Core Strategy Submission Document

Appendix H1 - New infrastructure and services to accompany residential development
Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. Whilst it is accepted that it is helpful to identify the new infrastructure and services required to accompany residential development, there is concern that some of the requirements may be excessive given the extent of development proposed.
Full text: With regard to land at East Ashingdon, this site is identified as having a number of new infrastructure and service requirements. Our clients control this land and it is envisaged that the majority of the items identified would form an integral part of any proposals for this area. However we have the following concerns:
1. It is not clear from the evidence base that there is a solid need to expand the school by the 3 hectares referred to in Policy CLT3. Discussions with Essex County Council Education have not been conclusive. The Respondent's master plan illustrates a 3 hectare area of land that could be provided, however the size of this land could vary and should not be fixed until further evidence is provided.
2. Public open space, play space and youth facilities and community facilities are listed as requirements. Whilst it is envisaged that public open space and play space would be provided as part of the development, it is considered that the on site provision of youth facilities and community facilities would be excessive given the scale of the proposals and the other contributions required. Further, Appendix H1 identifies that youth facilities and community facilities are also proposed at South-East Ashingdon, just a short distance from East Ashingdon and therefore it would seem excessive to have youth and community provision on both sites. It should be noted that the site lies in close proximity to a secondary school, which already has sport and recreation facilities i.e. all weather pitch.

Whilst the principle of contributing to the infrastructure and services listed is supported, it is suggested that this should either be in the form of on site contributions or financial contributions towards off site facilities and services in accordance with Policy CLT1.
Proposed Amendment to Appendix H1: For this Appendix to be sound, the heading of the second column should be amended to read "Contributions required for new infrastructure and services to accompany residential development".

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22

Policy CLT3 - Secondary Education
Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. No objection is raised to the principle of extending the size of the King Edmund School grounds, subject to the provision of robust evidence as to the need and scale of the extension.
Full Text: The respondent owns the majority of the available land surrounding the school and is thus in the best position to facilitate the expansion. However, it is not clear how the land will be acquired, or whether it will form part of a much wider, mixed use allocation in the Allocations DPD. The CS refers to the Essex Schools Organisation Plan, which identifies a need to increase secondary school places in line with housing growth. It is accepted that housing growth and school places are inextricably linked and that the King Edmund School is at capacity and will require extension in the future. What is not clear from the evidence base is where the identified need for 3 hectares has come from. Reference is made to the Essex Schools Organisation Plan; however, this document does not look beyond 2013 and does not consider the residential allocations presently proposed in this CS.
The respondent has substantial interests in the land identified in the broad locations set out in H2 and H3. It is considered that the school expansion should be part and parcel of the development that comes through in the Ashingdon allocations. An indicative masterplan is attached to these representations, which illustrates a growth option combining urban extensions with the enhancement of King Edmund School.
Amendment to Policy CLT3:
Reference to the need for 3 hectares should only be included if this area can be properly demonstrated.

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22

Policy ED4 - Future Employment Allocations
Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. Concern is raised in relation to the strategy to redevelop existing employment sites for other uses and the provision of new greenfield employment sites. Should it be accepted that the existing employment sites are retained as such, then some or all of the future employment allocations will not be necessary.
Full text: It should be noted that the Core Strategy recognises that there is generally sufficient supply of employment sites but that any de-allocation will have to be compensated for. As a consequence of the strategy to reallocate employment sites under Policy H1, additional greenfield employment land is allocated under Policy ED4. As set out in our submission to Policy H1, the Council's strategy to seek the redevelopment of employment sites for alternative uses is questioned. The allocation of Stambridge Mills as a residential site is of particular concern for reasons identified elsewhere.
Should it be found that any of the employment sites proposed for residential development under Policy H1 should not come forward (in accordance with our submission to Policy H1) then some or all of the new employment sites should not come forward.
Proposed Amendment to Policy E4: Any changes to Policy H1 to retain employment sites should result in some or all of the new employment sites being deleted from Policy E4

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22

The Respondents support policy ENV8 On-Site Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation. It is hoped that the Respondents' land in East Ashingdon, which is identified as a broad location for development in the CS will incorporate at least 10% of its energy from a renewable source.

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22

Policy H1 - The Efficient Use of Land for Housing
Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. The aim of this policy, which seeks the efficient use of land for housing, is supported. However, concern is raised in relation to the redevelopment of employment sites for appropriate uses, including residential development.
The Core Strategy does not clearly justify this element of the strategy and concern is raised that the approach may be driven by the target of achieving 60% of new housing on previously developed land.
Full text: Although the Preferred Options version of the Core Strategy (CS) identified that existing employment sites would be reviewed through an Employment Land Study and consideration would be given to reallocating sites for housing where appropriate, the identification of these sites in policy H1 has emerged at a relatively late stage in the process.
It should be noted that the Core Strategy recognises that there is generally sufficient supply of employment sites but that any de-allocation will have to be compensated for. Consequently additional employment land is allocated under policy ED4 in lieu of the employment land to be redeveloped for other uses. This has resulted in greenfield sites being allocated for employment. Whilst this is not disputed in principle, it is important that a careful assessment is undertaken when changing uses of sites or designating new sites.
Whilst the principle of redevelopment of employment sites to alternative uses in certain circumstances is accepted, careful consideration needs to be given as to whether these employment sites should be lost, whether the sites are sustainable locations for alternative uses and whether other constraints such as land assembly, up front construction costs of the units and associated infrastructure or flooding may prevent these sites from coming forward. The loss of employment sites may result in relocation to sites outside the borough. Such constraints can impact upon delivery and given that the Core Strategy only identifies sufficient sites to meet rather than exceed the minimum housing requirements, if site do not come forward the Council may not be able to meet their requirements. In the absence of the SHLAA it is difficult to comprehensively review these employment sites. However, our knowledge of the Stambridge Mill site leads us to query the allocation of this site for alternative uses for the reasons set out below.
The Employment Land Review was completed in 2008 and identifies that the Stambridge Mills site does not have any bad neighbour issues and recommends that it is safeguarded for light industrial use and it also recognises the possibility of this site to accommodate businesses relocated from the Star Lane Industrial Estate. However just one year later this site is now identified as coming forward for alternatives uses in the Core Strategy Submission document.
As recognised in the Council's Urban Capacity Study (UCS) (2007) this site is "relatively isolated", detached from the main settlement and public transport nodes and services. The UCS also identifies that part of the site lies within a flood risk area, that there are possible issues with biodiversity on the site and that infrastructure improvements may be necessary to accompany residential development. The Adopted Local Plan (2006) also recognised at paragraph 4.38 that the "purpose built buildings and location within a flood risk area pose significant constraints on the site for uses other than milling".
Although it is noted that this site is not currently in use, it is considered that its redevelopment would be inappropriate, having regard to the need to find suitable locations for housing in accordance with PPS3 application of the sequential and exception tests under PPS25.
The summary of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identifies that the Stambridge Mill site is capable of delivering 250 units between 2010 and 2012. This is substantially higher than the figure of 60 dwellings identified as the capacity for this site in the UCS in 2007.
In the absence of the full SHLAA it is difficult to review the other sites. However it has been demonstrated that at least one of the employment sites, Stambridge Mills, should not come forward for housing. As currently drafted the Plan lacks flexibility to ensure that sufficient sites come forward. The considerable doubt associated with the suitability of Stambridge Mill means that its 250 capacity may need to be reallocated.
Amendment to Policy H1: In order to make this policy sound, the redevelopment of employment sites should be amended to exclude Stambridge Mill (and potentially other employment sites). As currently drafted the policy is not justified as it is neither founded on a robust or credible evidence base and is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22

Policy H2 - Extensions to residential envelopes and planning

Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. The general locations identified in the Core Strategy (CS) are supported. However, the respondent has prepared an indicative master plan illustrating an option for the broad locations in Ashingdon. This demonstrates that the site known as East Ashingdon could accommodate more than 150 dwellings and it must be recognised that to deliver enhancements to King Edmund School and remain viable, these sites will need to deliver this quantum of development. There is no justification for the phasing of the residential site and therefore policies H2 and H3 should be combined. In addition, the means by which the sites are identified are too vague and the general locations are not consistent with the key diagram.

Full text: The purpose of providing the Illustrative Master plan (drawing ref: 97069/07) is to demonstrate that there is sufficient land available within the locations to accommodate the growth; in fact, the area could take more. The master plan is designed to be illustrative to show what could be achieved and is by no means the only layout option. In addition, the master plan illustrates a workable and tested improvement to the access to King Edmund School and shows a possible location for the 3.0 hectare expansion of the school, required by policy CLT 3. It is understood that it may be more viable to build a new school either on the existing site or on adjacent land. The master plan option caters for such an eventuality as well as providing options for the layout of housing and public open space. The respondent has commissioned a Highway Access Strategy, which considers the optimum location of access points to serve the land parcels.
The land parcel in the broad location identified in the Core Strategy as East Ashingdon is largely free of constraint and both developable and deliverable in the first five years of the plan period. Sufficient housing land is available to exceed the allocations set out in Policies H2 and there are many advantages to the location, which would allow for additional growth. The respondent owns approximately 28 hectares of land in the general vicinity of the broad locations of "East" and "South-East" Ashingdon abutting the urban area, which would accommodate up to 1000 residential units at 40 dwellings per hectare, as well as providing an additional 3.0 hectares for expansion of the school. The land is available and developable in the short term. It has the following advantages in terms of developability:

* the site contains a main sewer complete with existing manholes;
* un-contaminated land in arable use;
* falls within flood zone 1;
* abuts the urban area;
* is accessible and within walking distance of a secondary and three primary schools, shops, services and public transport;
* accessible to main drainage facilities and utilities;
* within agricultural land classification 3;
* located in an area free of special or important landscape or biodiversity designations; and
* does not contain any important ecological or sensitive habitat areas.

In relation to the Green Belt and the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt:
* the land parcels would round off or infill the urban edge;
* there is no possibility of coalescence, the nearest settlement is several miles to the east;
* the urban extensions will not encroach into the countryside, much beyond the existing urban edge; and
* the location does not interfere or impact on the setting or special character of a historic town or settlement.

The land parcels are capable of exceeding the allocations set out in the Core Strategy whilst enhancing the access and size of King Edmund School, a vital component in the District's infrastructure. The development will result in only limited harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and as such, the Council should give greater consideration to the production of more detailed assessment through the Site Allocations DPD and an early planning application.

1. Land at East Ashingdon is capable of accommodating a higher level of development
As identified above, and demonstrated by the accompanying masterplan, land at East Ashingdon is actually capable of accommodating approximately around 150 dwellings and this should be reflected in Policy H2.

The allocations in Policy H2 should also allow for flexibility in the number of units possible on any given allocation. A clear statement should be included in the policy, which identifies that the allocations assigned to each location are minimum requirements reflecting advice in KSS14 and would be reliant on the developability of individual sites. Whilst the Council has been reluctant to be specific on the land parcels involved, it has chosen to be specific on the number of units it expects from each of the broad locations. On further analysis, it could be quite possible that a lack of constraints in a particular area might prompt the possibility, or even the desirability, of providing additional units in any given location. The policy does not appear to allow for this and should be amended to explain that the numbers assigned to any given area are not fixed and that further consideration will be given to the eventual number of units on a site by site basis, through the Allocations DPD. If land such as the site at Stambridge Mill does not come forward, the policy as currently drafted provides no flexibility to ensure that alternative sites come forward.

2. There is no justification for the phasing of development

The Council's limited reasoning for phasing set out in the Core Strategy is not justified. It is also contradicted by the statement found in policies H2 and H3 which states;

"We will maintain a flexible approach with regards to the timing of the release of land for residential development to ensure a constant five year supply of land".

The phasing is either necessary for a material reason set out in the document or the allocation of land will be flexible to ensure a continuous five year supply is maintained. If the phasing is to remain, more detailed explanation is required. In the absence of any reasoned justification, it appears that the main reason for the phasing is to stagger the release of land over the plan period. Staggering development in this way is not necessary if the authority is maintaining a constant 5 year supply. RSS14 advocates that the allocations it provides the districts are minimums and that authorities should not see them as ceilings. The CS is presented in such a way as to imply that the Council could suspend development, if demand exceeds any particular phase. Such an approach, of applying the brakes to keep in line with the phasing of the plan, would be completely at odds with RSS14 and the Government's approach to housing delivery. The Core Strategy does not provide for the possibility of the market delivering more than the RSS minimum allocation or at a faster rate than the phasing allows; this is inflexible and contrary to PPS3, paragraph 52 which recognises the importance of a flexible supply of land for housing. This comment is made without prejudice to our client's land at East Ashingdon as this land can be delivered in the early part of the plan period in accordance with the policy.

3. The means by which the sites are identified is too vague.

Whilst the respondent supports the general locations identified in the CS, the means by which the land is identified is considered too vague. The respondent does not agree with the Council's opening statement in this section of the Strategy, which states:

"It is not the purpose of the Core Strategy to set out precise locations for new development - this is done through the Allocations Development Plan Document".

Whilst it may not be necessary in Rochford to identify the exact boundaries of strategic sites, the information that is given is too vague. The advice in Planning Policy Statement 12, Local Spatial Strategy (PPS 17, 2008) is that:
"Core Strategies may allocate strategic sites for development. The Core Strategy looks to the long term. It may be beneficial to delivery of its objectives for details of key sites to be included in it, where these sites are central to the achievement of the strategy and where investment requires a long lead-in"
Further, at paragraph 4.3, it states:
"it is essential that the core strategy makes clear spatial choices about where developments should go in broad terms. This strong direction will mean that the work involved in the preparation of any subsequent DPDs is reduced. It also means that decisions on planning applications can be given a clear steer immediately."

There can be little dispute, that the greenfield locations identified in the Core Strategy are essential to the delivery of the spatial strategy. At present, the district cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, as required by PPS3. The lack of a 5 year supply may result in a rash of early planning applications coming forward on greenfield land, which could undermine the Council's spatial strategy and the preparation of the Allocations DPD. To guard against this and to channel development towards the most appropriate locations, the Council has the option of being more site specific in its Core Strategy. This option would in principle be supported by PPS12 and could apply to the delivery of one or more of the Ashingdon locations identified in Policy H2 and thus assist the Council in demonstrating a five year supply of housing land.

It is acknowledged in Policy H2 that the Council will be flexible with regard to the timing of the release of land to ensure a five year supply of land. Therefore, there is no reason not to be site specific on sufficient land that will bring forward development to meet the Council's current 5 year shortfall. The respondent feels that the land north and south of Brays Lane would be one such location, which could be specifically allocated in the Core Strategy. The land has been broadly identified by the Core Strategy and its early release would ensure a continuous five year supply, assist in the delivery of public open space, a long held aspiration of the Local Plan and more importantly, resolve a long standing and the pressing need to improve access to King Edmund School.

4. The names of the allocations are misleading and are not consistent with the Key Diagram
Whilst the respondent supports the allocations described as East and South-East Ashingdon and the locations indicated on the Key Diagram, the names given to the allocations causes' unnecessary confusion.

The Key Diagram does not have symbols identifying the extensions to the residential envelope at geographical locations, which correspond with land that would be understood as East and South-East Ashingdon. The Ashingdon parish boundary terminates along Brays Lane. The land south of Oxford Road is thus fully within Rochford. We submit that the allocation under policy H2 covering land north and south of Brays Lane should be described as South Ashingdon. The land south of Oxford Road should be described as North East Rochford.

The infrastructure requirements set out in Appendix H1 appear to be linked to the individual greenfield release of land and therefore the provision of site specific contributions, not district wide off-site provision. The infrastructure required for each release set out in Appendix H1 can be adequately secured through Planning Obligations attached to the planning consents relating to the individual releases of land. The obligations would then ensure that the infrastructure for the site took place ahead of occupation.
Proposed Amendment to Policy H2: In order to maximise the development potential and delivery of sites and make the policy sound, the following changes should be made to the policy:
* Combine policies H2 and H3 and delete reference to the different time periods;
* Amend "East Ashingdon" to read "South Ashingdon" and "South-East Ashingdon" to read "North-East Rochford"; and
* Amend the capacity of the site identified as East Ashingdon (i.e. north and south of Brays Lane) to 150 dwellings.

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22

Policy H3 - Extension to residential envelopes and phasing
Summary: The Respondent finds the document to be unsound in its present form, however were the amendments set out in these representations to be incorporated then it is considered that the document will be sound. Although the inclusion of land at South-East Ashingdon is supported, there is no need for this policy or its table. There is no evidence or reasoning for holding back these sites until the latter years of the plan period.
Full text: This policy is unnecessary; there is no obvious justification for holding back these units to the latter years of the plan. The Council will be left with no flexibility, if the delivery identified in the first two phases does not materialise or if it exceeds current expectations. It is commonplace in other Core Strategies that have been adopted to allow a 10% contingency. Rochford has allocated its RSS minimum requirement and allows no flexibility to adjust if the need arose.
The housing numbers (currently contained in Policy H2 and Policy H3) can be placed in one policy and in a single table. The Council may prefer to see some locations developed ahead of others and if so, there can be policies and reasoned justification set out in the Strategy to explain why this is necessary. There does not appear to be any identified infrastructure requirements, which will affect the release of numerous sites and as such no reason to set 5 yearly tranches for the release of land.
There is an absence of explanation in the Strategy or in the evidence base that points to the reasons why specific locations have been held back to post 2021. If the Council is to maintain a three tiered release of land then it must explain in its evidence base, why certain sites appear in certain phases. It is surprising that the phasing does not closely align itself with the settlement hierarchy explained on page 40. For example, the allocations for South-East Ashingdon, which lies in the first tier, is identified for development post-2021. There is no explanation for this or any obvious logic as to why the allocation is held back in this way. Development in this stop-start fashion is uneconomical and causes prolonged upheaval, which may present developers with delivery difficulties and delay the provision of community infrastructure.
As identified in the response to Policy H2, the Core Strategy only needs to have a single table which identifies the broad locations and provides an estimate of the amount of units that are likely to be delivered in each of those locations.
The emphasis in the Core Strategy should be shifted towards the flexible delivery of the maximum amount of housing in the most sustainable locations. It should not be about prescriptive delivery of the minimum amount of housing required in what appear to be arbitrary phases.
Proposed Amendment to Policy H3: This policy is neither justified nor effective and should therefore be deleted and the sites identified within it should be set out in an updated version of Policy H2.

Masterplan/Facilities plan Council ref AE22