New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Search representations
Results for Thorpe Estates Limited search
New searchComment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Representation ID: 40032
Received: 22/09/2021
Respondent: Thorpe Estates Limited
Agent: DaviesMurch
[ARUP]:
In transport terms our preferred Strategy is one that delivers concentrated growth focused to the north of
Southend (see next section) and south of Rochford so that development is contiguous with Southend and
able to deliver transport and accessibility benefits as well as contribute to the wider housing need in the area
as illustrated broadly by Southend-on-Sea’s Strategy Option D. This presents a wide range of opportunities
to deliver new transport connections, and we would consider the priority to be bus routes and cycle
connections, rather than a focus solely on a strategic link road. This would be in keeping with implementing
a sustainable movement hierarchy within the plan.
On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.
Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.
As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.
Comment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
Representation ID: 40033
Received: 22/09/2021
Respondent: Thorpe Estates Limited
Agent: DaviesMurch
The spatial strategy options presented in its current form are not considered to be adequate. The plans for the
options are unclear, none of the options take account those that are being put forward within Southend-onSea’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’ document, and transport infrastructure has not been considered.
- We recognise that concentrated contiguous growth north of Southend can deliver healthy and sustainable
communities to meet the draft vision for Rochford, with the ability to deliver transport infrastructure and a
scale of development which can bring transformational change to travel patterns and reduce the reliance on
the private car. It presents the most obvious opportunity for cross-boundary collaboration with Southend-onSea Borough Council and maximises the benefits of any transport infrastructure for the wider area. As such,
if the Option 3b represents the comprehensive wider masterplan and promotion of land parcels by Cogent
Land LLP and our client then, we consider this option should be taken forward and developed further, or
Option 4 if it includes Option 3b.
We understand that no preferred option has been identified, but Option 4 is noted by the IIA for its
potential to perform better against other options in relation to the socio-economic IIA themes.
The plans for the spatial strategy options are unclear and considered to be inadequate in terms of
securing land allocation for development. Figure 17 shows the map of Key Strategy Options, but it
is noted in the text that many of the sites shown will not be suitable for development and it is likely
only a small percentage of the sites shown would be needed to meet local development needs.
Figures 18 to 21 are schematics and the exact extent of land for development is not sufficiently
clear.
We are concerned that none of the development options set out take account of the development
options that are being put forward within Southend-on-Sea’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’ version,
which includes the release of our client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development. Instead, Figure 17 shows land within Southend-on-Sea Borough
Council, include our client’s land, as “Potential Regional Parkland” although because of the
ambiguity of Figures 18 to21 it is not clear whether this designation is assumed in these options.
We would recommend that Rochford District Council co-ordinate their approach with Southend-onSea Borough Council, as the approach suggested within the consultation draft plan is at odds with
that shown within Southend-on-Sea draft plan. At no stage has our client put forward its land for
regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the green belt for development, it would
remain in private ownership.
In any event, suggesting development on the southern edge of Rochford separated by a regional
park to Southend is fundamentally flawed in land use and transport planning terms because it
creates an unnecessary barrier between the new settlement in Rochford and facilities required to
support sustainable walkable neighbourhoods. It also reduces the overall scale of development in
the area which in turn reduces the scale of retail and local facilities available within walking
distance, the number of new schools within walking and cycling distance and the amount of other
social infrastructure needed to create sustainable neighbourhood. Walking or cycling to Thorpe Bay
Station, and existing facilities in Southend also become less attractive.
Furthermore, the spatial strategy options do not consider any transport infrastructure to serve the
greater housing needs including Southend-on-Sea. A co-ordinated approach with Southend-on-Sea
Borough Council on the access strategy is required from the outset for land north of Southend and
our client’s land.
Notwithstanding the above, Option 3b is described as focused growth to the north of Southend
although as noted above these plans are ambiguous and lack clarity. If Option 3B (or indeed Option
4) is consistent with the wider masterplan and promotion of land parcels by Cogent Land LLP and
our client then this would be supported. Our client is taking a collaborative approach with Cogent
on the co-ordination of a wider masterplan in respect of transport, highways and other critical
infrastructure.
Development at the north of Southend provides the best opportunities to deliver the draft vision for
Rochford and the strategic objectives:
• As identified in the consultation draft plan, concentrated growth would provide the ‘critical
mass’ needed to fund transformative new infrastructure, including new sustainable transport
routes, link roads, schools, employment spaces and strategic green spaces, placing the least
strain on existing infrastructure and services out of each of the options. The IIA also
recognise that medium and higher growth options are more likely to deliver new infrastructure and sustainable transport connections, particularly capitalising on crossboundary infrastructure opportunities, and opportunities to further attract significant
investment from Government in infrastructure proposals.
• As identified in the consultation draft plan and IIA, there are opportunities to deliver crossboundary growth around Southend (Option 3b) which would deliver transformative
infrastructure upgrades.
• Concentrated growth allows the creation of healthy and sustainable communities, in keeping
with the draft vision for Rochford.
• As noted above concentrated growth can create new development with attractive walking
routes along desire lines, segregated cycle facilities, high quality public transport and deliver
a density of development that supports local shops, services and local businesses.
• Embedding sustainable transport principles into concentrated growth areas will create a step
change in behaviour, absorbing greater trips within the development, creating greater
funding and fare revenue to support public transport improvements and result in a lower
proportion of travel being made by car. This approach will provide the greatest opportunity
for tackling climate change and minimising the need for highway improvements.
• Providing high quality walking, cycling and public transport links to the centre of Southendon-Sea increases the probability that new residents can satisfy their retail, leisure and
employment journeys without needed to resort to the private car.
• A mixture of land uses within the concentrated growth area would reduce out-commuting,
which is in keeping with Strategic Objective 11.
In the Site Appraisal Paper 2021, the sites within the north of Southend area scored poorly in some of the transport sustainability elements. We strongly disagree with the methodology as the scoring
is based on the existing situation, such as distance from a bus stop, rather than the potential to deliver significantly improved transport infrastructure. The Site Appraisal paper is fundamentally flawed
On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.
Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.
As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.
Comment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Representation ID: 40034
Received: 22/09/2021
Respondent: Thorpe Estates Limited
Agent: DaviesMurch
Wakerings and Barling should retain their village character where possible through design considerations.
However, it should not prejudice the ability for future developments to come forward or Southend-on-Sea
Borough Council to meet its housing need. Concentrated growth in the north of Southend presents a far
better opportunity to deliver the critical mass required to improve accessibility and local facilities. A
comprehensive masterplan will provide a visual green separation to the villages of Wakerings and Barling
so that the villages can retain a rural character, but have the benefit of better connectivity and services.
On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.
Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.
As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.
Comment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
Representation ID: 40035
Received: 22/09/2021
Respondent: Thorpe Estates Limited
Agent: DaviesMurch
We consider a mixture of uses as part of a larger masterplan to the north of Southend including our clients
site will provide sufficient number of homes to sustain the long term viability of a range of local shops and
services will be best in terms of internalising travel movements and minimising the transport impact on the
wider area.
On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.
Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.
As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.
