Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

We act on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd who control some 33.45 ha of land to the west of Rochford. 'Land to the West of Rochford' has been identified by Rochford District Council (RDC) as a location for housing development in the Submission draft of the Core Strategy (CS) Document Plan Document (DPD) (see policy H2 and Appendix H1). Bellway support this proposal and we have appeared at previous hearing sessions of the Examination of the CS.

We write in response to the current consultation on the changes (Schedule of Proposed Changes 19th October - 30th November 2010) to the CS. The Inspector has requested the views of participants and this representation outlines Bellway's position in respect of these changes.

Revisions to the Core Strategy

The schedule of proposed changes sets out the Council's response to the Secretary of State's decision to revoke RSS dated 6 July 2001 and the guidance provided at that time by the DCLG. In short, the Council has sought to amend the CS to provide for housing in accordance with Option 1 RSS figures. The key changes to the CS include: a reduction in the number of dwellings to be provided in the District per annum from 250 to 190; the housing allocation to be a maximum rather than a minimum figure; the plan to run for a longer period of time (to 2031, rather than 2026); and to adopt a flexible 'plan, monitor, manage approach to housing provision. In addition, references to the East of England Plan were deleted. In terms of spatial strategy, this remains broadly the same as submitted; the principle effect being to extend the plan period and reduce the annual rate of delivery. Over the extended plan period, the total dwelling requirement remains broadly similar to that submitted.

In light of the CALA Homes High Court Judgement issued on 10 November 2010, the RSS has been reinstated and now once again forms part of the development plan. Accordingly, the emerging CS ought to be in conformity with the East of England Plan (see para 5.2 of PSS12). Following the Cala Homes Judgement, the Secretary of State wrote setting out his intention to revoke RSS through the prospective legislation and that this intention constituted a material consideration (see letter dated 10th November). We understand that this letter is likely to be subject of a High Court challenge. Furthermore, it is highly likely that further guidance will be issued before the Examination hearings reconvene in the New Year. Indeed, we understand that we are to expect revised guidance on 5 year housing land supply, together with the Localism and Democracy Bill. Further changes to the Government's planning policy are also expected.




The CS was submitted in the context of the East of England Plan (EEP) (RSS) and set out the Council's proposed response to the policies set out therein. It is open to the Council to revert to the CS as submitted and not to proceed with the recent changes. However, this raises the issue of whether the CS should ignore changes that are likely to be promoted by the Government through legislation and the likely response of the Council.

In our view, it is important that preparation of the CS does not come to an abrupt halt as a result of proposed changes to planning policy as this would have a very negative and unnecessary impact upon housing delivery in Rochford in the short-term. Para 4.4 of PPS12 requires Core Strategies to be flexible. Flexibility ought to include capacity to respond to changes in Government policy and practice. The CS seeks to set the spatial vision and strategy for the District for at least 15 years (see Para 4.13 of PPS12). The recent 'Schedule of Proposed Changes' (October 2010) confirmed the Council's position that notwithstanding the proposed revocation of RSS (the EEP) and the ability for the Council to set housing requirements locally, the broad spatial strategy and vision as set out in the Submission draft of the CS remained valid, with the principle change being the rate of delivery.

The Examination will test the soundness of the CS including its general conformity with the EEP and its flexibility. However, in terms of the capacity of the CS to respond to a future revocation of the EEP, given the Council's stance, we would argue that the spatial strategy is flexible and the variation in delivery rates (and the housing trajectory) can be achieved through an effective policy mechanism to monitoring and management.

It may well be that an extension to the plan period and/or a reduction in the annual rate, whilst maintaining the spatial strategy, may require a formal revision to the CS but in such circumstances, on the basis that the CS is adopted at that time and that the spatial strategy and vision is being pursued, any such review could be limited.

The Council may decide to proceed with the submitted changes but this will raise the issue of conformity with the CS. Alternatively, the Council may wish to proceed with the changes as an alternative strategy in the event that the RSS is revoked in advance of adoption or early in the life span of any adopted CS (a 'plan B'). On this basis, we would comment as follows:

Extended Plan Period

In the event that RSS is revoked and the Council adopt the housing requirements set out in the submitted changes, Bellway support the extension of the plan period, but that the effective delivery of the CS is dependent upon effective monitoring and management.

Quantum of Development

Notwithstanding the physical and environmental characteristics of the District, there is still a local housing need and the new household projections contained in Topic Paper 3 indicate that substantial green belt releases are still required to meet the 'Option 1' requirements. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that 'new market housing is definitely required' (Topic Paper 3 para 8.8) even if the focus of development is directed to other parts of the Thames Gateway South Essex market area.

Strategic Growth Locations

In terms of changes to policy H2 (Extension to residential envelopes), Bellway note the modification of housing delivery in strategic growth locations. With respect to West Rochford, it is proposed that 500 units are built between 2011 - 2021 and a further 100 between 2021 - 2026. Bellway confirm that the development of the site can satisfy this requirement.




Five Year Supply

In terms of five year supply, revised policies H2 and H3 set out appropriate quantum for the preferred development locations in the event of a reduced annual requirement across the District. As a result, the five year supply of housing would be reduced from 950 from 1250. Again, Bellway confirm that the implementation of the site can make a positive contribution to 5 year land supply.

Next Steps

We understand that the Council will forward this and other responses to the Inspector with the hearing sessions reconvening week commencing 17 January 2011. We note the guidance issued by PINS following the Cala Homes Judgement and appendix B, para 4 in particular. We await with interest the response of the Council.

We trust these representations will be considered appropriately.

We act on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd who control some 33.45 ha of land to the west of Rochford. 'Land to the West of Rochford' has been identified by Rochford District Council (RDC) as a location for housing development in the Submission draft of the Core Strategy (CS) Document Plan Document (DPD) (see policy H2 and Appendix H1). Bellway support this proposal and we have appeared at previous hearing sessions of the Examination of the CS.

We write in response to the current consultation on the changes (Schedule of Proposed Changes 19th October - 30th November 2010) to the CS. The Inspector has requested the views of participants and this representation outlines Bellway's position in respect of these changes.

Revisions to the Core Strategy

The schedule of proposed changes sets out the Council's response to the Secretary of State's decision to revoke RSS dated 6 July 2001 and the guidance provided at that time by the DCLG. In short, the Council has sought to amend the CS to provide for housing in accordance with Option 1 RSS figures. The key changes to the CS include: a reduction in the number of dwellings to be provided in the District per annum from 250 to 190; the housing allocation to be a maximum rather than a minimum figure; the plan to run for a longer period of time (to 2031, rather than 2026); and to adopt a flexible 'plan, monitor, manage approach to housing provision. In addition, references to the East of England Plan were deleted. In terms of spatial strategy, this remains broadly the same as submitted; the principle effect being to extend the plan period and reduce the annual rate of delivery. Over the extended plan period, the total dwelling requirement remains broadly similar to that submitted.

In light of the CALA Homes High Court Judgement issued on 10 November 2010, the RSS has been reinstated and now once again forms part of the development plan. Accordingly, the emerging CS ought to be in conformity with the East of England Plan (see para 5.2 of PSS12). Following the Cala Homes Judgement, the Secretary of State wrote setting out his intention to revoke RSS through the prospective legislation and that this intention constituted a material consideration (see letter dated 10th November). We understand that this letter is likely to be subject of a High Court challenge. Furthermore, it is highly likely that further guidance will be issued before the Examination hearings reconvene in the New Year. Indeed, we understand that we are to expect revised guidance on 5 year housing land supply, together with the Localism and Democracy Bill. Further changes to the Government's planning policy are also expected.




The CS was submitted in the context of the East of England Plan (EEP) (RSS) and set out the Council's proposed response to the policies set out therein. It is open to the Council to revert to the CS as submitted and not to proceed with the recent changes. However, this raises the issue of whether the CS should ignore changes that are likely to be promoted by the Government through legislation and the likely response of the Council.

In our view, it is important that preparation of the CS does not come to an abrupt halt as a result of proposed changes to planning policy as this would have a very negative and unnecessary impact upon housing delivery in Rochford in the short-term. Para 4.4 of PPS12 requires Core Strategies to be flexible. Flexibility ought to include capacity to respond to changes in Government policy and practice. The CS seeks to set the spatial vision and strategy for the District for at least 15 years (see Para 4.13 of PPS12). The recent 'Schedule of Proposed Changes' (October 2010) confirmed the Council's position that notwithstanding the proposed revocation of RSS (the EEP) and the ability for the Council to set housing requirements locally, the broad spatial strategy and vision as set out in the Submission draft of the CS remained valid, with the principle change being the rate of delivery.

The Examination will test the soundness of the CS including its general conformity with the EEP and its flexibility. However, in terms of the capacity of the CS to respond to a future revocation of the EEP, given the Council's stance, we would argue that the spatial strategy is flexible and the variation in delivery rates (and the housing trajectory) can be achieved through an effective policy mechanism to monitoring and management.

It may well be that an extension to the plan period and/or a reduction in the annual rate, whilst maintaining the spatial strategy, may require a formal revision to the CS but in such circumstances, on the basis that the CS is adopted at that time and that the spatial strategy and vision is being pursued, any such review could be limited.

The Council may decide to proceed with the submitted changes but this will raise the issue of conformity with the CS. Alternatively, the Council may wish to proceed with the changes as an alternative strategy in the event that the RSS is revoked in advance of adoption or early in the life span of any adopted CS (a 'plan B'). On this basis, we would comment as follows:

Extended Plan Period

In the event that RSS is revoked and the Council adopt the housing requirements set out in the submitted changes, Bellway support the extension of the plan period, but that the effective delivery of the CS is dependent upon effective monitoring and management.

Quantum of Development

Notwithstanding the physical and environmental characteristics of the District, there is still a local housing need and the new household projections contained in Topic Paper 3 indicate that substantial green belt releases are still required to meet the 'Option 1' requirements. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that 'new market housing is definitely required' (Topic Paper 3 para 8.8) even if the focus of development is directed to other parts of the Thames Gateway South Essex market area.

Strategic Growth Locations

In terms of changes to policy H2 (Extension to residential envelopes), Bellway note the modification of housing delivery in strategic growth locations. With respect to West Rochford, it is proposed that 500 units are built between 2011 - 2021 and a further 100 between 2021 - 2026. Bellway confirm that the development of the site can satisfy this requirement.




Five Year Supply

In terms of five year supply, revised policies H2 and H3 set out appropriate quantum for the preferred development locations in the event of a reduced annual requirement across the District. As a result, the five year supply of housing would be reduced from 950 from 1250. Again, Bellway confirm that the implementation of the site can make a positive contribution to 5 year land supply.

Next Steps

We understand that the Council will forward this and other responses to the Inspector with the hearing sessions reconvening week commencing 17 January 2011. We note the guidance issued by PINS following the Cala Homes Judgement and appendix B, para 4 in particular. We await with interest the response of the Council.

We trust these representations will be considered appropriately.