Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Summary

Paragraphs 3.29 and 3.30 relate to the means of access to SER1, and in particular the means of access from London Road. With the deletion of the employment allocation (NEL1) south of London Road, we accept that the part of paragraph 3.30 that refers to the new London Road junction serving the NEL1 site needs to be deleted.

However, in our view it is both unnecessary and unsound (on the basis of "effectiveness" and being "positively prepared") for the remainder of this paragraph to be deleted, particularly the deletion of the reference to the potential for the new London Road access to be outside the development area.

Background and Reasoning

Paragraph 24 of the Inspector's letter of the 17th October relates to the issue of the definition of the Green Belt boundary west of Rayleigh. At the start of that paragraph, the Inspector notes that the boundary as proposed is 30m east of the pylons, and goes on to state:

"In my view, this is not sound as it misses an opportunity to create a defensible Green Belt boundary using an existing feature".

The Inspector then goes on to note that a further implication is that the access road to the new development "would be likely to be on Green Belt land" and that this would constitute inappropriate development.

The Inspector notes that shifting the boundary 30m to the west "would potentially enable access to be provided in the development area as well as providing a firm and obvious boundary."

The rationale for moving the Green Belt boundary is twofold. Firstly, the Plan is considered unsound because of the missed opportunity to use a physical feature, which is corrected by shifting the boundary 30m westward. Secondly, the enlarged area makes it "potentially" possible to provide the access within the development area.

In order for SER1 to be delivered, it is essential that the developers are able to provide points of access to the site that are both appropriate in highway terms and which can be delivered without the threat of ransom or delay by a 3rd party landowner. Countryside Properties have the ability to provide access points to both London Road and Rawreth Lane within the land they control (which is shown on the plan at Appendix 1 of our Issue 2 Hearing Statement - it may be helpful to refer to this plan when reading the remainder of this representation).

Having regard to the plan at Appendix 1 of that Statement, we would note the following:

* The Site Allocations Plan refers to the relocated Rayleigh Sports and Social Club being potentially provided within the Green Belt/green buffer west of the SER1 residential development. Although that part of the original text which referred to the fact that the new facility should be "served by a new road" (Submission version of paragraph 3.38) is proposed for deletion, it does not alter the fact that a means of vehicular access to the new Sports Club will be required, and it is highly likely that the road that serves it will be in the Green Belt, because the Sports Club itself will be in the Green Belt;

* Since the Inspector's letter of the 17th October, Countryside Properties have undertaken further investigations of the practicality of providing a new junction east of the pylons, the results of which show that there is insufficient highway width to accommodate a junction with a ghost right turn to the east of the pylons - the optimum access in highway terms would therefore still be west of the pylons, in the Green Belt;

* Notwithstanding the above, there is a 'pinch point' where the line of the pylons/new Green Belt boundary come in to close proximity at the rear of Lower Barn Farm which would make it difficult to keep the entirety of any new road within the SER1 boundary even if the junction itself were east of the pylons, as well as making construction more difficult because of the health and safety requirement for working in such close proximity to overhead lines.

On the basis of the above, there is at the very least a strong likelihood that some part of the new London Road access/link road or access road to the new Sports Club site will still need to be accommodated west of the pylons and within the Green Belt.

Clearly any planning application would in due course need to show that very special circumstances exist for any inappropriate development in the Green Belt, but a recognition of that possibility in the Development Plan would contribute to the Plan being "positively prepared" with a view to the effective delivery of the allocation. Conversely, the deletion of this text potentially prejudices the successful delivery of the allocation.

We note that the Inspector's modifications schedule did not propose the deletion of paragraph 3.30 in its entirety, and for the above reasons, we consider that only that part of the text that refers to the deleted NEL1 allocation should be amended.

In order to ensure that SER1 is deliverable, with access points both to London Road and Rawreth Lane as required, we consider the remainder of the text in paragraph 3.30 needs to remain.

Proposed Amendment to Modification 26

In our view, the only amendment to Paragraph 3.30 required in Modification 26 is the deletion of the reference to NEL1, and therefore rather than the deletion of the whole paragraph, only the text in square brackets below should be removed. The altered paragraph 3.30 still flows on logically from paragraph 3.29, and taken together the two paragraphs would read as follows:

Para 3.29 - "At least two vehicular access/egress points onto and off the site for vehicular traffic should be provided from Rawreth Lane and London Road at least one point should link to Rawreth Lane and at least one point should link to London Road. The potential to provide a circular link within the development area with one strategic access point and one secondary access point onto London Road should be explored. A bus link will be created between Rawreth Lane and London Road (see Figure 7). However, the road layout within the site should be such that there is no link for private cars between Rawreth Lane and London Road through the site. This could take the form of bus gates, cameras, and/or other forms of engineering to ensure that the relevant section of road is only suitable for buses. This should be determined at the planning application stage in consultation with the relevant bus company and the local highways authority. In addition a Traffic Regulation Order would be required to restrict movement for other road users along this route. However, a link between London Road and Rawreth Lane for all forms of transport may be explored. The route should be such that it would not encourage its use as a 'through-route' between Rawreth Lane and London Road. The options for this site including the distribution of traffic between Rawreth Lane and London Road, should be explored in consultation with Essex County Council highways."


Para 3.30 - "A new junction along London Road will be required to serve [both] the residential area [and the employment land to the south of London Road (Policy NEL1)]. This could take the form of a roundabout or a signalised junction and should be determined at the planning application stage. The new junction on London Road does not necessarily have to be within the area allocated for development. However, any element of the road link that does pass through the Green Belt and green buffer should be well landscaped."