and town centre. With a new employment "park" being identified for west of Rayleigh, a greater variety of job offers should also be available. Therefore, if the current strategy for spreading housing growth between predominantly the upper tier settlements is not supported, or growth sites identified for the upper tier settlements prove not easy to deliver, are not progressed or supported, then the appropriate strategy should be to focus further development at the most sustainable location, Rayleigh. There is no clear indication as to why 650 units have been identified for west Rayleigh and not more i.e. how this figure was reached.
As stated in our comments regarding Policy H2, there should be flexibility in terms of timing of development. Delivery of strategic growth sites may need to be brought forward if housing delivery is falling short of forecasts, and the minimum of 5 year housing supply is under threat. Regular review of housing delivery is required.
Furthermore bringing forward housing delivery on strategic sites may help to ensure funding for essential community infrastructure associated with such development.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H2 - Alternative Options
Representation ID: 4365
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Support Third to Sixth alternative options
As set out in our "call for sites" submission, we identified that west of Rayleigh was the most sustainable and accessible location for further development in Rayleigh, as other possible sites had serious policy, environmental or access/capacity constraints to delivery. We therefore support the Council's approach to not identifying sites north, east or south/south east of Rayleigh for development, and limiting any development to the south west.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H3 General Locations Post-2021 - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4366
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
It is noted that there are no numbers allocated for Rayleigh post 2021. Bearing in mind the sustainability and accessibility credentials for Rayleigh as opposed to other settlements within the district, we would argue that longer term growth should be planned for, on top of the earlier allocations.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H4 Affordable Housing - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4367
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
We support the principle of this policy, but must stress the need for flexibility in affordable housing provision, should it affect economic viability when competing against other community/ social/ transport infrastructure requirements sought as part of development of a site.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
H Appendix 1
Representation ID: 4368
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Countryside Properties has considerable experience in terms of obtaining planning permission for, and developing out large scale sustainable residential led or mixed use urban extensions.
Our approach has always been to provide the necessary infrastructure to serve any such development, including the appropriate level of social, community and transport infrastructure, where a need is demonstrated and such infrastructure is reasonably associated with the impacts of the development (in accordance with the requirements of Circular 05/05). Contributions towards or provision of further infrastructure, which is for the benefit of the wider area/existing community, may also be provided for where a need is justified and a link to the impact of the development scheme is shown (or proportion of contribution justified).
With the above in mind, we are happy to state our support, in principle, for those infrastructure requirements for a new urban extension on land north of London Road, as set out in H Appendix 1 of the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options (October 2008).
We therefore accept that any development on land west of Rayleigh within our control may well have to accommodate land for a primary school (1.1 ha), provide a link to Green Grid Greenway no.13, provide for public transport enhancements, Sustainable Drainage Systems, public park land, play space, community and youth facilities where a need is demonstrated, and the scale of such provision relates reasonably to the scale of development permitted on that land within our control. Appendix 1 also identifies a requirement for a Primary Care Centre. Land could be safeguarded for such purposes, but again the extent of such a commitment, or any financial commitment towards such a facility would have to be justified.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED2 Employment Growth - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4369
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
This policy (or supporting text) gives no indication of intended employment delivery for the plan period. We do not know how the council seeks to achieve the required job numbers, and what employment floorspace is required (or type of employment floorspace to provide the necessary jobs).
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED2 - Alternative Options
Representation ID: 4370
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
We support the principle/policy of providing a range of employment uses across the District rather than focus on provision purely at London Southend Airport.
As stated in relation to other policies, west Rayleigh has the most direct and least congested link to two principal roads serving the district (A130 and A127) than any other possible development location in Rayleigh (and probably the district), and, providing an adequate area of employment land is identified, would therefore be an attractive location for commercial/business operators.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
