Allocations Submission Document

Policy BFR4 (and supporting text) - Rawreth Industrial Estate
Introduction
In these representations, we raise a number of concerns regarding the delivery of the proposed allocation at Rawreth Industrial Estate, and the manner in which the proposed allocation is presented in the document.
By way of background, Countryside Properties objected to the proposed site allocation at the Core Strategy stage, on the basis that this existing industrial estate, which is in multiple ownership and with an even greater multitude of tenants, is highly unlikely to be delivered in the plan period, and there is no party other than the Council promoting the land for redevelopment.
The Site Allocations document provides no more information or detail on the matter of the practical delivery of the land, or the timetable within which that could be achieved, and therefore provides no new information that would suggest that the land is in fact either capable or feasible of comprehensive redevelopment.
The fact that this allocation is consistent with the Core Strategy does not of itself make the allocation deliverable, and we would suggest that its inclusion within the Site Allocations still needs to be justified on the basis of positive evidence that the site can in fact be developed as suggested.
Representations
Deliverability
Following on from the above, our first representation in respect of this matter is that Policy BFR4 is unsound since there is no evidence to suggest that the policy proposals are deliverable, and hence the policy is neither Justified nor Effective.
Paragraphs 2.82, 2.88, 2.94, 2.106, and 2.113 of the DPD all provide evidence as to why this site is unlikely to be delivered i.e. because it has a range of existing commercial uses; is likely to require remediation as a result of previous contamination; cannot be delivered until existing uses have been relocated, and development will require significant contributions to community, social, and highway infrastructure. Conversely, the supporting text to the Policy provides no evidence on the viability or feasibility of the site coming forward in the light of these constraints.
Missing from the draft text, but of equal if not greater significance, is the fact that the site is in multiple ownership, is not being promoted for development by the landowners, and in practice the site could only come forward on a comprehensive basis with all landowners involved. All of these factors support our contention that the Policy is Unsound.
Para 2.82 (Site Characteristics)
Following the above, we object specifically to the wording at paragraph 2.82, on the basis that to be Effective, the supporting text to the policy should explain that any redevelopment of the site will need to be on a comprehensive basis, in order to protect the amenity of new residents, and to ensure effective remediation and an appropriate form of development. Paragraph 2.82 should be amended as follows:

"There are a range of industrial buildings, structures and hardstanding on site. Decontamination of the site may be required prior to development. The site is in multiple ownership, and any redevelopment will need to be undertaken on a comprehensive basis in order to protect the amenity of new residential occupiers, to achieve an appropriate form of development having regard to the nature of the existing industrial users and their potential for disturbance, and to ensure effective remediation."

Para 2.85 - Density

The suggested density of up to 60 dph is excessive for this location. Whilst recognising that the site falls within the existing urban area, it is not within a town centre location, and the suggested density is excessive given the character of the area. The adjoining development at Stirling Close/Victoria Avenue immediately to the east is of a similar size (5.6 ha) and has 122 homes at a density of just under 22 dph. Even the more densely developed estate of Grosvenor Road/Brunswick Place has just 109 properties on around 2.9 hectares, giving a density of 37.5 dph.
In the context of the surrounding area, it is difficult to see that the suggested density of up to 60 dwellings per hectare is either feasible (since it would have to rely on a high degree of flatted properties, which the market would not want to deliver in a location such as this), or indeed appropriate. The suggested density is neither Justified nor, given the lack of market interest in developing at this density, Effective.
We would suggest that a density range of 30-35 dph (net) is the most that could be achieve on this site, particularly given the constraints identified elsewhere in the Concept Statement in terms of retaining TPO's and providing on-site open space.
Paras 2.86, 2.87, 2.91 and 2.105 - Scale of development
The text in these paragraphs is confusing as to the scale of development that could be provided on the site. On the one hand it refers to an expectation of 222 dwellings as per the SHLAA (paras 2.87 and 2.91), and on the other hand the calculation of the quantum of open space is based on 89 dwellings (para 2.105), and the assessment at 2.86 would suggest that a yield of up to 140 is more likely based on a realistic density.
The lack of certainty over what the site can deliver stems in part from the fact that there is no party actively promoting or able to deliver the redevelopment of the site. Even so, it would be evident that at the higher development yield suggested, the open space contribution of the site would need to increase above and beyond that set at in the Concept Statement, which raises questions as to whether or not the higher yield suggested in the SHLAA is actually achievable. Even at the lower range of up to 140, the open space quoted for at para 2.105 would be insufficient.
Realistically, having netted off the open space and applied an appropriate density of around 30 dph, the yield from this site would be more likely to be in the region of the 140 units suggested at paragraph 2.86, leaving a 60-70 unit shortfall in the delivery of homes from Rayleigh (even if the site is developed at all).

Policy BFR4 (and supporting text) - Rawreth Industrial Estate
Introduction
In these representations, we raise a number of concerns regarding the delivery of the proposed allocation at Rawreth Industrial Estate, and the manner in which the proposed allocation is presented in the document.
By way of background, Countryside Properties objected to the proposed site allocation at the Core Strategy stage, on the basis that this existing industrial estate, which is in multiple ownership and with an even greater multitude of tenants, is highly unlikely to be delivered in the plan period, and there is no party other than the Council promoting the land for redevelopment.
The Site Allocations document provides no more information or detail on the matter of the practical delivery of the land, or the timetable within which that could be achieved, and therefore provides no new information that would suggest that the land is in fact either capable or feasible of comprehensive redevelopment.
The fact that this allocation is consistent with the Core Strategy does not of itself make the allocation deliverable, and we would suggest that its inclusion within the Site Allocations still needs to be justified on the basis of positive evidence that the site can in fact be developed as suggested.
Representations
Deliverability
Following on from the above, our first representation in respect of this matter is that Policy BFR4 is unsound since there is no evidence to suggest that the policy proposals are deliverable, and hence the policy is neither Justified nor Effective.
Paragraphs 2.82, 2.88, 2.94, 2.106, and 2.113 of the DPD all provide evidence as to why this site is unlikely to be delivered i.e. because it has a range of existing commercial uses; is likely to require remediation as a result of previous contamination; cannot be delivered until existing uses have been relocated, and development will require significant contributions to community, social, and highway infrastructure. Conversely, the supporting text to the Policy provides no evidence on the viability or feasibility of the site coming forward in the light of these constraints.
Missing from the draft text, but of equal if not greater significance, is the fact that the site is in multiple ownership, is not being promoted for development by the landowners, and in practice the site could only come forward on a comprehensive basis with all landowners involved. All of these factors support our contention that the Policy is Unsound.
Para 2.82 (Site Characteristics)
Following the above, we object specifically to the wording at paragraph 2.82, on the basis that to be Effective, the supporting text to the policy should explain that any redevelopment of the site will need to be on a comprehensive basis, in order to protect the amenity of new residents, and to ensure effective remediation and an appropriate form of development. Paragraph 2.82 should be amended as follows:

"There are a range of industrial buildings, structures and hardstanding on site. Decontamination of the site may be required prior to development. The site is in multiple ownership, and any redevelopment will need to be undertaken on a comprehensive basis in order to protect the amenity of new residential occupiers, to achieve an appropriate form of development having regard to the nature of the existing industrial users and their potential for disturbance, and to ensure effective remediation."

Para 2.85 - Density

The suggested density of up to 60 dph is excessive for this location. Whilst recognising that the site falls within the existing urban area, it is not within a town centre location, and the suggested density is excessive given the character of the area. The adjoining development at Stirling Close/Victoria Avenue immediately to the east is of a similar size (5.6 ha) and has 122 homes at a density of just under 22 dph. Even the more densely developed estate of Grosvenor Road/Brunswick Place has just 109 properties on around 2.9 hectares, giving a density of 37.5 dph.
In the context of the surrounding area, it is difficult to see that the suggested density of up to 60 dwellings per hectare is either feasible (since it would have to rely on a high degree of flatted properties, which the market would not want to deliver in a location such as this), or indeed appropriate. The suggested density is neither Justified nor, given the lack of market interest in developing at this density, Effective.
We would suggest that a density range of 30-35 dph (net) is the most that could be achieve on this site, particularly given the constraints identified elsewhere in the Concept Statement in terms of retaining TPO's and providing on-site open space.
Paras 2.86, 2.87, 2.91 and 2.105 - Scale of development
The text in these paragraphs is confusing as to the scale of development that could be provided on the site. On the one hand it refers to an expectation of 222 dwellings as per the SHLAA (paras 2.87 and 2.91), and on the other hand the calculation of the quantum of open space is based on 89 dwellings (para 2.105), and the assessment at 2.86 would suggest that a yield of up to 140 is more likely based on a realistic density.
The lack of certainty over what the site can deliver stems in part from the fact that there is no party actively promoting or able to deliver the redevelopment of the site. Even so, it would be evident that at the higher development yield suggested, the open space contribution of the site would need to increase above and beyond that set at in the Concept Statement, which raises questions as to whether or not the higher yield suggested in the SHLAA is actually achievable. Even at the lower range of up to 140, the open space quoted for at para 2.105 would be insufficient.
Realistically, having netted off the open space and applied an appropriate density of around 30 dph, the yield from this site would be more likely to be in the region of the 140 units suggested at paragraph 2.86, leaving a 60-70 unit shortfall in the delivery of homes from Rayleigh (even if the site is developed at all).

Policy BFR4 (and supporting text) - Rawreth Industrial Estate
Introduction
In these representations, we raise a number of concerns regarding the delivery of the proposed allocation at Rawreth Industrial Estate, and the manner in which the proposed allocation is presented in the document.
By way of background, Countryside Properties objected to the proposed site allocation at the Core Strategy stage, on the basis that this existing industrial estate, which is in multiple ownership and with an even greater multitude of tenants, is highly unlikely to be delivered in the plan period, and there is no party other than the Council promoting the land for redevelopment.
The Site Allocations document provides no more information or detail on the matter of the practical delivery of the land, or the timetable within which that could be achieved, and therefore provides no new information that would suggest that the land is in fact either capable or feasible of comprehensive redevelopment.
The fact that this allocation is consistent with the Core Strategy does not of itself make the allocation deliverable, and we would suggest that its inclusion within the Site Allocations still needs to be justified on the basis of positive evidence that the site can in fact be developed as suggested.
Representations
Deliverability
Following on from the above, our first representation in respect of this matter is that Policy BFR4 is unsound since there is no evidence to suggest that the policy proposals are deliverable, and hence the policy is neither Justified nor Effective.
Paragraphs 2.82, 2.88, 2.94, 2.106, and 2.113 of the DPD all provide evidence as to why this site is unlikely to be delivered i.e. because it has a range of existing commercial uses; is likely to require remediation as a result of previous contamination; cannot be delivered until existing uses have been relocated, and development will require significant contributions to community, social, and highway infrastructure. Conversely, the supporting text to the Policy provides no evidence on the viability or feasibility of the site coming forward in the light of these constraints.
Missing from the draft text, but of equal if not greater significance, is the fact that the site is in multiple ownership, is not being promoted for development by the landowners, and in practice the site could only come forward on a comprehensive basis with all landowners involved. All of these factors support our contention that the Policy is Unsound.
Para 2.82 (Site Characteristics)
Following the above, we object specifically to the wording at paragraph 2.82, on the basis that to be Effective, the supporting text to the policy should explain that any redevelopment of the site will need to be on a comprehensive basis, in order to protect the amenity of new residents, and to ensure effective remediation and an appropriate form of development. Paragraph 2.82 should be amended as follows:

"There are a range of industrial buildings, structures and hardstanding on site. Decontamination of the site may be required prior to development. The site is in multiple ownership, and any redevelopment will need to be undertaken on a comprehensive basis in order to protect the amenity of new residential occupiers, to achieve an appropriate form of development having regard to the nature of the existing industrial users and their potential for disturbance, and to ensure effective remediation."

Para 2.85 - Density

The suggested density of up to 60 dph is excessive for this location. Whilst recognising that the site falls within the existing urban area, it is not within a town centre location, and the suggested density is excessive given the character of the area. The adjoining development at Stirling Close/Victoria Avenue immediately to the east is of a similar size (5.6 ha) and has 122 homes at a density of just under 22 dph. Even the more densely developed estate of Grosvenor Road/Brunswick Place has just 109 properties on around 2.9 hectares, giving a density of 37.5 dph.
In the context of the surrounding area, it is difficult to see that the suggested density of up to 60 dwellings per hectare is either feasible (since it would have to rely on a high degree of flatted properties, which the market would not want to deliver in a location such as this), or indeed appropriate. The suggested density is neither Justified nor, given the lack of market interest in developing at this density, Effective.
We would suggest that a density range of 30-35 dph (net) is the most that could be achieve on this site, particularly given the constraints identified elsewhere in the Concept Statement in terms of retaining TPO's and providing on-site open space.
Paras 2.86, 2.87, 2.91 and 2.105 - Scale of development
The text in these paragraphs is confusing as to the scale of development that could be provided on the site. On the one hand it refers to an expectation of 222 dwellings as per the SHLAA (paras 2.87 and 2.91), and on the other hand the calculation of the quantum of open space is based on 89 dwellings (para 2.105), and the assessment at 2.86 would suggest that a yield of up to 140 is more likely based on a realistic density.
The lack of certainty over what the site can deliver stems in part from the fact that there is no party actively promoting or able to deliver the redevelopment of the site. Even so, it would be evident that at the higher development yield suggested, the open space contribution of the site would need to increase above and beyond that set at in the Concept Statement, which raises questions as to whether or not the higher yield suggested in the SHLAA is actually achievable. Even at the lower range of up to 140, the open space quoted for at para 2.105 would be insufficient.
Realistically, having netted off the open space and applied an appropriate density of around 30 dph, the yield from this site would be more likely to be in the region of the 140 units suggested at paragraph 2.86, leaving a 60-70 unit shortfall in the delivery of homes from Rayleigh (even if the site is developed at all).

Policies NEL1 and NEL2 - New Employment Allocations at West Rayleigh
Introduction
Policy ED4 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out a proposed new employment allocation on land to the south of London Road at west Rayleigh. The text to ED4 explains that the allocation is expected to meet part of the 2.2ha of additional high quality office space identified in the Core Strategy, and meet the requirement for displaced uses from Rawreth Industrial Estate.
In the event, the Council has identified two sites for employment purposes at west Rayleigh, with site NEL1 being south of London Road, and site NEL2 being in the vicinity of west Rayleigh, but not actually on London Road.
Although not strictly speaking 'south of London Road', we do not object in principle to site NEL2, but we do have concerns as to the appropriateness of the site for 'high quality' office uses, given its remote location and also the intention to use the site for displaced uses from Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate. We object in principle to the proposed allocation at NEL1, on the basis that it already substantially used for employment purposes, and the land that is not so used is not suitable for development in the manner suggested.
Taken together, neither NEL1 nor NEL2 provide locations suitable for the proposed high quality office use required by Policy ED4.
Representations
NEL1 - Land south of Rayleigh Road
Of the proposed 5 ha site, some 2.5 ha of land is already occupied by long-established commercial uses. The site allocations DPD seeks the retention of these uses (para 5.14).
Of the undeveloped areas, the allocation includes a slither of land to the west of the existing businesses, of around 0.4 ha, which has no existing means of access, and which would be of limited use, given the shape of the land. To the east of the existing uses, there is a larger parcel of around 2 ha, with a frontage to London Road. However, the majority of this land is affected by the twin pylon lines that cross the site in a north/south direction. Although the pylons would not preclude commercial development as such, the lines themselves hang relatively low of the site, such that two storey development across the majority of the site would be difficult to achieve.
As far as we are aware, there have been no representations on the part of the landowner supporting the development of the site for commercial purposes, and no interest from any developer seeking to undertake a commercial development.
In the light of all of the above factors, we consider that the likelihood of any new commercial development occurring on NEL1 to be extremely limited, and therefore that the Site Allocations is not Justified/Effective since it will not deliver the high quality office development required by ED4.
By contrast, Countryside Properties have consistently argued that an element of commercial development can be developed as part of a mixed-use allocation north of London Road, where the costs of the servicing a commercial development (drainage, utilities, highways) can be shared with the development of the residential element.
NEL2 - West of the A1245
As set out elsewhere in our submissions, it seems highly unlikely that the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate will be redeveloped, but in the event that this were to occur, our understanding is that this site is allocated in order to provide a suitable location for such uses to relocate.
What is unclear from the wording of the Site Allocations is whether or not this site is reserved solely for the relocation of uses from Rawreth Lane (aside from the proposed recycling centre). If the intention is that the land should be available such that an existing use from Rawreth Lane can relocate there, then the text to the Policy would need to make clear that the site is solely reserved for such uses, and that permission would not be granted for any development for commercial purposes unless it related to the relocation of an existing use.
If that is not the case, and the land is simply notionally available for relocation of existing uses, then there is of course no guarantee that even if an existing use from Rawreth Lane was able to afford the costs of relocation, that there would be space available for them on NEL2 to enable this to happen. If the land is not specifically reserved and left for relocating businesses, then the chances of Rawreth Lane ever being redeveloped are diminished even further, since existing business will stay.
We note that paragraph 5.31 lists one of the possible uses of the site as being for high quality office use". Given the relative remoteness of this site, we would suggest that the site is not appropriate for such high density business uses. Moreover, given that the site is also identified at paragraph 5.32 for 'heavy industry', it seems highly unlikely that it would attract a high quality office use anyway.
We would therefore consider that reference to high quality offices should be deleted from NEL2, since it is not Justified, and that to be Effective, NEL2 requires clarification as to whether or not the land is actually reserved for the relocation of existing business from Rawreth Lane, and not for general industrial use.