Issues and Options Document

On behalf of Southern & Regional Developments, Claremont Planning are of the view that the LPA should adopt an approach which incorporates both Options C and D. Whilst both options could provide suitable and appropriate avenues to deliver sufficient homes to meet the identified need, pursuing one option over the other will place too much emphasis and reliance on one mechanism of housing delivery. Relying upon large-scale strategic allocations to deliver homes often leads to delays as infrastructure is provided and if sites are bought forward by a sole developer. Whilst in contrast reliance upon numerous smaller sites means that the critical mass of housing delivery is never realised, and that infrastructure investment is compromised. In using both options, it allows greater flexibility within the plan to deliver homes through smaller site being able to be developed faster and address immediate housing needs, whilst larger strategic allocations maintain a rolling stock of homes once their infrastructure is in place. The execution of one option alone will be a lost opportunity to deliver through a Local Plan that recognises the pressures on development, market influences and adopts a long-term approach to local requirements. The shared approach will ensure a more effective plan and will assure that the plan meets the plan-making principles as set forward in the National Planning Policy Framework.

On behalf of Southern & Regional Developments, Claremont Planning prefers Option A in retaining the current housing mix policy, which ensures that market requirements are reflected in any development that comes forward, this also ensures that the right types of houses are delivered in the right locations. Any prescribed housing mix policy will stifle the market's ability to deliver housing that is urgently needed within the district and also respond to geographical requirements

In regard to Paragraph 10.15, on behalf of Southern & Regional Developments, Claremont Planning support the indication from the 2015 Environmental Capacity Study that site specific assessments will be required for areas within the Green Belt. Many sites that fall within the Green Belt contribute poorly to the role and function of the Green Belt and therefore the reallocation of such sites should be sought.

The council's position in historically under-delivering housing is compounded by there being insufficient policy compliant land to deliver the identified need within the District. The suggested option of not accommodating cross-boundary need is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework's duty to cooperate requirements, particularly where neighbouring authorities such as Castle Point have recognised delivery pressures. Therefore, there is a clear, significant need to review the Green Belt for release of sites for development.

The Local Authority's current position is that of significant development pressure in addressing historic poor delivery of housing numbers, which is reflected in the other authorities in South Essex. Option B is clearly the only suitable approach to adopt, as the status quo has not delivered the required need within the district and has therefore applied pressure onto the authority which otherwise could have been avoided if past under-delivery was addressed. Option B can be only the avenue for exploration by the LPA to ensure that maximum delivery can be assured by way of seeking brownfield sites to their exhaustion as well as the most appropriate sites to be released from the Green Belt.

On behalf of Southern & Regional Developments, Claremont Planning supports the retention of the policy proposed through Option A, that policy should continue to promote the consideration of previously developed sites in the Green Belt where it does not affect its purpose of openness. Indeed, such locations should be considered through the Green Belt Review as priority areas for removal from the Green Belt; or rather such locations where development is acceptable. This is an appropriate and sustainable method in considering this type of land for development in the Green Belt. If the other option were to be pursued, the policy written into the local plan would be excessively site specific and would not be sufficiently flexible enough to ensure that sites, which would be acceptable in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework.