Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

Proposed Changes to Core Strategy
Submission Document, October 2010
Public Consultation Period 18.10.10 to 30.11.10



The Efficient Use of Land for Housing
There is still no evidence that the authority has researched sites for development that are not on prime agricultural land. (BMV Land). There is no evidence that a proper search has been carried out for Brownfield sites. Also, referring to the Call for Sites carried out in 2007, no evidence that these have been fully explored.

BMV land is proposed in the first phase. This may not prove to be necessary in a few years. By that time it will be too late!

At the hearing earlier this year, a number of landowners put forward land for development which were turned down with no evidence that these sites had been explored and/or whether there are proper reasons for refusal to develop these sites.


Need For Housing - Affordable Housing
The proposed development in the Core Strategy does not reflect the numbers of people on the Housing Register. The figures produced by the Authority show the largest number of people on the Housing Register are for Rayleigh where no housing is planned for 15 years. Development is centred in the middle of the district where the need is shown to be significantly less. No need demonstrated to warrant building in the Green Belt.


Lack of Appropriate Infrastructure
The Core Strategy proposes development in the centre of the district which will not cope with the increase in traffic. At peek times, the surrounding roads are at saturation point.

Reliance was placed on the proposed South Essex Rapid Transport scheme. This appears to have been scrapped. There should now be a sustainability appraisal in connection with proposed sites in the centre of the district in the absence of the SERT scheme.

More dwellings around the roads that are already congested will make travel for all road users hazardous.


Windfall Sites
There has been no published estimation on the number of windfall sites that may come forward during the first building phase. Looking at the number of dwellings built since 2001, it would be possible to have a meaningful prediction of the number dwellings that may be built during the first phase. The council is committed to 190 dwellings per year. There is no evidence that a consideration of windfall sites has been made. This could negate the need for building in the Green Belt.


Best Most Versatile Land (BMV)
At a time when we constantly read about the need to feed the population and the rise in cost of wheat based products, there is no evidence that the Authority has considered the loss of BMV land and/or provided exceptional circumstance why BMV land should be developed. This should be the last category of land to be developed, not land earmarked in phase one!






The Core Strategy remains unsound: No further evidence has emerged since the first consultation to show that this is compliant with PPG2 and PPG13. The proposed loss of prime agricultural land is not economically sound or sustainable.

Change needed: The council need to look more closely at the damage the proposed development in the green belt will cause to those living in the district by way of loss of amenity.