Core Strategy Submission Document

Representations relate to Policies ENV 6, 7 & 8

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.

As we have suggested in our representations regarding Housing, we question the ability to deliver all of the 4 employment sites identified for redevelopment in the Core Strategy (within the plan period). This is particularly the case for the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, Rayleigh.

We have serious doubts 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 council needs to demonstrate how they intend to deliver the 4 redevelopment sites identified in this policy, and put forward evidence they believe shows that such redevelopment can take place. If there are serious questions over delivery, such sites should not be identified for redevelopment. In any case, we question the wisdom of the identification of the Rawreth Lane site as it provides jobs and is well used, perhaps a site that complies with the first statement of the first part of Policy ED3. In the current climate, this seems an inappropriate strategy, as existing jobs should be retained rather than run the risk of losing existing employment opportunities.

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.

We also support the principle of a new employment allocation west of Rayleigh. As highlighted in paragraph 11.38 of the Core Strategy, west Rayleigh is an ideal location for strategic employment development. As we have stated in previous submissions to the council, land to the west of Rayleigh has the most direct and least congested link to the two principal roads serving the district (A130 and A127) and the immediate road network has capacity to accommodate further vehicular traffic. Land west of Rayleigh would therefore clearly be an attractive location for commercial/ business operators.

However, we consider that the future employment allocation should be north of London Road, not south of London Road as specified in Policy ED4. We put forward several reasons for this:

• Countryside Properties has extensive experience in providing mixed use developments, including schemes that provide both residential units and employment allocations. Bearing in mind the extent of land under option, north of London Road, we could provide a business or employment park on this land without detriment to the residential amenities of the occupiers of any new residential development, providing a comprehensive sustainable mixed use development through careful masterplanning. The viability of an employment allocation north of London Road would be assisted by the sharing of infrastructure costs with any (adjacent) residential led mixed use scheme (the residential element identified in Policy H2)

• If the employment allocation is to provide for a minimum of 2ha for business/ industrial park (as recommended in the employment land study), plus land for some of those users (to be relocated) on the Rawreth Industrial Estate (which is approximately 10ha), then probably a minimum of 10 to 12ha of land would be required. We are not sure that this size of site could be found south of London Road without affecting/requiring land occupied by existing buildings e.g. Swallows Aquatics, and/or bringing development close to the Little Wheatleys Road or the Little Wheatleys estate (see further bullet point below re green belt boundaries). There may therefore be questions over the deliverability of this allocation (without a clearer understanding of its location). We consider that 10/12 ha of land could be accommodated north of London Road, without encroaching into the flood zone or affecting any existing properties.

• Our experience shows us that for a location to be attractive, a high quality masterplanned business park of sufficient size must be available to provide the quality of environment that many businesses are now looking for. 10/12 hectares would probably be a minimum, especially if the site is to accommodate and support an Eco-Enterprise Centre (see Policy ED1). A 10 ha site could equate to 400,000 square foot of floorspace. We suggest that such a site should accommodate a variety of uses and size of units. This would enable those smaller/start up business who start on the site to have the ability to grow and still remain on the site, utilizing the enterprise centre, small start up units or urban hives (typically providing 2,000 - 5,000 square foot) then moving up to medium sized warehouse units or hybrid/ bespoke buildings. Urban Hives can be adapted to provide office or industrial space.

• As part of our previous "call for sites" submission we stated that a "hopper" or "shuttle" bus service could be provided to serve the site and nearby communities and link the area to the town centre and rail station (transport and service hubs). The benefit of a larger site allocation (mixed use residential/employment and other uses) North of London Road will be more likely to support such a service and help make it more sustainable.

• We question how a new green belt boundary south of London Road could be defined. We would suggest that any allocation here would be separated/divorced from the existing built up area (west of Rayleigh/little Wheatleys) by existing woodland planting, recreational areas, the school and plotlands to the north and west of the school. Any employment site here could not we believe integrate with the existing residential area, unless for example the plotlands are to be included within this allocation (delivery issues with various different ownerships/land assembly) or the woodland or recreation areas are to be lost, contrary to other policies and principles within the Core Strategy and bringing proposed commercial development closer to existing residential properties, to the detriment of their amenities.

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 the impact of new development. This should be made clear in the supporting text for this Policy.

Whilst we do not object to the allocation of a 1.1 ha site on land to the west of Rayleigh for a Primary school, it must be made clear that the level of contribution we make towards such a facility should be reasonably related to the impact of any development of the land. 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 we do not object to the requirement of public open space on land to the west of Rayleigh, it must be made clear that the level of provision we make, or extent of financial contribution towards its provision and maintenance, be reasonably related to the impact of the development of the land. 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).

The policy should state that the extent of public open space to the west of Rayleigh should be determined via a master plan or development brief for the site.

If a need for community facilities is identified for the land we promote, it must be made clear that the scale and nature of the facility or level of contribution we make towards such a facility should be reasonably related to the impact of any development of the land. 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).

We agree with the requirement that large scale residential developments will be required to be integrated with public transport and designed in a way that encourages the use of alternative forms of transport to the private car.

However, the scale of any public transport initiatives or requirements (or contributions towards such initiatives) should of course reasonably relate to the impact of the development of the land. 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).

We agree with the principles of this policy. However, the scale of any contributions towards such initiatives should of course reasonably relate to the impact of the development of the land in question. 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).

The extent of contributions should be determined at the time at which a masterplan or development brief is prepared for a site.

Again, we have no objections or issues of soundness regarding this policy. However, the scale of any contributions required towards the provision of any greenway should of course reasonably relate to the impact of the development of the land in question. 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).

The extent of contributions, or extent of provision of a greenway should be determined at the time at which a masterplan or development brief is prepared for a development site.