Core Strategy Submission Document

Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not effective (not deliverable/not flexible) (iii) not justified

(1) PPS 3 requires that the local planning authority demonstrate an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable sites. Para 52 confirms the Government's objective to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land and requires local planning authorities to develop policies and implementation strategies to ensure sufficient, suitable land is available to achieve their housing and previously developed land delivery objectives. Paragraph 54 gives clear guidance on the assessment of sites to deliver housing in the first 5 years.

We do not consider that there is enough clear evidence to demonstrate that the council will be able to meet this requirement and provide an adequate 5 year land supply.

The RSS identified build rate for plan period is 250 pa.

For a number of years the rate of delivery of new dwellings in Rochford has been well below that now required to meet the minimum requirements of the RSS. From April 2001 to March 2006, a total of 810 units were built at 160 units per annum (pa). For this period, Rochford had one of the lowest build rates in Essex. Whilst there was an increase in build rates for 2006/2007, this would appear to be the exception to the rule, and we would contest that without an increase in site availability/allocated sites, Rochford will continue to deliver below the required rates. In fact the housing trajectory shown on page 55 of the Core Strategy indicates that between 2008/2009 and 2012/13 1191 units will be built, equating to approx 238 pa.

Whilst the projected build rate for 2010 to 2015 appears to meet the 250 pa requirement, we seriously doubt that this level of delivery anticipated can be achieved relying upon the brownfield sites identified to help meet this target.

Referring to the SHLAA summary of sites and the table at page 39/40 of the Core Strategy, it is clear that the council rely heavily on brownfield sites which do not have the benefit of planning permission, and are either subject to pre-application discussions or identified as a possible/appropriate site for development in the SHLAA. There must be serious doubt that many of these sites will come forward for development within the timescales identified. It is usual to expect a number of brownfield sites to take time to deliver due to various deliverability constraints and/or viability issues, and there is often lengthy lead in times before planning permission is granted and construction commenced/completed.

For example, we note that for the years 2010/11 to 2011/12, 250 units are planned for the Stambridge Mills site, but we are aware that this site has flood risk issues which need resolving and also poor access which again may require solutions which take time to deliver. We doubt that the site will be delivered to the timescales identified.

We argue therefore that some of the greenfield sites identified for 2015 onwards should already be brought forward to ensure national/regional targets or annual targets are met. Whilst we recognize that the council "will maintain a flexible approach with regards to the timing of the release of land for residential development to ensure a five year supply" (Policy H2, see our separate representations), we consider that there is enough evidence at this time to bring forward one or more of the Greenfield sites now.

This would not, we believe, prejudice the aim of developing brownfield/previously developed land as such land will come forward as a result of interest in such sites/the market, notwithstanding the development of Greenfield sites.

The council is behind in terms of delivery rates specified in the East of England Plan (RSS), and there is therefore a need to speed up delivery now. This should in itself justify the need for Strategic Greenfield sites to come forward early in the plan period. We take the view that it will be difficult to achieve the annual build rate for the relevant 5 year period, without the release of a (or several) strategic greenfield development site(s).

We can bring forward the site we promote, land north of London Road, Rayleigh, earlier than the identified 2015. We cover this matter further in our representations to Policy H2.

(2) Furthermore, we consider that the amount of brownfield land identified as coming forward within the (overall) plan period is extremely optimistic.

We have serious doubts for example that the Rawreth Industrial Estate (identified for 220 units 2017/18 to 2019/20) will come forward for residential development. As we understand it, there are a considerable number of different landownerships involved. There are also many different tenants/occupiers. This suggests that land assembly, to enable a comprehensive development (the only way, we suggest, that development of this estate could take place) will be more than problematic and will take a considerable number of years to achieve (if at all). Even if other/an alternative site/land is identified for the possible relocation of existing occupiers, there is no guarantee that occupiers would want to relocate, with the possibility of incurring greater costs in new premises. Occupiers may be happy to stay where they are unless they wish to expand or upgrade premises.

We also think that there could be serious contamination issues at this site, further affecting delivery of a housing scheme/affecting development costs.

We are not aware that the council would have the will or the finances to undertake compulsory purchase to enable the sites redevelopment.

We are not aware that the council has contacted all or any of these landowners or occupiers to ascertain the potential to assemble land and deliver the redevelopment of this site.

Whilst we understand that the site gives rise to amenity nuisance to local residents, we are surprised that the council want to redevelop a successful commercial site that provides many jobs. The Employment Land Study (Oct 08) clearly states that buildings on this site are generally of good quality and that there is no vacant land or buildings at the time of survey. This indicates much success, and its proposed redevelopment could therefore result in the loss of important jobs.

This is just one example where we believe delivery of housing numbers on brownfield sites will be affected by land assembly or other constraints. The proposed redevelopment of the Hockley Trading Centre (Eldon Way) 150 units we also suggest will take a longer time period to deliver than the trajectory suggests (2019/20 to 2020/21), being part of a wider town centre development scheme with land assembly and infrastructure issues involved.

The council needs to demonstrate the deliverability of those housing sites identified as either local plan allocations or brownfield sites identified in the SHLAA.

We argue therefore that as well as bringing one or more of the identified Greenfield sites forward, one or more of the Greenfield sites needs to provide a greater number of housing units than that allocated in policy H2, to ensure that required housing targets are met. We consider that the land we promote, north of London Road, Rayleigh, can accommodate a greater number of housing units than that specified in Policy H2. We cover this matter further in our representations to policy H2.

(3) Finally we refer to the infrastructure requirements set out in Appendix H1, and referred to in this policy.

It should be made explicit that the level of infrastructure to be provided with a development will be reasonably related to the impact of that development. Circular 5/05 and the emerging/published DCLG guidance on the use of CIL, makes it clear that new developments/contributions from new development can not be used to resolve existing deficiencies (only, proportionally, those deficiencies made worse by new development).

Whilst some infrastructure requirements will be required to adhere to other council policies, it should be made clear that the majority of infrastructure requirements for each development site listed in Appendix H1 will be specified in future master plans/planning permissions when the precise impacts of the development are understood and assessed. It would be inappropriate to specify infrastructure requirements at this time when the precise scale and nature of development is not determined.

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.

Support

We support the identification of land North of London Road, Rayleigh as one of the allocated growth areas/urban extensions in this policy.

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 representations below).

General amendments sought

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).
Our considerable experience of urban extensions indicate that typical density ranges are from 35 to 45 dwellings per hectare for a whole site, where these schemes also include large percentages of affordable housing.

Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not effective (not deliverable/not flexible) (iii) not justified

(1) We consider it unsound as drafted, on the grounds that it fails to be consistent with policy set out in the East of England Plan. Policy H1 of the RSS expresses housing requirements as minimum levels to be achieved and directs planning authorities to similarly express requirements as minimal. To provide certainty that the RSS housing targets will be met (although see representations below), the housing numbers specified in this policy should be expressed as minimums.

(2) We consider that in addition to the need to state that dwelling numbers are minimums, wording should also be added which states that "the actual amount of development will be determined by environmental and infrastructure capacity considerations, and the detailed consideration of master plans for each site", and that "there may be a possible requirement for greater housing numbers on some sites should other sources of housing, such as that on identified appropriate brownfield sites, not come forward as anticipated". We believe this to be a sensible and flexible approach. This will allow for appropriate flexibility in the plan.

(3) We argue that one or more of the greenfield sites identified for 2015 onwards should be brought forward in this policy, to ensure national/regional targets or annual targets are met. Whilst we recognize that the council "will maintain a flexible approach with regards to the timing of the release of land for residential development to ensure a five year supply" (bottom of Policy H2), we consider that there is enough evidence at this time to bring forward one or more of the Greenfield sites now.

Rather than repeat arguments put forward in our representations to Policy H1, we refer you to them in regard to our belief that required (RSS) 5 year housing targets will not be achieved because of an over reliance upon brownfield sites that we believe will not be delivered in the timescales anticipated by the council.

(4) Bearing in mind our representations regarding housing delivery rates and the over reliance placed upon and constraints associated with the development of identified brownfield sites (see policy H1 reps), we argue that as well as bringing forward one or more of the Greenfield sites identified in Policy H2 as 2015-2021, the number of units for one or more of the Greenfield sites be increased to make up for what we consider will be a shortfall in the delivery of housing on brownfield sites. We particularly recommend that because of the significant delivery constraints to the proposed redevelopment of the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, further housing units be identified for the land we promote, north of London Road, Rayleigh, as a replacement for the number of units identified for this industrial estate.

Again, rather than repeat arguments put forward in our representations to Policy H1 (see also Policy ED3 reps), we refer you to them in regard to our belief that required (RSS) housing targets will not be able to be achieved for the plan period because of an over reliance upon brownfield sites that we believe will either not be delivered in the timescales anticipated by the council, or may not come forward at all in the plan period.

(5) We refer to the infrastructure requirements for each site set out in Appendix H1, and referred to in this policy.

It should be made explicit that the level of infrastructure to be provided with a development will be reasonably related to the impact of that development. Circular 5/05 and the emerging/published DCLG guidance on the use of CIL, makes it clear that new developments/contributions from new development can not be used to resolve existing deficiencies (only, proportionally, those deficiencies made worse by new development).

Whilst some infrastructure requirements will be required to adhere to other council policies, it should be made clear that the majority of infrastructure requirements for each development site listed in Appendix H1 will be specified in future master plans/planning permissions when the precise impacts of the development are understood and assessed. It would be inappropriate to specify infrastructure requirements at this time when the precise scale and nature of development is not determined.

With regard to (2) to (4) above, we believe that the site we promote, with the addition of land under other ownership north of London Road (west of Rayleigh), can

A) Be delivered (in part) prior to 2015
B) Accommodate more than the identified 550 units

A) In terms of the land which we promote, there are no on or off-site hindrances to delivery that we are aware of in terms of infrastructure requirements e.g. no highway or service infrastructure constraints. The land we promote is in single ownership (to which we have an option), so there are no land assembly issues. Whilst other land ownerships north of London road could be included within the development of this area e.g. council owned sport pitch area, we are confident that there will not be any significant delay in bringing forward such land as part of a comprehensive development scheme for the area.

The site was in fact identified as being required by 2015 in the Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy, and we have received no justification from the council as to why it is now identified as being required for the period of 2015-2021.

We believe that development of our site could commence as soon as the site has a defined/adopted development allocation and boundary, and planning permission is granted. We are happy to discuss with the council the appropriate timing of submission of any planning application and how this would affect the timing of commencement of development/delivery of units. We are happy to fast track a planning application if the council consider this appropriate and would be required this to meet housing targets/needs.

We had set out a possible delivery timetable for the site we promote in our representations to the SHLAA consultation in April 2009. We suggested that for us to achieve the provision of 450 units (or a range of 400 to 500 units) by 2015 for example, planning permission would need to be granted by, at latest, early to mid 2012 (so an application submitted prior to the end of 2011). With time then required to achieve the submission and sign off of any pre-commencement requirements, and to account for a lead in time prior to commencement of infrastructure works, it is likely that development could then commence by early 2013 (first occupations prior to the end of that year).

We would currently envisage a build rate of between 200 to 250 housing units a year. This is of course dependant upon a number of factors, particularly regarding affordable housing delivery, such as the level of affordable housing grant available and location of such housing/pepper potting.

B) We believe that the land we have under option, on its own or with land north of London Road in other ownerships, can provide for more than 550 units.

In fact, 650 units were identified in the Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy. We have not been informed by the council (there is no explanation in the Core strategy) why the number identified for this area has been reduced. There is no reasoning/justification within the Core Strategy as to why the figure of 550 units has been chosen.

We consider the key factor in limiting the number of units is the issue of defining where the appropriate revised green belt boundary should to be set for the western edge of any development west of Rayleigh. We consider that there are a number of possible options for the green belt boundary, but a boundary could easily be drawn to enable enough land to be developed for a greater number of units, without further detriment to the landscape and character of the area, or without causing any coalescence with properties in Rawreth Village.

We are able, on the land under our option, to provide for a significant strategic gap or buffer between any new development and Rawreth village and the A1245. Significant green infrastructure could be incorporated into this space, and/or the land remain, in part, in agricultural use if considered appropriate. The nature and use of the strategic gap and location of open space will be determined through a master plan for the site.

We will work with the council to bring forward the strategic growth of land north of London Road as early as possible/appropriate to help ensure that the RSS targets are being met.

We consider that of the Greenfield sites identified in the plan, land north of London Road Rayleigh (land under our control) should accommodate greater numbers of dwellings.

The reasons for this is that Rayleigh, by far, is the most sustainable location for growth in Rochford, and land to the west of Rayleigh, north of London Road, the most appropriate, accessible and sustainable location for an urban extension to Rayleigh (as evidenced by its choice as the only urban extension to Rayleigh in the Core Strategy). Other possible sites considered for Rayleigh have serious policy, environmental or access/capacity constraints to delivery.

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 (particularly the western side of Rayleigh), and has the largest population and town centre. It has the highest housing waiting list demand and therefore probably the highest demand for affordable housing. With a new employment "park" also being identified for west of Rayleigh, a greater variety of job offers should also be available.

We are surprised that planned housing growth however, as set out in both policies H2 and H3, distribute numbers fairly evenly over first and second tier settlements, even though Rayleigh is clearly the largest and most sustainable town/location for development.

Combined (total) green belt allocations, set out in policies H2 & H3 lead to:

Tier 1
Rayleigh 550 units (2001 population 30,196)
Rochford/Ashingdon 1200 units (combined population 10,775)
Hockley/Hawkwell 225 units (combined population 20,140)

Tier 2
Hullbridge 500 units (pop 6,445)
Great Wakering 250 units (pop 5,512)

When you take into account that some of the larger identified brownfield development sites in Rayleigh are not likely to come forward in the plan period, particularly Rawreth Industrial Estate (220 units), there appears to be very little growth in Rayleigh when considered against other less sustainable towns/locations in Rochford. Whilst Rayleigh has experienced more growth in previous years than other towns, this is not a reason alone to direct larger development quantums to other, less sustainable locations.

Therefore, for the above reasons, we believe that the Core Strategy be amended to identify a larger allocation of dwelling numbers for land North of London Road, Rayleigh.

Unsound (ii) not effective (not deliverable/not flexible)

It is noted that there are no numbers allocated for Rayleigh post 2021. Bearing in mind;

(i) The sustainability and accessibility credentials for Rayleigh as opposed to other settlements within the district
(ii) Our views that identified brownfiield sites may not be able to be delivered
(iii) The constraints associated with those sites identified in Policy H3
(iv) That we consider that North of London Road, Rayleigh, can take more than the identified number of units

we would argue that further longer term growth should be planned for in Rayleigh, particularly at the most sustainable location for Rayleigh, land north of London Road, on top of the earlier allocations.

Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not justified: not found on a robust evidence base, and (iii) not effective; not deliverable/flexible.

We are pleased to see that the policy includes the ability for the possible relaxation of the proposed minimum percentage requirements for affordable housing where a viability review/economic viability calculations justifies this. This is particularly pertinent in the current economic climate. Affordable housing is just one of potentially a large range of planning obligation or infrastructure requirements for larger development sites, and the combined cost implications of such requirements need to be taken into account to ensure that a site does not become unviable.

However, national planning policy set out in PPS 3 paragraph 29 requires that local authorities take account of economic viability when setting affordable housing targets in their Local development documents. The target of at least 35% affordable housing for developments of 15 or more units must therefore be based upon/justified by a robust and up-to date local viability appraisal undertaken by the council.

The council do not seem to have undertaken its own Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment. It seems that you are relying on the East of England figure which in itself suggests no understanding of viability issues locally, and The Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing market Assessment which is not a viability appraisal document (see paragraph 4.30 of the Core Strategy).

With no viability assessment the policy is unsound and does not comply with the requirements of PPS 3. An Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment must be undertaken to inform the appropriate percentage requirement of affordable housing.

Furthermore, the wording on viability in the policy should be objective, and we submit that it should be amended so that subjective wording is deleted.

The following amendments should be made:

• Delete at the beginning of the policy the words "at least"
• Delete within the first sentence of the third paragraph the word "highly", and in the same sentence (third line of the paragraph), the word "definitely"
• Delete the words "rendering the site undeliverable" from the same sentence (4th line of that paragraph)

We also consider that the balance of affordable housing specified as "80% social housing and 20% intermediate" is too high (no shared ownership), but that in any case, should not be specified in this policy. Affordable housing need changes over time. Therefore we suggest that the policy should state that the make up of affordable housing should be determined at the time at which a detailed masterplan or planning application is considered for a site (certainly for larger sites), based on identified affordable housing needs at that time.

We would also comment that the insistence on a minimum level of affordable housing for a site should not be used to hold up delivery of those housing requirements set within the East of England Plan (the importance of delivering RSS housing requirements often seems to get forgotten in debates about affordable housing percentages). Housing delivery is an equally important national issue.

Unsound: (i) not effective; not flexible

Whilst we understand the desire to allocate the minimum amount of green belt land necessary to meet the council's needs, the council must allow for the possibility that identified brownfield sites may/will not come forward at the anticipated rate, or may not come forward at all, therefore that more green belt release is required than currently identified. Drawing green belt boundaries tightly around what are perceived to be the minimum developable areas required to provide for the housing numbers identified in policies H2 and H3 for example, may lead to the need to review those boundaries again in the future, possibly several times, if there was found to be inadequate land supply.

This would add further to the uncertainty regarding the permanence of the green belt or the extent of development at these sites, and would not be good long term strategic planning.

Whilst we understand that revised green belt boundaries (or development boundaries for the identified urban extensions) will be determined via the Site Allocation DPD, this principle of minimum green belt release must be balanced against the issue we raise here.

Furthermore, we can confirm that as far as we are concerned, development of 550 units or more units (see our other representations) at land North of London Road, Rayleigh, can be accommodated without any coalescence to neighbouring villages or towns. There is a substantial gap between this site and the nearest town, Wickford, to the west, and we are committed to providing a strategic gap between any development and Rawreth Village. There would be more significant issues of coalescence to other parts of Rayleigh if urban extensions were considered there e.g. affecting Hullbridge to the north, Hockley to the north east, Eastwood to the east/south east, and Thundersley etc to the south.

Representations to Policies ENV 6, 7 and 8

Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not justified: not found on a robust evidence base, and (iii) not effective; not deliverable/flexible.

The requirements of these policies are generally, in principle, reasonable.

However we have several points of concern/issues.

1. Regarding the statement in paragraph 8.32 that "the use of biomass heating will not be supported...." A policy (or in this case a supporting statement to the policy) should not be prescriptive with regard to technologies. Technology and product innovation is advancing so quickly that this reference is not applicable with the majority of products on the market.

Furthermore, Building Regulations Parts F and L recently consulted on, and Part J now subject to consultation do not discriminate against such systems. According, flexibility in approaches should be upheld and specific quality metrics applied through Building Regulations and the CSH, and not planning policy. This will ensure that the most sustainable technologies are employed, by way of example 'Pyrolosis' would not be allowed, with the Core Strategy in its current form. There are no detrimental affects with regard to air quality when running such plant. Indeed, this plant runs on municipal waste, rubber tyres etc and biofuels.

Changes necessary to make the Core Strategy sound

The statement that "the use of biomass heating will not be supported...." should be deleted from paragraph 8.32. This section should accord with the flexible principles outlined in PPS1 and its supplement.

2. Given the current consultation of the Definition of Zero Carbon Homes, it is particularly difficult to comment on the proposals outlined. Indeed, CSH must also be revised to align with the regulatory definition of a zero carbon, as will the recent consultation documents for SAP, Part F and L of Building Regulations and the current Part J consultation.

We agree with principles of the Governments 'Energy Hierarchy' as far the energy efficiency measures are concerned, but we do not believe the incorporation of on-site renewable energy equipment to reduce predicted CO2 emissions by at least 10% above and beyond Building Regulations requirement, or indeed a district energy solution is most satisfactory manner to reduce emissions.

This view is substantiated by UK-GBC (in its 'Definition of Zero Carbon Report' May 2008), the First London Report 'Cutting the Capital's Carbon Footprint - Delivering Decentralised Energy' and much ongoing research. For example, we are currently working with the UK-GBC and the Zero Carbon Hub 'District Sustainable Infrastructure - Task Group' and will be reporting our findings to Ministers in late November 2009. Whilst, we cannot share the details of the draft reports, it can be stated that flexibility in the planning of developments must be maintained.

The principle of decreasing CO2 emissions by targeting reductions through energy efficiency measures is favoured by the CLG (as described in the December 2008 Zero Carbon consultation document).

Decreasing the operational carbon emissions of the site by reducing the heat demands of each dwelling has the benefit of reduced fuel bills for the occupiers. This will also improve the rating of the Energy Efficiency index on each Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), making these dwellings more appealing to potential residents, and attracting residents concerned with energy conservation.

Schemes which utilise CHP and renewable energy generated heat, such as biomass, whilst decreasing CO2 emissions by offsetting inefficient electricity production and burning 'green' fuel will actually increase the fuel bills for the residents.

Reducing the fundamental base heat demands is the only fail-safe way of keeping the heating costs down in the dwellings. This is imperative for the affordability of all dwellings, as it safeguards against fuel poverty in a volatile fuel market. Furthermore, renewable energy and CHP installations are cost intensive and they often diminish funds that could otherwise go towards fabric enhancement.

CHP and renewables, whilst technically reducing CO2 emissions, do nothing to decrease the energy demands of a dwelling, and often actually conceal a less efficient building.

Furthermore the extensive below ground heating pipework network required on most sites is more prone to heat loss and leakage. The installation of private heating pipework within adoptable roads creates issues of responsibility which are still not fully resolved within the UK.

District heating maybe more suited to high/super density developments that have a balanced load profile (a mix of uses). Although, as proven by the UK-GBC, in its 'Definition of Zero Carbon Report' May 2008, some 80% of schemes would not be deliverable. Subsequently, CLG has consulting on the 1. Energy efficiency 2. Carbon compliance and; Allowable solutions approach - to date no definitive policy has been announced.

Whilst, it is not possible to guess the outcome of the many consultations, our (and our) peer group view (shared with CLG, DBERR and DEFRA, DECC and Treasury through meetings arranged by invitation) is that the allowable solutions (depending on the cost of carbon) with the Energy efficiency measures will form future policy and regulations.

District heating systems have inherent issues of accountability. This is fuelled by occupiers perceiving little control over their heating bills and the lack of choice (e.g. lock-in) for the supply of heat. Additionally, combined heat and power only becomes financially viable if the power can be utilised on site (private wire system) as current policy dictates that exporting to the grid is not economically viable.

Private wire systems lock users into one supplier and after a recent European court (Citiworks) case, the whole legality of private wire in the UK is now uncertain - this is subject to further DECC/CLG(?) consultation later this year. The proposed individual/local heating systems and individual utility supplies give occupants the freedom of choice.

With regard to Policy ENV 8, whilst we are pleased to see that measures will not be required if "not feasible or viable", but it is not clear that this statement has had regard to the overall costs of bringing sites to the market (including the costs of any necessary supporting infrastructure) and the need to avoid any adverse impact of development on the needs of the community etc. The definition of "feasibility" needs to be a broad one, and include technological viability as well as commercial drivers.

Representations relate to policies ENV6, 7 and 8

Unsound: (i) not consistent with national policy (ii) not justified: not found on a robust evidence base, and (iii) not effective; not deliverable/flexible.

The requirements of these policies are generally, in principle, reasonable.

However we have several points of concern/issues.

1. Regarding the statement in paragraph 8.32 that "the use of biomass heating will not be supported...." A policy (or in this case a supporting statement to the policy) should not be prescriptive with regard to technologies. Technology and product innovation is advancing so quickly that this reference is not applicable with the majority of products on the market.

Furthermore, Building Regulations Parts F and L recently consulted on, and Part J now subject to consultation do not discriminate against such systems. According, flexibility in approaches should be upheld and specific quality metrics applied through Building Regulations and the CSH, and not planning policy. This will ensure that the most sustainable technologies are employed, by way of example 'Pyrolosis' would not be allowed, with the Core Strategy in its current form. There are no detrimental affects with regard to air quality when running such plant. Indeed, this plant runs on municipal waste, rubber tyres etc and biofuels.

Changes necessary to make the Core Strategy sound

The statement that "the use of biomass heating will not be supported...." should be deleted from paragraph 8.32. This section should accord with the flexible principles outlined in PPS1 and its supplement.

2. Given the current consultation of the Definition of Zero Carbon Homes, it is particularly difficult to comment on the proposals outlined. Indeed, CSH must also be revised to align with the regulatory definition of a zero carbon, as will the recent consultation documents for SAP, Part F and L of Building Regulations and the current Part J consultation.

We agree with principles of the Governments 'Energy Hierarchy' as far the energy efficiency measures are concerned, but we do not believe the incorporation of on-site renewable energy equipment to reduce predicted CO2 emissions by at least 10% above and beyond Building Regulations requirement, or indeed a district energy solution is most satisfactory manner to reduce emissions.

This view is substantiated by UK-GBC (in its 'Definition of Zero Carbon Report' May 2008), the First London Report 'Cutting the Capital's Carbon Footprint - Delivering Decentralised Energy' and much ongoing research. For example, we are currently working with the UK-GBC and the Zero Carbon Hub 'District Sustainable Infrastructure - Task Group' and will be reporting our findings to Ministers in late November 2009. Whilst, we cannot share the details of the draft reports, it can be stated that flexibility in the planning of developments must be maintained.

The principle of decreasing CO2 emissions by targeting reductions through energy efficiency measures is favoured by the CLG (as described in the December 2008 Zero Carbon consultation document).

Decreasing the operational carbon emissions of the site by reducing the heat demands of each dwelling has the benefit of reduced fuel bills for the occupiers. This will also improve the rating of the Energy Efficiency index on each Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), making these dwellings more appealing to potential residents, and attracting residents concerned with energy conservation.

Schemes which utilise CHP and renewable energy generated heat, such as biomass, whilst decreasing CO2 emissions by offsetting inefficient electricity production and burning 'green' fuel will actually increase the fuel bills for the residents.

Reducing the fundamental base heat demands is the only fail-safe way of keeping the heating costs down in the dwellings. This is imperative for the affordability of all dwellings, as it safeguards against fuel poverty in a volatile fuel market. Furthermore, renewable energy and CHP installations are cost intensive and they often diminish funds that could otherwise go towards fabric enhancement.

CHP and renewables, whilst technically reducing CO2 emissions, do nothing to decrease the energy demands of a dwelling, and often actually conceal a less efficient building.

Furthermore the extensive below ground heating pipework network required on most sites is more prone to heat loss and leakage. The installation of private heating pipework within adoptable roads creates issues of responsibility which are still not fully resolved within the UK.

District heating maybe more suited to high/super density developments that have a balanced load profile (a mix of uses). Although, as proven by the UK-GBC, in its 'Definition of Zero Carbon Report' May 2008, some 80% of schemes would not be deliverable. Subsequently, CLG has consulting on the 1. Energy efficiency 2. Carbon compliance and; Allowable solutions approach - to date no definitive policy has been announced.

Whilst, it is not possible to guess the outcome of the many consultations, our (and our) peer group view (shared with CLG, DBERR and DEFRA, DECC and Treasury through meetings arranged by invitation) is that the allowable solutions (depending on the cost of carbon) with the Energy efficiency measures will form future policy and regulations.

District heating systems have inherent issues of accountability. This is fuelled by occupiers perceiving little control over their heating bills and the lack of choice (e.g. lock-in) for the supply of heat. Additionally, combined heat and power only becomes financially viable if the power can be utilised on site (private wire system) as current policy dictates that exporting to the grid is not economically viable.

Private wire systems lock users into one supplier and after a recent European court (Citiworks) case, the whole legality of private wire in the UK is now uncertain - this is subject to further DECC/CLG(?) consultation later this year. The proposed individual/local heating systems and individual utility supplies give occupants the freedom of choice.

With regard to Policy ENV 8, whilst we are pleased to see that measures will not be required if "not feasible or viable", but it is not clear that this statement has had regard to the overall costs of bringing sites to the market (including the costs of any necessary supporting infrastructure) and the need to avoid any adverse impact of development on the needs of the community etc. The definition of "feasibility" needs to be a broad one, and include technological viability as well as commercial drivers.