Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Draft Policies H2 and H3 of the Core Strategy Submission Version designate a number of locations for extensions to villages and towns. It therefore follows that the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document goes on to look at specific sites within these general locations.

Our clients assert that the Core Strategy draft Policies H1, H2 and H3 are unsound on the basis that they are neither justified nor consistent with National Policy. The current proposed locations are not the most appropriate locations and are not supported by a robust and credible evidence base. Our clients will be putting this point of view across at the Core Strategy Examination and will be arguing that their site, known as Tithe Park, can come forward as an urban extension to Southend, providing a more sustainable option than a number of the locations in the Allocations DPD.

Given this standpoint, our clients object to the overall strategy behind the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document.

Our clients' site extends to 35 hectares, and lies immediately to the north of the existing urban edge of the Borough of Southend-on-Sea, and is bounded to the north by Poynters Lane. The site is available, deliverable, and suitable for residential development. It is owned solely by our clients and can be brought forward for development at short notice. To our knowledge there are no major obstacles to development of the site, which is currently in an agricultural use.

The Tithe Park site is currently identified in the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document as option E23 and option E24 for a new strategically located employment park to the south of Great Wakering. Whilst our clients firmly believe that Tithe Park is a superior option to the other sites put forward (Options E19 - E22), they believe that the Tithe Park site is best suited to residential development.
In support of these representations, an illustrative masterplan is submitted which proposes a residential development of 490 dwellings, with an extension to Friars Park to the south, and the provision of community uses.

The masterplan demonstrates how, by virtue of the site's location, the proposals will be beneficial when compared with other sites currently proposed for development in the draft Core Strategy and the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document. As an urban extension to Southend the site is more sustainable than other locations which comprise greenfields within existing green belt designations. Local shops and services will also be within easy distance of Tithe Park, which can accommodate a mix of uses including additional required infrastructure such as open spaces and community facilities

Option NLR1 adjoins Rayleigh to the east but extends west beyond the current settlement boundary it therefore encroaches onto the green belt. By virtue of its size, development here will have a significant impact on the landscape and the openness of the green belt.

Option NLR2 adjoins Rayleigh to the east but extends west beyond the current settlement boundary it therefore encroaches onto the green belt. It would also be difficult to create strong defensible green belt boundaries to the north, south and west. If brought forward, the site would need to carefully consider the area of Flood Risk Zone 3, particularly as this runs through the centre of the site.

Option NLR3 adjoins Rayleigh to the east but extends west beyond the current settlement boundary. It therefore encroaches onto the green belt. It would also be difficult to create strong defensible green belt boundaries to the north and west.

Option NLR4 adjoins Rayleigh to the east but extends west beyond the current settlement boundary. It therefore encroaches onto the green belt. It would also be difficult to create strong defensible green belt boundaries to the south and west.

Option NLR5 adjoins Rayleigh to the east but extends west beyond the current settlement boundary. It therefore encroaches onto the green belt. It would also be difficult to create strong defensible green belt boundaries to the west.

Option WR1 adjoins Rochford to the east and south but extends further west than the current built up area in this location, it therefore encroaches on the green belt and will lead to a loss of openness.

Option WR2 is detached from the residential area of Rochford. We consider that the site would therefore not create defensible green belt boundaries; in particular it is likely that the area between the proposed site and Rochford would be subject to development pressures. The site would have a significant impact on the landscape and the openness of the green belt.

Option WR3 adjoins Rochford to the east and south but extends further west than the current built up area in this location, it therefore encroaches on the green belt and will lead to a loss of openness. It will also be difficult to achieve a defensible green belt boundary to the north.

Option WR4 extends much further west then the current built up area in this location. It therefore encroaches on the green belt and will lead to a loss of openness. It will also be difficult to provide a defensible green belt boundary to the north.