Core Strategy Submission Document

This policy indicates the inclusion of Stambridge Mills as a site for very high density housing development.
No evidence is provided within the consultation package that the Sequential Test and Exception Test have been applied, as required by paragraphs 14-20 of Planning Policy Statement 25. This site lies wholly within Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone as defined in Table D1 of PPS25 and illustrated by the flood maps produced by the Environment Agency. The site is also situated adjacent to the tidal River Roach. It does benefit from some form of flood defence but no information has been provided as to the actual level of flood risk experienced at this site in the form of a PPS25 compliant Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). The Thames Gateway South Essex SFRA provided in the evidence base was completed under the terms of PPG25 in 2006 and as such, the climate change allowances are now outdated. Also the 2006 SFRA does not include an assessment of flood risk at this site/in this general location. We therefore also cannot be certain that the site is capable of achieving the requirements of part c of the PPS25 Exception Test - this would make it undeliverable and undevelopable as defined by Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing.
Given the information above we deem the Core Strategy unsound on the grounds that it does not demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in that the Sequential Test has not been applied and there is no evidence that, should the Sequential test be passed, the proposed residential development at Stambridge Mills would be capable of passing part c of the Exception Test. Also the Core Strategy is not supported by an up-to-date SFRA as required by paragraph 12.
The lack of a PPS25 compliant SFRA and Sequential and Exception Tests document also means that we find the Core Strategy unsound on the grounds that it is not justified because it is not supported by relevant and up-to-date background evidence. We do note that that the (draft) SHLAA goes someway in attempting to justify the inclusion of the Stambridge Mills site, but in our opinion it does not go far enough.
The Core Strategy is also not consistent with national policy set out in PPS3 because Policy H1 might not be able to demonstrate the delivery of a flexible supply of land for housing if Stambridge Mills is found to be undeliverable and undevelopable. This is especially true as the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2009) Summary Schedule of Sites provided in the evidence base supporting this submission document shows the Stambridge site to be ideally developed between 2010-2012 and therefore within the five year housing supply required by PPS3.
In addition, we would argue that the Core Strategy is not sound because it is not effective. Should the Stambridge Mills site be found to be undevelopable, the Core Strategy does not explore alternatives to accommodate their required growth targets. We therefore cannot be certain that policy H1 represents the most appropriate policy because there is no clear comparison against alternatives.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the Core Strategy is supported by sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property. The general approach of giving priority to brownfield land is in line with national policy within PPS3, however PPS3 also recognises the need to take into account environmental constraints and risks, including flood risk, in setting out strategies for the planned location of new housing in order to achieve sustainable development objectives set out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and that some sites might not therefore be suitable for housing (see paragraphs 38 and 41). This ties in with the process of applying the PPS25 Sequential Test and Exception Test which places flood risk classification and the vulnerability of proposed developments as the primary concern, with the designation of land as brownfield as a secondary consideration when applying part b of the Exception Test. Given that the national target of 60% redevelopment of previously developed land (as required by PPS3) is deemed unrealistic in Rochford District (paragraph 4.15 of this Core Strategy) and that Policy H2 indicates that there will therefore be a need to release greenbelt land in order to accommodate required growth in nonconformity with Planning Policy Guidance note 2, there is no justification to support the assumption that developing the brownfield land in the high risk flood zone is the most appropriate course of action given the reasonable alternative of accommodating those housing figures in areas at lesser flood risk - either by releasing a minimal additional amount of greenbelt, or by slightly increasing density of development elsewhere.

In the absence of a PPS25 compliant SFRA and Sequential Test document the only option is to remove specific mention to Stambridge Mills from Policy H1 and Appendix H1 and build in flexibility to the plan in recognising the potential need to reallocate the balance of housing to more sustainable locations in Flood Zone 1, the low risk flood zone as defined by Table D.1 of PPS25 and illustrated by the Environment Agency's flood maps. This would make the proposed policy consistent with national policy as set out in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS25. It would also remove our other concerns under the two other tests of soundness. We also consider that it would still be consistent with Policy GB1 of this Core Strategy.

If this course of action is taken, we would suggest the removal of the fourth paragraph from the policy and the following rewording of the third paragraph:

"The council will seek the redevelopment of brownfield land, including under-utilised employment areas, for appropriate alternative uses, including residential development, subject to meeting the requirements of national policy as set out in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS25. Alternative employment land will be allocated in appropriate locations as identified in Policy ED4".

In making the above changes, we feel that an updated SFRA would not be required at this stage and that a Sequential Test document could also be avoided.


Should the LPA wish to retain reference to Stambridge Mills, we would expect this Core Strategy to be supported by a PPS25 compliant Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). This would provide clear evidence of the flood risk posed to the district upon which to base the application of the PPS25 Sequential Test. It would also provide the necessary evidence base on which to establish the likelihood that part c of the PPS25 Exception Test can be passed. Applying the PPS25 Sequential test will allow for all of the available alternatives to be properly assessed and would thereby provide clear and transparent justification of the LPAs decisions. It would also have to address the issue of prioritising brownfield development in areas of flood risk when some greenbelt land in areas of lesser flood risk is already being released. Some rewording of the policy might be necessary following the completion of these studies in order to deem policy H1 to be sound.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.

The background evidence includes the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson and completed in March 2009 however the findings of this report have failed to be captured in the policies of the Core Strategy (with the exception of the water efficiency requirements related to the Code for Sustainable Homes in Policy ENV9).

The Scoping Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014.

In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. There might also be some issues with the quality of discharge from the Rayleigh East WwTW which will require further investigation but could be exacerbated by unphased growth.

In terms of water quality, the three WwTWs serving Rochford District - Rochford, Rayleigh East and Rayleigh West - discharge to tributaries of the Rivers Roach and Crouch which are Shellfish Waters and flow into areas
designated under national and international environmental legislation (SSSI, SPA and Ramsar designations) and the water quality of these watercourses is generally poor. Page 48 of the Scoping Study states that further development draining to these three WwTWs has the potential to exacerbate the problem. Again further investigation is required into this issue.

In not addressing the findings of this report we deem the Core Strategy to be unsound in that it is not effective. This is because we do not believe that the Policies set out in the Core Strategy have clearly identified the infrastructure implications of the strategy and the delivery mechanisms and timescales for implementation have not been addressed. There is also an element of inflexibility in failing to recognise the findings of this report and the potential impact on growth delivery.

In order to make the Core Strategy sound, it must incorporate the findings of the Water Cycle Study Scoping Report and recognise the potential constraints to development delivery.

Referring to the report in Policy H1 would be an option. At this stage in the process we would consider it sufficient to include a statement about the intention to phase development in line with the findings of the Scoping Report and subsequent Outline and Detailed Stage Water Cycle Studies. The Site Allocations DPD would require more detailed information to inform the phasing so as to avoid bringing forward sites prematurely.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.

The background evidence includes the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson and completed in March 2009 however the findings of this report have failed to be captured in the policies of the Core Strategy (with the exception of the water efficiency requirements related to the Code for Sustainable Homes in Policy ENV9).

The Scoping Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014.

In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. There might also be some issues with the quality of discharge from the Rayleigh East WwTW which will require further investigation but could be exacerbated by unphased growth.

In terms of water quality, the three WwTWs serving Rochford District - Rochford, Rayleigh East and Rayleigh West - discharge to tributaries of the Rivers Roach and Crouch which are Shellfish Waters and flow into areas designated under national and international environmental legislation (SSSI, SPA and Ramsar designations) and the water quality of these watercourses is generally poor. Page 48 of the Scoping Study states that further development draining to these three WwTWs has the potential to exacerbate the problem. Again further investigation is required into this issue.

In not addressing the findings of this report we deem the Core Strategy to be unsound in that it is not effective. This is because we do not believe that the Policies set out in the Core Strategy have clearly identified the infrastructure implications of the strategy and the delivery mechanisms and timescales for implementation have not been addressed. There is also an element of inflexibility in failing to recognise the findings of this report and the potential impact on growth delivery.

In order to make the Core Strategy sound, it must incorporate the findings of the Water Cycle Study Scoping Report and recognise the potential constraints to development delivery.

Referring to the report in Policy H2 would be an option. At this stage in the process we would consider it sufficient to include a statement about the intention to phase development in line with the findings of the Scoping Report and subsequent Outline and Detailed Stage Water Cycle Studies. The Site Allocations DPD would require more detailed information to inform the phasing so as to avoid bringing forward sites prematurely.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.

The background evidence includes the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson and completed in March 2009 however the findings of this report have failed to be captured in the policies of the Core Strategy (with the exception of the water efficiency requirements related to the Code for Sustainable Homes in Policy ENV9).

The Scoping Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014.

In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. There might also be some issues with the quality of discharge from the Rayleigh East WwTW which will require further investigation but could be exacerbated by unphased growth.

In terms of water quality, the three WwTWs serving Rochford District - Rochford, Rayleigh East and Rayleigh West - discharge to tributaries of the Rivers Roach and Crouch which are Shellfish Waters and flow into areas designated under national and international environmental legislation (SSSI, SPA and Ramsar designations) and the water quality of these watercourses is generally poor. Page 48 of the Scoping Study states that further development draining to these three WwTWs has the potential to exacerbate the problem. Again further investigation is required into this issue.

In not addressing the findings of this report we deem the Core Strategy to be unsound in that it is not effective. This is because we do not believe that the Policies set out in the Core Strategy have clearly identified the infrastructure implications of the strategy and the delivery mechanisms and timescales for implementation have not been addressed. There is also an element of inflexibility in failing to recognise the findings of this report and the potential impact on growth delivery.

In order to make the Core Strategy sound, it must incorporate the findings of the Water Cycle Study Scoping Report and recognise the potential constraints to development delivery.

Referring to the report in Policy H3 would be an option. At this stage in the process we would consider it sufficient to include a statement about the intention to phase development in line with the findings of the Scoping Report and subsequent Outline and Detailed Stage Water Cycle Studies. The Site Allocations DPD would require more detailed information to inform the phasing so as to avoid bringing forward sites prematurely.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.

Support

Support

Support

This paragraph makes mention of the Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) under the subheading "(1) Appraising risk". Please note that this SFRA was completed in 2006 prior to the publication of Planning Policy Statement 25. This SFRA therefore does not include up-to-date climate change scenarios that were introduced in PPS25. The newer climate change allowances can significantly increase the risk of flooding in areas and can present very different results from those published in the TGSE SFRA (2006). In addition, this SFRA did not cover the entire Rochford District.

In light of the above, this document cannot be relied upon for applying the Sequential test in accordance with PPS25 because the information contained within it is incomplete. The Environment Agency have made clear that an updated SFRA is required if development is being proposed within areas at risk of flooding. We have been involved in working with the council and some of the other South Essex Local Authorities in producing an updated SFRA however this has only reached scoping stage and we have had no guarantees that the project will be completed.

The Core Strategy cannot therefore be considered to be justified because it is not supported by a complete, accurate and up-to-date evidence base in the absence of a PPS25 compliant SFRA. In not being compliant with PPS25, this Core Strategy cannot be considered to be consistent with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25.

In addition to the above, we do not believe that the Core Strategy is supported by sufficient evidence to justify the statement that there may be some exceptions to the provision of new development in Flood Zone 1 where previously developed land is available in higher risk flood zones. The general approach of giving priority to brownfield land is in line with PPS3, however the policy also recognises the need to take into account environmental constraints and risks, including flood risk, in setting out strategies for the planned location of new housing in order to achieve sustainable development objectives set out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and that some sites might not therefore be suitable for housing (see paragraphs 38 and 41). This ties in with the process of applying the PPS25 Sequential Test and Exception Test which places flood risk classification and the vulnerability of proposed developments as the primary concern, with the designation of land as brownfield as a secondary consideration when applying part b of the Exception Test. Given that the national target of 60% redevelopment of previously developed land (as required by PPS3) is deemed unrealistic in Rochford District (paragraph 4.15 of this Core Strategy) and that Policy H2 indicates that there will therefore be a need to release greenbelt land in order to accommodate required growth in nonconformity with Planning Policy Guidance note 2, there is no justification to support the assumption that developing the brownfield land in the high risk flood zone is the most appropriate course of action given the reasonable alternative of accommodating those housing figures in areas at lesser flood risk - either by releasing a minimal additional amount of greenbelt, or by slightly increasing density of development elsewhere.


The Core Strategy should acknowledge the inadequacy of the current Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and state their intention to update this vital study in order to comply with national policy and ensure that this DPD can be adequately justified.

The Council should also seek to provide clear and transparent justification of the LPAs decisions by carrying out a Sequential Test to support this Core Strategy document. At this stage in the development of the LDF, in the absence of an up-to-date SFRA, this would have to be based upon the Environment Agency's flood maps (future iterations for more detailed DPDS would require an up-to-date SFRA). Applying the PPS25 Sequential test will allow for all of the available alternatives to be properly assessed, including justification for the Council's decision to prioritise brownfield development in areas of flood risk when some greenbelt land in areas of lesser flood risk is already being released, or development densities could be increased in other areas.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.

The wording of this policy seems to suggest that any residential development proposed on brownfield land in areas of Flood Zone 3 will be permitted regardless of the outcomes of the Sequential Test. This Policy is therefore unsound because it is not consistent with national policy set out in PPS25.
We also consider this policy to be unjustified because it is not supported by sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property. The general approach of giving priority to brownfield land is in line with national policy within PPS3, however PPS3 also recognises the need to take into account environmental constraints and risks, including flood risk, in setting out strategies for the planned location of new housing in order to achieve sustainable development objectives set out in Planning Policy Statement 1 and that some sites might not therefore be suitable for housing (see paragraphs 38 and 41). This ties in with the process of applying the PPS25 Sequential Test and Exception Test which places flood risk classification and the vulnerability of proposed developments as the primary concern, with the designation of land as brownfield as a secondary consideration when applying part b of the Exception Test. Given that the national target of 60% redevelopment of previously developed land (as required by PPS3) is deemed unrealistic in Rochford District (paragraph 4.15 of this Core Strategy) and that Policy H2 indicates that there will therefore be a need to release greenbelt land in order to accommodate required growth in nonconformity with Planning Policy Guidance note 2, there is no justification to support the assumption that developing the brownfield land in the high risk flood zone is the most appropriate course of action given the reasonable alternative of accommodating those housing figures in areas at lesser flood risk - either by releasing a minimal additional amount of greenbelt, or by slightly increasing density of development elsewhere.

We do support the inclusion of the Council's intention to capitalise on opportunities to make space for water wherever possible as this is in line with government objectives as set out in "Making Space for Water".

The Council will need to provide clear and transparent justification of their decisions by carrying out a Sequential Test to support this Core Strategy document. At this stage in the development of the LDF, in the absence of an up-to-date SFRA, this would have to be based upon the Environment Agency's flood maps (future iterations for more detailed DPDS would require an up-to-date SFRA). Applying the PPS25 Sequential test will allow for all of the available alternatives to be properly assessed, including justification for the Council's decision to prioritise brownfield development in areas of flood risk when some greenbelt land in areas of lesser flood risk is already being released, or development densities could be increased in other areas.

Should the above evidence be deemed to support the Council's preferences for previously-developed land over flood risk posed to life and property, the policy will however require rewording as follows:

"The Council will direct development away from areas at risk of flooding by applying the PPS25 Sequential Test. The vast majority of development will be accommodated within Flood Zone 1, however some previously-developed land within Flood Zone 3 will be considered for residential development where this will negate the need to release Green Belt land and evidence can be provided in support of the PSS25 Exception Test.

The Council will continue to work with the Environment Agency to manage flood risk in a sustainable manner through capitalising on opportunities to make space for water wherever possible and through the continued provision of flood defences where necessary."


An alternative approach would be to reword Policy ENV3 as follows:

"The Council will apply the sequential approach to new development in line with the requirements of PPS25. Where development can only be located within areas at risk of flooding, an overall reduction in flood risk will be sought with preference given to designs that manage flood risk in a sustainable manner.

The Council will continue to work with the Environment Agency to manage flood risk in a sustainable manner through capitalising on opportunities to make space for water wherever possible, and through the continued provision of flood defences where necessary."

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.

Policy ENV4 is not consistent with the requirements of Approved Document H (2002) of the Building Regulations, 2000, as amended. This Approved Document H requires a drainage hierarchy to be considered for all development and priority is given to the discharge of surface water run-off using SuDS techniques.

This approach is supported by national Policy in PPS25 at paragraphs F6 and F8.

The policy must be reworded to require all developments to incorporate SuDS where possible.

Please note that should the Inspector deem it necessary for us to attend the Examination in Public, we would be happy to do so but our preferred method at this time would be written representations.