Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

The acknowledgement that planning should ensure new development is well related to existing public transport is welcomed, but does not accord with Policy H2.

The acknowledgement that development must be well related to public transport is welcomed, but does not accord with Policy H2.

It is wholly unrealistic to suggest that such a large area of land could be Compulsorily Purchased and thus this approach is highly unlikely to achieve the objectives of this policy. A smaller scale extension adjoining the existing Country Park may be more appropriate and achievable.

The Implementation and Delivery section suggests that alternatives to CPO powers will be investigated. This is welcomed although it is unclear what other tools may be available.

The Implementation and Delivery of Policy H2 states that the 'Call for Sites' exercise has ascertained that there are sites in these locations which developers are willing to develop. This is incorrect and a major flaw of this document. As set out above, the Core Strategy Preferred Options paper allocates land at preferred locations although in some cases no land has been put forward in the SHLAA, or insufficient land to accommodate the proposed allocation.

This section should give examples of other ways land can be acquired to expand the Country Park.

As set out previously due to the lack of clarity regarding the location of these sites, all will have to be further considered through a Land Allocations DPD which may take 5 years to be adopted. It is therefore unrealistic to assume 1,450 units will be delivered on these sites by 2015.A figure of zero is more realistic unless the Core Strategy is amended to provide the necessary detail as advocated in PPS12.

Additionally a number of the locations indicated fail to meet PPS3's deliverability criteria. The comments below reflect these criteria. They also conflict with other policies in the Core Strategy, for example Policy GB1 Green Belt Protection and T2 Public Transport.

North of London Road, Rayleigh

Available: Assume yes, although details such landownership and legal constraints are not provided.
Suitable: Constraints which need further consideration include pylons and flood risk but these can be overcome with careful master planning.
Achievable: Unrealistic to suggest that 450 units would be completed by 2015 when Core Strategy is unlikely to be adopted until 2010 or 2011.

Deliverable: Yes based on information available, but to different timescales

South West Rayleigh

No comments

West Rochford

Available: No, insufficient land was put forward in the SHLAA in this location.
Suitable: Constraints which need further consideration include flood risk, coalescence with Stroud Green, limited opportunities for integration with town and perception of sprawl due to lack of containment (conflict with PPG2).
Achievable: An impractical build rate has been suggested which would require starting and stopping construction to suit plan periods.

Deliverable: No

West Hockley

Available: Assume yes, although details such landownership and legal constraints are not provided.
Suitable: No comment
Achievable: No. Site has no access without crossing third party land.

Deliverable: No

South Hawkwell

General Comment: it is assumed this location relates to land off Thorpe Road, and the comments below relate to this specific site.

Available: Assume yes, although details such landownership and legal constraints are not provided.
Suitable: No, the Local Plan Inspector concluded that "the land performs a valuable Green Belt function" (Ref. FD102, Inspector's Report 2005) and this is still relevant. Developing this site would result in coalescence and thus would be contrary to PPG2.
Achievable: No comment

Deliverable: No

It is considered that land at Mount Bovers Lane (SHLAA site 83) is more suitable and the merits of it are commented on below.

Available: Yes
Suitable: The allocation of land opposite (Local Plan 2006 Policy HP2v) demonstrates that this is a suitable location. Although part of the site lies within the Upper Roach Valley, this can be mitigated against by offering a significant proportion the site to the Council to assist in the aims of acquiring further land and thus providing a 'green lung' as sought by Policy URV1.
Achievable: Yes

Deliverable: Yes

East Ashingdon

Available: it is apparent that this location has been identified to provide land for access to the King Edmund School and for school expansion. Policy CLT3 states that 3 hectares of land is reserved for the expansion. As only 2.25ha was put forward south of Brays Lane in the SHLAA there is insufficient land to accommodate the school expansion, the access and 120 dwellings, unless the road is crossed, which raises other concerns such as site logistics and safety.
Suitable: No comment
Achievable: Dependent on viability / scale of remaining residential land

Deliverable: Unknown

South East Ashingdon

Available: Assume yes, although details such landownership and legal constraints are not provided.
Suitable: A constraint which need further consideration is the pylons but this can be overcome with careful master planning.
Achievable: No comment

Deliverable: Yes based on information available.

South West Hullbridge

Available: No, insufficient land was put forward in the SHLAA in this location.
Suitable: No, this is a disproportionate scale of growth for a second tier settlement.
Achievable: No comment.

Deliverable: No

South West Great Wakering

Available: Assume yes, although details such landownership and legal constraints are not provided.
Suitable: To accommodate 360 units on Sites 7 and 85 would require a density of over 40dpha and no employment land. This may be inappropriate in a second tier settlement in close proximity to a nature reserve and industrial estate.
Achievable: No comment.

Deliverable: Yes, but at a reduced scale.

West Great Wakering

Available: No, as no land was put forward in the SHLAA in this location.
Suitable: The proximity of this location to the Barling Marsh landfill site may render it unsuitable.
Achievable: No comment.

Deliverable: No

South Canewdon

Available: No, insufficient land was put forward in the SHLAA in this location.
Suitable: No this is a disproportionate scale of growth for a third tier settlement. Further, land to the south of the village is very visible from the surrounding area.
Achievable: No comment.

Deliverable: No

In summary, of the 11 locations identified, there are fundamental delivery problems with six, one needs further information an d 4 appear to be deliverable albeit for difference timescales and scales. This is a fundamental problem which casts doubt over the soundness of the whole Core Strategy.