Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.

Rochford District Council - Allocations Submission Document Examination:
Proposed Schedule of Changes to the Allocations Submission Document
Response on Behalf of Landhold Capital

I refer to the above and to our recent discussions.

The following response is made on behalf of Landhold Capital Ltd, who the Council will be aware control an area of land to the south west of Hullbridge, and is made in response to the Modifications as set out above.

Clearly the modifications in the main follow those agreed at the Examination in September last year or were suggested by the Inspector. The changes that affect our clients' land are from MM44 to 52, with a small change at MM100.

With regard to MM44, we agree with the deletion of the 5% artificial cap for the reasons given at the Examination and agreed by the Inspector, but we feel that the para should include the word 'approximately' between 'providing 500' to better reflect the minimum of 500 point set out in the Core Strategy.

We support the wording of MM45 as this provides more flexibility in the masterplanning of the site to both maximise the delivery of facilities and to ensure an efficient and well-planned development.

We support the changes within MM46 to MM48, but still raise the same concerns as previously set out over figure 12, which still shows a fairly fixed boundary between phases that masterplanning may prove to be incorrect or unworkable. The text should reflect this with specific reference to the figure if the figure itself remains unchanged. We do understand however from other discussions and at the Examination that the Council is keen to ensure an efficient development that does not add to costs by implementing artificial delays in the development programme and consequent delivery of housing and infrastructure/services, and are keen to work with the Council with this aim in mind.

We support changes MM49 to MM51, again as they provide greater flexibility than the Submission version.

With regard to MM52, this appears to make a premature conclusion that raising the road in part of Watery Lane is a requirement, when we are still looking at the options. Whilst this is likely to be one of the options as we have discussed and made clear at the Examination, it is too prescriptive in the way it is worded within the text, and if required at all should say 'could' instead of 'should' before the word 'include' in the last line. There are other possible solutions and they should be allowed for if agreed with the relevant authorities.

We agree with the minor change at MM100.

Please let us know if you wish to discuss the above, and look forward to working with the Council further to deliver the SER6 site.