Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

The Urban Capacity Study (UCS) 2007 estimate of 1301 units is based on conservative assumptions about the potential density of specific previously developed sites. For example, the site at Stambridge Mills, Rochford is described in the UCS as being adjacent to a 'second tier' settlement (i.e Rochford) where densities above 50 dwellings per hectare would generally not be appropriate. By contrast, the Core Strategy Preferred Options Document identifies Rochford as a 'first tier' settlement. Furthermore, whilst applying a 'probable density' of 35 dwellings per hectare to the Stambridge Mills site, the UCS states that 'the specific characteristics of the built development on the site suggest a scheme of some scale might be possible'.

It is also considered that the UCS estimate of the capacity of the Star Lane Brickworks site at Great Wakering is an underestimate given (i) the site's proximity to the Southend urban area, and (ii) the potential for a proportion of flatted development of 3-4 storeys in height in the northern part of the site adjacent to existing industrial development

The broad approach of H1 is fully supported. Priority should be given to the re-use of previously developed land identified as being appropriate for development as part of the Urban Capacity Study (UCS) 2007.

The UCS is however considered to underestimate the number of units which are likely to come forward from previously developed sites including those at Stambridge Mills and Star Lane Brickworks, Great Wakering.

H1 should therefore state that maximum use will be made of previously developed sites identified in the UCS subject to the need to achieve sustainable development objectives including proximity to and potential for improved infrastructure, access to services, deliverability, environmental improvement including the removal of contamination, the re-use of existing resources, and respecting physical constraints. Such use would minimise the need to release Green Belt land, and would be likely to result in more than 30% of new housing development being provided on previously developed land

It is agreed that the concept of sustainable development lies at the heart of any decisions with regard to the location of new housing. Factors such as the re-use of previously developed land, accessibility to services, infrastructure capacity, deliverability, the re-use of on-site materials, the removal of contamination, and the protection of the local environment are key considerations.

Development at Hullbridge and Canewdon would not accord with the objectives of sustainable development. New housing should be directed towards those areas with a close relationship with Southend, namely the first and second tier settlements of Rayleigh, Rochford, Hockley and Great Wakering.

The priority should be to minimise the release of Green Belt land for new housing development. Making best possible use of previously developed land will assist in achieving this objective.

It is not considered that Hullbridge and Canewdon are appropriate locations for significant additional housing, either prior to or beyond 2015, because these settlements lack key facilities/infrastructure and are generally too remote from the main urban areas. Development in these locations would also increase car dependency across the district, would harm the character of the villages, and would damagingly intrude into the Green Belt.

Development at South Hawkwell should be resisted on coalescence grounds.

Development at Great Wakering should be concentrated on sites to the south-west of the settlement, specifically at and to the east and north-east of the previously developed site of Star Lane Brickworks. The brickworks site is identified in the 2007 UCS as a residential location, and its redevelopment would be supportable in the context of H1. The brickworks site adjoins an established industrial location to the north, and its development would assist in screening industrial buildings in views from the south over open countryside. Other appropriate development sites lie to the north and east of the adjoining lakes. Development in this general location on the south-west side of Great Wakering will result in substantially less visual intrusion into open countryside and the Green Belt than the proposed release of land to the west of Great Wakering which would also involve the loss of good quality agricultural land. Development at West Great Wakering should therefore be resisted.

It is considered that there should be minimal new development at the smaller settlements of Hullbridge and Canewdon given their remoteness and the likelihood of harm to the character and appearance of the countryside in these rural locations.

It is considered that the 'pepper potting' of affordable housing throughout larger developments is not always appropriate in management and maintenance terms, and is not always sought by RSLs. This issue needs to be addressed in pragmatic rather than prescriptive way reflecting the circumstances of individual schemes.

The policy should also stress in a more balanced way that the precise level of affordable housing to be sought on individual sites, against the background of a policy target, will need to reflect the costs and constraints of such provision in order to ensure the viability of the development.

The objective of GB1 to direct development away from the Green Belt is strongly supported although this is at odds with an expectation that 70% of new housing will need to be provided on Greenfield sites.

The review of existing employment land requirements, and the reallocation of sites for housing, where appropriate, is fully supported. The redevelopment of vacant industrial land for new housing will minimise the need to release Green Belt land, and will allow for the removal of contamination, the re-use of existing on-site materials, and the general environmental and ecological enhancement of the site and surrounding area.