Development Management: Schedule of modifications

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford Distict Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.'

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford DC, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed modifications and additional text in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments in response to the proposed Main Modification. The schedule sets out our comments and observations as well as recommendations for a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

In respect of specific recommendations to further amend the proposed wording I would like to draw your attention to our comments in relation to AM10 and AM37, our recommendations are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the NPPF and for clarification purposes.

In addition, set out below are further comments received from the Early Years and Childcare Service and the SA/ SEA service for your consideration.

Early Years and Childcare Service
The Early Years and Childcare Service has no further comments to make with regard to the' Main Modifications'. We would however like to take this opportunity to emphasise that any residential developments in the Rochford District are likely to generate the need for further early years and childcare provision. We would have liked the original ECC response of 18 July 2013 to have reflected this explicitly (as it does for Primary and Secondary education) and are not sure if that is an oversight on our part, therefore would welcome all opportunities to be involved in consultations such as this at an earlier stage.

SA/SEA
ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and thorough approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

There does not appear to be any assessment of the cumulative or synergistic impacts that could result from the changes in SA impact highlighted in the addendum. This would be a useful addition to the SA Addendum where numerous changes have been made as a result of the modifications, although its absence is not considered to affect the legitimacy or soundness of the SA Addendum as it currently stands.

As stated above ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, and have proposed a number of minor modifiations for clarification and compliance with the NPPF.

Comments in response to Proposed Additional Modifications:-

AM1 - Support the amendment to Table 1 to include the reference to Policy CLT1 as previously requested

AM2 - Support the amendment to Paragraph 1.12 to include the additional text as requested

AM4 - Support the additional bullet in paragraph 1.29, refering to the Summary Climate Change report, as earlier requested.

However, note the omission of our recommendation to include the following reference Essex County Council draft strategy 'Housing for People with Additional Needs Strategy 2013-2016'.

AM10 - Overall welcome, AM10 (paragraph 2.6) however further additional changes to the wording is recommended, to provide the necessary clarification and to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Recommend changing policy AM10 as follows:

AM10: The historic environment of the District contributes to the unique character and history of Rochford District, its individual settlements, as well as the established local streetscene and its landscape. The significant historic townscapes, village centres and other smaller areas which merit statutory protection are protected through Conservation Area designations, and the most nationally important buildings and items of street furniture of 'special interest' are protected through Listed Building status and listed building status in the case of historic buildings meeting national criteria relating to their significance. Nationally important archaeological deposits are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It is, however, also important to consider the impact of development and change on the wider area beyond the boundary of protected areas and on locally important unlisted buildings and undesignated archaeological sites which are cherished by the local community.

The above proposed changes are required to support the objectives proposed by Rochford for the protection of the Historic Environment of their District; and to comply with the NPPF, which integrates archaeological and built heritage all under Historic Environment. At present, the wording in this amended paragraph fails to integrate the archaeological heritage of the District.

AM37 - The principle of changing paragraph 4.30 in response to our earlier comments is welcomed and supported, however the proposed wording within AM37 is confusing and needs to be simplified.

It is recommended that the wording with AM37 is deleted and replaced with the following wording to clarify the position:

The Local Planning Authority will need to approve sustainable drainage system (SuDS) designs for any new developments until Schedule 3 of the Flood & Water Management Act (2010) is commenced, which makes Essex County Council the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). When the SAB is established, the County Council will need to approve SuDS in new developments that fall within the requirements for approval and will do so in accordance with National and Local Standards.