Appeal by David Wilson Homes - Rochford District Council

Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(As Amended)
APPEAL BY
DAVID WILSON HOMES
Against the decision of
Rochford District Council
to refuse planning permission for
Comprehensive development of land to provide a sustainable urban extension
comprising up to 330 dwellings with associated infrastructure including: new
vehicular accesses onto Rectory Road; new on-site accesses and road network;
cycleway and footpath network; public open spaces; landscaping, health facilities
and local amenities
Land between Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex
Evidence of Martin D Hull, BA MA, MRTPI
References:
Inspectorate: APP/B1550/A/09/2118700/NWF
RDC: 09/00529/OUT
KLW: RLM/KLW/09/114
Date: 29 th March 2010

Contents Page
1. Introduction 5
2. The Planning Application 5
3. Reasons for Refusal 10
4. The Appeal Site, owenrship and Locational Characteristics 12
5. The case for the Appellant – Introduction 12
6. Planning Policy and the Release of Green Belt
Land 17
7. Suitability of the Appeal Site 35
8. A New Green Belt Boundary 43
9. Housing Land Supply 46
10. Affordable Housing 51
11. Mix, Quality and Density 54
12. The Early Release of the Appeal Site
and phasing 55
13. Ecology 57
14. Flood Risk and Drainage 58
15. Landscape and Trees 59
16. Third Party Representations 59
17. Section 106 Contributions 65
18. Summary 71
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Rochford Local Plan 1988
Appendix 2 - Extracts from Panel Report into draft EEP 2004 (Policy
SS7)
Appendix 3 - Review of EEP
3i – EEP Information Pack
3ii – Scenarios for Housing and Economic Growth
3iii – Sub area profiles
Appendix 4 - EEP 2008 – Relevant Policies
Appendix 5 - RDC response to Panel at time of EEP Consultation
Appendix 6 - Examples of other District’s approach to SS7
6i –Thurrock Borough Council
6ii – Southend on Sea Borough Council
6iii – Castle Point Borough Council
Appendix 7 - Letter of Conformity
Appendix 8 - Decision Letters
8i APP/G5180/A/07/2043219, London Borough of Bromley
8ii APP/V1505/A/08/2083156, Billericay
2

8iii APP/P3040/A/08/2083092, Nottinghamshire
8iv Planning History near appeal site – Spencers Nursery
and the Royer application together with Secretary of States
decision
Appendix 9 - Housing Land Supply and extracts from
APP/Q3820/A/08/2092933 relating to the land supply
calculation
Appendix 10 - Site Allocations DPD – Consultation and Discussion
(extracts)
Appendix 11 - Extracts from Preferred Options Core Strategy
Appendix 12 - Summary of Objections to Policy H1, H2 and H3 of SCS
12i H1 of SCS
12ii H2 of SCS
12iii H3 of SCS
Appendix 13 - Summary of Objections to paragraph 4.19 of SCS
Appendix 14i - Hawkwell Parish Boundary
Appendix 14ii- Potential sites ‘south Hawkwell’
Appendix 15 - Previous Local Plan Inquiry Inspector’s comments
Appendix 16 - New Green Belt Boundary
Appendix 17 - Extracts from Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic
Market Housing Assessment
Appendix 18 - Essex Wildlife Comments
Appendix 19 - Annual Monitoring Reports 2005 to 2009 – Extracts
Appendix 20 - Completions and commencement data April 2009-end of
January 2010
Appendix 21 - Rochford District Council Housing Strategy 2008-2011
Appendix 22 - Sports Facilities Assessment
Appendix 23 - Interest in Medical Facilities
Appendix 24 - Extracts of Draft Essex School Organisation Plan 2009-
2014
Appendix 25 - Advice on the 5 year Housing Land Supply (DCLG)
3

Appendix 26 - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – Practice
Guidance
Appendix 27 - Letter explaining PPS3 advice
Appendix 28 - Population Data for Hockley and Hawkwell
Appendix 29 - List of Appendix D and E sites from RDC SHLAA
Appendix 30 - RDC SHLAA Methodology
4

1. Introduction
1.1 My name is Martin D Hull. I am a Director of Kember Loudon Williams Ltd,
Planning and Environmental Consultants. I am a chartered Town Planner with
extensive experience of working within the planning system, having worked for
some 15 years in various posts within Local Government and the private
sector.
1.2 I am retained by David Wilson Homes to advise on the planning aspects of the
Hawkwell appeal site (“the Site”), and in that context I set out below my
evidence in support of the proposals that are contained in Application No
09/00529/OUT submitted to Rochford District Council (“RDC”) on 8 th
September 2009 and the subject of the current appeal.
1.3 In preparing this evidence I have taken as my starting point RDC report to
Committee dated 3 rd December 2009, and the commentary and
recommendations contained therein. I have also taken account of relevant
Statements of Common Ground for the Site and the emerging Section 106
legal agreement. Where necessary I have regard to emerging and existing
planning policy. My evidence will cover those issues raised by third parties. I
am conscious that this appeal has been recovered by the Secretary of State
and it is open to the Inspector to consider issues not covered by the Decision
Notice. My evidence will take this into account.
2. The Planning Application
2.1 The planning application, submitted on behalf of David Wilson Homes, was
subject to an amended description and is for the:
“comprehensive development of land to provide a sustainable urban
extension comprising up to 330 dwellings with associated infrastructure
including: new vehicular accesses onto Rectory Road; new on-site accesses
and road network; cycleway and footpath network; public open spaces;
landscaping, health facilities and local amenities.”
2.2 The outline planning application the subject of this appeal was lodged on 8th
September 2009 and was validated by letter dated 14th September 2009. RDC
did not request any further information to assist in their determination. It
followed extensive discussion with Rochford District Council’s Planning Policy
Team during 2008-2009, including an assessment as to whether the proposals
required Environmental Impact Assessment. Following submission the
description of development was altered to refer to ‘up to 330 dwellings.’ The
screening opinion and change of description letter are included in the appeal
questionnaire and appeal submissions.
2.3 The planning application has been submitted in line with Government advice
contained within the Town and Country Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
Circular 01/2006 and paragraph 71, as governed by paragraph 69 and 72 of
PPS3. The outline planning application seeks approval for the principal access
5

points into the site for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The application is for
up to 330 dwelling units and included:
• A development area of 7.5ha (total site 11.1ha);
• Up to 330 residential dwellings at a density range between 20 and 50
dwellings per hectare and between 8m and 16m in height depending on
character area and the need for landmark buildings;
• 35% affordable housing;
• Two points of access onto Rectory Road forming T junctions to serve up
to 200 dwellings;
• Upgrading of northern part of Thorpe Road to access a portion of the
proposed housing – up to 115 dwellings;
• Enhancements to the Main Road/Rectory Road mini roundabout
junction;
• Widening/enhancement of part of the Rectory Road footway on its
northern side;
• Private driveways onto Clements Hall Way for a limited number of
dwellings not exceeding 15 details of which to be controlled by planning
condition);
• Principles for cycle and pedestrian access through the site subject to
reserved matters layout;
• Open space of 3.19ha of which 0.625 would be formal children’s play
areas and the remainder informal open space including grass squares
and a large area of enhanced woodland and open space to the south of
Spencer’s Park;
• Local amenities of up to 1000 sq. m for a shop and or pharmacy and
health facilities in the form of a medical centre up to 500 sq. m in size,
which could also include a dental practice; and
• Relocation of Gas Main which crosses the site as part of the
groundworks.
2.4 The Design and Access Statement (“DAS”), which accompanied the planning
application, together with an addendum submitted on 5 th November 2009
explains how the Site could be developed. My colleague, Gareth Jones,
6

includes within his evidence details of how the site could be developed and a
combined Design and Access Statement which is to supersede all previous
versions submitted. This has been prepared to make the process at Inquiry
quicker and simpler, it also provides a mechanism for attaching conditions.
2.5 Two points of access are proposed for the Site off Rectory Road and a point
of access off Thorpe Road. Private drives for a small number of properties
are proposed off Clements Hall Way. Principle access points have been
designed in accordance with current standards and are considered to be
appropriate to serve the development both in terms of capacity and safety.
The Highway Authority has raised no objection on capacity grounds and
whilst originally objecting on safety grounds by reference to ‘rat running’
along Thorpe Road, this objection has since been retracted by the County
Council following the submission of an altered Master Plan to Rochford
District Council on 17 th November 2009. Rochford District Council has also
retracted the Fifth reason for refusal and this is detailed in the Highways
Statement of Common Ground.
2.6 The proposals include a relocation of the existing gas pipeline as identified
on the constraints plan in the Design and Access Statement. At the present
depth and pipe wall thickness, the HSE provide inner, middle and outer zone
distances of 9m, 75m and 105m wherein new development is strictly
controlled. For a development of this size (greater than 30 dwellings) the
HSE would class the site as Level 3 sensitivity and would Advise Against
(AA) development in zones 1 and 2. They do not advise against (DAA)
development in zone 3. As a consequence and under a no change scenario
development within 75m of the gas main in its current location and current
wall thickness would not be allowed. The current wall thickness averages at
9.52mm.
2.7 By relaying a pipe with wall thickness of 11.92mm and at between 1m and
1.3m in depth it would alter the development zone distances to 3m, 3m and
65m respectively allowing development up to 3m of the gas main. The
reason to relocate the main within the road network (as much as possible) is
to take advantage of the upgrading and locate the main to ensure effective
and efficient use is made of the site. The 3m easement for the new pipe can
be encompassed within the road width.
2.8 As part of the development proposals the Appellant will offer a package of
measures under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. By
the time of the Inquiry it is expected that a signed legal agreement will be in
place. It will include the provision of necessary infrastructure (either by
contribution or by providing a benefit in kind). It is anticipated that the
agreement will be between relevant parties but if this is not possible a
Unilateral Undertaking will be submitted.
2.9 The matters which are to be reserved include the following:
7

• the layout of the proposed urban extension, although indicative Plans
illustrate the amount of development and proposed uses;
• the scale of buildings proposed, although the application includes
illustrations and plans of the scale parameters.
• the appearance of buildings including the external design of the
buildings, albeit this application includes information on the design
approach to the buildings in relation to the indicative master plan
layout; and
• landscaping, although this application will provide details of the areas
to be set aside for amenity and play space and an indication of the
hard and soft landscaping to be employed for example through the
planting up of open space or the setting out of built open spaces.
2.10 The planning application, as submitted, was accompanied by:
• 6 copies of the completed planning application form and relevant
certificates.
• 6 copies of a site location plan with the site edged red.
• 6 copies of this Planning Statement.
• 6 copies of a Site Layout Master Plan.
• 6 copies of a Design and Access Statement
• 6 copies of a Statement of Community Involvement
• 6 copies of a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment
• 6 copies of a Transport Assessment
• 6 copies of Ecological Assessments
• 6 copies of a Tree Survey
• 6 copies of a soil contamination report
2.11 Of these submissions, the access points are illustrated on drawing D540-023
and D 540-31 of the Highways Statement of Common Ground. Improvements
to the Main Road/Hall Road/Rectory Road junction are detailed on drawing
D540-04. Improvements to the Cheery Orchard Way/Hall Road roundabout
are included at D540-33 of the Highways Statement of Common Ground. The
highway improvements will be subject to a Section 278 agreement controlled
by a Grampian style condition. It is the principle for development within the
extent of the red line on plan 09/114/1 and the site access plan D540-023
which are for determination in this appeal with all other plans and documents
forming explanatory and illustrative material that will be approved in due
course as reserved matters. It is agreed that the illustrative nature of the
plans and documents should not prevent planning conditions referring to
them where necessary. Details of the private drives associated with up to 15
dwellings proposed off Clement Hall Way have not been submitted with the
appeal on the basis that they are minor accesses the design of which can be
8

controlled by planning condition. This has been agreed with Mike Stranks of
RDC as being an appropriate approach.
2.12 Between Summer 2007 and Summer 2009 the appellant met with Sam
Hollingworth – Rochford District Council Planning Policy Manager on two
occasions to discuss the development potential of the site. These
discussions originally were set in the context of draft Core Strategy proposals
for some 400 dwellings at Hawkwell/Hockley. The discussions focused on the
base line research that was being undertaken, explaining the design
concepts for the site and seeking views on matters to be taken into account if
and when an application were submitted. At the meeting in August 2008
discussions centred on how 330 dwellings could be achieved on the site.
Prior to the application being submitted the appellant carried out a public
exhibition between 30 th July and 1 st August 2009. The results of which were
analysed and incorporated into the design evolution process. The planning
application was subject to 3 weeks of public consultation and responses were
received from various statutory consultees, comments from the District
Council’s own arboriculturalist and interim comments from the planning case
officer. These comments have not been reproduced as RDC has supplied
these as part of the appeal questionnaire. These comments resulted in a
number of further submissions, which sought to amend the application and
provide further detail. These included:
• A letter dated 22nd October 2009 confirming that the description of
development could omit the word “approximately” and replace it with
“up to.” This was requested by the Local Planning Authority in order to
set a maximum upper limit and to provide them with some flexibility in
determining final numbers.
• A cover letter dated 5th November 2009 which included an addendum
to the Design and Access Statement, a revised Master Plan and an
additional Landscape/ecology strategy. The material was submitted to
demonstrate that the site could be developed for up to 330 dwellings
whilst protecting trees of acknowledged importance. The information
also included changes to the design information in the Design and
Access Statement in order to overcome concerns raised by Essex
Design (the County Council’s Design Team).
• A letter dated 12 th November 2009 explaining in more detail the
elements covered in the addendum to the Design and Access
Statement and to clarify the relationship of plans within the Design and
Access Statement.
• A letter dated 12 th November 2009 setting out Heads of Terms for any
Section 106 Agreement.
• A letter dated 17 th November 20089 including a Revised Master Plan,
illustrating how changes to the management of the internal road layout
(not a matter for determination) could overcome the concerns raised
by the Highway Authority regarding rat running along Thorpe Road.
9

2.13 During the life of the planning application the appellant’s have worked hard to
ensure that objections raised have been reduced so that matters between the
Local Planning Authority and appellant are minimised. The two Statements of
Common Ground that accompanies the evidence also aims to reduce
matters considerably. However, no maters relating to housing land supply
could be agreed.
2.14 The Highway Authority are in support of the further revised Master Plan
submitted by letter dated 17 th November 2009. Although this new plan has
not been accepted as a formal amendment to the planning application by
RDC, Planning Committee were presented with a copy of the Plan and have
discussed it. The Plan relates to traffic management initiatives along Thorpe
Road and in view of these circumstances, and the potential confusion over
the various iterations of submitted Masterplans the Inspector is requested to
have regard to a combined Design and Access Statement and Master Plan
attached as Appendix 1 to the proof of evidence of Gareth Jones. Mike
Stranks at RDC has been appraised of the intention to present this to the
Inquiry and subject to it assisting in the smooth running of the Inquiry has no
objection. The purpose of the combined Design and Access statement is to
combine the original document with its addendum and also includes some
new information with regard to phasing, materials and the context of the
surroundings. Section 6 of the March 2010 guidance produced by DCLG
‘Guidance on information requirements and validation’ says at paragraph 115
that for outline applications it may be necessary to fix the parameters in a
Design and Access statement so that any future decisions are consistent with
it. This is why a combined Design and access is necessary here. It makes
the process simpler.
3 Reasons for Refusal and the Call-in by the Secretary of State
3.1 The Decision Notice accompanied the appeal bundle and included 5 reasons
for refusal. However, following submission of the appeal the Secretary of
State has recovered the appeal for determination. In view of this, it is
necessary to ensure that the evidence covers all aspects of the case and not
just those issues covered by RDC’s reasons for refusal. In my evidence I will
consider the wider implications of PPG2 and how that relates to this
particular site in terms of very special circumstances. I will consider the wider
material considerations that need to be weighed up in coming to a decision
on this appeal and the weight that must be attached to more recent approved
policy in EEP 2008, PPS3 and emerging policies in the EEP Review and
SCS. Although my evidence will have regard to reasons 1,2, and 5 of the
Decision Notice, I will also review Third Party objections and those issues
raised by Statutory Consultees. I will explain how these have been taken into
account or where conditions and obligations can overcome the concerns.
The Section 106 Agreement has been prepared and I will explain how the
obligations have been prepared and how these relate to Circular 05/05. My
colleague, Gareth Jones, will have regard to the urban design related
reasons for refusal, namely reason 3 and 4 and by reference to the combined
10

Design and Access Statement will be able to explain the general principles of
the scheme. In my view the evidence, together with the Statements of
Common Ground, should be sufficient scope for the Inquiry. The reasons for
refusal are:
i The proposed development of up to 330 residential dwellings and associated
infrastructure would not accord with the adopted development plan – the
Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006)- and would also not accord
with the emerging Core Strategy submission which is currently at an advanced
stage with submission to the government scheduled to occur before the end of
2009. There are no material planning considerations which indicate that this
proposal should be determined favourably and not in accordance with the
adopted development plan.
ii The Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) shows the site to be
within the Metropolitan Green Belt .Within the Green Belt as defined in Planning
Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts, planning permission will not be given for
inappropriate development, except in very special circumstances. The proposal
by way of the excessive number of dwellings over and above that advocated in
the emerging Rochford Core Strategy would result in inappropriate development
leading to the unnecessary urbanisation and over development of the site to the
detriment of the open character and appearance of the location.
iii Notwithstanding the indicative nature of the submitted layout, it is considered
the development would result in an overall form of development uncharacteristic
and poorly related to the surrounding development pattern. The lack of
integration by design and lack of sensitivity to the semi rural character of the
site locality would fail to become part of the greater area of which it would adjoin
to the detriment of the visual appearance and local distinctiveness of the area.
iv The proposal by way of the introduction of three storey built form in prominent
positions in the locality would provide a sharp contrast to the notable single
storey character of the Rectory Road and Thorpe Road areas, that would, if
allowed, prove over dominant and ill-fitting alongside established dwellings
failing to respect local distinctiveness to the detriment of the character and
appearance of the site locality.
v As far as can be determined from the submitted plans the proposal includes the
upgrade to adoptable standards of a section of Thorpe Road. This would
encourage the inappropriate use of Thorpe Road by vehicles wishing to bypass
the B1013/Rectory Road junction. The movement of vehicles associated with
this use would lead to conflict and interference with the passage of vehicles to
the detriment of that principle function and introduce a further point of possible
conflict, being detrimental to road safety.
3.2 It has been established through the Planning Statement of Common Ground
that RDC consider the site to be in a suitable location being within an area
identified for new housing development (paragraph 5.7 of the Planning
Statement of Common Ground). I therefore conclude that the site accords
with the strategy outlined at Policy H2 of the SCS. RDC accept that the
Green Belt boundary in this area will need to be altered in order to meet
emerging Core Strategy Policy (paragraph 5.5 of the Planning Statement of
Common Ground). The strategy for Green Belt release is articulated in
11

paragraph 4.6 of the SCS and is enabled by PPG2 (paragraph 2.6). RDC
accept that a 175 dwelling units in this area would be acceptable to them
(paragraph 5.9 of the Planning Statement of Common Ground). That said I
will need to review these issues to explain why the appeal proposals can be
approved in advance of the Core Strategy and why the appeal site is
consistent with RDC ‘south Hawkwel’ housing area.
4 The Appeal Site, Ownership and Locational Characteristics
4.1 The Planning Statement of Common Ground includes a full description of the
site and so is not repeated in this evidence.
4.2 The appeal site is owned by 17 different individuals and one company, in
terms of land ownership, they are as follows:-
• WH Royer (Building Contractors) Limited;
• the Hurley family (Martin Stephen Hurley and David Andrew Hurley);
• Doreen Beacham;
• the Ball Trustees - Michael John Ball, Pamela Jean Ball, Patricia Joan
Welton and Moira Eileen Green;
• Mr and Mrs John Sheaf;
• the Keyes family (Roger John Keyes, Graham Frederick Keyes and
Gwendoline Keyes);
• the House/Ellis Trust - George House, Dorothy House and Andrew Timothy
Ellis;
• Mr and Mrs Patrick Michael Boxell.
4.3 The owners have formed themselves into a Consortium for the purposes of
making decisions and this is coordinated by their solicitor Mr Hughes of GEPP
and Sons. The appellant has a conditional contract with the Consortium to
purchase the site upon grant of planning permission (either by application or
appeal) or following allocation of the site through a Local Development Plan
Document. The appellant therefore has the control to confirm delivery upon
successful grant of planning permission.
5 The Case for the Appellant - Introduction
5.1 There are five reasons for refusal contained within the Decision Notice. Of
these, reasons 3 and 4 relate specifically to matters of urban design and will be
considered by my colleague, Gareth Jones, in his evidence. The fifth reason for
refusal relates to concerns that the proposals would lead to rat running along
Thorpe Road in order to by pass the B1013/Rectory Road junction. This has
now been rescinded by Rochford District Council and is covered in the
Highways Statement of Common Ground.
5.2 As a consequence my evidence will consider reasons 1 and 2 of the Decision
Notice together with other aspects necessary to demonstrate why planning
permission ought to be granted for the appeal scheme. The case will focus on
12

identifying all the material considerations that are relevant in this particular
case. Whilst I accept that some of these considerations include matters which
planning policy requires some are not. It is these latter features which I will
identify which are not simply material considerations but comprise very special
circumstances justifying the grant of consent for development in the Green
Belt. I summarise the structure of the case in the following way:
5.3 I accept that the site is in the Green Belt and that the proposals constitute
inappropriate development as set out in paragraph 3.1 to 3.3 of PPG2. It will
therefore be necessary for me to identify the very special circumstances that
justify this particular appeal proposal and that these are sufficient to clearly
outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. I accept the onus is on the appellant to
satisfy the Inspector and ultimately the Secretary of State that very special
circumstances warrant the grant of consent now.I note that PPS1 provides a
mechanism for determining applications with regards to material considerations
I will do this in the following way.
1. I will first consider the relevance of the Rochford Replacement Local
Plan 2006, (RRLP 2006) examine the up to date policy situation and
explain why the policy circumstances justify Green Belt release and why
release can occur in advance of the Core Strategy. The housing
strategy embodied in the adopted development plan - RRLP 2006 is
now superseded by the EEP 2008 and the advice in PPS3 generally. In
particular I will reference paragraph 71 and 72 of PPS3 as one of the
reasons for submitting the application now. The other reasons include
the need to deliver housing in the context of the EEP 2008 minimum
requirements, the nature of emerging policy which supports the grant of
planning permission now and the need to deliver housing and affordable
housing to meet specific local needs. These policy documents post date
the RRLP 2006 and as such provide a sound policy basis for approving
this appeal scheme. These policies are a material consideration. The
policies in the EEP 2008 provide a clear strategy for delivering housing
in the period up to 2021 but also support consideration of a longer time
frame, up to 2031 where Green Belt review is considered necessary by
local authorities (see paragraph 3.32 and 3.33 of EEP 2008). Whilst it is
unclear whether these paragraphs relate to only strategic Green belt
reviews, it would be in the interests of flexible planning (PPS12,
paragraph 4.46) if RDC, having already embarked upon the process to
justify the release of Green Belt land at ‘south Hawkwell,’ also
considered the period to 2031. PPG2, at paragraph 2.12 makes it clear
that longer time periods for planning should be considered where Green
Belt land is proposed to be altered and given the EEP Review and
additional housing required up to 2031, it would seem sensible to
consider this appeal in that context particularly as RDC support
exceptional Green Belt review in this location. This is a material
consideration, which together with others forms a very special
circumstance.
13

2. RDC has produced a SCS which is due to be examined. RDC has
identified that exceptional circumstances exist to justify Green Belt
review and a location defined as ‘south Hawkwell’ has been identified to
deliver some housing on Green Belt land (Policy H2, H3 and
paragraph 4.16 of the SCS). Whilst the weight attached to the
strategies in the SCS will vary, I take the view that the broad principle of
Green Belt release is soundly based and will persist into the approved
Core Strategy as the evidence clearly demonstrates this is needed in
order to accommodate the relatively modest housing requirements of
the RSS. As a consequence it is material that emerging policy drawn up
by RDC supports housing development in the area in which the appeal
site lies. I say modest since it is plain from the review of the EEP which
is already underway that more housing is likely to be required in RDC's
area in the period to 2031. This evidence and emerging policy also
supports housing growth and reinforces the need for localised Green
Belt release. It is a material consideration in support of the appeal
scheme and this supports the very special circumstances case.
3. The appeal site is consistent with the ‘south Hawkwell’ designation in
Policy H2 of the SCS and is in a sustainable location that is suitable for
housing development. The assessment I have undertaken of potential
alternative sites section 7 of my evidence has led me to this view and I
consider that it is not necessary to wait until the Examination to ratify the
appeal site as being most suitable compared with other potential
options. Even though objections have been lodged to the site through
the SCS, that is the case for most of the Green Belt sites and so I do not
consider that the presence of objections should prevent a positive
outcome. Indeed, the assessment criteria used by RDC at paragraph
4.16 of the SCS and in PPG2 are material and if applied correctly then it
is possible to draw conclusions on the suitability of the site. This is a
material consideration in support of development of the site and in terms
of development in advance of the Core Strategy. It would be a material
consideration that, with others is a very special circumstance.
4. The area in which the appeal site is located has experienced alterations
to the Green Belt in the past through Local Plan Reviews. Planning
permissions have also been granted for development in this area.
Although this appeal will not change the Green Belt boundary – that is a
matter for a local development document – a new boundary can readily
be defined which accords with PPG2 requirements in paragraph 1.5. It
would result in the housing adjacent to Clements Hall Way and the main
part of the settlement to the west joining but these areas are functionally
part of the same settlement anyway. In addition, the Green Belt in this
area is principally concerned with preventing the coalescence of
Southend on Sea with settlements in Rochford and from settlements
within Rochford coalescing. It is material that, although the proposals
will result in inappropriate development within the Green Belt, the long
term impacts on the Green Belt, particularly in terms of its function, are
not altered such that planning permission should be withheld on these
14

grounds. This is a material consideration that I consider should be taken
as very special circumstances.
5. It is the appellants case that there is an acute shortfall in housing land
supply in Rochford District. I will examine the housing land supply and
paragraph 71 of PPS3 in particular and comment how this constitutes
very special circumstances. The scale of the deficit of housing land
supply (1.07 years) is, in itself, a material consideration which we
advance as constituting, on its own, very special circumstance. In
Rochford it results in higher house prices, limited housing choice, and
potentially greater distances to travel for those who work but cannot live
locally. I will review this in subsequent sections of this evidence. This is
not to say that housing land supply shortfall in every case is a very
special circumstance but given the acute scale of the deficit in Rochford
it is.
6. I note the advice at paragraph 2.6 of PPG2 in relation to whether there
are development opportunities within urban areas that would be
sufficient to obviate the need for a Green Belt sites. Whilst this relates to
Green Belt review processes that RDC have already gone through, I
consider that it is relevant to consider available brownfield options. The
lack of suitable, available and achievable brownfield sites within the
urban area to meet a 5 year land supply should form a very special
circumstance now. The in principle release of the Green Belt sites in
SCS is premised on the conclusion already drawn by RDC that there are
not sufficient sites in the urban area, or outside the urban area and
outside the Green Belt to avoid the need for Green Belt releases.
7. Linked to this part of the case is the limited affordable housing that has
been delivered by RDC. The need has been identified as being 131
dwellings per annum in paragraph 4.30 of the SCS but because most
of the sites that have come forward recently have been small windfall
sites, very few affordable housing units have been delivered. I have
estimated that since 2001 there is a backlog of 440 dwelling units. Such
a shortfall has severe social implications if concealed households
continue to exist in overcrowded homes. Although provision of
affordable housing is a normal policy requirement, the particular
circumstances in Rochford mean the consequences of the failure of
providing affordable housing is a material consideration capable of
amounting to the very special circumstances. I will refer to evidence to
illustrate this point.
8. The outline scheme would be capable of being controlled so as to
ensure the delivery a of good mix of housing which meets local needs.
As per the recent advice in the DCLG guidance on requirements and
validation. Although in outline, the quality and character of the
development meets the tests in paragraph 69 of PPS3. Whilst this is a
normal requirement of policy as noted in paragraph 69 of PPS3, in this
particular case the ability to deliver habitat enhancements through active
management and improved bio-diversity is a material consideration that
15

meets the tests in paragraph 12 and 14 of PPS9. Whilst this is a
normal policy requirement the nature of the habitat enhancements will
be a material consideration. The medical facilities would also meet a
wider deficiency and are a material consideration.
9. The contributions and obligations to be made in the Section 106
Agreement flow from the impacts of the scheme and are compliant with
Circular 05/05. They are contributions to deliver particular emerging and
adopted policy requirements and are necessary to make the
development acceptable. They would not be a very special
circumstance.
5.4 Whether or not an appeal scheme constitutes very special circumstances
depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. However, I have
identified some appeal decisions that demonstrate that significant housing land
supply deficits have been found to warrant very special circumstances thus
leading to a grant of consent for inappropriate development. I attach at
Appendix 8(i to iii) three decision letters which relate to very special
circumstances and what Inspectors and the Secretary of State consider to be
material in that context. Whilst it is clear that each case must be judged on its
merits, these cases provide useful comparison and I review these below.
5.5 The first decision (Appendix 8i), ref: APP/G5180/A/07/2043219, relates to a
site in the London Borough of Bromley. I include the Inspectors report and
Secretary of States decision. At page 49 of the Inspector’s report to the
Secretary of State are the conclusions as to very special circumstances and
the way in which development within the Green Belt should be judged. In
paragraph 288 the Inspector concludes that a shortfall in housing land supply
was so serious in the Borough that it constituted very special circumstances to
justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 289 of the
decision considers the way in which affordable housing should be considered
as a very special circumstance. The Secretary of State agreed that housing
land supply shortfalls are a very special circumstance particularly where there
are no sequential preferable alternatives. This is the case here as my
assessment demonstrates that RDC rely on small scale sites from the SHLAA
and potential allocations which have no reasonable prospect of being delivered
in the next 5 years. In addition, it is noted that where there is no prospect of
land delivery to meet a 5 year supply this weighs in favour of housing land
supply being a very special circumstance (see my Appendix 9). It is clear that
provision of affordable housing is a matter that can add significant weight to the
very special circumstances.
5.6 I also attach at Appendix 8ii an appeal decision for a site in Billericay, ref:
APP/V1505/A/08/2083156. The decision rehearses the important Green Belt
functions of the site and at paragraph 18 onwards considers very special
circumstances. The housing land supply situation was reviewed by this
Inspector at paragraph 23 to 24. Importantly at paragraph 32 the Inspector
concluded that there would be no harm to the purposes for including land
within the Green Belt. In this case the Inspector concluded at paragraph 37 that
a shortfall in housing land supply on its own was not sufficient to trigger very
16

special circumstances but the implication is that it could and certainly with other
reasons be sufficient. My evidence relating to the EEP 2008, emerging Core
Strategy, the suitability of the site in relation to the Green Belt purpose, housing
land supply, affordable housing provision and other material considerations
must therefore be balanced in the round to judge whether very special
circumstances exist.
5.7 The final decision I attach (Appendix 8iii) is a Secretary of States decision
relating to a site in Nottinghamshire ref: APP/P3040/A/08/2083092. At
paragraph 27 the Secretary of State notes that the urgent need for housing
land, including affordable housing, is a very significant factor weighing in favour
of the appeal. It is not sufficient on its own though to constitute very special
circumstances. The Secretary of State then outlines the other material
considerations: at paragraph 28 the suitability of the site in relation to policy, at
paragraph 29 housing delivery and the delivery of the Core Strategy,
paragraph 30 and the merits of the new Green Belt boundary, paragraph 31
and the significant open space. In my evidence I have covered the emerging
policy support for the site, why there is no other suitable site available now to
meet a housing land supply shortfall, whether the purposes of including land
within the Green Belt would be harmed, where a new Green Belt boundary
would appropriately be drawn and the importance of other material
considerations such as the proposed medical centre and open space.
6. Planning Policy and the Release of Green Belt Land
6.1 In the first sentence of the first reason for refusal RDC say that the proposal is
contrary to the adopted development plan. I acknowledge that the site is
located within the Metropolitan Green Belt as set out in the Rochford
Replacement Local Plan 2006 (“RRLP”) and is not allocated for residential
development. In this sense I acknowledge the appeal proposals do not accord
with the development plan However, I am conscious of the advice in PPS1.
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Paragraph 10 of PPS1 states that:
“local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance
with the statutory development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.”
6.2 The advice at paragraph 10 of PPS1 explains that one such material
consideration will be whether the plan policies are up to date or relevant.
Importantly, the advice is that where there is a conflict between policies in a
Regional Spatial Strategy or a development plan document, “the most recent
policy will take precedence.” Paragraph 13 of PPS1 also states that the Courts
have held that the Government’s own statements of planning policy can be
material planning considerations – this includes letters, Ministerial Statements
and guidance produced by Department of Communities and Local Government
(DCLG). Paragraph 14 of PPS1 also explains that emerging policy can be
material considerations, however, in this case the weight of objection is an
17

important factor when considering the weight attached to the SCS. I also note
in paragraph 15 of PPS1 that the Government considers that where policies
pull in different directions, material considerations are important in determining
the merits of a scheme. Since the adoption of the RRLP on 16 th June 2006 a
number of policy documents have been issued including PPS3 (November
2006), and the East of England Plan 2008 (EEP 2008). In addition, RDC has
begun preparation of a Core Strategy, which began in 2007 and is at SCS
stage.
6.3 In presenting my evidence I am of the view that the up to date policy situation
is sufficient to be a material consideration and that the housing strategy in the
EEP 2008 represents a ‘step change’ that is a very special circumstance
justifying the release of this site.
PPG2
6.4 The RRLP was adopted in 2006 and in view of the sites Green Belt status
PPG2 is relevant if the Secretary of State is to grant planning permission in
advance of the Core Strategy. The purpose of including land within the Green
Belt is set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 and the purposes are to:
o check unrestricted sprawl
o prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
o safeguard the countryside from encroachment
o preserve the setting and historic character
o to assist in urban regeneration
6.5 Paragraph 2.1 of PPG2 accepts that the protection of Green Belts must be
ensured as far as can be seen ahead. This is important in the context of long
term planning in the Green Belt. Paragraph 2.2 to 2.5 sets the context for
designating Green Belts through Regional and Structure Plans. In this case
there is an up to date Regional Plan, which changes the circumstances of the
District in terms of housing land requirements and supports a process of
looking ahead to 2031 (paragraph 3.32 of EEP 2008). There has also been the
publication of PPS3 which provides a new policy basis for considering how
practitioners deal with housing applications in advance of LDD’s. Most recently,
there is the emerging Core Strategy, which introduces new policies to deliver
EEP requirements.
6.6 Paragraph 2.6 of PPG2 confirms that alterations to the Green Belt should only
occur in exceptional circumstances. The guidance is that if such an alteration is
proposed then the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority
has fully considered the options for development within the urban areas
(paragraph 2.6 of PPG2). Although this is a planning appeal and not
connected with the alteration of a development plan, a SCS has been
produced and includes proposals for a localised Green Belt Review. I consider
it necessary to have regard to this advice in order to demonstrate that there are
limited development opportunities within the urban area that are able to deliver
a sufficient quantum of necessary housing before Green Belt sites are
considered. PPG2 does not provide advice on what is considered to be
18

easonable as a development opportunity within urban areas or the way such
opportunities should be brought forward. In my view, it is logical to have regard
to PPS3 advice relating to what constitutes a deliverable site (paragraph 54 to
57) to examine whether the appeal proposal should be refused in favour of
deliverable opportunities within the urban area. I undertake this assessment at
Appendix 9.
6.7 In this instance the Council notes that Green Belt review has been thoroughly
tested through issues and options and preferred options stages (paragraph
1.189 of the Committee Report). After this extensive testing the Council has
concluded that Green Belt review is necessary to deliver EEP housing
requirements as early as 2015 in the case of land to the south of Hawkwell.
This conclusion is clearly articulated at paragraph 4.16 of the SCS as quoted
by me below. In the light of my assessment of the historic origins of the Green
Belt in this area (see paragraph 6.24 to 6.27) and my review of EEP 2008
policy, I conclude that sufficient assessment has been carried out to establish
that the strategy of rolling back of the Green Belt to accommodate new housing
growth is necessary in principle in this area. Indeed in my housing land supply
analysis I show that it is likely that more land will be required to come forward
since I question the deliverability of some of the Council's occupied
employment sites, especially those in multiple ownerships. Given the acute
shortage of land for housing and the lack of any preferable Green Belt
alternatives I conclude that there is no reason to delay the grant of consent in
the context of the appeal. I include as Appendix 9 my assessment of housing
land supply and development opportunities which explains why I do not
consider there to be sufficient development opportunities within the urban area
to meet EEP annualised minimum requirements expressed as a 5 year supply.
I therefore conclude that a positive appeal decision can be made in advance of
LDD adoption in accordance with PPG2.
6.8 Paragraph 2.8 to 2.10 of PPG2 advises on the criteria for creating Green Belt
boundaries. The advice is that Green Belts should be several miles wide, be
clearly defined along regularly recognisable features such as roads, streams or
woodland edges and should take into account the need to promote sustainable
patterns of development. In my assessment I have clearly set out the case for
a Green Belt review that has regard to the period up to 2031 as supported by
EEP 2008 and the Review of the EEP. In my assessment of the suitability of
the site later on in my evidence, I will have regard to these criteria to show that
the long term implications of granting planning permission would not undermine
Green Belt objectives. In my view PPG2 guidance provides the policy
framework for judging where Green Belt boundaries could be drawn and my
evidence on this is intended to provide the Secretary of State with an
explanation as to the implications of allowing this inappropriate housing
development.
6.9 In relation to paragraph 2.12 of PPG2 relating to safeguarded land, I note that
time-scales which are longer than normal (PPS12 advances 15 years) are
advised where Green Belt boundaries are affected. RDC have not looked
beyond 15 years despite the evidence in EEP 2008 and its review published in
2009.
19

6.10 In the context of the Site it is clear that the criteria in PPG2, and the reasons for
the Green Belt in this area that were articulated in the early 1960,s (see my
paragraph 6.23 to 6.26) together with more recent policies requiring a step
change in housing delivery, set the policy context for alteration of the Green
Belt in advance of either a Core Strategy or Site Allocation Document being
approved.
PPS3: Housing
6.11 The RRLP was adopted in June 2006, whereas PPS3 was issued in
November 2006. As a consequence the adopted RRLP policies do not have
regard to the latest advice and I shall examine this below.
6.12 The overall objective in PPS3 is that the planning system should deliver high
quality housing, that is mixed in terms of its size, price and tenure, meets a
need and demand, is in suitable locations and responds flexibly to the supply
of land (see paragraph 10 of PPS3). The saved policies of RRLP 2006 do
not seek to achieve these objectives. Policy HP8 of the RRLP 2006 relating
to affordable housing does not reflect the needs set out in the Thames
Gateway South Essex Sub-Regional Housing Strategy 2008-11. The saved
policy does not seek to meet the target of 35% affordable housing in Policy
H2 of the EEP 2008. I also find that Policy HP6 of the RRLP 2006 does not
fully deliver the requirements in PPS3 for a sustainable development. PPS3
sets out several key principles. These include adopting sustainable
development, collaborative working with other authorities and establishing
the housing market as set out in Regional Spatial Strategies (“RSS”). The
RRLP 2006 is not founded on this approach.
6.13 PPS3 explains that the level of housing provision in each authority area is
expected to be established by a strategic evidence-based approach that
involves local, sub regional, regional and national stakeholders. Importantly
paragraph 34 of PPS3 states that RSS should set out the level of housing
provision for the region that enables local authorities to plan for a 15 year
period. This policy is reinforced at paragraph 53 of PPS3 as it relates to the
local level. Clearly the adopted RRLP 2006 does not do this and as such if
the evidence points towards the need for Green Belt release now for new
housing to meet RSS housing requirements then this, with other material
considerations, is sufficient to depart from RRLP 2006.
6.14 Paragraphs 40 to 48 of PPS3 set out more detailed advice on housing
delivery in relation to sites required to meet a housing need. Paragraph 42
says that “local planning authorities should not refuse applications for
planning permission simply on the grounds that the preparation or review of
site allocation development plan documents would be prejudiced.” This
approach is reinforced by paragraph 71 and 72 of PPS3. In my view
because of the stage reached with the strategy of the SCS, and in view of the
out of date nature of the RRLP 2006, the granting of the appeal scheme
20

would not prejudice the preparation of a site allocations document or the
Green Belt policies, which apply.
6.15 In deciding planning applications paragraph 71 is especially relevant to this
appeal and I will review this later on in my evidence. That said, paragraph 71
is governed by the 5 criteria identified in paragraph 69 that authorities should
have regard to. These relate to ensuring housing quality, appropriate housing
mix, site suitability (sustainability), efficient use of land and compliance with
the spatial vision, and issues linked to need and demand. The existence of
these criteria, in my view, enables decisions to be made in advance of the
adoption of a LDD whether a site is in the Green Belt or without as per
paragraph 71 of PPS3.
PPS12: Creating Strong safe and prosperous communities through Local
Spatial Planning
6.16 Paragraph 4.53 is particularly important as it sets out the Government’s
obligation to increase the long term housing land supply and affordability.
Clearly Core Strategies which do not meet this advice should be withdrawn
6.17 I note at paragraph 4.44 to 4.46 of PPS12 that the effectiveness of Core
Strategies is important. A strategy is considered ineffective if it cannot deal with
changing circumstances over a longer term timeframe – 15 years or more if
necessary (paragraph 4.46). In this instance Green Belt review is earmarked
for South Hawkwell in the SCS in the period up to 2015 and in Policy H3 Green
Belt review is considered for only the 4 years between 2021 and 2025.
However, in order to plan effectively in relation to Green Belts, and given the
policy support for the process of identifying land to 2031 in EEP 2008 and the
evidence in the EEP Review, Green Belt review in this area should consider a
longer period. In any event the SCS should consider how the preferred housing
locations can release sufficient housing to ensureeffective and efficient use of
identified Green Belt sites (the appeal site).
PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
6.18 The Government’s prime objective is to conserve and enhance biological
diversity. At paragraph 1(vi) the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent
harm to issues of acknowledged importance. Mitigation of any harm is
therefore a pre-requisite of any positive decision on an appeal or application.
The advice encourages the conservation of important habitats and at
paragraph 12 the advice is that networks of habitats should be created to
provide connections for migrating species. Such networks should be
maintained, strengthened and integrated with development. Paragraph 14
advises local authorities to maximise opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity.
In this particular case a planning statement of common ground has
been prepared which sets out the broad extent of the proposals for the ecology
and particularly the woodland environment. In my evidence I will explain that
the integration of the existing ecological networks within the site contributes
towards a development on bio-diversity grounds but also produces a
development pattern which relates well to the surrounding countryside and
21

which has regard to the wider Green Belt beyond the site in areas where these
considerations are paramount.
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
6.19 This document was published in December 2009 and is material to the extent
that it is likely to alter the extent to which RDC can rely on redeveloping its
existing employment sites for alternate uses as set out in the SCS. In this
context making the most efficient and effective use of sites within the Green
Belt is important and I need to refer to it.
6.20 The Government’s objectives are for sustainable economic growth (paragraph
9). The bullet points at paragraph 10 then explain that reducing the need to
travel by car is a component of this objective. The policy encourages economic
growth and redevelopment of town centres uses providing these are within
existing centres. The advice of what constitutes an appropriate town centre use
is given at paragraph 7 of this PPS. Whilst I note that the current SCS
envisages a significant amount of residential development as part of the
regeneration initiatives for Eldon Way Industrial Estate adjacent to Hockley
Town Centre, the publication of this PPS would require that strategy to be reexamined.
The requirement is that a sound evidence base must be employed
to plan positively (Policy EC1). The SCS for its employment sites needs to be
considered again in the context of this new PPS and this assessment will
ultimately have an impact on the amount of Green Belt land necessary for
housing development.
6.21 Policy EC2 provides direct policy advice on planning for sustainable economic
growth. Criterion a) seeks a positive approach through identifying priority areas
where there is deprivation and where regeneration is urgently required. This is
not the case with the Eldon Way Industrial area. Criterion b) seeks support for
existing business sectors and planning for their expansion and contraction.
Eldon Way Industrial area is well used with nearly all of the 50 plus units in
occupation. A strategy for their removal would be at odds with PPS4. Criterion
c) seeks to ensure Greenfield sites are not released unnecessarily, and this
requires that the forthcoming Examination test the merits of redeveloping a
large number of employment sites in Rochford for residential purposes and the
allocation of Green Belt land elsewhere for employment. Whilst I understand
that a large employment area adjacent to Southend Airport has been granted
permission recently, this does not mean that these issues should not be tested.
Importantly, criterion f) places significance on sustainable transport and other
infrastructure - although in the context of new development. In the case of
Eldon Way Industrial area, the existing sustainable location next to the railway
station makes it a highly sustainable site where retained employment uses
should occur. Criterion i) only encourages alternative uses if it is on vacant or
derelict buildings. This is not the case at the Eldon Way site, Rawreth Lane or
part of the Star Lane estate at Great Wakering. Indeed this is not the case with
some of the SHLAA sites identified at Appendix D. Clearly RDC’s reliance on
redeveloping employment sites is not a robust approach and certainly not an
approach that should form the cornerstone of their evidence at this Inquiry.
22

6.22 Policy EC3 sets out a series of policy statements about how centres should be
planned. This policy is controlled by paragraph 7 of PPS4. In this context it is
clear that significant introductions of residential uses into a town centre are not
supported by Government. Indeed this town centre policy also applies to
extensions to town centres (EC3.1(bii)), paragraph 7 also controls the type of
uses that would form an extension to town centres. The Council’s strategy for
the Eldon Way Industrial Estate adjacent to Hockley Town Centre, requires
further testing.
6.23 Policy EC3.1 (b) sets the parameters for a hierarchy of centres. In this appeal
the provision of a small local centre which provides the opportunity for a small
retail store, medical centre and pharmacy is of a size commensurate with
meeting the needs of the appeal site and the immediate housing to the east of
Clements Hall Way and those houses to the north and west of the site. The
facilities for shopping would meet only daily shopping needs to top up weekly
shopping activities. The local centre would provide some basic job
opportunities and I detail these at 16.14 of my evidence. It is compliant with
PPS4.
Rochford District Replacement Local Plan 2006 and Green Belt
6.24 The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt as noted in the RRLP. However,
the origins of the Green Belt in this area is not straightforward. The Rochford
Local Plan, which was adopted in 1988 (see Appendix 1), explains on page 14
that the Green Belt in this region originally only covered areas around Basildon
and Billericay. However, an extension to the Green Belt was proposed in 1961
to cover much of South Essex including most of Rochford District (and the
appeal site) apart from the eastern most area. This policy intent was noted in
the Approved Review of the Development Plan in 1976. However, the South
Essex extension of the Green Belt was not formally fixed until the approval of
the Essex Structure Plan (1982).
6.25 On page 15 of the 1988 Local Plan, paragraph 3.32 explains that the purpose
of Green Belt in the area was to prevent the Northward expansion of Southend
on Sea, to prevent the coalescence of settlements within Rochford with
Southend on Sea and to prevent the coalescence of towns and villages within
Rochford. I enclose relevant extracts of the Adopted Local Plan 1988 and the
Proposals Maps at Appendix 1.
6.26 I also note at paragraph 3.3.4 of the Local Plan 1988 that the Secretary of
State in approving the Essex Structure Plan in 1962 commented specifically on
the nature of the Inner Green Belt boundary. The Local Plan 1988 notes that
around towns and villages depicted on Proposals Map A and B, the Secretary
of State in 1962 explained that he did not consider that a Green Belt should be
used to give temporary protection to land which may be required for
development after 1990. As a consequence Rochford District Council, at the
time of the Local Plan 1988, allocated land in the vicinity of the appeal site for
long term development (see Policy H8 and the Proposals Map at Appendix 1
23

elating to land primarily for residential use). I draw a number of conclusions
from this:
1. that the Inner Green Belt boundary in the vicinity of the appeal site is
principally concerned with preventing the coalescence of Hockley and
Hawkwell with Southend on Sea and the eastwards coalescence of Rochford
and Ashingdon with Hockley and Hawkwell.
2. that the area in the vicinity of the appeal site has been subject to change
in the form of new housing development and new leisure centre development
in the past and that the intention of the Secretary of State as far back as the
early 1960’s has been to enable some use of the Inner Green Belt in this area
for new housing development where a requirement is identified.
3. that development of the appeal site is a continuation of that well founded
long term strategy and sets the context for the way in which the appeal scheme
should be considered.
6.27 In the vicinity of the appeal site, the RRLP retains the majority of the Inner
Green Belt boundary that was noted in the Rochford Local Plan 1988 apart
from the Clements Hall Leisure Centre and car park which is included in the
Green Belt.
6.28 The Secretary of State has saved many of the policies of the RRLP and these
are a Core Document. The Secretary of State has not saved Policy R1 relating
to development within the Green Belt. This policy presumes against
inappropriate development unless very special circumstances exist and reflects
Government advice. Policy HP1 and HP2 are saved and it is presumably
because the housing strategy runs from 1996 to 2011 and are important in the
context of delivering the site allocations of which only one remains
undeveloped – the employment site adjacent to the appeal site (Policy HP2(v)
of the RRLP 2006). The RRLP 2006 includes a requirement of 3050 dwellings
between 1996 and 2011. This was an annualised requirement of 203 dwellings
per year as opposed to the EEP 2008 requirement for 2001 to 2021 of 230
dwellings per annum. I conclude that given the current date the RRLP policies
relating to housing provision, that they have a very limited lifespan and the
policies of EEP 2008 represent a step change in delivery the RRLP 2006
housing strategy is superseded.
6.29 Policy HP3 and HP4 relating to density and design and access statements are
not saved. As such the requirements of PPS3 would now apply. The remaining
policies in the schedule are relevant and relate to development control criteria
that continue to be necessary to the determination of planning applications and
appeals.
East of England Plan, EEP Review and Green Belt Review
6.30 The EEP post dates the RRLP and is material to this appeal. It sets a new
framework for growth and as such the strategy supersedes many of the saved
policies of the RRLP in my view. It provides policy advice on releasing Green
24

Belt land but does not supersede PPG2. This is important as I consider this to
be a reason for setting aside some of the Green Belt and housing policies of
the RRLP 2006 in favour of more recent and emerging strategies.
6.31 The EEP 2008 reflects the Housing Green Paper, Homes for the Future: More
Affordable, More Sustainable, July 2007. The key priorities in the Green Paper
were to increase the levels of new provision to 240,000 additional homes per
annum nationally by 2016 and increase the levels of socially rented and low
cost ownership. The EEP 2008 notes at paragraph 5.2 that areas around
London experience most pressure for housing. Affordability is also noted as
being acute in coastal and rural areas. The Plan is premised on an annual
average of at least 26,830 net additional dwellings a year from 2006 onwards
which I take to be a starting point (paragraph 5.3). Paragraph 5.4 asks local
authorities to plan for an upward trajectory of house completions for 2006 to
2021. As soon as possible the annualised requirement should be met and then
any shortfalls should be added. An important policy statement is at the end of
this paragraph – policies in existing plans should not constrain inappropriately
the build-up of the house building rate. This indicates that decisions in advance
of development plan documents should be considered favourably.
6.32 The Panel Report, which was published in June 2006, noted a series of
population and household projections at paragraph 7.3 (see Appendix 2).
These estimates predicted between a 9% and 14% growth in population
between 2001 and 2021 and between 18% and 25% growth in household
numbers between 2001 and 2021 for the Region. At paragraph 7.11 the Panel
concluded that an upper dwelling requirement figure was difficult to identify
given the nature and influences on the regional housing market but accepted
that a ‘step change’ in housing provision was necessary. The proposed
478,000 net additional dwellings in the Draft EEP published in 2004 was
considered too low and that a figure in excess of 500,000 net additional
dwellings or around 20% above previous plans was more appropriate. The
EEP 2008 now sets a minimum of 508,000 net additional dwellings which when
offset against those already built in the period 2001 to 2006 produces an
annualised minimum requirement of 26,830 dwellings per annum. In relation to
Rochford District, the Panel anticipated no change from the 2004 draft EEP
and supported 4,600 net additional dwellings for the period and this minimum
requirement appears in the EEP 2008.
6.33 Policy H1 of the EEP 2008 explains that a minimum of 4,600 new dwellings
needs to be provided in Rochford District up to 2021. The implication is that
more should be achieved if possible and this ties in with the Panel Report’s
conclusion that a ‘step change’ in delivery is required and that it is difficult to
identify an upper threshold. I consider the implications of this in my Appendix 9.
Paragraph 3.32 of EEP 2008 explains that where Green Belt review is due to
take place (as considered necessary by RDC) the objective should be to avoid
further review before 2031 i.e., plan for housing growth up to 2031. This
paragraph of the EEP 2008 goes on to explain that when development plan
documents are reviewed the growth rates will be based the same rates for
2021 to 2031 should be the same as the average between 2001 and 2021.
Whilst this may apply to strategic Green Belt reviews and Broxbourne, it does
25

provide an important context for this appeal and the SCS time period. This
paragraph together with PPG2 and PPS12 enables local authorities to consider
growth commensurate with sustainable development beyond 2021 and the
evidence is sufficient in my view to allow consideration up to 2031. Paragraph
3.33 goes on to encourage safeguarding of sites to deliver growth in the period
2021 to 2031. In this context, I submit that the appeal Inspector needs to
consider the longer term since this is important in the consideration of Green
Belt land.
6.34 The EEP 2008 is being reviewed to extend the period to 2031 and this process
was begun in the Autumn of 2009 (see my Appendices 3i to 3iii). This is partly
in response to the requirement that RSS should plan for at least 20 years,
whereas the time left is now only 11 years. This review will be carried out by
the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) and will consider new
population and housing trajectory data. The Sub Area Profiles published as
part of the initial consultation in the Autumn of 2009 envisage testing housing
growth by reference to 4 scenarios. These are:
• Scenario 1 - 26,060 new homes p/a – continuation of existing target and
broadly based on the views of local councils in the region (paragraph 3.14 of
‘2031 scenarios for housing and economic growth – Appendix 3ii). It rolls
forward the amount and distribution of growth in line with the current EEP
2008. The Panel, as they discuss at 7.11 in my Appendix 2, noted that whilst
the population forecasts could never be accurate they are the best available
sources of data. The Panel did not alight on any particular population forecast
but of the 4 data sources in paragraph 7.3 of the Panel report at Appendix 2,
the range considered was between 9% and 14% growth. At this range
Rochford would be maintained at a minimum of 5,000 net additional dwellings
between 2011 and 2031.
• Scenario 2 - 30,100 new homes p/a – promotes growth in areas identified by
the Regional Scale Settlement Study published in January 2009. Chelmsford
would grow to be a regional city, three medium-sized new settlements of up to
20,000 homes located in Central Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and either
Uttlesford or Braintree – and smaller increases in Peterborough, Suffolk and
the rest of Essex. Rochford would be maintained at 5,000 net additional
dwellings between 2011 and 2031.
• Scenario 3 – 29,970 new homes p/a – promotes growth around successful
business locations where new jobs are attracting workers. Additional growth
is spread over many districts but with a particular focus on Hertfordshire,
south Essex and Cambridgeshire. Rochford would be maintained at 5,000 net
additional dwellings between 2011 and 2031.
• Scenario 4 – 33,650 new homes p/a – promotes growth where households are
projected to grow. It is based on long-term past trends and includes data such
as such people living longer and people moving into the region. It projects
forward the Government’s own household data and at paragraph 3.6 of
Appendix 3iii a 165 population increase is envisaged. This scenario focuses
the majority of additional growth in Hertfordshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk.
26

Rochford’s requirement would be 8,000 net additional homes between 2011
and 2031.
6.35 Scenarios 2-4 will test the Government’s view that more homes are needed in
the region although EERA has already rejected the highest end of the range of
new homes being proposed by the Government – about 39,000 new homes a
year that was originally put to EERA.
6.36 I include extracts of the Information Pack, Scenarios for Growth and Sub-Area
Profile at Appendix 3i to 3iii. This explains that under Scenario 1-3 some 5,000
net additional dwellings would be required between 2011 and 2031 in
Rochford, which is 250 dwellings per annum. Scenario 4 envisages 8,000 net
additional dwellings in Rochford, which is 400 dwellings per annum.
6.37 It is clear from this EEP Review that even with scenario 1-3 the annualised
housing requirement for Rochford together with shortfalls in housing provision
revealed in RDC Annual Monitoring Reports will result in a need for more
housing than previously considered necessary by Rochford in their emerging
Core Strategy. In fact, the reason for the early Review is to consider additional
housing in the whole of the Region and this could include more housing for
Rochford District. Any assessment of this appeal must be considered in the
context of ‘minimum’ housing requirements of Policy H1 of the EEP 2008, and
the most likely prospects for growth in the longer term as a result of the EEP
Review.
An Assessment of the EEP Review based on the AMR 2009 and other up to
date data
1 Net Completions 2001 to 2009 (RDC’s AMR 2009)
1531
2 Assessment at A9.4 of Appendix 9 for 2009 to 2010 84
3 Total Net completions 2001 to 2010 1615
4 Shortfall in the period 2006 to 2010 (Appendix 9)
196
5 Requirement for period 2010-2011 (assume
250pa as per current EEP 2008)
250
6 Net additional homes needed between 2011 and 2031 – 5,000
scenario 1-3 of EEP Review (250 dw pa)
7 Sub Total required for period 2010 to 2031 (4+5+6) 5,446
8 Annualised requirement 2010 to 2031 260
6.38 If scenario 4 were adopted then 8,446 dwellings would be required over 21
years from 2010 to 2031 which is 402 dwellings per annum.
6.39 I conclude that the EEP Review will inevitably require additional housing to be
provided in the District that is beyond that anticipated in the current Annual
Monitoring Report and beyond that anticipated in the SCS which is premised
on delivering 4,600 dwellings up to 2021 plus an annualised rate of 250
dwellings per annum in the period 2021 to 2026 (see SCS Policy H3). It is
clearly important to consider the appeal in this context.
27

6.40 I note that paragraph 4.42 of the Sub Area Profile sets out the availability of
previously developed land in Rochford to meet potential housing requirements.
The amount and suitability of land is limited in Rochford District as noted in the
accompanying table to paragraph 4.42. Clearly the evidence points towards
additional housing required on Green Belt sites such as that which is the
subject of this appeal.
6.41 Notwithstanding this assessment, RDC have concluded that Green Belt
releases are exceptionally required (paragraph 4.16 of SCS) to deliver the EEP
2008 housing requirement.
EEP 2008 Policy
6.42 Policies SS1 to SS8 of the EEP are relevant as they explain how the ‘step
change’ in housing delivery is to take place. I enclose all relevant policies at
Appendix 4. Policy SS1 sets out the broad principles for achieving sustainable
development, including the need to provide homes for all in sustainable
locations. When I review the suitability of the Site later in my evidence I will
directly consider this issue. The EEP strategy is developed further in Policy
SS2 where it is acknowledged that the target is to secure 60% of development
on previously developed land. This target is preceded by criteria that require
new development to contribute towards creating sustainable communities.
Whilst using previously developed land is a priority, the criteria of SS2
emphasise the need to maintain an adequate supply of land in the right
locations for development consistent with Policy H1 of the EEP. In my view
this provides the necessary guidance for local authorities to review their
development plans and identify development on Green Belt sites where
necessary in order to maintain the supply of housing land. It also provides the
framework for appeal decisions.
6.43 Policy SS3 of the EEP identifies key centres for development and change and
does not relate to Rochford District. However, in other areas, Policy SS4
explains that Local Development Documents (“LDD”) should define the
approach to development in towns and rural areas. In my view this policy
stance sets a framework for local authorities to determine the most appropriate
strategy for their areas. As will be explained below, RDC’s approach is to move
away from the existing Green Belts identified in the RRLP and focus on making
best use of previously developed land for new development together with new
housing on Green Belt sites. Under Regional Policy the Government notes the
“acute shortage of affordable housing in many rural areas” (paragraph 3.20 of
EEP 2008). Clearly this need has to be met and in my view the context is set
for the use of Green Belt sites in order to deliver this housing in Rochford.
6.44 Policy SS7 explains that the broad extent of Green Belts is appropriate and
should be maintained. By reference to ‘broad extent’ I consider that scope is
available to consider local reviews as per the advice at paragraph 2.6 of PPG2.
The policy then goes on to explain where strategic reviews of the Green Belt
should take place and identifies certain locations. Whilst Rochford is not
28

mentioned as a location where Strategic Green Belt Review should take place,
I conclude that this is because the EEP principally focuses on Regional
Development Needs and areas where specific Green Belt review was
considered necessary for Regional Policy to address. The EEP does not
prevent local planning authorities from undertaking localised and smaller scale
Green Belt Review where circumstances dictate (see advice at paragraph 2.6
of PPG2). I include a summary response at Appendix 5 from RDC at the time
of the consultation into the Draft EEP 2004 and Policy SS7. This explains that
Rochford broadly supported the plan’s strategy but was concerned at what they
considered to be the inappropriate pressure on the metropolitan Green Belt.
RDC presumably new the implications for their District of Policy H1 of the EEP
2008 – housing growth on Green Belt land. Volume 1 of the Panel Report
(extract at Appendix 2) discusses at paragraph 4.23 in relation to Green Belt
review and Policy SS7 that “we agree that any more local boundary adjustment
that may be necessary should be for LDD within a framework provided by
PPG2.” Whilst this comment may be taken as being in relation to Broxbourne
the discussions in the Panel Report and the final wording of Policy SS7 does
not supersede PPG2 which in itself continues to provide a mechanism for
boundary alterations within the framework of Policies SS1 to SS6, which focus
on providing for the needs of the town and rural areas and the implementation
of the EEP housing requirement in a sustainable way. I conclude that Inner
Green Belt boundary review is the correct approach for RDC as indicated by
the historical review of the Green Belt, the EEP 2008 policies and the approach
adopted by other authorities below and extracts at Appendix 6i to 6iii:
Thurrock District Council: Published a Submission Core Strategy in February
2010. Thurrock is within the Thames Gateway and is required to provide a
minimum of 18,500 dwellings to 2021. 60% of Thurrock is within the Green
Belt. Paragraph 3.22 of the Submission Core Strategy Notes that except for
limited planned releases there will be no strategic release of Green Belt, this is
similar to the approach being adopted by RDC. The Submission Core Strategy
notes that 92% of development could be found on brownfield sites (paragraph
4.5). Policy CSSP1 notes at 1(ii) and (iii) that Green Belt land will be used to
maintain a 5 year land supply. (Appendix 6i).
Comment: Although not a District identified for strategic Green Belt review in
the EEP and not yet tested at Examination, Thurrock District Council conclude
that they need to review their Green Belt boundaries in order to identify some
new development opportunities and thereby meet EEP 2008 minimum housing
requirements.
Southend On Sea Borough Council: The Borough has to deliver 6,500 new
dwellings by 2021. The Core Strategy was adopted in December 2007.
Although no Green Belt sites are allocated for housing, Key Strategic Spatial
Policy 2.4(iv) states “Minor amendments to the existing Green Belt boundary
will only be considered where this would specifically enable delivery of
particular objectives and policies in this Core Strategy..” (see Appendix 6ii).
Comment: The adopted Core Strategy seeks to protect the Green belt but
with flexibility introduced to enable very special circumstances to allow
inappropriate development on Green Belt land. This could include land
29

elease for small scale housing and other land uses if required to meet EEP
2008 minimum requirements or longer term requirements to 2031. The
flexibility employed by policy 2.4(iv) could deliver necessary housing on
Green Belt land in the longer term.
Castle Point District: The Core Strategy Final Publication Document was
approved for Publication and Submission to the Secretary of State for
examination on the 29th September 2009. Whilst the strategy is for the majority
of land for new housing to be provided within the urban area, the Council
include a site for 100 dwellings east of Canvey Road, which is in the Green
Belt (paragraph 5.19 onwards). (See Appendix 6iii).
Comment: Despite the significant Green Belt constraints, Castle Point has
identified a small Inner Green Belt location for development and this will be
subject to examination. It is a response to the EEP 2008 and reflects another
instance where PPG2, paragraph 2.6, has been employed at a localised level.
6.45 I include at Appendix 7 a letter from East of England Regional Assembly which
confirms that Rochford’s SCS 2009 is in general conformity with the EEP 2008.
I note that at Appendix A of this letter is a reference to Policy SS7 and the
support for limited Green Belt release and the requirement to develop at a
‘reasonably high density’ on such land, presumably to avoid the need for
further Green Belt releases in the longer term. I therefore conclude that whilst
there may be some detailed matters in the SCS which remain open to
Examination (housing numbers and use of employment land for housing in
particular), the general strategy of releasing Green Belt sites is not in conflict
with the EEP 2008. The broad scope of Green Belt release is therefore justified
in Rochford on policy grounds and this supersedes the RRLP 2006.
6.46 Policy SS8 sets out the criteria for delivering enhancement and appropriate use
of urban fringe land. In the Planning Statement of Common Ground (paragraph
5.6) the Council accepts that the site is in an urban fringe location and the
character is one which is urban fringe. Policy SS8 is seeking to deliver
improvements to the character of existing development, and improvements to
green infrastructure. This policy sets a context which applies to urban fringe
land whether it be in the Green Belt or not. The use of Green Belt land in an
urban fringe location and which meets these policy criteria would therefore be
appropriate in principle in Rochford District. I consider the appeal site to be
urban fringe by virtue of its location and character and therefore conclude that
the use of the appeal site for housing and open space is compliant with SS8 of
the EEP 2008. Furthermore, I conclude that the housing requirements and
growth agenda set by the EEP 2008 are a material consideration which
supersedes the RRLP and that this, together with the other reasons I note
below, supports the grant of planning permission despite the RRLP 2006.
Submission Core Strategy (“SCS”), Local Development Scheme and Green
Belt Review
6.47 I note that the publication of the SCS followed extensive work on issues and
options, preferred options, a revised preferred options stage following
30

Government Office intervention in 2007 and the SCS published in September
2009. Before considering the SCS in detail I shall first review the previous
incarnations of the SCS to assist in demonstrating the appropriateness and
suitability of the area within which the site is located for new housing, why an
application for 330 dwellings was readied and why a positive decision can be
made in advance of the approval of Core Strategy.
6.48 In May 2007 the Core Strategy Preferred Options (Regulation 26) Draft was
published. It was objected to by the Government Office for the East of England
because it failed to deliver housing in accordance with PPS3. RDC withdrew
that document and restarted the process. Despite this set back, land at
Hockley/Hawkwell was identified as being a suitable location for some 400
dwelling units.
6.49 In October 2008 a new document was published entitled ‘Core Strategy
Preferred Options’ for a 6 week public consultation exercise. In this Preferred
Options Core Strategy Hockley/Hawkwell (see Appendix 11) was again
identified as one of the three top tier settlements where new housing growth
should be targeted and this was supported by the appellant. The Preferred
Options sought to target 200 dwellings in the area south of Hockley/Hawkwell
up to 2021 and a further 130 dwellings in this area after 2021. The appellant
supported this but suggested that for delivery reasons the phasing be
condensed. RDC again identified 400 dwellings at Hockley/Hawkwell in the
period to 2025. During this time the appellant had discussions with Sam
Hollingworth of RDC as a prelude to the appeal application. In these
discussions the appellant identified the scope for housing development in this
area and how 330 dwellings could be accommodated on the appeal site.
6.50 The most recent strategy of the SCS has been developed by Officers of the
Council and has been approved by the Local Development Framework Sub
Committee who considered the SCS on 1 st July 2009. Full Council then
approved the SCS for consultation in September 2009. In all these documents,
it was accepted by RDC that Green Belt land was necessary in order to deliver
the EEP housing requirements.
6.51 Policy H1 of the SCS sets the strategic context for Green Belt Review by
saying that housing which cannot be delivered through redevelopment of
previously developed land will be met through extensions to settlement
envelopes as outlined at Policy H2. This policy statement is premised on the
recent publication of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment,
November 2009. Paragraphs 4.16 to 4.19 then go on to explain that using
Green Belt land for new housing development is necessary if the EEP housing
figures are to be met (paragraph 4.16).
“in order to fulfil the requirements of the East of England Plan and to meet the
housing need of the District, the Council is required to allocate additional land
for residential development, including land which is currently allocated as
Green Belt, due to the limited supply of alternative land.” (paragraph 4.16 of the
SCS).
31

6.52 Policy H2 sets out broad strategic locations for growth. In this most recent
version of the Core Strategy the number of dwellings suitable in the south
Hawkwell area has been reduced from 330 to 175 and the phasing period
condensed. The main reason being the scope RDC believes to be available
from its urban employment areas and in particular the Eldon Way Industrial
area (Hockley Trading Estate) – I shall review this at Appendix 9.
6.53 The East of England Regional Assembly has endorsed the approach as
broadly in conformity with the EEP 2008 (see Appendix 7). Objections have
been lodged to Policy H1, H2 and H3 of the SCS (see Appendix 12i to 12iii).
I’m conscious that it is not the purpose of this Inquiry to judge the merits of
these objections but it does affect the weight attached to emerging policies and
therefore whether they are material to the extent that very special
circumstances apply. I summarise the responses as such:
1. there is support from many of those commentating on Policy H1 for a
strategy of release of Green Belt land for housing. These include the
appellant, Swan Hill Homes Ltd, AW Squier Ltd, Ms Yaedell, and other
developers. Equally there are objections from some to the release of Green
Belt land. However, these do not have regard to the need to deliver EEP
2008 minimum housing requirements.
2. there are objections from many to the strategy for redeveloping existing
employment sites in Hockley Town Centre and other employment areas.
The action group Hockley Under Threat objects to the proposals for
redeveloping Eldon Way at a number of levels including loss of
employment. Fairview Homes, amongst other developers, believe that the
retail and leisure survey has been misapplied to support the redevelopment
of employment areas near Town Centres. Other respondents including
developers and individual residents such as Ms Rozga, R Wakefield and
Mrs Christian consider there to be insufficient evidence to support the
deliverability of the Eldon Way Industrial Estate for housing. Others note
that the strategy to remove employment sites from urban areas to be
unsustainable.
3. removal of Stambridge Mills from the SCS is sought by many objector’s
including the Environment Agency on the grounds of its location and siting
in Flood Zone 3. Whilst some objector’s support its inclusions, the
significance and depth of objection is sufficient to cast doubt on its inclusion
as a deliverable brown field site.
6.54 In view of these comments I conclude that the broad strategy of Green Belt
release is sufficiently robust for the Inspector and Secretary of State to
conclude that this component of the strategy is likely to persist into an
approved Core Strategy and that this is a material consideration against which
weight can be attached.
6.55 I also conclude that the weight of objection to the inclusion of Stambridge Mills
and the use of other employment sites for housing is such that limited weight
can be attached to the policies which promote their use for housing in the SCS.
32

6.56 I note that there are significant numbers of objections to Policy H2. Most
objections object on site specific grounds by reference to traffic impacts, loss of
Green Belt, loss of wildlife or other site specific reasons. This is certainly the
case with those objecting to the inclusion of ‘south Hawkwell’ under Policy H2.
As a consequence of the nature of the objections, I do not consider that Policy
H2 of the SCS should be dismissed. I say this because many of the site
specific objections are capable of mitigation as demonstrated through this
planning appeal. Consequently, the emerging Policy H2 has material weight in
my view. In addition, the Green Belt objections are a reaction to the planned
housing growth for the area and if my Green Belt policy and other arguments
are accepted then a positive decision can be made in advance of the Core
Strategy without undermining the process.
6.57 As a consequence whilst I agree with RDC that the broad strategy for Green
Belt release is sound I do have concerns about the level of Green Belt release
and the quantum of housing being provided on such land and am of the view
that more housing should be found either on the areas identified under Policy
H2 or on additional sites. RDC acknowledge that the EEP 2008 housing
requirement is a minimum and that the strategy RDC are promoting is a
balanced approach to delivering housing. However, the identification of specific
housing numbers under Policy H2 would not align with the ‘minimum’ reference
in Policy H1 of the EEP 2008. I also note that Policy H3 of the SCS promotes
1000 dwellings in the post 2021 scenario and Appendix H1 confirms that RDC
are planning for a period up to 2025. Clearly if the evidence of the EEP
Review, PPG2 and PPS12 is considered then a longer period should be taken
into account in order to ensure sensible planning. Consequently, the
development of this site now for housing in the manner proposed is a very
special circumstance as it is in an area supported by the Council and it is most
likely that RDC will be required to alter their SCS accordingly. Furthermore I
conclude that Policy H3 is not flexible enough deliver sufficient housing in the
longer term to comply with the flexibility guidance in PPS12 or the
circumstances of Rochford District. I conclude that if Policy H2 sites can
deliver more housing in a sustainable way then they should be encouraged to
do so as this complies with EEP 2008.
6.58 Paragraph 4.19 of the SCS which sets out the criteria RDC say should be
used when identifying land which should be removed from the Green Belt.
These criteria include many PPG2 criteria for defining Green Belt boundaries
such as proximity to existing infrastructure, facilities and services, potential to
create a defensible Green Belt boundary and avoidance of coalescence. Whilst
the criteria are not objected to per se by respondents to the SCS, how they
have been implemented in the SCS is objected to. On that basis I find them to
be an acceptable list of criteria for assessing the suitability of Green Belt sites.
Appendix 13 includes a list of objections to paragraph 4.19 and these do not
query the type of criteria used in any material way.
6.59 The criteria at paragraph 4.19 together with the recent publication of a site
allocations document indicate to me that, RDC have carried out a preliminary
review of their Green Belt to allow them to prepare the SCS and have identified
33

the area within which the appeal site is for development. I submit that together
with the PPG2 criteria, and the evidence relating to the origins of the Green
Belt in Rochford, these criteria provide a framework that can be used in judging
the merits of the Site as an appropriate location for housing and that this is a
material consideration, that with others is a very special circumstance. I
consider the merits of the site in relation to Policy H2 in my evidence below.
6.60 Paragraphs 4.24 to 4.27 of the SCS set the framework for Policy H3. Policy H3
of the SCS seeks to safeguard three areas for future release but specifically
states that Policy H2 release locations are not subject to safeguarding and are
expected to come forward prior to 2021. This is an important element of the
emerging strategy because the status of safeguarded land is materially
different to sites or areas identified for specific development by way of an
allocation. Again I find that whilst the strategy for Green Belt release is sound,
the extent of Green Belt release considered necessary by RDC is likely to be
underestimated.
6.61 Emerging Policy H2 of the SCS expects the Site to be delivered by 2015.
Again, whilst I accept that objections have been lodged to this policy, it is clear
that RDC favour the release of a site in the area south of Hawkwell under the
exceptional circumstances.
6.62 The SCS explains at Policy GB1 that the objective is to allocate the minimum
amount of Green Belt land necessary for new development. If Green Belt
release is accepted for the areas noted under Policy H2 then there is a sound
emerging policy reason for making best use of those sites rather than relying
on safeguarded land under Policy H3. Such an approach would be logical
and appropriate given PPG2, PPS3, EEP 2008 (and its review) and emerging
SCS policy.
6.63 In conclusion I find that the more up to date policies covering the District
justify and support a positive decision despite the existence of the RRLP
2006. I conclude that whilst there are objections to the various policies in the
SCS the principal of Green Belt release in the area of the appeal site is
appropriate and will be likely to persist into an approved Core Strategy. I also
conclude that the evidence is sufficient to indicate that more housing will
need to be found on Green Belt sites than RDC anticipate if that meets
sustainable development and character criteria. I conclude that the evidence
is sufficiently robust that the application complies with paragraph 72 of PPS3
and that prematurity is not relevant in this case. In emerging policy terms I
conclude that suitable urban fringe sites should be released and that they
should deliver housing efficiently and effectively.
Allocations DPD – Discussion and Consultation Document, February 2010
6.64 This document was published on 17 th March 2010 and the consultation
period runs until 30 th April 2010. It is a first stage document with no real
weight in the decision making process. However, it is useful to note the
Council’s continued support for the appeal site, and that it reviews the inner
Green Belt boundary. I include relevant extracts at Appendix 10.
34

6.63 The document includes a series of options for allocations neither of which are
prioritised or particularly supported by RDC. That said, I include the options
associated with ‘south Hawkwell at page 25 to 29. Interestingly RDC
assessment includes the appeal site in all its potential options at one level or
another. This indicates to me that RDC continue to be committed to
development on the appeal site and this supports the weight I attach to Policy
H2 of the SCS.
6.64 I note that RDC in their document suggest that several sites could be
identified as Local Wildlife Sites, including the woodland within the appeal
site. At the present time there is a woodland TPO covering the area but the
dearth of habitat resulting from this secondary tree growth is such that it will
only become a wildlife area if the woodland management and habitat
enhancements are proposed in the context of this appeal.
7.0 Suitability of the Appeal Site
7.1 I will now explain why the Site is suitable as a location generally and why it is
coincident with the area ‘south Hawkwell’ noted under Policy H2 of the SCS as
opposed to other potential sites nearby. I consider this examination to be
necessary in order to remove any doubt that the Site is in a location supported
by RDC, emerging policy and to explain why it is not necessary to wait for the
Examination to undertake this assessment. It is highly sustainable in the
context of paragraph 69 of PPS3 and therefore appropriate.
7.2 The SCS identifies an area described as ‘south Hawkwell’ as being suitable for
the rolling back of the Green Belt in order to deliver EEP housing requirements
(see Policy H2 of the SCS and policy review above). The SHLAA also includes
other sites near the appeal site, which could comply with emerging policy.
Attached as Appendix 14 is a Plan defining Hawkwell Parish Boundary. From
this Plan it is apparent that the settlement of Hawkwell extends to the east and
west of the Site including streets either side of Main Road, housing along
Rectory Road and housing east of Clements Hall Way/Leisure Centre.
Accompanying this plan at 14(ii) Plan Map on which I have plotted potential
areas that are consistent with the ‘south Hawkwell’ area mentioned in Policy
H2 of the SCS and those promoted through the Call for sites (Appendix C of
the SHLAA). I consider there to be only 5 potential locations which could be
said to conform broadly with the South Hawkwell area statement in the SCS. I
note that my assessment is more extensive and detailed compared with the
one carried out in the Allocations DPD Consultation Document. These include:
Location 1 – the appeal site
Location 2 – an area between Rectory Road and Ironwell Lane
Location 3 – south of Rectory Road
Location 4 – an area encompassing Mount Bovers Lane, Holyoak Lane and
south of Sunny Road
Location 5 – area on the corner of Main Road and Rectory Road
35

7.3 In assessing which areas are suitable and align with RDC’s ‘south Hawkwell’
preferred location I have had regard to the PPS3 criteria at paragraphs 36-39
and the following PPG2 criteria:
• the locations result in unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
• the locations prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
• the locations safeguard the countryside from encroachment
• the locations preserve the setting and historic character of the settlement
• the locations assist urban regeneration (derelict and other urban land)
7.4 I have also had regard to the criteria at paragraph 4.19 of the SCS, which also
reflect some of the criteria at paragraphs 36 to 39 of PPS3:
• the proximity and relationship to existing centres and, facilities and
services
• the availability of infrastructure
• the potential to reduce car dependency
• the potential to avoid constraints
• the loss of historic, ecological or agricultural land value
• impacts on the highway network
• the relationship to employment areas
• the potential to create a defensible Green Belt boundary
• the avoidance of coalescence with neighbouring settlements
7.5 Before I assess each of the locations I include a review of Hockley and
Hawkwell to explain how these settlements function and how the potential
alternative locations could fit in with the settlement structure.
7.6 The settlements of Hockley and Hawkwell are physically joined and the parish
boundary Plan at Appendix 14i illustrates this. The 2001 census gave the
population for West Hawkwell Ward (the area coincident with the built up area
of Hawkwell, as 3,938. The North, West and Central Hockley wards amounted
to a population of 9,991. This comprises some 4,162 households of which
3,767 are in private ownership and only 213 are either Council owned or
owned by a Housing Association (according to the Hockley Parish Plan which
is based on 2001 census data). I include this data as Appendix 28. The
Hockley Parish Plan provides a useful review of the settlement and includes
the results of the questionnaire survey of local residents. Hawkwell does not
benefit from such a Plan.
7.7 The two settlements function together with a combined population of around
12,000 (if an assumed allowance is made for sporadic rural development
outside of the built up co-joined settlement). The schools, leisure, employment
and shopping facilities serve each community. The Westerings primary school
at Sunny Lane in Hawkwell serves both settlements as does the Plumberow
primary school and Greensward College secondary school. The employment
area known as Eldon Way industrial estate adjacent to Hockley Town Centre is
the principal employment area serving Hawkwell/Hockley. Hawkwell benefits
36

from a parade of local shops at the junction of Main Road and Hill Lane but the
main daily shopping needs are accommodated within Hockley Town Centre.
The Clements Hall Leisure Centre and adjoining playing fields is an important
hub which serves Hockley, Hawkwell and the nearby settlement of Ashingdon
and Rochford. The settlements of Hawkwell and Hockley are therefore
inextricably linked despite each settlement having separate origins and the
local communities seeing themselves as being distinctive settlements.
7.8 The proposals would result in an additional 792 people at a multiplier of 2.4 per
dwelling. This is about 6.6% of the current population of the built up co-joined
settlement of Hockley and Hawkwell and around 20% of the Hawkwell built up
areas. Functionally and geographically Hawkwell and Hockley function as the
same built up area and on this basis it is correct to consider the two together
when comparing the effect of the scheme on this co-joined settlement. The key
therefore is to consider a location that best fits with the nearby settlement as a
contiguous part of the built up area.
Location 1 – the appeal site
7.9 This site occupies an area of land that is in a variety of urban fringe uses. To
the east are paddocks and a Christmas tree plantation where the sale of trees
occurs each year. On the southern side of the site is a now vacant property. To
the north is scrub vegetation and a north south spine of trees running towards
the north-east corner of the site. To the northwest is woodland, mostly
comprising secondary growth of self seeded trees. Centrally, just to the east of
Thorpe Road are nursery buildings being used for the storage and transport of
garden centre type products. To the west of Thorpe Road is a storage area for
ambulances and a building where conversion and braking of vehicles takes
place. This is urban fringe land within the ward of Hawkwell west. In my view
the settlement of Hawkwell is unusual in this area as it includes built
development either side of the appeal site and comprises the Clements Way
Leisure Centre and housing to the east and existing housing off Thorpe Road
and adjoining streets to the west and northwest. I do not agree with the view
that some third parties are making that the appeal site is necessary to prevent
Hawkwell coalescing. I note that RDC at paragraph 4.9 of the SCS
acknowledge that whilst some housing areas have their own character they are
not functionally separate from their neighbours. This includes Rochford and
Ashingdon to the east of the site, which is a co-joined settlement and of course
Hockley/Hawkwell. That said, I note that locally they are referred to as
communities in their own right, particularly by local residents.
7.10 In the case of the appeal site, the housing immediately to the east include a
series of streets that were built in the post war period and reflected the housing
needs at that time. More recently, the housing off Clements Hall Way was built
following approval on the mid 1980’s as a way of providing the new access to
the enhanced Leisure Centre (previously the access had utilised Sweyne
Avenue to the east). I include the planning history associated with this period
at Appendix 8iv. Interestingly I note that the housing and access to the Leisure
Centre was originally refused by the Secretary of State in 1982 but was
approved by the District Council soon after to meet a housing need. I find that
37

ecause the appeal site is located between existing housing to the east and
west, and that these areas are functionally linked to Hawkwell, there would be
no resulting unrestricted sprawl. The leisure centre to the north east is part of
Hawkwell and Hockley as is the sporadic development along Rectory Road to
the south. In this context the development of the appeal site would infill an
area that has historically been used as a nursery and plantation and is well
contained by defensible boundaries. I consider that Rectory Road and the ditch
to the north would form an important defensible boundary in view of the
development either side of the site and that this complies with PPG2,
paragraph 2.6 to 2.10.
7.11 I consider that the presence of development either side of the appeal site
generates a particular built up and enclosed character. Within the site, views
out are limited either by existing built development at the perimeter or by the
thick vegetation to the north (including the woodland trees). The woodland and
trees along the ditch provide a strong boundary to Spencer’s Park which only
provides glimpsed views. I find that Rectory Road has a distinctly urban
character in the vicinity of Sweyne Avenue with housing either side of Rectory
Road at this point. Whilst the area in the vicinity of the ‘Old Rectory’ to the
south of Rectory Road is more rural in character this is principally driven by the
character of the locality on the southern side of Rectory Road and is not
dependent on the appeal site in determining its character. To the west in the
vicinity of Thorpe Road the urban character returns with housing to the north
and south of Rectory Road around the junction with Hall Road and Main Road.
Since the settlement of Hawkwell includes development either side of the
appeal site and there is a sense of enclosure as a result of this, the infilling of
the gap between these two housing areas would not lead to the merging of
neighbouring towns or the coalescence of neighbouring settlements as noted in
paragraph 4.19 of the SCS or paragraph 1.5 of PPG2.
7.12 The Secretary of State in the early 1960’s explained the purpose of the Green
Belt in Rochford and the purpose was principally to prevent Southend on Sea
from coalescing with settlements in Rochford and to stop settlements within
Rochford from coalescing with each other. Since Hawkwell and Hockley had
already coalesced by that time the objective is now to prevent
Hockley/Hawkwell from joining with Ashingdon and Rochford and both from
joining with Southend on Sea to the south. Furthermore I find that the main
reason why the bulk of the appeal site is undeveloped is that historically it,
together with Spencer’s Park, formed horticultural nurseries (see 1988 Local
Plan Proposals Map) that have now been removed.
7.13 I consider that the appeal site is in a location that, because of the surrounding
built housing development, employment area, leisure centre and development
fronting Rectory Road, is well contained as my assessment above indicates. I
conclude that the development of the site with a landscape led layout would not
detract from the open countryside and fields beyond Rectory Road to the south
which are fundamental to the Green Belt.
7.14 PPG2 refers to other purposes for including land within the Green Belt. PPG2
says that Green Belts can be used to preserve the character of settlements or
38

assisting urban regeneration. Neither of these are purposes that were
envisaged in the 1960’s and in view of the character of the settlements –
mainly comprising post war housing - I conclude that these purposes are not
relevant. I disagree that the Eldon Way trading Estate would come within this
category as I find its existing employment use suitable and complete
redevelopment for housing would be contrary to (EC2.1(i) of PPS4 and
paragraph 38 of PPS3). I note that paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 includes protecting
the countryside from encroachment which this appeal would conflict with.
However, the context is one where Green Belt release is necessary and that
being the case, this purpose would fall away if very special circumstances are
demonstrated. In this area the issue is of coalescence and the proposals would
not undermine that important PPG2 objective.
7.15 In relation to the criteria in paragraph 4.19 of the SCS, paragraph 2.8 to 2.10
of PPG2 and the guidance at paragraph 69 of PPS3, I find that this site is in a
sustainable location which can integrate with its surroundings. When drawing
Green Belt boundaries local authorities are asked to take into account the
need to promote sustainable settlements this is reflected in the RRLP Policy
CS1, CS3, and CS4 and paragraph 4.16 of the SCS. In this context I note
that:
• The site is located on a proposed strategic cycle network as identified
on the SCS Proposals Map 2009. There is a bridleway to the north.
The appeal proposals will be able to deliver a sustainable cycle access
strategy and accord with emerging policy.
• The site can be accessed off Rectory Road. This would mean that the
site is able to fully connect into the existing road network with limited
highway works. The junction between Rectory Road and Main Road
will need to be enhanced, however, the requirements are relatively
limited.
• There are 4 bus stops within 0.1 km of the site. Those along Rectory
Road are operated by Arriva and include the No 7 and 8, which link to
Southend. and Hockley railway station and its Town Centre. The
Highways Statement of Common Ground includes more detail on the
sustainable access credentials of the site. The site is therefore suitably
located for public transport and this accords with saved Policy TP5 of
the Adopted RRLP 2006.
• Hockley benefits from a mainline railway station with regular services
to Southend and London beyond.
• The site is not the subject of any District wide landscape quality
designations. However a woodland Tree Preservation Order is
present. Most of the site is flat, with horticultural buildings and other
sporadic uses there are no significant landscape quality issues in my
view.
• The site is not subject to any National or Local ecological designations
that would make the site an unsustainable location. Whilst ecological
studies and mitigation accompanies this appeal, there is nothing to
indicate that this would prevent development and the scheme would
accord with saved Policy NR8 of the Adopted RRLP 2006.
39

• The site is and has been used as, a plant nursery, Christmas Tree
plantation and equestrian uses. There is hardstandings and
commercial activity on the western side of the site. Its ecological status
is not such to prevent development or be unsustainable in that
context.
• The site lies adjacent to Spencers Park public open space and is a
short walk from Rochford District’s main Leisure Centre at Clement
Hall Way and associated playing fields. The proposed landscape and
open space would enhance Spencer’s Park and the contributions
towards off site enhancements would benefit a wider audience.
• Adjacent to the western side of the site is a small employment area
accessed off Main Road. Despite its employment use it is allocated for
residential development and has remained in employment use for 30-
40 years. It is within walking distance of the site. In view of PPS4, its
allocation for residential will be tested at the forthcoming examination.
• There is an existing Doctor’s surgery at the junction of Hill Lane and
Main Road. This is a small surgery and to facilitate improved facilities
a new surgery is offered in this application as part of the local centre.
The Hockley Parish Plan at page 13 notes that the respondents of the
survey placed a new medical centre high on the list of infrastructure
needs and expressions of interest are attached at Appendix 23.
• The site is within walking distance (500m) of the local shops on Main
Road, albeit provision is made for a shop unit on site.
• There are two primary schools and a secondary school within
Hockley/Hawkwell. The Primary School off Sunny Road would be
accessed off Main Road via a crossing which is proposed to be
implemented through Grampian style conditions accompanying any
permission. It is within a 20 minute walk time. The Greensward
College and other primary school at Plumberow Avenue have
sufficient capacity and the draft Essex School Organsiation Plan 2009-
2014 at Appendix 24 indicates as such. Contributions will be made to
enhance early years care and other infrastructure in accordance with
saved Policy HP21 of the Adopted RRLP 2006. This is detailed in
section 18 of my evidence.
• The site is within 1km of the Town Centre and Eldon Way main
employment area which are accessible by bus.
• This site would be able to connect into the Cherry Orchard Way link
road to the A127 and the main employment site currently being
developed by Twomey Group to the south.
7.16 As a consequence, it is concluded that the site is highly sustainable which is a
requirement of PPG2 and PPS3 criteria. I consider that the exceptionally
suitable characteristics of the site also contribute towards very special
circumstances – there is no other site south of Hawkwell which can match
these benefits. It is also relevant to note that the Inspector appointed to
consider the RRLP noted that although the site, in the absence of a housing
need, performed an important Green Belt function it was in a sustainable
location (see extract at Appendix 15).
40

Location 2 - an area between Rectory Road and north of Ironwell Lane
7.17 This potential alternate location is centred on Hawkwell Hall Farm. It also
occupies an area that could be defined as south Hawkwell. I find no reference
to this in the SHLAA. This site would occupy exposed countryside with no
readily identified features that would help create a defensible Green Belt
boundary. The area comprises open fields with hedge boundaries.
Development in this location would contribute toward the merging of Hawkwell
with Ashingdon/Rochford to the east, which in this location is only around 4km.
In that regard this location would conflict with PPG2, paragraph 4.19 of the
SCS and the Secretary of States purpose for defining a Green Belt in this area
in the 1960’s.
7.18 Whilst development of this area would not comply with the safeguarding of the
countryside purpose advocated by PPG2, this is the case for all proposals in
the Green Belt. Of more significance is the locations remoteness from the main
built up area of Hawkwell and this would not encourage walking to facilities
including shops, employment and leisure facilities and whilst it would be
located alongside a bus route the opportunity for footpath connections and
integration generally would be limited. It is not the most sustainable location
as advocated in paragraph 2.8 to 2.10 of PPG2 or PPS3. This area adjoins a
water course where there is the potential for flooding. In my view this is not a
location that is envisaged by the SCS as being suitable for housing in the
Green Belt.
Location 3 - south of Rectory Road
7.19 This location is south of Rectory Road in the vicinity of The Old Rectory and
some nursery buildings. Part of this area is included in the SHLAA – site
reference 151. The majority comprise open fields with strong field boundaries
of trees and hedge plants. Its location beyond Rectory Road would introduce
new development in the open gap between Hawkwell and Southend and erode
the openness that is important in keeping these settlements separate. This cuts
against one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt in this area and
for this reason alone is not a suitable alternative. Development of this area
would not comply with the safeguarding of the countryside purpose advocated
by PPG2 as would be the case with all the Green Belt sites hereabouts.
Importantly, I find that it would introduce development into an area where the
creation of a Green Belt boundary would be difficult given the open views
through the site from the south. Its remoteness from the main built up area of
Hawkwell would not encourage walking to facilities including shops,
employment and leisure facilities and whilst it would be located alongside a bus
route the opportunity for footpath connections and integration with the built up
area would be limited. It is not the most sustainable location as advocated in
paragraph 2.8 to 2.10 of PPG2. In my view this is not a location that is
envisaged by the SCS as being suitable for housing in the Green Belt.
41

Location 4 - an area encompassing Mount Bovers Lane, Holyoak Lane and
south of Sunny Road
7.20 This location occupies an area to the south of the Westerings Primary school at
Sunny Road. It comprises a mix of large open fields and some woodland. It
occupies a location between Hawkwell and Rayleigh, which it is desirable to
maintain as an open gap in my view. Although this gap is around 14km I
consider that whilst Hockley woods to the west do provide a defensible Green
Belt boundary in this location, the openness of areas directly south would result
in an impact on openness if development were allowed. Development in this
area would contribute towards coalescence between settlements, which PPG2
specifically guards against. It is a location where development would begin to
erode the open gap between Hawkwell and Southend and between Hawkwell
and Rayleigh. It is protected as a special landscape area in the RRLP and
would not be suitable on those grounds. The site could integrate well with the
built up area and potentially links could be created to existing facilities and
infrastructure. Development of this area would not comply with the
safeguarding of the countryside purpose advocated by PPG2 as would other
Green Belt sites. In my view this is not a location that is envisaged by the SCS
as being suitable for housing and is not a better location than the appeal site
because of the coalescence with other settlements and development on a
protected landscape.
Location 5 - area on the corner of Main Road and Rectory Road
7.21 This location occupies an area just to the south of an employment area and
immediately to the southwest of the appeal site. It is a small corner site, which
although north of Rectory Road and adjacent to the built up area of Hawkwell,
is exposed to open views from the south and west by virtue of the frontage
openness. Given its size and character I do not consider it should be removed
from the Green Belt. Development in this area could present a formal edge to
the settlement in this area and Rectory Road could form a defensible
boundary. The site is in a sustainable location with regard to facilities and
infrastructure. However, the site is so small that it would not present a realistic
alternative to the appeal site and may only have capacity for 15-20 dwellings.
7.22 I consider that the area to which the Council refer to as ‘south Hawkwell’ in the
context of Policy H2 of the SCS is coincident with Location 1 – the appeal Site
despite some of the options in the recently published site allocations discussion
document. Notwithstanding the preference for the site in the SCS, I find that
the appeal site is a better location for new housing than either of the locations I
have identified in this area. This assessment is thorough and extensive in
relation to areas south Hawkwell. As such I find no reason why the decision
maker should not accept these findings and grant permission in advance of the
Core Strategy.
7.23 In view of the sustainability assessment in the Design and Access Statement
and the Highways Statement of Common Ground, I further submit that the site
42

is in a highly sustainable location, which integrates well with the existing
settlement. It complies with the criteria set out in PPS3, particularly paragraph
69. In my view this evidence makes it highly likely that the Policy H2 of the
SCS will continue through into an Approved Version of the Core Strategy. I
conclude that the Inspector and Secretary of State can accept this assessment
and grant planning permission in advance of the adoption of the Core Strategy
or a Site Allocations Document.
8.0 A New Green Belt Boundary
8.1 In the Planning Statement of Common Ground RDC accept that the appeal
site is within the area defined as ‘south Hawkwell’ and that it is urban fringe.
However, I consider it necessary for me to explain whether the whole of the
appeal site should be considered as being acceptable for development and
where a new Green Belt boundary would logically be drawn after this
planning appeal (assuming it is successful). I accept that the previous Local
Plan Inspector appointed to respond on the RRLP 2006 noted that in the
absence of a housing need the Green Belt function of the appeal site should
continue (Appendix 15). This Inspector did not identify which Green Belt
function was important and having reviewed the history of the Green Belt it is
clear that the Green Belt in this area is principally concerned at preventing
coalescence with Southend on Sea and Rochford and Ashingdon to the east
and Rayleigh to the west. In my view it is necessary to weigh the changes in
policy and circumstances since the site was last considered and judge
whether, even with development on the appeal site, it would continue to meet
the purposes set out for the Green Belt hereabouts. I conclude that the site
can be removed from the Green Belt without significant harm to the purposes
of including land within the Green Belt namely avoiding coalescence with
Southend on Sea, with Rochford and Ashingdon and with Rayleigh. My
evidence will enable the Inspector and Secretary of State to be satisfied that
a positive decision, in advance of the Core Strategy and Site Allocation
Document, which is underpinned by a robust Green Belt assessment as
promoted by PPG2, can be made.
8.2 I have carefully considered the SCS for 175 dwellings and the appeal proposal
for up to 330 dwellings. It is the case that in the Preferred Options Core
Strategy 330 dwellings was identified as being suitable in this broad area and
was necessary to help meet the EEP 2008 minimum requirements. It is only
recently that RDC took the view that they had sufficient previously developed
land within the urban area to allow a reduction to 175 dwellings in this area.
This change in stance was based on an assessment of brownfield land within
the urban areas rather than any assessment of what this site could achieve if
planned in accordance with PPS3. I therefore conclude that since 330
dwellings can be achieved in a manner which accords with paragraph 45 to 51
and 69 of PPS3, and that the site is coincidental with the south Hawkwell
location, the correct course of action is to support the higher number of
dwellings in order to meet the PPS3 criteria of efficient and effective use, EEP
2008 minimum requirements and the EEP Review.
43

8.3 The combined Design and Access Statement for the appeal proposals (which
for clarity reasons is now appended to Gareth Jones’s proof of evidence)
identifies built development to the east and west of Thorpe Road. The area to
the west of Thorpe Road is to be accessed off the northern section of Thorpe
Road which, together with existing housing, only has capacity for up to 115
new dwellings. Some housing development therefore needs to be included in
locations east of Thorpe Road whether it be 60 dwellings (to reflect the total of
175 dwellings in the SCS) or 215 dwellings as proposed in this appeal. Indeed,
in order to meet the Council’s character/density objections as set out in the
Committee Report at paragraph 1.250, it is highly likely that less than 115
dwellings may be deemed appropriate on the site west of Thorpe Road by
RDC with more housing proposed to the east. Whichever outcome, a new
Green Belt boundary which utilises Rectory Road and the ditch along side the
northern boundary will be appropriate and defensible in accordance with
PPG2. Such a boundary would include the whole area defined by the red line
of the application/appeal site and would enable Spencer’s Park and the
recreation ground to remain protected from development.
8.4 Notwithstanding, if a 175 dwelling scheme were promoted, the result would be
either a lower density scheme as RDC have sought or a smaller site. If it were
a smaller site more land would be left undeveloped, potentially coincident with
the woodland TPO and the other principal north-south green corridors. less
land available for development and more available for public open space. This
being the case, any new Green Belt boundary would continue to be based
along the line of Rectory Road and the ditch to the north rather than following
individual wedges of open space left within such a development for 175
dwellings. It would be defendable in PPG2 terms and in terms of the original
purpose of the Green Belt in the 1960’s. This would be the case whether the
site is developed for 175 dwellings or up to 330 dwellings (see Appendix 16).
8.5 I note that in the mid 1980’s RDC granted planning permission for a new
access and new housing along Clements Hall Way. The new housing was in a
location that was formerly within the Green Belt. Indeed in 1983 the Secretary
of State had already considered development in this area – the Spencer’s
nursery application (ROC/263/81) which relates to what is now Thorpe
Close/Spencer’s Park and the Royer application (ROC/939/80) relating to a
new access for Clements Hall Way and the detached houses off this proposed
road. The Secretary of State refused permission for the Royer proposal as he
felt that it was important in creating a gap between the glasshouses and the
housing to the east. He also concluded that it was a matter for a Plan Review
to compare sites and assess their merit. In this appeal I have undertaken a
comparative analysis to explain why the appeal site is appropriate compared
with others. This is a process RDC went through following the Royer decision -
they went on to grant planning permission in the late 1980’s after having
undertaken a similar review. The development has been built including the new
access. In my view this illustrates RDC’s willingness to accept change in this
area where a need exists (see my Appendix 8iv).
8.6 I have examined closely the extent to which location 5 in my assessment
above should be included in my revised Green Belt boundary. Given the low
44

frontage hedge and open land which benefits from unconstrained views from a
number of angles hereabouts, I do not believe that a new Green Belt boundary
should follow Main Road around this corner but should follow the buildings and
stronger boundary features of the industrial estate and a small edge of the
appeal site.
8.7 I conclude that whether the site be developed for 175 dwellings as per the SCS
or up to 330 dwellings as proposed in this appeal, any new Green Belt
boundary created through the Core Strategy and Site allocations document
process after this appeal would be the same – aligned along Rectory Road
frontage and Spencer’s Park ditch and to include the employment site and
some existing housing close to Thorpe Road. It would be a better boundary
than already exists because it would present a strong defensible feature.
Spencer’s Park and the recreation grounds/leisure centre would remain as they
are – Green Belt. Development of the appeal site has no effect on the gap
between Ashingdon and Rochford and this can be reinforced by a Green Belt
boundary and strong planting along the northern edge of the site. I conclude
that in order to deliver necessary housing on a site in an effective and efficient
manner, to react positively to the longer term planning envisaged in PPG2,
PPS12 and the evidence in current review of the EEP, for more housing, there
is sound basis for delivering up to 330 dwellings on this site which meets
sustainability and character issues. Such an approach would comply with
paragraph 40 to 51 of PPS3 which requires the efficient and effective use of
land and avoid the need to safeguard further land which would be the case if
this site were not developed to its potential.
45

9.0 Housing Land Supply and the Availability of Development Opportunities
within the Urban Area
9.1 Paragraphs 54 to 61 of PPS3 explain how housing land should be identified
and when. Importantly, the onus is on local authorities to identify the first 5
years’ housing land supply as specific deliverable sites (these should be
available, achievable and suitable). A further series of development sites
have to be identified for up to a 10 year period and where possible for the 15
year period, although for this time period broad locational policies for future
growth would suffice. This advice must align with other policies and in that
context the advice the longer term view of housing growth beyond 2026 is
material. Once identified the land supply should be managed to deliver
housing in accordance with the continuous 5 year housing land trajectory.
9.2 PPS3 explains at paragraph 71 that failure to demonstrate an up to date 5 year
housing land supply of deliverable sites (including applications) should result in
the favourable consideration of planning applications subject to the guidance in
paragraph 69 relating to the quality and mix of housing schemes.
9.3 Annex C of PPS3 explains that SHLAA’s should:
i. Assess likely levels of housing from unimplemented permissions
ii. Assess land availability from previously developed and Greenfield sites
that have development potential
iii. Where appropriate evaluate past trends in windfall land and identify a
likely future implementation rate
iv. Identify constraints which make a site unavailable or unviable
v. Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints making a site
untenable
vi. Identify actions to overcome constraints on particular sites.
Advice Produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government
9.4 I attach at Appendix 25 a note on demonstrating 5 year housing land supply. It
sets out the 3 main stages. The first stage is to identify provision for a 5 year
period. This is the annualised requirement. The second stage is to identify the
5 year supply. This includes sites that are allocated, sites that have planning
permission, specific brownfield sites that have potential within the next 5 years.
These sites should have made sufficient progress through the planning
process to warrant consideration. Finally local authorities are required to
assess deliverability against the criteria of availability, suitability and
achievability. It is important to note, therefore, that Greenfield sites can only be
included in the 5 year supply if they are allocated or have been brought forward
via a planning permission. This approach ensures that Greenfield sites are not
prioritised over brownfield ones unless there is a 5 year land supply shortfall.
This has important ramifications for the weight RDC attach to their ‘future
allocations.’
9.5 The Table on this advice note is particularly important. Under availability for
example it is necessary for the information that supports either an allocation of
46

a site or the granting of permission to indicate that the site is available now.
This is particularly interesting in the case of the main Road employment site
allocated in the RRLP 2006 where it is in active employment use and one of
the units is being marketed for office use. Clearly this is not available.
9.6 Under suitability it is necessary to review whether sites that are allocated are
suitable or whether circumstances have changed. Given the publication of
PPS4 I do not consider the Main Road employment site to be suitable. This is a
changed circumstance. Is the site achievable? And the advice asks for
consideration of information demonstrating the reasonable prospect of the site
coming forward in 5 years.
9.7 On unallocated sites included in the 5 year supply the local authority must
satisfy itself that it meets the tests in paragraph 54 of PPS3 and will make a
significant contribution to the delivery of housing in the 5 year period. Finally
unallocated sites “that are not likely to make a significant contribution to the
delivery of housing during the relevant 5 year period should not be taken into
account… until a planning permission has been granted.” Significant
contribution is not defined in this advice note but I enclose a letter at Appendix
27 from the Department of Communities and Local Government explaining to a
Councillor some of the requirements of PPS3. It says, in relation to significant
sites, that the practice guidance does not promote looking for all sites
regardless of size. In the context of Rochford, the SHLAA relies on a number of
small sites to make up its land supply and these would traditionally be counted
as windfalls. Whether they come forward or not is a matter I will consider in my
assessment.
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments – Practice Guidance.
9.8 I attach this document as Appendix 26. This includes more detailed advice on
what constitutes a deliverable site for the purposes of a SHLAA.
9.9 In estimating the potential on each site it is recommended that sketch schemes
are worked up, or sites are compared with sample schemes for elsewhere. In
assessing suitability policy restrictions, physical limitations such as flooding
and potential impacts on people and the environment need to be taken into
account. Under availability it is pointed out that because a site has planning
permission this does not mean that it will be available. It could be an
application by someone who does not own the land. Assessing achievability is
noted as being an economic viability issue. This depends on market, cost and
delivery factors. Residential valuation models are recommended. Where
constraints have been identified it is necessary to assess what action is
necessary to over come these.
Land Supply Assessment Checks, CLG, May 2009
9.11 Paragraph 12 of this document advises that any assessment should begin by
explaining the 5 years to be covered. A site schedule should identify the types
of site included, identify those under construction and those with planning
47

permission. The assessment should consider historic delivery patterns and
assess the delivery of the sites identified.
9.12 Paragraph 4.16 explains that the assessments need to take into account
historic under and over supply. Importantly, this paragraph also says that if the
authority are working with a ‘new’ RSS, the base date was recent (2006) and
this was taken to reset the clock for anything before the RSS start date ‘wiped
clean’. Paragraph 5.3 of the EEP 2008 indicates a start date for the annualised
requirement of 2006. Policy H1 of the EEP 2008 identifies a need for 250
dwellings per annum over the whole period
9.13 Paragraph 4.17 indicates that if the RSS identifies minimum requirements and
a District delivers more housing in a year than the minimum this cannot be set
against the following 5 years. Historic undersupply should be set against future
5 year requirements.
9.14 There are two methods of identifying the 5 year land supply. CLG identify the
Sedgefield example. This starts by identifying the RSS annualised requirement
for the RSS period. It is then necessary to establish the 5 year housing land
supply requirement. Shortfalls are then calculated and added to the next 5 year
requirement. This approach may bring about peaks and troughs in delivery
over the plan period but it enables closer management of the delivery of
housing against RSS requirements and ensures that shortfalls are dealt with as
soon as is possible. The second method, based on Liverpool City Council, is to
establish the annualised requirement from the RSS plus any shortfalls and
apply this across the remaining years of the plan period. This has the
advantage of providing an even supply across the years but, as is the case
with RDC, the disadvantage is that the annualised requirement creeps up and
does not address the problem soon enough. At the end of Appendix 9 I attach
an extract of a decision letter relating to the North East Sector of Crawley in
West Sussex where this issue is reviewed at paragraph 11.70 to 11.72. At
11.72 this Inspector said that “it might be argued that, in an ideal world, the
Sedgefield approach should be used when there is a shortfall thereby
addressing that within 5 years.” The Good Practice guidance is supportive of
both approaches. I also note at paragraph 11.73 onwards the treatment of
backlog. In the case I attach at the end of Appendix 9 the definition was not
clear but the conclusion drawn was that the figures in the RSS included
backlog up to the start year of the RSS (see paragraph 11.77). Paragraph 5.3
of EEP 2008 indicates 2006 as a start date.
9.15 At Appendix 9 is the assessment of Housing Land Supply.
9.16 In August 2008 a call for sites schedule and plan was published. This identified
144 sites. However, the final version of the SHLAA published in November
2009 included a total of 207 sites. For the purposes of my assessment I have
looked at Appendix B of the SHLAA and the sites comprising the 5 year supply
and the AMR 2009 schedule. I note that there is no Council data for
completions in the year 2009-10. However in view of the advice in the letter at
48

Appendix 27 and the data I include at Appendix 20, I conclude that the most
appropriate time period to consider is April 1 st 2010 to March 31 st 2015. I will
therefore need to make an assumption about housing completions in the 2009-
2010 period. I attach as Appendix 29 a list of sites representing schedule BF1
to BF21 and two employment sites relating to the 5 year supply (Stambridge
Mills and Star Lane).
9.17 Appendix 9 includes my Housing Land supply assessment. It is the appellant’s
case that there is only 1.07 years housing supply (310 dwellings) which accord
with the deliverability definition and advice at my Appendix 25 to 27. RDC claim
there to be at least 1273 deliverable dwellings and rely largely on Appendix D
and E of the SHLAA (appropriate brownfield sites) and Future Green Belt
allocations. Whilst this approach is based upon the emerging Core Strategy, I
find that there are flaws. There is no assessment of dwelling losses (the
SHLAA considered only dwelling capacities based on a density assessment)
The SHLAA Appendix D sites require refinement as a result. I have found that
the SHLAA has not fully considered the deliverability criteria and again a more
reasonable approach requires Appendix D and E of the SHLAA to be refined
further. I also find that in relation to the advice in my Appendix 25 and 27 it is
not correct that Greenfield sites are included in the 5 year supply. Greenfield
sites can only be considered if they are allocated or are brought forward into
the 5 year supply through a planning permission because there is a shortfall.
RDC’s approach is to align Greenfield sites with brownfield whereas PPS3
favours development on brownfield first.
9.18 The failure to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply is therefore
inconsistent with the EEP 2008 strategy for a ‘step change’ in housing delivery,
is inconsistent with the evidence for a longer planning time scale as noted in
PPG2, paragraph 4.46 of PPS12 and the EEP Review as supported by
paragraph 3.32 and 3.33 of the EEP 2008. The effect would be failure
represent failure in the delivery of the SCS before it is even approved. The
result of this outcome is stark - harm through a lack of quality and variety in the
housing stock locally, higher house prices locally and a reduction in consumer
choice. Importantly, the high house prices noted as being a feature of the lower
end of the housing market locally will eventually result in the inability of first
time buyers to enter the market. First time buyers are integral to a mobile
housing market since they propel movement between properties. Continuation
of housing supply shortage and high house prices will stall the housing market
eventually and lead more commuting from outside the region, low levels of
population mobility and poor housingchoice . I conclude that the limited
housing land supply would be contrary to PPS3, PPS1, PPS12 and the
objective to provide everyone with the opportunity to access a decent home.
This is a very special circumstance.
Development Opportunities within the Urban Areas
9.19 PPG2 notes that in relation to development plan preparation and alteration of
Green Belt boundaries, the Secretary of State will want to be satisfied that the
authority has considered opportunities for development within urban areas. I
conclude that whilst this is a specific approach for development plans, there is
49

merit in reviewing this matter since lack of development opportunities, is a
material consideration that, together with others, would be a very special
circumstances in justifying the delivery of a Greenfield site. I say this because if
there are no development opportunities of sufficient size then the EEP 2008
strategy for Rochford is undermined. Avoiding this is a very special
circumstance.
9.20 The RRLP allocates sites at Policy HP2. The only undeveloped allocated site is
that off Main Road (HP2(v). This adjoins the appeal site and relates to an
employment building in full occupation. RDC consider it as deliverable beyond
the 5 years reviewed here (See Appendix B of the SHLAA). PPS3 does not
encourage the identification of occupied employment sites for redevelopment
(paragraph 38 of PPS3 only refers to vacant or derelict sites). PPS4 also
discourages the use of employment sites for housing development unless part
of a mixed use Town Centre scheme (EC2.1i). Indeed Policy EC2.1(h) of PPS4
encourages the safeguarding of employment land from other uses generally. I
conclude that this site is not a reasonable prospect for development since it is
not available (being occupied for employment purposes), one of the units is
being actively marketed by the owner (Stonebridge Group) for office rental, is
suited to its current uses (having been in employment use for many years) and
is likely to be unachievable in view of the existing use value (RDC has provided
no evidence of viability).
9.21 The SCS is premised on the redevelopment of a large number of existing main
employment areas. Whilst some housing development on these older areas
could occur, the extent of RDC’s reliance on these sites as a source of housing
land is something that I disagree with and which the appellant has lodged
objections to under the SCS. There are other objector’s to this part of the SCS
who also question this approach. Since none of these sites are yet allocated
and do not benefit from planning permission, the weight attached to these as
development opportunities is limited in my view. In particular, I have found that
the Stambridge Mills site is contrary to PPS25 being not sequentially preferable
to the appeal site and not in a sustainable location. It would not be classed as a
deliverable development opportunity.
9.22 Of the other employment sites I have found that there is sufficient uncertainty
to cast doubt on their deliverability and therefore whether they are
‘development opportunities’ as per PPG2 or reasonable prospects for
development as per the SHLAA guidance. Key information on their suitability
has been overlooked and there is no consideration of viability, and ownership
issues. In view of saved Policy EB1 of the Adopted RRLP 2006 which seeks to
retain employment uses, the fact that objections have been lodged to the
employment strategy in the SCS and that PPS4 has been published after the
preparation of the SCS, I find that none of the sites can be classed as
development opportunities in the sense that they are available, achievable and
suitable, certainly as we sit and discuss this at Inquiry and moreover for the
foreseeable future.
9.23 In my view it is clear that there are no development opportunities of a size that
would facilitate delivery to meet the 5 year housing land supply shortages.
50

Even in the longer term, they are unlikely to achieve the numbers envisaged by
RDC and Green Belt sites would still need to be delivered to meet EEP 2008
requirements and those in the longer term. On this basis I consider that there
are exceptional reasons for Green Belt release generally within Rochford and
that this also contributes towards very special circumstances for the release of
this site now. The Secretary of State and this appeal Inspector can therefore
have confidence that this assessment is thorough and if permission were
granted it would not only comply with National strategies for Green Belt release
but would not undermine the delivery of the SCS – it would reinforce the
emerging strategy.
9.24 I have reviewed the SHLAA which I consider to be a expression of current
windfall sites and note at this point the advice in PPS3 that such sites should
not be considered. Some potential sites and a review of longer term potential
sites are identified. Excluding the sites which are being promoted through the
LDF and those where I question delivery and site capacity I conclude that at
most only 310 dwellings could be delivered. I conclude that whilst the SHLAA
provides some useful information, it does not demonstrate that there
reasonable prospects of many of the sites identified coming forward to deliver
the EEP requirement per annum.
10. Affordable Housing
10.1 Policy H2 of the EEP 2008 has a target of 35% affordable housing coming
forward through planning permissions. EEP notes the widening of the ratio of
house prices to incomes (paragraph 5.7 of the EEP) and that studies reveal
that some 11,000 new affordable homes are required in the region each year.
10.2 Policy H4 of the SCS seeks 35% affordable housing and Policy H5 of the
SCS requires an appropriate mix of housing with an emphasis on 3 bedroom
family homes. The supporting text to the Policy explains that “the Thames
Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment identified an
acute need for affordable housing within Rochford District, equating to 131
net additional affordable dwellings per year” (paragraph 4.30 of the SCS).
Paragraph 4.31 of the SCS then explains that the Council’s own Housing
Strategy 2009 identifies a “severity of the need for affordable housing in the
District and one of its key priorities is to maximise the provision of affordable
housing through the planning system.” RDC has an agreement with Rochford
Housing (part of the Sanctuary RSL) for delivery of 50 dwellings per year
(see paragraph 4.26 of the RDC Housing Strategy at Appendix 21). This has
not been achieved.
10.3 I have looked at the Thames Gateway South Essex SHMA (my Appendix 17)
and note at page 30, last paragraph, that “provision of affordable housing
through S106 Agreements is a vital way of both developing mixed
communities and helping to provide new homes for people on low to average
incomes.” Figure 5 on page 51 demonstrates that Rochford District exceeded
the Regional Average of homes not considered to be decent. Figure 9 on
page 74 notes that Rochford has the second lowest public sector (social)
51

housing provision at 9%. Appendix 3 of that document is most telling and
shows that Rochford has no strategic sites planned to meet social housing
needs up to 2011. (see Appendix 17).
10.4 The Council’s annual monitoring report (AMR 2009) notes on page 18 that
only 1 affordable housing unit was provided in that time period and confirms
that 131 units per annum are necessary. Interestingly, the 2008 AMR
devotes a whole section to affordable housing. In section 5 of the 2008 AMR
table 5.2 explains that of the 1429 completions since 2001 only 155 were
affordable units. This can be increased to 156 units with the data provided in
the 2009 AMR. This is a severe underachievement of affordable housing
provision and a backlog that continues to show no sign of stopping. Taking
the completions figure of 1615 I estimate in Appendix 9, it is clear that 35%
affordable housing would be 565 dwellings. As 156 was provided in the time
period to 2010, the backlog is 440 or more if the target of 131 units per
annum is aimed for. To put it bluntly, this is shocking affordable housing
delivery.
10.5 At the time of writing I have found no evidence of affordable housing sites
with planning permission or being built. In fact the consultation response at
paragraph 1.159 of the Committee Report notes that there are 650 applicants
in Rochford District on its Housing Register reflecting a high demand for
affordable housing. The majority of these potential households are concealed
and overcrowding is an outcome of limited affordable housing.
10.6 The Officers comments in the Committee Report at paragraph 1.215 are
equally shocking and reveal a worrying lack of understanding of what the
under provision of affordable homes means to people in the District. The
Officer’s comment is that because policy requires all new housing to provide
affordable units this does not constitute a very special circumstance to justify
this proposal. This analysis misses the point that it is the harm to social and
community objectives (not providing access to a home for those most
disadvantaged) through under provision of affordable housing which is the
issue. The RDC Housing Strategy at paragraph 3.22 notes that Rochford has
the highest house prices in the lowest house price bracket. Such high entry
prices make the District the least affordable at the lower end of the market.
New households cannot find suitable accommodation and are forced to live
in temporary accommodation. A linked issue is that if house prices are high
at the lower end of the market then this will affect the local housing market.
Put simply first time buyers are the driving force of the housing market.
Without them taking up properties at the lower end of the market there is no
ability to sell and as a consequence no ability to buy – the local market will
eventually become static.
10.7 Homelessness is an issue locally as indicated by the table on page 27 of the
Housing Strategy. This demonstrates that parents unable to accommodate
children and loss of rented accommodation were the principle reasons for
homelessness. The appeal proposals would erode this most serious problem.
The Thames Gateway South Essex SMA notes that recent repossessions
connected with the recession has increased and this is connected with a
52

greater incidence of homelessness. The impact is overcrowding, rough
sleeping and pressure on local housing services. I would refer the Inspector
to the conclusion on page 39 of the Annual Monitoring Report 2006-7 in my
Appendix 19 where the Council confirm that outmigration, and concealed
households combined with a failure to provide affordable housing would be
“significantly detrimental to the vitality of the District’s communities.”
The lack of affordable housing has persisted with no sign of being alleviated.
I submit that this harm is a very special circumstance and that the affordable
quota on this site would assist in eroding the severe backlog in provision and
help meet the future need year on year.
10.8 The appellant has instructed Exceptional Housing – a housing consultant
charged with identifying and then contractually binding a Registered Social
Landlord to support the delivery of affordable homes on the appeal site. The
appellant has short listed the RSL’s to Moat Housing, Chelmer Housing
Partnership and Sanctuary. At the time of writing terms of engagement were
being discussed and a signed contract is anticipated in early April. A meeting
was held with RDC on 18 th March to discuss the affordable housing and
subject to clauses relating to delivery over the life span of the development,
including necessary flexibility for delivery via a cascade mechanism, RDC
support the proposals.
10.9 The SCS expects 35% affordable homes will be delivered on grant of
planning permission in a split of 80% social renting and 20% intermediate.
The consultation response from RDC’s Housing Department (RDC10 of the
Questionnaire) expects the following mix from 330 units:
Social Rented
Bed size No.s
1 16
2 45
3 35
96
Intermediate
Bed size No.s
2 13
3 7
20
10.10 In view of the outline nature of the proposals, the legal agreement can refer
to the broad policy requirements, which the appellant is able to commit to.
The provision is based on grant being available and discussions are ongoing
as to the level. I will be able to update the Inspector during the Inquiry. It has
been agreed with RDC that for each phase the mix and tenure type will be
controlled by a cascade clause should it be necessary to depart from the
policy requirements. Such a cascade clause will require the submission of
evidence to justify any new mix/tenure type.
53

11.0 Mix, Quality, Density and overall suitability of the site in PPS3 terms
11.1 Para 69 of PPS3 is engaged where a proposal is being promoted in line with
paragraph 71 of PPS3. I have already reviewed the sustainability credentials of
the site in my evidence, particularly in relation to emerging policy. I do not need
to repeat this again suffice it to say that the location is highly sustainable in
relation to the existing settlements of Hockley and Hawkwell. I will however
wish the Inspector to note the opportunity for imposing appropriate planning
conditions to ensure a high quality housing development is achieved as per the
advice in the DCLG guidance booklet on information requirements and
validation.
11.2 Where a site is to be removed from the Green Belt there will be an obligation
on developers to make efficient use of land subject to valid consideration
amongst which are character, and impact on amenity. The settlement of
Hawkwell and Hockley, when considered together has a population in the order
of 12,000. The appeal proposals, if containing 2.4 persons per household,
would result in a population of 792 which is about 6.6% of the current
population. Consequently, the quantum of population that would be added to
the co-joined settlements is not significant and this would assist in creating a
sustainable extension to the urban area, which is subservient to the overall
population and extent of built development making up the settlement. The
density range being proposed is different to the surrounding area but this is
due to the surroundings being characterised by post war detached and semi
detached homes with a fairly low density of around 20 dwellings per hectare.
PPS3 recommends a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare and in the
SHLAA the Council has been carrying out its assessment of sites with a range
between 30 dwellings per hectare and exceeding 50 dwellings per hectare for
some brownfield sites. I also note the expectation in the EERA Conformity
letter and Appendix A thereto that Green Belt densities should be high (see my
Appendix 7). My colleague will explain how the masterplan and revised Design
and Access Statement illustrate how the development can deliver 330
dwellings. However, in my view the site is of a size which can deliver its own
distinctive character without harming the amenity of surrounding residents or
significantly changing the areas character.
11.3 In view of the outline nature of the scheme it is not appropriate to be specific
about the final appearance of the dwellings. However, the evidence explains
that an attractive, higher density scheme can be delivered in this area whilst
having regard to surrounding character. This approach does mean change and
it does mean higher densities. However, density on its own is not a reason to
refuse permission. Building form and disposition is just as relevant and in this
scheme I am confident that good quality buildings can be developed to create a
sense of place.
11.4 The proposals provide the opportunity for a good mix of housing and whilst the
exact mix will be agreed through reserved matters, the Design and Access
Statement was premised on a range from 1 bed apartments to 5 bed dwellings.
The scheme will be able to provide the mix of affordable housing requested by
RDC. I also note that the SCS states a local need for family homes and this is
54

what the scheme would deliver. The draft layout attached to my colleagues
evidence indicates a high proportion of detached and semi detached blocks
reflecting a localised demand for more family dwellings. I therefore conclude
that the scheme can achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the housing
requirements locally, is using the land effectively and efficiently and can
achieve high quality housing and living environments. RDC’s concerns about
the effect on the character of the area are not warranted in this case.
11.5 The scheme provides a small local centre, which would have a shop, doctor’s
surgery, possibly a dentist and a pharmacy. These facilities would mostly serve
the new development but in the case of the medical facilities, a wider area.
PPS4, Policy EC3 provides planning advice for centres. Whilst the advice is
targeting larger Town and Regional Centres, the important issue in PPS4 is to
ensure that the proposed centre fits in with the hierarchy of centres. In this
case Hockley Town Centre and the small parade of shops off Main Road are
the first and second order centres respectively. In this context the single shop
and medical facilities are a third tier centre which would ensure the appeal
proposals are sustainable in themselves and sustainable in a wider context. I
assess this issue at 16.14 of my evidence.
11.6 The local centre is located on a bus route the local centre benefits from route 7
and 8 which stops in Hockley Town Centre and at other points along Main
Road and Hall Road. The local centre is within the 800m walking isochrone
and a 2km cycle isochrone of a substantial portion of Hawkwell as noted at
Figure 3 and 4 of the Highways Statement of Common Ground. The proposals
therefore integrate will with the surroundings
11.7 The main element of the informal open space lies to the south of Spencer’s
Park and can act as an extension to it. The amount of open space is more than
would normally be required and would serve a wider area, including much of
Hawkwell. It provides a core recreational use at the centre of the development.
12.0 The Early Release of the Appeal Site and Phasing
12.1 I note that the Local Development Scheme (“LDS”) to cover the period 2009-12
is in front of the Secretary of State before being adopted. In view of this
timetable it is clear that the Council may publish the submission version of a
site allocations document by Autumn 2011 and following examination may
adopt in mid 2021. Clearly this has implications for the delivery of Policy H2 of
the SCS and housing land more generally. In any case I note that the AMR
2009 identified the south of Hawkwell site as being delivered from 2011
onwards. This would presuppose a planning decision in late 2010. This
advances my case that early release of the appeal site now, in a manner which
accords broadly with the SCS strategy, is appropriate otherwise delivery of the
emerging SCS will stall.
12.2 The reasons for refusal indicate that RDC place considerable weight on the
SCS and its materiality in the context of any decision. I agree with this up to a
point and I have explained the weight I attach to it in Section 6. I take the view
55

that because of the stage reached and letter of support from EERA, the
strategy for Green Belt release in the District and in the vicinity of the appeal
site is unlikely to significantly change, however, the detail of the policy such as
housing numbers and the quantum of employment sites allowed to be used for
new housing could alter and the weight attached to the 5 year housing land
supply and quantum of housing required on Green Belt land in the SCS is less.
I therefore conclude that whilst the broad principles of the strategy are likely to
perpetuate in a final Core Strategy, RDC’s reliance on the stage reached by
the SCS as a mechanism for objecting to the additional dwellings over and
above the 175 dwellings promoted in SCS is not justified.
12.3 I have considered in detail how the site could be developed and take as my
starting point an assumed outline planning permission in early 2011. A
phasing plan is included in the new Design and Access Statement and a
Gant chart overleaf.
Major Groundworks
12.4 Lead in times for pipe replacement are generally 18 months and the main
would need to be laid in the summer months to avoid peak usage of gas.
Stages are as follows based on a summer 2012 start for the physical works:
12.5 Reserved matters and discharge of planning conditions 6 months from early
2011 to mid 2011.
Phase 1 will be 2 years long and comprise of:
Year 1 (2011)
Ecological mitigation works beginning as soon as the first planning condition is
discharged through to 2012
Main landscaping enhancements 2011-12 (including the Rectory Road
frontage and wooded area)
Vehicular access
Year 2 (2012
Provision of remaining accesses off Rectory Road and Thorpe Road
Continuation of site preparation works
Relocation of the gas pipe mid 2012
Continuation of main landscape works
85 units built in the 2 years
Phase 2
Year 3 (2012-2013)
90 units built
Landscaping completed on eastern side of site (badger area and bat
mitigation)
Construction of local centre
56

Phase 3
Year 4 (2013-2014)
90 units built
Finalise landscape works
Phase 4
Year 5 (2014-2015)
65 units built
13.0 Ecology
13.1 I have previously reviewed the requirements in PPS9 earlier in my proof and
will examine the compliance with these below.
13.2 The planning application was accompanied by an ecological survey and
ecological report, with an additional report submitted on 5 th November to
explain the changes to the layout from an ecological perspective. Natural
England, the Environment Agency and the Council’s own advisor raise no
objection to the amended scheme. Rochford District Council has confirmed in
the Committee Report at paragraphs 1.277 to 1.287 that subject to appropriate
conditions the ecological survey and mitigation is sound. It is considered that
details remaining, such as invertebrate survey, can reasonably form the basis
of appropriate conditions.
13.2 The implementation of fully detailed method statements and a conservation
management and enhancement plan, will be necessary to optimize the
ecological value of the ditches, woodland, grassland and other retained
habitats and to maximize the range of plant communities and wildlife present.
This is a reserved matter governed by planning condition.
13.3 Following original comments made by Essex Wildlife Trust, new comments
were sent to RDC on 20 th January 2010 (see Appendix 18). These welcome
the changes made to the application on 5 th November 2009. Almost all the
comments relate to matters, which can be controlled by condition. The only
negative query relates to the amount of green links on the western side of the
site. However, given the boundary planting and informal green space proposed
in this area and that urban design principles specifically identify this area as
slightly higher density, I consider it acceptable as do RDC. The objection to this
is not considered so material to justify rejection of the scheme.
13.4 Hawkwell Action Group raise no detailed objection to ecological impacts and
Hawkwell Parish Council do not raise specific objection to ecological impacts
as set out in their minutes of the meeting held on 6 th October 2009.
Badger Mitigation
13.5 In summary the badger interests can be safeguarded through adequate
protection of the 2 existing active setts on site, retention of sufficient foraging
habitat and the provision of suitable badger movement corridors across the
site. Natural England licence procedures govern badger welfare.
57

Reptile Mitigation
13.6 There are substantial populations of slow worm, along with smaller numbers of
common lizard and grass snake. The mitigation strategy is to safeguard
through implementation of a suitable programme of mitigation prior to site
clearance. This will include on-site habitat enhancement, installation of reptile
fencing and in-situ translocation. Remaining reptiles will be captured and
translocated to a suitable receptor site, within close proximity of the application
site, to be agreed with Natural England (details of this are included in the
ecology submissions). The reptile mitigation will occur through the discharge of
conditions during 2011 in accordance with the phasing. The site will be
prepared and landscaping begun later in 2011 as part of Phase 1 works.
Bat Mitigation
13.7 The proposed retention of the house (no 352 Rectory Rd) and garden on site
will protect the brown long-eared bat roost. Planning conditions can ensure
that lighting in the vicinity of the site is appropriate.
13.8 It is concluded that the Government’s prime objective to conserve and enhance
biological diversity in PPS9 is met in these proposals. RDC have implemented
1(vi) of PPS9 which is to ensure planning decisions prevent harm to issues of
acknowledged importance. The PPS9 guidance is that networks of habitats
should be created to provide connections for migrating species (paragraph 12
of PPS9) and the proposals comply with this. Such networks should be
maintained, strengthened and integrated with development and this is what the
proposals achieve. Paragraph 14 of PPS9 advises local authorities to
maximise opportunities for building in beneficial bio-diversity. In this particular
case the new Suds habitat and woodland management would improve a
relatively poor quality environment. The proposals are amongst other things,
landscape and ecology led which is fully compliant with PPS9 and saved
policies CS2 and NR8 of the RRLP 2006.
14.0 Flood Risk
14.1 Anglian Water raise no objection and consider that planning conditions can
adequately deal with appropriate connection to water supply and foul water
discharge. The existing foul system maintains adequate capacity to serve the
proposed development and there is no issue with the implementation of a foul
water drainage system and conditions can ensure this meets the requirements
of Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition.
14.2 The built development area has been shown to be outside of the Flood Zones
including Flood Zone 1 being defined as low probability and having a less than
1 in 1000 year chance of river and sea flooding in any year (

14.3 A surface water network can be constructed which employs Sustainable Urban
Drainage Systems (SUDS) to effectively limit development flows to Greenfield
rates as to ensure risk to the proposed development, adjacent properties and
the public surface water drainage system is minimised. The Flood Risk
Assessment and subsequent discussions with the Environment Agency confirm
this.
15.0 Landscape and Trees
15.1 There are two tree preservation orders covering the site. A Woodland Order
which was made in 2007 (TPO/00021/07) in response to a landowner cutting
down trees and one in 1985 affecting some trees along the Rectory Road
frontage. The appellant has only just been made aware of the 1985 Order
(TPO/24/85) as it did not appear on the legal land charges search nor during
enquires with the Council. That said, the appellant’s tree survey considered
these trees in full and the Council considered very carefully tree issues at
paragraphs 1.273 to 1.276 of the Committee Report and in the Planning
Statement of Common Ground. RDC concluded that the benefits of tree
enhancement and retention in the scheme was sufficient to make the
application acceptable, though conditions were recommended. Whilst some
of the protected trees are proposed to be removed (T1, T2, T4 and T5) to
enable the site access, the remaining frontage trees are to be retained and
enhanced. The Planning Statement of Common Ground sets out RDC view
on the trees and that the appeal scheme appropriately retains the most
important trees.
16.0 Third Party Representations
16.1 There were a significant number of representations lodged in connection with
this application, nearly all of which objected to the scheme. The objections
were mainly by local residents, but also local politicians and the Member of
Parliament for the area. There was also a petition submitted against the
scheme. A group of Residents called the Hawkwell Action Group (now known
as the Christmas Tree Farm Development Action Group) was also formed.
Appendix RDC8 to RDC9 of the appeal questionnaire includes representations
from members of the public and the Committee Report summarises these.
RDC10 of the appeal Questionnaire includes representation from Rochford
District Council officers, Hawkwell Parish Council and other statutory
consultees.
16.2 I have reviewed the representations from third parties and whilst I have not
sought to identify every component of each objection (there are already part of
the Core Documents for this Inquiry) the most frequent objections from local
residents, the local MP and other politicians and action groups are:
(i) The development is out of character with the open and semi rural
character of the area. The impact on character is caused by the high
development densities with flats and other buildings up to 3 storey
compared with the semi detached and detached houses locally.
59

(ii) Loss of Green Belt land which is important to prevent the coalescence of
nearby built up areas.
(iii) Prematurity in the context of releasing the site now in advance of the
Core Strategy.
(iv) The site is in an unsustainable location the bus services are poor with
only hourly bus services. The site is in an unsustainable location being a
long way from local shops and employment areas. There is poor
pedestrian access along Rectory Road.
(v) The development of 330 dwellings would adversely affect the
surrounding road network by adding more traffic to roads, resulting in
congestion. The Spa Road/Main Road junction in central Hockley,
Railway bridge Junction to the east at Rochford and Rectory Road/Hall
Road junction are identified as congestion hotspots. The surrounding
roads do not have sufficient capacity.
(vi) The development would increase the demand for Doctor’s, dentists,
schools and services generally and there is no guarantee that the
developers will provide the facilities they say they will.
(vii) The proposals would bring no tangible benefits to the area either social,
economic or environmental.
(viii) The scheme would adversely impact on wildlife, particularly muntjac
deer and badgers.
(ix) There is considered to be an inappropriate balance in housing mix with
too much of low cost affordable housing.
16.3 (i) The development is out of character – My colleague, who is presenting the
urban design evidence, has fully reviewed the reasons for the density and
character of the development proposed and this is set out in his proof of
evidence. Many of the objections submitted by local residents are against what
they perceive to be the excessive number of apartment and 3 storey buildings
on the site and that the objective of the developer is to raise the densities to
maximise the development potential of the site. Whilst the Design and Access
Statement includes drawings which identify development parcels where up to 3
storey is identified, this drawing does not purport to show that all buildings in
this parcel will be 3 storey. The intention is to provide flexibility so that at
reserved matters stage proposals can be put together which are acceptable.
16.4 Whilst achieving high densities is important and is advocated in PPS3, the
effect on character must also be carefully considered. In order to allay public
and Council concerns an illustrative layout plan has been produced in the
urban design evidence. This shows that apart from key frontages and corner
locations, the predominant building type could be detached and semi detached
buildings. I use the word ‘could be ‘ because the plans are illustrative and
60

eserved matters proposals would need to be drawn up. That said, it would be
open to an Inspector to attach planning conditions in order to deliver the type of
layout illustrated in that plan. The heights plan also demonstrates that there are
actually very few instances where buildings up to 3 storey’s will be necessary
in order to create a sense of place and character. A number of 2.5 storey
buildings are noted on this plan but the majority are 2 storey. The actual
difference in height between these two types is limited.
16.5 (ii) Loss of Green Belt and coalescence – it is the case that the site is Green
Belt and development for housing is inappropriate. However, it is also the case
that the Council has undertaken a thorough assessment of housing land supply
and concluded that Green Belt land is needed to meet EEP 2008 requirements.
I conclude that this approach is necessary and accords with PPG2 (paragraph
2.6) and is not out of step with Policy SS7 of the EEP 2008. This area has
been looked at in the past for Green Belt release (see 1988 Local Plan and
planning history) including sites that have been allocated and planning
permissions granted. I am aware of the RRLP 2006 Inspector’s comments
about the site, however, the EEP 2008 and its Review begun in Autumn 2009
is a material consideration for the District. In view of this and my localised
Green Belt review in this evidence, the appeal site is the only one which
accords with the south Hawkwell location and is very well located to the
settlement thus making it a suitable location for housing.
16.6 The area has principally designated Green Belt to prevent coalescence of
Hockley/Hawkwell with Southend and Hockley/Hawkwell with Ashingdon and
Rochford to the east and Rayleigh to the west. The open gap between
Clements Hall Way and Thorpe Close and housing/industrial area to the west
is an historic anomaly caused by the presence of horticultural nurseries
hereabouts. Whilst in the past it has been defended as an open gap, I consider
that RDC have been willing to consider development in this area and that the
purpose for including land here in the Green Belt has been prevent
neighbouring towns from merging with one another. This is different to the
circumstances found here where we are considering the inappropriate
development and subsequent loss of Green Belt.
16.7 (iii) Prematurity –local objections are that the site should be considered as part
of the wider Core Strategy Examination. However, paragraph 72 of PPS3 says
that prematurity on its own is not a basis for refusing planning permission. If the
other reasons for refusal fall away then this on its own should not trigger a
refusal of permission. However, there are some important issues in this case
which make a decision in advance of the Core Strategy desirable and
necessary in the wider public interest. Moreover it can be done without
undermining the Core Strategy process. Firstly, the Council has gone to great
lengths to examine potential growth areas around the District. It has concluded
that at least 175 dwellings should be developed in this area. The Council has
come to this view following detailed analysis of the options and after various
consultation exercises. I have taken this assessment a step further and have
examined alternative location in south Hawkwell. This concludes that the
appeal site is the only potential site commensurate with the ‘south Hawkwell’
designation. A favourable decision can be made now without undermining the
61

emerging strategy. Secondly, the application is submitted on the basis of
paragraph 71 of PPS3 – that the Council does not have a 5 year housing land
supply and the approach in the SCS would not produce an effective Core
Strategy. I note that whilst local residents may feel that the development is
significant, in the context of the District’s requirement to 2021 (4,600 dwellings)
it is not that significant.
16.8 (iv) Sustainability and suitability of the site – the objections raise a number of
issues with regard to the sustainability credentials of the site and appeal
proposals. PPS3 (paragraph 36) also explains that access to jobs, services
and infrastructure is important. I have reviewed the suitability of the site earlier
in my evidence and do not repeat that here other than to comment that the site
is within 400m walking distance of the Leisure and recreational facilities in the
form of Clements Hall Way Leisure Centre and recreation ground, Hawkwell
Village Hall and the small employment site off Main Road (Figure 3 of the
Highways Statement of Common Ground. It is also within 400m walking
distance of the existing bus stops noted at Figure 2 of the Highways Statement
of Common Ground. There is an existing public footpath and bridleway network
as noted at Figure 3 of the Highways Statement of Common Ground which the
appeal proposals will integrate with.
16.9 Many objectors are concerned at the lack of bus services along Rectory Road
and access generally. In the Transport Assessment, Table 2.3 notes that
Hawkwell West has a split in the journey to work with only 2% by bus. This
assessment was undertaken following the reduction in the bus service along
Rectory Road from every 30mins to 1 per hour during the day time. The
appellant is engaged in a Section 106 discussion to ensure that improvements
are made which enhance the sites accessibility. These include contributions
towards the bus services along Rectory Road (more details are provided in the
Section 106 Section of my evidence). In addition to this, the bus stops along
Rectory Road will be improved and relocated to ensure that they are in
appropriate locations and of a quality that will attract custom. The nature of this
enhancement is included at paragraph 3.20 to 3.21 of the Highways Statement
of Common Ground. Without mitigation it was predicted at paragraph 5.16 of
the Transport Assessment that an additional 4 people per bus could be
expected as a result of the development. With mitigation (contribution to
services) this could be higher and would help sustain the bus service as
improved in the longer term. ECC support these initiatives.
16.10 This improvement will ensure that the population of the new development will
be able to access facilities further afield, including secondary schools, the main
employment site at Eldon Way and Hockley Town Centre. Access to the
nearby Westerings Primary School will be improved by a zebra crossing as
noted at paragraph 3.22 of the Highway Statement of Common Ground. This
will improve opportunities to walk and cycle for all local residents, not just those
associated with the new development. Finally the scheme includes footway
improvements on the northern side of Rectory Road to facilitate access. This is
considered to be particularly important as the existing footway is narrow and
not suitable for those who are mobility impaired.
62

16.11 (v) impact on adjoining highway – All respondents identified traffic concerns
amongst their objections. In particular they identified junctions which were
considered at capacity and which were congested. It was considered by most
that the severity of traffic volumes would be exacerbated by the development
proposals resulting in harm. Although Highway evidence has not been
prepared because Essex County Council have signed a Statement of Common
Ground, it is anticipated that a consultant from Ardent (the Highway
Consultants representing the appellant) will be available to answer questions at
the Inquiry. That said, the traffic impact of the proposals have been modelled
and the methodology, results and mitigation have been agreed with the
Highway Authority. The improvement to the Main Road/Hall Road/Rectory
Road junction in the form of a left turn lane has been identified as being
necessary to increase the capacity at this junction to serve the development. It
is material that the modelling predicts that most traffic will head east from the
site and then either north or south from the HallRoad/Rectory Road/Main Road
junction. This will provide access to Rochford, Cherry Orchard Way and the
employment areas near Southend.
16.12 (vi) Demand for services – A high proportion of respondents have concerns
that local services will not be able to cope and that the promises made in the
appeal application will not be delivered. A detailed review of the local centre
provision is included below, however, in response to specific concerns I can
confirm that the local centre will be the subject of a specific obligation in the
legal agreement and that this will deliver a centre of 1,000 sq. m and that this
will include a medical facility (Doctor’s and/or dentist) up to 500 sq. m, local
shop and/or pharmacy. The local centre will be delivered during phase 2.
Consultation with local practitioners has confirmed that there is a need for
purpose built medical accommodation and details of this consultation is
included in Appendix 23. The Hockley Parish Plan also supports the need for
such facilities. The provision of a medical facility on a pre-existing bus route will
enable the development’s population, Hawkwell residents and those living in
more rural parts of Hawkwell Parish to access much needed facilities. Essex
County Council has reviewed the scheme and has concluded that only Early
Years Care contributions are required. This assessment is based on the Draft
Essex School Organisation Plan 2009-2014. I review this below. That said, I
can confirm that contributions will be made based on a formulaic approach to
be settled at the time of reserved matters applications.
16.13 In addition to these services, the development is to provide contributions
towards playing field improvements at the Clements Hall Way recreation
ground and to built facilities in lieu of on site provision. These improvements
will ensure that play space locally is not eroded and this is supported by the
local authority. The SCS explains at page 52 requirements for new
infrastructure and services. In the context of this list relating to South Hawkwell
the appeal proposals are compliant with Appendix H1.
16.14 (vii) Benefits to the wider community – As noted above, the development will
deliver tangible benefits both economic, social and environmental. Firstly the
creation of a local centre with a shop, and medical facility open space will
deliver a need for employees, and employees connected with active open
63

space management. Contributions towards education, and play space will
generate a direct investment locally and through the multiplier deliver a short
term gain. Council tax contributions from the development will perpetuate this.
A 3 GP surgery could require 2 receptionists 2 nurses and cleaning staff. A
shop could generate a need for 3-6 staff depending on size and a pharmacy
may require 1-2 members of staff (potential for 16 full and part time jobs). The
site as it exists currently has very few employees connected with the Christmas
Tree farm with 1 full time during the year and up to 20 during the 3 weeks
leading up to Christmas. The ambulance storage and breakers has an owner
occupier and 1 or 2 part time staff. The contributions to bus services will have
direct employment benefits and social benefits through an improved service.
16.15 The site will provide 35% affordable housing and this will help provide
opportunities for local people on the housing register to gain access to housing.
The benefits will be a reduction in concealed households which contributes to
overcrowding. Generally the new homes will be accessible to nearby facilities
and this together with a variety of tenures and dwelling types will complement
existing provision but also provide alternatives in the form of a small proportion
of 1 and 2 bed flats. The appeal scheme will bring housing choice to the area
and through the variety of dwelling sizes create a well balanced mix
community.
16.16 The environmental benefits relate to the woodland management that will be
undertaken in relation to a large area on the north-western side of the site.
Currently the majority of this area comprises self seeded trees around 30 years
old. They are thin, closely spaced and of generally poor quality. There is limited
understorey growth. Whilst there are some specimen trees distributed through
this area, the woodland is not considered to be good habitat. The management
proposals, including the introduction of Suds would provide new habitats with
public access. This would be available to a wider population than the occupiers
of the proposed dwellings.
16.17 (viii) adverse impact on wildlife – The appeal proposals have been
accompanied by an ecological survey and species report. This has identified a
main badger sett and a sett that is an outlyer but which is no longer used. Bats
have been found in the loft of the retained house on the site and reptiles exist,
principally slow worms. A mitigation strategy has been developed and this is
supported by English Nature and RDC. In relation to ecology, it is important to
draw attention to the safeguarded area around the main sett and the green
corridor that is retained through the site. These features would provide the
means by which the badgers could access the wider area to forage for food.
The improved retained woodland would also benefit badgers through the
improvement to the habitats in that location, this would enhance their foraging
area. A number of objector’s have commented on the impact on local deer
populations and whilst the development will displace deer who might otherwise
have used this area, the provision of north-south corridors ensures that routes
of movement can be maintained. Bats would not be unduly affected since the
retained property (No 352 Rectory Road) includes a large rear garden and is
adjacent to the north-south green corridor. Reptiles are to be translocated on
site and to off site locations during the course of the development.
64

16.18 (ix) too much affordable housing thus affecting the balance of the
community – The scheme includes 35% affordable housing which is consistent
with emerging Core Strategy policy and adopted EEP 2008 Policy H2. The
affordable housing will be split with 80% of it being socially rented and 20%
intermediate. This is a reflection of the emerging Core Strategy policy H4. The
advice of RDC is for a high proportion of family houses and this is what is
proposed. Although the scheme is in outline form, the design rationale has
worked on the basis of delivering up to 70% 3 to 5 bed properties and 30% 1
and 2 bed apartments. This reflects the demand locally as explained in the
section below. The appellant is confident that the tenure and house type mix is
appropriate for the locality.
17.0 Section 106 Contributions
17.1 The current legislative framework for planning obligations is set in Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Government guidance on
the implementation of this legislation is found in Circular 05/2005: Planning
Obligations.
17.2 Under the provisions of the Circular, planning obligations are required to
accord with the Secretary of State’s policy as set out in the Circular
(paragraph B4). Additionally, planning obligations are only to be sought
where they meet all the tests set out at paragraph B5 of the Circular, namely
that they are:
o Relevant to planning;
o Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
o Directly related to the proposed development;
o Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development; and
o Reasonable in all other respects.
17.3 As explained at paragraphs B6 and B7 of the Circular, however, planning
obligations are not to be used as a means of securing a planning permission,
or indeed to secure betterment, by sharing the profits of a development.
17.4 As set out in paragraph B8 of the Circular, development plan policies are a
crucial pre-determinant in justifying the seeking of a planning obligation.
There should be a direct link between the policy requirements as articulated
through the relevant – and up to date - planning policies, the site, and the
obligations being sought. As explained at paragraphs B25 to B30 of the
Circular, the plan led approach is supported, and where high level policies for
delivering planning obligations do not exist supplementary planning
documents or topic based development plan documents should be prepared
to bridge the policy vacuum. All such policies, however, should accord with
the advice in the Circular.
17.5 Additionally, and as explained at paragraph B9 of the Circular, the objective
is to ensure that where additional infrastructure facilities become necessary
as a consequence of a development, a contribution towards the costs of
65

these additional facilities may be secured. However, whilst it is recognised
that some wider community benefit may arise as a consequence,
contributions cannot required in order to offset pre-existing deficiencies nor to
achieve wider planning objectives.
17.6 Within this general context it is important to note that ALL of the five
conditions set out at paragraph B5 of the Circular are to be satisfied if an
obligation is to be considered appropriate. It is also pertinent to note that, in
the context of the current appeal, detailed and up to date development plan
policies and supplementary planning documents do not exist which set out
the detailed basis on which contributions to be sought by way of a planning
obligation will be justified or calculated.
17.7 I consider that the saved policies of the RRLP 2006, SCS, EEP 2008,
relevant PPS’s and the investigations carried out by the appellant in relation
to the appeal proposals provide the necessary starting point for considering
the need for obligations.
17.8 Whilst the policy framework is not as detailed as one would ideally need,
there is sufficient evidence available to ensure contributions are reasonable
and sustainable. When defining the rate of contribution, however, I consider it
fair and reasonable to focus on the development’s impact.
17.9 Within this context, my approach is to explain how the Section 106
Agreement has been put together in order to cerate a sustainable
development. This is undertaken against he backdrop of the Circular to
rationalise the contribution being sought, having regard to how it relates to
the site, the planned development, and whether it is necessary to the grant of
planning permission. In adopting and this approach the following are seen as
being key considerations:
• all of the five conditions set out at paragraph B5 of the Circular are to be
satisfied if an obligation is to be considered appropriate (paragraph B5);
• obligations are not to be used as a means of securing a planning
permission, or indeed to secure betterment (paragraphs B5 and B6);
• contributions cannot be made to offset existing deficiencies nor to achieve
wider planning objectives (paragraph B9);
• economic viability can be considered in the context of contribution
negotiation and under certain circumstances the public purse may be used
to deliver sustainable development (paragraph B10);
• if a development creates a need for a facility that is relevant to planning
then a obligation can be sought (paragraph B15);
• planning obligations can be used to offset, through substitution, the
replacement, regeneration, loss or damage to a nearby resource
(paragraph B16);
66

• contributions towards on-going management can be an appropriate matter
for obligations and can be required in perpetuity where the provision is for
the ongoing benefit of the users of the development, though where the
asset is intended for wider public use, the costs of subsequent
maintenance and other recurrent expenditure should normally be borne by
the body or authority in which the asset will be vested (paragraph B18);
• pump priming contributions to the initial support of facilities are relevant
obligations, but these should not be required in perpetuity and should
reflect the time lag between the provision of the facility and its inclusion in
public sector funding streams (paragraph B19);
• pooling of contributions with those from other developers can be
undertaken and is acceptable as a principle (paragraph B21);
• While standard charges can be appropriate, they should reflect the actual
impacts of the development and should not be applied in blanket form
(paragraphs B33 to B35); and
• where there is a choice between imposing conditions or planning
obligations, conditions shall be used in preference (paragraph B51).
17.10 Appendix H1 and Policy/Appendix CLT1 of the SCS (page 52) identifies
the following infrastructure to accompany residential development at the
appeal site:
• Local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements
• Public transport infrastructure and service enhancements
• Sustainable drainage systems
• Play space
• Links to cycle networks
• Link and enhancements to local pedestrian/cycling and bridleway
network
17.11 Appendix CLT1 sets out a wider requirement for compliance with standard
charges in order to deliver necessary infrastructure such as education and
play space. Other policies in the SCS which are relevant include Policy CLT
3 which requires education infrastructure, CLT4 requiring health
infrastructure where a need is identified and CLT 5, 7, 9 and 10 which are
considered relevant to this appeal proposal and relate to open space, play
space leisure facilities and community facilities. These are all emerging
policies and whilst the strategy for seeking contributions is likely to be sound,
the specific wording of the policies may alter. Relevant policies also exist in
the RRLP 2006 including LT2 and LT5 relating to play space. A Section 106
67

Agreement has been prepared and is to be submitted. At the time of writing
the following is the broad structure:
Affordable housing obligations (Clause 3.1)
17.12 The basic provisions are for 35% of the units to be affordable, with at least
80% affordable rent and 20% intermediate. This accords with SCS Policy
H4 and EEP 2008 Policy H2. It reflects the research carried out in the
Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Market Housing Assessment and is
supported by RDC. There is a sound evidence base for the requirement
given the homlessness evidence and poor delivery of homes and affordable
locally. It accords with the Circular. The clauses provide for each of the
percentages to be varied by written agreement with the Council. This is
important in ensuring a flexible agreement that can react to changing
circumstances.
17.13 The thresholds (by reference to open market sales) for entering into an
agreement with an RSL and providing services to the site of the affordable
dwellings are to be specified but at the time of writing these have not been
resolved.
17.14 Clause 3.1.10 reflects the cascade provisions. An assumption is made that
grant is available and the level is to be agreed with RDC. The clauses require
that in the first instance a RSL is approached.
17.15 Clause 3.1.12, reflects the fallback provision for affordable housing in the
absence of any grant and the ability to vary the affordable delivery in terms of
mix and tenure.
17.16 Clause 3.1.14 reflects the delivery of affordable housing in phases and for
the affordable housing obligations to be discharged on a phase by phase
basis.
Open space, landscaping and associated areas
17.17 Open space and local areas for play are proposed as part of the scheme.
These reflect policy Clause 3.2 reflects an obligation to set up a management
scheme for maintaining these areas, with a proviso that if a binding
agreement has been entered into with the Parish Council for maintaining any
part of them before the marketing of the units commences, then any areas
taken over by the Parish will be excluded from this scheme. This has been
agreed with RDC in principle and accords with Policy LT5 of the RRLP 2006.
The development creates a need for open space and children’s play space
and whilst the woodland Tree Preservation Order results in more open space
than might otherwise be required by policy, there is a clear need for
management that accords with the Circular.
68

17.18 It is proposed that a management company will ensure that open space and
Sustainable drainage is managed through an Estate Management Company.
Foul sewers will be adopted. Anglian Water may wish to also adopt the Suds
but this is not necessary for the development to proceed and in any event
can be agreed separately under the Water Industry Act.
Payment towards sports facilities
17.19 Sport England supported the strategy put forward in the appeal scheme
which is to make a contribution to off-site facilities rather than include playing
fields and other facilities on site which would compete with the nearby leisure
centre. RDC has published SPD 3 ‘Playing Pitch Strategy’ 2007, and this
supports saved policy. This advises that improvements are needed to the
Clements Hall Way recreation ground playing fields. There are no policies
explaining how contributions should be calculated. As a consequence the
appellant appointed PMP Genesis to review current provision and advise on
an appropriate contribution for outdoor play space and sports facilities as
requested by Sport England and the District Council. A report is attached as
Appendix 22 and this has informed the provisions are set out in clause 3.3. It
has assessed the impact created by the development, how best to mitigate
this impact and the cost of carrying out the works.
17.20 The proposals are a £144,000 contribution to provide necessary drainage
improvements to existing pitches thereby enhancing their useability in poorer
weather. Resurfacing the multi use games area and the replacement of the
linoleum in the leisure centre is also proposed. These would meet the built
and outdoor play space needs generated by the development and are
reasonably related in scale to the development. They would comply with the
suggested improvements at page 102 of the RRLP 2006 and Policy LT2 of
that development plan. It accords with the Circular.
The medical centre
17.21 During the public consultation stage for the application proposals local people
remarked that medical facilities locally were not able to cope with the
demand. Although the Primary Care Trust for this area did not respond to
RDC’s application consultation or recent consultations, several GP surgeries
have expressed an interest either to relocate and expand their facilities or to
open new facilities. Clearly the development will result in a demand and it is
right to meet that demand. Copies of correspondence are included at
Appendix 23. The relevant provisions are set out in clause 3.4, and again
reflect the matters discussed at an initial meeting with Rochford District
Council’s planners and legal department. In outline, it provides that during an
initial 2 year period, investigations will be undertaken to ascertain whether
there is a need for medical facilities and funding available to support new
facilities, and during this period no approval of reserved matters application
shall be made for non-medical use unless it incorporate facilities for which an
offer has been made or an agreement secured.
17.22 If at the end of that 2 year period no such offer has been made, a general
local centre commercial reserved matters application may be made but it
69

must provide for accommodation suitable for use by any party that has
expressed an interest for medical use.
17.23 If at the end of a further 2 year period no medical user has been found, then
such accommodation can be released for general commercial use.
17.24 There is an additional proviso (clause 3.4.5) whereby an application can be
made to the Council if it appears clear that there is no demand and/or funding
available for the medical use.
Education Contribution
17.25 The consultation response from Essex County Council explained that there
was only a need for early years care provision and not primary or secondary
school places. This judgement was based on the Draft Essex School
Organisation Plan 2009 to 2014. I include relevant extracts at Appendix 24
including Figures 2 and 3 showing a decline in pupil numbers, Tale 2
ilustrating similar pupil number declines, and Table 5, 34 and 35 which
explains that in the Castle Point and Rochford Local delivery groups there will
be a surplus of 1,138 primary school places in 2014 once EEP 2008
projections are taken into account a spare capacity of 263 child spaces for
secondary child spaces by 2014. Even with the development of up to 330
units on this site it would not trigger a need to contribute with the spare
capacity identified together with expected fall in rolls in the longer term
beyond 2014.
17.26 The provisions are incorporated in clause 5.2 and currently set out the
standard wording that has been acceptable to Essex County Council on other
sites. This accords with HP5 of the RRLP 2006.
Residents’ Travel Pack
17.27 Sustainability and encouraging residents to use modes of transport other
than a car is the cornerstone of PPG13. In view of the need to integrate the
site with its surroundings it is considered that a travel pack is reasonably
necessary. The wording in clause 5.3 reflects the requirement and this
accords with saved Policy CS3 of the RRLP 2006.
Bus Subsidy
17.28 The appellant’s highway consultants have identified a need for a subsidy to
secure a long term improvement to the local bus services. 3 payments to be
made – on first occupation, and then on the two successive anniversaries. At
the time of writing a contribution of £300,000 over 3 years has been agreed.
The number 8 service has recently been reinstated with improved frequency
by ECC. However, the contribution previously agreed would ensure the
security of the service at the point of development if the service has been
removed. If the existing format of service is still running then part of the
contribution would go towards the creation of an evening service. Any
unspent contribution would be returned to the developer at the end of the
agreed period. This complies with Policy CS3 of the RRLP 2006.
70

Other matters
17.29 Grampian style conditions are proposed for matters relating to highway
improvements, which will be undertaken through Section 278 Agreements.
These include:
Signalling improvements at the Hall Road/Cherry Orchard Way
roundabout
A filter left lane at the Main Road/Hall Road/Rectory Road roundabout
Improvements to the footway on the northern side of Rectory Road
Bus stop relocation and enhancements along Rectory Road
17.30 Other conditions can secure necessary ecological and landscape
management schemes, management of the access through Thorpe Road
and details of the private drives to be included off Clements Hall Way.
Creation of pedestrian and cycle links can be achieved through reserved
matters applications.
Bridge Crossing of Ditch to north
17.31 The appellants have been trying to discuss the construction of a small
footbridge(s) across the ditch with the Parish Council who control the
northern bank and (Spencer’s Park). At the time of writing no agreement
could be reached although the Inspector will be updated. Whilst the
appellants would be prepared to consider a crossing it may not be possible to
include this in the S106. The opportunity exists to provide these links if the
circumstances change. The appeal scheme would continue to benefit from
access via the north east corner to Clements Hall Way and via Thorpe Close
to the west and the scheme would not be compromised.
18.0 SUMMARY
18.1 The site is in the Green Belt and therefore the proposals constitute
inappropriate development as set out in paragraph 3.1 to 3.3 of PPG2.
However, there are very special circumstances that justify this particular appeal
proposal and that these are sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green
Belt. I note that PPS1 provides a mechanism for determining applications with
regards to material considerations where adopted policies may be superseded
or not relevant.
18.2 The Rochford Replacement Local Plan 2006, is not up to date. It is superseded
by the EEP 2008 and the advice in PPS3 generally both of which post date the
RRLP and introduce fundamentally new housing strategies and policies. This
application/appeal was submitted on the basis of the advice at paragraph 71
and 72 of PPS3. The policies in the EEP 2008 provide a clear strategy for
delivering housing in the period up to 2021 but in association with PPG2 and
PPS12, in the longer term beyond 2021. In view of this and the evidence in the
EEP Review, I consider that development needs beyond that considered by
RDC are relevant. PPS12 and paragraph 4.46 relate to an effective strategy
and in particular the need for a flexible approach. This is material as I am of the
71

view that it is right in this appeal to consider a period to 2031 as regards Green
Belt considerations. This is a material consideration, which together with others
forms very special circumstances.
18.3 RDC has produces a Submission Core Strategy (SCS) which is due to be
examined. RDC has identified that exceptional circumstances exist to justify
Green Belt review and a location defined as ‘south Hawkwell’ has been
identified to deliver some housing on Green Belt land (Policy H2, H3 and
paragraph 4.16 of the SCS). Whilst the weight attached to the strategies in
the SCS will vary, I have considered the objections and take the view that the
broad principle of Green Belt release will persist into the approved Core
Strategy as the evidence clearly demonstrates this. I also conclude that the
area ‘south Hawkwell’ will also persist into an approved Core Strategy. As a
consequence it is material that emerging policy drawn up by RDC appears to
support housing development in this area and this should be taken, with others,
as a very special circumstance. A review of the EEP is also underway and
provides sufficient evidence for the likely housing that will be required in
Rochford in the period to 2031. This evidence and emerging policy also
supports housing growth and reinforces the need for localised Green Belt
release in the longer term. It is a material consideration in support of the appeal
scheme and this supports the very special circumstances case.
18.3 The appeal site is consistent with the ‘south Hawkwell’ designation in Policy
H2 of the SCS and is in a sustainable location that is suitable for housing
development. The assessment I have undertaken of potential alternative sites
has lead me to this view and as such it is not necessary to wait until the
Examination to ratify the site as being suitable compared with other potential
options. Even though objections have been lodged to the site through the SCS,
that is the case for most of the Green Belt sites and I do not consider that these
would undermine the site from being considered as a suitable location given
the assessment criteria used by RDC at paragraph 4.16 of the SCS. This is a
material consideration in support of development of the site and in terms of
development in advance of the Core Strategy. It would be a material
consideration that, with others is a very special circumstance.
18.4 The area in which the appeal site is located has experienced alterations to the
Green Belt in the past through Local Plan Reviews. Planning permissions have
also been granted for development in this area. Although this appeal will not
change the Green Belt boundary – that is a matter for a local development
document – a new boundary can readily be defined which accords with PPG2
requirements in paragraph 1.5. It would result in the housing adjacent to
Clements Hall Way and the main part of the settlement to the west joining but
these areas are functionally part of the same settlement anyway. In addition,
the Green Belt in this area is principally concerned with preventing the
coalescence of Southend on Sea with settlements in Rochford and from
Hawkwell/Hockley coalescing with Rochford, Ashingdon and Rayleigh. It is
material that, although the proposals will result in inappropriate development
within the Green Belt, the long term impacts on the Green Belt, particularly in
terms of its function and purpose, are not altered such that planning permission
72

should be withheld on these grounds. This is a material consideration that I
consider, with others, should be taken as a very special circumstance.
18.5 It is the appellants case that there is not a 5 year housing land supply in
Rochford District. Appendix 9 of my evidence includes my Housing Land
Supply assessment. It is the appellant’s case that there is only 1.07 years
housing supply (310 dwellings) which accord with the deliverability definition
and advice at my Appendix 25 to 27. In the specific circumstances of RDC, this
shortfall is so severe as to be a very special circumstance. RDC claim there to
be at least 1273 deliverable dwellings and rely largely on Appendix D and E of
the SHLAA (appropriate brownfield sites) and Future Green Belt allocations.
The AMR predicts 1393. Whilst this approach is based upon the emerging
Core Strategy, I find that there are flaws. There is no assessment of dwelling
losses (the SHLAA and AMR 2009 considered only dwelling capacities based
on a density assessment) The SHLAA Appendix D sites require refinement as
a result. I have found that the SHLAA has not fully considered the deliverability
criteria and again a more reasonable approach requires Appendix D and E of
the SHLAA to be refined further. I also find that in relation to the advice in my
Appendix 25 and 27 it is not correct that Greenfield sites are included in the 5
year supply. Greenfield sites can only be considered if they are allocated or are
brought forward into the 5 year supply through a planning permission because
there is a shortfall. No to do so places them on a par with brownfield sites. The
extent of the shortfall fully justifies the level of housing proposed on this appeal
site. I therefore conclude that to comply with PPS3, and EEP 2008 the appeal
site should be approved and that this, together with others is a very special
circumstance.
18.6 I note the advice at paragraph 2.6 of PPG2 in relation to whether there are
development opportunities within urban areas that would be sufficient to
obviate the need for a Green Belt sites. Whilst this relates to development plan
documents, I conclude that the weight of objection and deliverability constraints
surrounding the employment sites earmarked for development are such that
RDC cannot rely on these in their 5 year housing land supply. There is no
reasonable prospect of them being delivered. Some employment sites are in
full employment use. Other sites are too small to add meaningfully to the
supply. This is a material consideration that with others is a very special
circumstance.
18.7 Linked to a lack of housing is the limited affordable housing that has been
delivered by RDC. The need has been identified as being 131 dwellings per
annum in paragraph 4.30 of the SCS but because most of the sites that have
come forward recently have been small windfall sites, very few affordable
housing units have been delivered. I have estimated that since 2001 there is a
backlog of 440 dwelling units. Such a shortfall has severe social implications if
concealed households continue to exist in overcrowded homes. Although
provision of affordable housing is a normal policy requirement, the particular
circumstances in Rochford mean it this is a material consideration that would
fulfil the very special circumstances test. The evidence for this is in
homelessness, concealed households and affordability enabling access to
73

homes. This is a material consideration that with others is a very special
circumstance.
18.8 The scheme would deliver a good mix of housing which meets local needs.
Although in outline, the quality and character of the development meets the
tests in paragraph 69 of PPS3 and conditions can ensure that this is the case.
Whilst this is a normal requirement of policy as noted in paragraph 69 of PPS3,
in this particular case the ability to deliver habitat enhancements through active
management and improved bio-diversity is a material consideration that meets
the tests in paragraph 12 and 14 of PPS9. Medical facilities would be
provided and this also meets a wider community need. Whilst mitigating the
impact is a normal policy requirement, the nature of the habitat enhancements
and medical facilities will be a material consideration since they benefit the
wider community.
18.9 The contributions and obligations to be made in the Section 106 Agreement
flow from the impacts of the scheme and are compliant with Circular 05/05.
They are contributions to deliver particular emerging and adopted policy
requirements and are necessary to make the development acceptable. They
would not be a very special circumstance.
74

Appendix 9 - Review of Housing Land Supply
75

Housing Land Supply
A9.1 The first step is to identify the 5 year period to which the land supply should
apply. The AMR 2009 only covers the period to 31 st March 2009. The
SHLAA only covers the period to November 2009. However, it is necessary
to consider a 5 year period from 1 st April 2010 to 31 st March 2015. This
approach is made clear by the advice at Appendix 27 of my evidence
regarding the 5 year trigger date. I conclude that the Inspector needs a best
estimate for the period 1 st April 2009 to 31 st March 2010 in order to be
satisfied that he has the most up to date housing land supply information.
A9.2 RDC have not produced more recent figures which is unfortunate but they
have included a projected figure of 218 dwellings in their Table 4.10 of the
AMR 2009 for the year 2009 to 2010. I disagree with this figure, partly
because of recent trends noted in the Table below, but also given the
available evidence.
General Trends
A9.3 I note that predicted net dwelling completions have never come close to
reflecting actual net dwelling completions (see below).
AMR Predicted Net Dwelling Actual Net Dwelling Completions
Completions (RDC estimate) (RDC monitoring data)
AMR 2005 321 AMR 2006 Actual for
(Table 4.12)
2006 = 262
AMR 2006 302 AMR 2007 Actual for
(Table 4.15)
2007 = 449
AMR 2007 184 AMR 2008 Actual for
(Table 4.10)
2008 = 169
AMR 2008 114 AMR 2009 Actual for
(Table 4.10)
2009 = 102
A9.4 The NHBC returns for the period 1 st April 2009 to January 31 st 2010 reveals
23 completed dwellings. The Rochford District Council Building Control data
only registers commencements and this reveals 54 net dwelling
commencements in the period 1 st April 2009 to January 2010 (see Appendix
20). The SHLAA, at Appendix B confirms that during April 1 st 2009 and 1 st
November 2009:
Under construction = 7 dwellings
With full planning permission = 73 dwellings
With outline planning permission = 26 dwellings
A9.5 Of these planning permissions, RDC commencement data reveals that
Land west of Pollards Close, 254 High Street, Great Wakering, 174
76

Eastwood Road, Rayleigh and 18 Kingsman Farm have all commenced (20
dwellings). In the absence of any data from RDC and in order to try and
identify a more accurate predicted completions figure for the period 1 st April
2009 to 31 st March 2010, I suggest the following is assumed for the period
2009 to 2010:
23 completed dwellings as per NHBC returns
7 dwellings under construction as per the SHLAA
54 net dwelling commencements representing a generous assumption of
likely completions in the period and as such is sufficient to reflect a full 12
month period (see Appendix 20).
A9.6 The total is 84 dwellings for the period 1 st April 2009 to 31 st March 2010.
This fairly represents a likely delivery of 84 net dwellings in the period 2009
to 2010 and continues the downward trend noted in the AMR 2009. It also
fairly reflects the depth of the recession last year and that no allocated sites
or other significant sites were delivered by RDC.
Identifying a 5 year housing land supply requirement
A9.7 The next step is to identify the residual requirement as per the Sedgefield
approach noted previously in my evidence. The EEP 2008 identifies a
minimum requirement of 250 dwellings per annum between 2006 and 2021
after taking into account the net completions to 2006. Paragraph 5.3
indicates 2006 as the start year. This gives a requirement of 1250 dwellings
for a 5 year period and this is noted by RDC in their AMR 2009. Firstly, I
need to identify the shortfall from April 1 st 2006 to 31 st March 2010 and
examine how this affects the target annual rate of 1250 for the 5 year period.
A9.8 The period 2006 to 2010 resulted in 449 +169 +102 + 84 dwellings = 804
dwellings whereas at 250 per annum 1000 dwellings should have been built
in the period 2006 to 2010. This is a shortfall of 196 dwellings to be added to
the 1250 required for the 5 year period and in order to raise the delivery rate
as indicated by paragraph 5.4 of EEP 2008.
Requirement 2010 to 2015 1250
Shortfall in period 2006 to 2010 196
Total 5 year minimum requirement 1446
A9.9 Annualised, as per the Sedgefiled approach, produces a minimum requirement
of 289 dwellings per annum. If the Liverpool City Council methodology were
adopted as noted in paragraphs 11.70 and 11.72 of the appeal at the end of
this Appendix then the 3,790 identified in Policy H1 of the EEP 2008 plus the
196 dwelling shortfall from 2006 to 2010 would produce an annualised
requirement of 266 dwellings per annum to 2021 and a 1330 dwelling
requirement for the next 5 years. However, for the reasons I note the
Sedgefield example is more appropriate in this instance in order to meet the
shortfall earlier in the plan period and deliver the upward trajectory in housing
completions noted at paragraph 5.4 of the EEP 2008. Since 2006 the
77

annualised rate of delivery has not been met so a higher annualised
requirement is now more important to meet paragraph 5.4 advice.
A9.10 The next step in the process of establishing a 5 year housing land supply is to
examine the reasonable prospects for delivery of identified housing sites
including planning permissions. To do this I need to review existing planning
permissions, sites that might be allocated and other sites which have advanced
sufficiently through the planning process that they can be said to have a
reasonable prospect of delivery.
Identifying a supply from planning permissions
A9.11 This is a relevant source as noted in the Advice Note at Appendix 25 of my
evidence. Appendix B of the SHLAA includes sites with outline and full
planning permission totalling 106 dwellings up to November 2009. This is
more up to date than the AMR 2009. As 20 dwellings have been commenced
as per the RDC returns and included in my assessment above, I consider
there to be 86 dwellings that have planning permission and which could be
deliverable.
A9.12 However, even this source is not guaranteed. I refer to the Advice Note at
Appendix 25, which requires an assessment of whether dwellings with
planning permissions are available now. I note that it is not uncommon for
permissions to be obtained to provide a means for valuing a site where the
owner has no immediate plans to sell the site or develop housing. Delivery
may also be hampered by funding constraints, site assembly problems
(where sites are in various ownerships or relocation constraints in order to
free up sites). The appeal decision at my Appendix 8i (ref
APP/G5180/A/07/2043219) paragraph 287, accepts that in determining
housing land supply it was unsafe to assume 100% delivery. I accept that the
London Borough of Bromley decision probably had different circumstances,
however, some refinement is necessary in my view.
A9.13 The table at paragraph A9.3 demonstrates that predictions of housing land
supply are never likely to reflect actual net completions. In addition, I have
examined the past 5 Annual Monitoring Reports (Appendix 19), and whilst I am
not convinced of the basis on which some of the data is presented, it indicates
that net windfall completions do not reflect outstanding windfalls from planning
permissions or which have been started but not yet completed. Whilst PPS3
advises against including windfalls in any assessment of housing land supply, it
says this only in relation to assumed delivery rates. The point is that even when
planning permissions are granted this does not necessarily translate into
dwelling commencements.
2004-05 Annual Monitoring Report
2005-06 Annual Monitoring Report
78
Net windfall Windfall Units
completions outstanding
-1 109
1 142

2006-07 Annual Monitoring Report
2007-08 Annual Monitoring Report
2008-09 Annual Monitoring Report
-2 109
0 92
58 60
A9.14 This table indicates to me that there is a clear difference between windfalls
completed in any one year and planning permissions for windfalls
outstanding. Notwithstanding that PPS3 objects to the inclusion of windfalls
in the calculation, a refinement to the planning permissions must be
considered and I think it reasonable to apply a 10% refinement, which is a
conservative estimate. Of the 86 dwellings from planning permissions I
consider 78 to be likely as deliverable from this source rather than the 218
predicted in the AMR 2009.
Sites from other Sources (brownfield and Greenfield within urban area)
A9.15 The advice at Appendix 25 to 27 is that other sources of supply can be
identified following a full assessment of sites through a SHLAA exercise
subject to the assessment considering availability, suitability and
achievability. Appendix B of the SHLAA includes various sites termed ‘preapplication
discussions/ identified during SHLAA consultation/other LDF.
Appendix D of the SHLAA identifies the sites in more detail and which are
said to be deliverable. These are brownfield sites and I attach plans of them
at Appendix 29. Of these, BF8 is identified for delivery in 2018 beyond the 5
year supply. I therefore remove it from the table below. In assessing these
sites they key is to establish whether there is a reasonable prospect of the
development taking place.
Site
Reference
Address Net
Development
Site Area
Hectares
Dwelling
Capacity
BF1 2-4 Aldermans Hill Garage, Hockley 0.08 8
BF2 68-72 West Street, Rochford 0.20 15 – 20
BF3 145 Ferry Road, Hullbridge 0.08 15
BF4 162-168 High Street, Rayleigh 0.17 20 – 25
BF5 168 Plumberow Avenue, Hockley 0.15 5
BF6 247 London Road, Rayleigh 0.2 12 – 15
BF7 289 Ferry Road, Hullbridge 0.23 17
BF8 Main Road, South Hawkwell, Hockley
(Allocated Land)
0.97 – 1.17 38 – 47
BF9 Bramlings, Canewdon 0.10 5
BF10 Chandos Service Station, Greensward
Lane, Hockley
0.14 3
BF11 Land adjacent to 43 Ashington Road,
0.25 – 0.38 10 – 15
Rochford
BF12 Rowan Way, Canewdon 0.07 3
BF13 Springfield Court, Rayleigh 0.22 10
79

BF14 The Chestnuts, 125 High Road, Rayleigh 0.07 5
BF15 Timber Grove, London Road, Rayleigh 0.56 25
BF16 Site of 8 & 10 Weir Gardens, Rayleigh 0.16 8 – 15
BF17 West Street, Rochford 0.05 2
BF18 1 The Approach, Rayleigh 0.09 5 – 10
BF19 26 Stambridge Road, Rochford 0.12 6
BF20 Land opposite Rayleigh Cemetery, Hockley 1.8 60 – 90
Road, Rayleigh
BF21 Land between 39 & 69 Lower Lambricks,
Rayleigh
0.3 12
Total of 306 dwellings using the upper end of RDC assessment
(excluding 47 for BF8).
A9.16 BF11 is now complete and being sold by the appellant. As such the 13 units
associated with this site is considered under the net completions prediction
for 2009 to 2010 and should be removed. I am also concerned at BF5.
Permission was granted here for 4 detached and a semi detached pair under
application 07/00688/FUL. This scheme has now been built and some units
are occupied whilst others are being sold. It would have appeared in a
previous AMR under net completions. This would reduce the total BF sites of
Appendix D of the SHLAA to 287 before I have begun to assess
deliverability.
A9.17 My assessment of deliverability is based on the documents reproduced at
Appendix 25 to 27 of my evidence and other material considerations. I shall
assess the BF sites I have concerns with and which are within the delivery
period 1 st April 2010 to end of March 2015 as indicated by Appendix B of the
SHLAA.
Net Dwelling Assessment of Appendix D of the SHLAA
A9.18 Firstly the SHLAA pro-forma includes a varied assessment of deliverability. I
note from the letter at Appendix 27 of my evidence that any assessment of
future net additional dwellings requires an assessment of future dwelling
losses. Sites that include existing housing that has to be demolished to make
way for new housing must be assessed. The pro-forma in the SHLAA refers
only to ‘estimated capacity for the area’ and ‘estimated appropriate
capacity for the area.’ This is an assessment based on a density
methodology. This is not an assessment of future losses. I accept that a
range is specified in the pro-forma but the Council’s methodology at
Appendix 30 makes no reference to losses and the evidence I have indicates
that the assessment may be compromised. I include a brief assessment of
net losses below and as such concentrate on BF sites, which are existing
residential units.
80

SHLAA
Ref
Site History and expected
Capacity
BF3 145-147
Ferry Road,
Hullbridge
BF7 289 Ferry
Road,
Hullbridge
BF9 Bramlings,
Canewdon
BF 14 The
Chestnuts,
125 High
Road
BF15 Timber
Grove,
London
Road
The SHLAA pro-forma
notes that the site
contains a shop and
dwelling. Capacity is
noted as 15 dwellings.
Permission refused for
24 flats (07/00708/Ful
and 08/0008/Ful) at
appeal – mass height
and bulk. Application
08/00114/Ful for 24 flats
refused. Permission
granted for conversion
to 5 flats (08/00732/Ful).
Extension permitted
under 08/00836/Ful for
2 extra flats.
The SHLAA identifies a
single dwelling on the
plot and a capacity of 17
as approved in
application
08/00565/FUL
The SHLAA identifies
the site as a single
dwelling with a site
capacity of 5. There is
no planning history.
The SHLAA identifies it
as a property with a
lawful use for 4
dwellings used for
disadvantaged
homeless people. A
capacity of 6 is
identified although an
application for 6 flats
under 09/00298 was
withdrawn.
The SHLAA notes it has
large buildings on site.
Operated by Elizabeth
Fitzroy Homes. A
capacity of 23 units is
approved under
application 07/00664.
81
Comment and likely
capacity
According to my Appendix
20 under Building Control
reference
09/00161/OTHFPD the 7
flat scheme was
commenced in April last
year thus in addition to the
net loss of 1 dwelling the
scheme actually delivers
only 6 units
A net loss of 1 dwelling
means that only 16 can be
counted.
There is no planning history
so there is a need to
assume a net gain of 4
dwellings and a net loss of
1.
The net loss is actually 4
dwellings.
The proposal is to provide
accommodation in the form
of care assisted living for
those with learning
disabilities. It demolishes
previous care
accommodation but the
planning history does not
reveal the net loss. N any
event the owner has
Reduction
to
Appendix
D of the
SHLAA
9
1
1
4
0 on the
basis that
the
evidence
is unclear.

BF16 8 and 10
Weir
Gardens,
Rayleigh
BF 19 26
Stambridge
Road,
Rochford
The site comprises two
residential properties.
The SHLAA identifies
capacity for 12 units.
An application for 14
flats under 08/00156
was refused.
The site includes 2
residential properties.
An appropriate capacity
is considered in the
SHLAA to be 8.
Permission refused for 9
units (09/0020/FUL)
subject to an appeal. A
similar earlier scheme
for 9 units was also
refused (08/00700/Ful).
informed me that Swan
Housing who were a
partner in the scheme have
withdrawn due to funding
difficulties
Assuming no viability issues
then at 12 units the net loss
is 2 units.
Assuming no viability issues
then the net loss is 2
dwellings.
TOTAL 18
A9.19 A result of this refinement to take into account dwelling losses the likely
amount of housing in Appendix D of the SHLAA reduces from 287 to 269
dwellings from this source.
Deliverability Assessment of Appendix D of the SHLAA
A9.20 I now need to assess the other BF sites in Appendix D of the SHLAA making
up the remaining 269 dwellings against the deliverability criteria in the
Practice Guidance Note and the advice produced by CLG (Appendix 25
through to 27). I need to establish whether there is a reasonable prospect
that the site can be delivered within the 5 year period.
A9.21 The main points I would like to specifically highlight are those in the table at
Appendix 25 of my evidence as it relates to existing allocations and planning
permissions. The first point is whether the information that supports either an
allocation of a site in an up to date plan or the granting of permission clearly
indicates it is available now. To assist with this analysis the local authority are
required to discuss matters with landowners. Even if sites are allocated or
have planning permissions an assessment of their suitability is still required.
For example have circumstances changed? The final criteria include whether
an allocated site or planning permission is achievable within the 5 years.
Unallocated sites may be included in the 5 year supply but only where they
meet the tests at paragraph 54 of PPS3 and will make a significant
contribution. These sites must have made sufficient progress through the
planning process to be considered as reasonable prospects.
82
2
2

A9.22 Importantly the Practice Guidance at Appendix 26 explains at paragraph 38
that suitability will be based on policy restrictions, physical limitations such as
access, flood risk and other problems. Availability assessments must
consider legal ownerships, tenancy agreements and the existence of multiple
ownerships. Achievability is based on many factors including economic
viability, existing use values, cost factors linked to overcoming constraints,
and delivery which may be the owners own plans for site release.
SHLAA
Ref
Site History and
expected
BF1 2-4
Aldermans Hill
Garage,
Hockley
BF2 68-72 West
Street,
Rochford
Capacity
SHLAA estimates
8 dwellings by
2013.
The site is an
existing MOT and
garage in
occupation. Preapp
discussion
held for 18 units,
expected delivery
2012. Zoned for
residential in
RRLP.
83
Comment and likely
capacity
Previous applications include
an extension to the workshop
in 2000 and an outline
application for 8 x 2 Bedroom
Flats with 8 Car Parking flats
– 04/01124/OUT. This was
withdrawn and no evidence
has been submitted to show
what the ownership status is
or whether there are legal
constraints. Although there is
a temporary car washing use
in the building, no application
submitted in the 6 years since
withdrawal. Delivery by 2013
is not a reasonable prospect
and the evidence is uncertain
that this site is achievable or
available.
Planning permission was
refused for 41 flats –
09/00192/Ful. Informal
discussions are said to have
taken place with the local
authority but no application
has been submitted. The
number anticipated of 18 is
estimated. Howeverm I
question the reasonable
prospects of this coming
forward. The site is occupied
by an MOT and garage/car
sales operator. The existing
use value of the MOT and
garage sales will be unlikely to
make an 18 unit scheme
viable. I consider the site to be
unavailable and unachievable.
Given PPS4 advice, I would
question whether the site is
Reduction
to the
SHLAA
8
18

BF4 162-168 High
Street,
Rayleigh
BF6 247 London
Road,
Rayleigh
BF10 Chandos
Service
Station,
Greensward
Lane, Hockley
BF12 Rowan Way,
Canewdon
The site is a
vacant office and
builders yard. A
capacity of
around 23 is
considered
appropriate.
An existing office,
workshop and car
sales.
Expectation of 14
units by 2012
According to the
SHLAA this is a
disused service
station with a site
capacity of 3
units.
In the SHLAA this
is noted as a
small Greenfield
site with capacity
for 3 units.
84
suitable since protection of
active employment areas is
encouraged. Only vacant and
derelict sites should be
considered as per PPS3
advice.
Development would appear to
comply with PPS4. However,
application 08/00021 was
refused consent. This was for
affordable housing reasons.
The building was then sold to
ESW Chartered accountants
who refurbished it as offices.
Their web site says” esw have
been based in Rayleigh since
2003 and recently moved to
new prestigious offices in
Rayleigh High Street.”
No planning applications have
been submitted for residential
development. Under
application 08/00834 and
09/00148 a 50 bed care home
was applied for and refused.
No evidence of deliverability
of this site, landowners
intentions towards residential
or viability at 14 units given
existing use value. The
evidence is not sufficient to
demonstrate this is a
reasonable prospect.
Planning permission resolved
to be granted subject to a
Section 106 agreement. This
has advanced far enough in
the planning process to be
considered as a reasonable
prospect and complies with
PPS4.
This is a local play area
owned by Rochford Housing
(part of Sanctuary Housing
Association). It was purpose
built as part of the surrounding
development and comprises
grass and a set of swings. It
serves a useful purpose and
given the proximity of
dwellings to the south I find
that any development would
be overbearing and adversely
impact on the amenity of local
23
14
0
3

BF13 Springfield
Court,
Rayleigh
BF17 West Street,
Rochford
BF18 1 The
Approach,
Rayleigh
This is a
Greenfield site in
the built up area
and has capacity
for 10 dwellings
according to the
SHLAA
Series of
domestic garages
with a capacity of
2 units
Outline
Application
08/0717 refused
for
redevelopment of
warehouse for 14
units – reasons
included
overdevelopment.
85
occupiers. Development
would not comply with saved
Policy CS2, HP6, and LT7
and the site is not suitable. It
is not a reasonable prospect.
Part of this site is crossed by
drainage channels serving the
commercial and residential
development hereabouts. Part
of the site is a depression in
the ground about 1.5m below
surrounding levels. It is damp
and appears to me to be part
of a Suds system. It would not
comply with PPS25 and saved
Policy LT7 of the RRLP. The
remaining land is narrow
grass with footpaths on it. It
forms an important buffer
between Springfield Court and
the adjoining commercial
development. For existing
policy reasons it is not
suitable. It is not a reasonable
prospect. In the SHLAA the
suitability criterion for Green
Space is ticked which is
erroneous given the identified
opportunity to develop on it.
The site is noted as being in
Flood Zone 2. PPS25 and the
sequential test explains that
such sites should only be
developed if there are “no
reasonably available sites in
areas with lower probability of
flooding that would be
appropriate to the type of
development or land use
proposed”. The site is not
suitable because there are
more appropriate sites that
can be identified. It is not
suitable and therefore not a
reasonable prospect.
The site is vacant and
complies with PPS4.
Sandhurst Housing own the
site but can now achieve
much less than they
previously thought. It would be
achievable subject to viability.
10
2
0

BF20 Land opposite
Rayleigh
Cemetery,
Hockley
Road,
Rayleigh
BF21 Land between
39 & 69 Lower
Lambricks,
Rayleigh
This followed the
dismissal of an
appeal
(08/00032) for 14
units. SHLAA
expects 8 units.
Permission
granted in 1979
for 86 units.
SHLAA considers
potential for 90
units. Expected
delivery 2015
A small
employment site.
The UCS first
identified it and it
is estimated to
have capacity for
12 units based on
a density
calculation. The
UCS noted that
any development
is contingent on
relocation of the
employment
floorspace.. It
notes that no
interest has been
shown by the
landowners
redevelop.
to
The site has been available
for 30 years but not
developed. It is a vacant
Greenfield site and comprises
rough grass. The only
development to occur is a
care home which was
developed on part of the site.
In terms of the criteria it is
suitable, but there are doubts
as to its availability not being
allocated or with permission
and its achievability. It has
been available for many years
but no housing has been
considered.
A redundant series of
buildings currently being
advertised as a storage use.
Given the quality of buildings
this is suitable and is likely to
have a reasonable prospect.
TOTAL 42
A9.18 I conclude that the 269 dwellings as refined above (excluding BF8) should be
further refined to 181 dwellings. I now need to consider the employment
sites which the local authority say are deliverable in the 5 years to 31 st March
2015. These sites are included in the SHLAA and I include plans at Appendix
21.
Development of Employment sites in next 5 years (Appendix E of SHLAA)
Site
Reference
Address Net
Development
86
Dwelling Capacity
0
0

Site Area
Hectares
EL2 Stambridge Mills, Stambridge 1.38 to 1.66
EL3 Star Lane Industrial Estate,
Great Wakering
hectares
250
4.35 – 5.22 Circa 75 dwellings
of the 175 total
identified for the
period to 2017
A9.23 Stambridge Mills SHLAA ref EL2: This site is said by RDC to be deliverable in
the next 3 years. It is located within flood zone 2 and 3 of the River Roach and
must be subject to sequential testing as per PPS25. It has been acquired by
Inner London Group who specialise in local authority partnerships, healthcare,
key worker and other homes provision. However, there are no proposals for the
site via a planning application or a site allocation.
A9.24 Suitability – The Environment Agency claim in their objection at Appendix 12i,
of my proof that the site is in a flood zone 3. PPS25 expects the sequential test
to be carried out. The test is that it must be demonstrated that there are no
reasonably available sites in areas of lower flood risk probability that would be
appropriate to the type of development proposed. The appeal site, as accepted
by RDC, and covered by my evidence is in an area where housing
development is considered appropriate. Stambridge Mills fails as a
consequence.
A9.25 The Environment Agency object that the site cannot fulfil the Exception Test.
However, in view of the appeal site it should not be necessary to move to the
exception test since there are more acceptable sites elsewhere. If it were
necessary to move to the exception test it would be only appropriate to accept
development in Flood Zone 3 if there was a clear sustainability benefit taking
into account the need to avoid social and economic blight. Stambridge Mills
has a severe visual impact but that is not relevant. The aim of reducing the
impact on the Green Belt is also irrelevant in the context of the PPS25
sequential approach. Stambridge Mills is separated from the built up area of
Rochford by open agricultural fields designated as Green Belt. There are no
sustainability reasons for encouraging the development of high density housing
in this location. The site cannot integrate with the residential area and most
journey’s would be by car. Stambridge Mills is separated from the nearby main
employment area to the south by the water course.
A9.26 The EA maintain that the Core Strategy, and hence proposed allocation, does
not benefit from a strategic flood risk assessment and so is unsound on this
basis. A wider assessment of housing delivery is also made by the EA to
explain why the housing policies of the plan are unsound. I do not disagree
with this.
A9.27 Stambridge Mill was covered by Policy EB9 of the RRLP which restricted
redevelopment to commercial uses, it is no longer a saved policy. Presumably
the site is now washed over by Green Belt. Whilst it may be defined as
previously developed land it was never identified as a major developed site
87

within the Green Belt. The EA rightly point out that Green Belt reasons should
not override the sequential test as is noted in the Core Strategy. There is no
policy basis for this. The EA rightly point out that PPS3 and the preference for
brownfield land is not cart blanche for all brownfield sites to be brought forward
irrespective of the environmental harm. The EA refers to the environmental
considerations of identifying any housing site and this is noted at paragraph 38
and reinforced at paragraph 41 of PPS3.
A9.28 The SHLAA basis its capacity assessment on the significant massing of
buildings on site. This is erroneous. PPG2 and PPS3 policy does not
supersede sever flood constraints. The SHLAA has not yet considered other
sites and their suitability vs the redevelopment of Stambridge Mills as indicated
under the achievability assessment. I am not able to consider the cost of the
flood defences or the dismantling of the building in the context of a viability
assessment and so I find the achievability evidence weak.
A9.29 I conclude that neither of the sequential test or exception test can be met and
so the site is not suitable. The site has not sufficiently been advanced through
the planning process by virtue of the lack of flood evidence and so is not either
available or achievable. Stambridge Mills should not be included in the 5 year
land supply. All 250 dwellings should be deleted.
A9.30 Star Lane Industrial Estate and Brickworks, Great Wakering SHLAA Ref EL3:
The site is expected to deliver housing in the 5 th year of the Appendix B
schedule of the SHLAA. It includes a disused brickworks to the south and to
the north a range of employment uses. It has been acquired by Inner London
Group who specialise in local authority partnerships, healthcare, key worker
and other homes provision. There are no proposals for this site. The brickworks
part of the site in question has been cleared of all buildings. I note that any
delivery is contingent on a replacement employment site being found which
would presumably be on Green Belt land as noted in the SCS at Policy ED4. I
find it perverse that whilst RDC consider the site to be previously developed
land and therefore suitable, it is contingent on relocation and the current
strategy is identifying some former Green Belt land for employment uses. This
would seem to imply that new housing on land that is brownfield can only be
delivered if the only reason they can do this is to remove land from the Green
Belt for replacement employment.
A9.31 That said, the employment area is adjacent to Great Wakering and near the
north eastern edge of Southend On Sea. The adjacent employment area
provides a valuable economic base in an outlying rural area. Most of the units
are occupied. The complete removal of a business use from this location
would not be something that should be encouraged as it would run contrary
to the recently issued PPS4 which ‘looks to build prosperous communities in
urban and rural areas’. If this site were redeveloped completely for residential
it would potentially require longer commutes from those living locally. The site
has a net development range up to 5.22ha as quoted in the SHLAA. In my
view if there were to be some housing it would be balanced with the need to
retain, for sustainability reasons alone, some degree of employment. In view
88

of the appellant’s objections to Policy ED4 and H1 of the SCS it cannot be
said at this stage that the site is suitable in its entirety for housing
development. There are no proposals for the site and so it is neither
achievable or available. I find that if it were considered that the redundant
brickworks, of about 2.5 hectares, was suitable then based on the density at
the appeal site only 110 dwellings are likely and in terms of the 5 year
housing land supply and the need to undertake necessary ground works only
30 dwellings would be likely in the first year.
Other sites in the SHLAA and AMR 2009 previously not considered in my
assessment
o 206 London Road – a site identified for 31 dwellings 2010 to 2011 –
no record of a planning application
o Land adjacent to 8 Preston Gardens (1 dwelling) – no record of a
planning application
o Land adjacent to 37 Crouch Avenue (1 dwelling) – no record of a
planning application.
o Land adjacent to Hockley Train Station (8 dwellings) – no record of a
planning application.
o Chestnuts, Rayleigh (6 dwellings) – no record of a planning
application
o Land to rear of Asda (car park) – 20 dwellings
A9.32 I have no evidence relating to 206 London Road, Hockley Train Station or
Chestnuts. The advice at paragraph 9 of the Note at my Appendix 25 is that
sites without planning permission and which are not significant, should be
discounted from the 5 year supply. Apart from 206 London Road and the
suitability of the land to the rear of Asda, I find the other sites should not be
considered. I therefore add 51 dwellings from this source.
A9.33 I note that the SHLAA includes a heavy proportion of ‘Future allocations’
which it says can deliver dwellings by reference to a specific time. In the case
of West Rochford - 450 by April 2015, 100 at East Ashingdon by 2013, 50 at
West Hockley by 2013 and 175 at South Hawkwell by end of 2013 (at this
point I would refer the Inspector to the phasing section of my proof at section
12). This gives a total of 775 dwellings. These are all Greenfield sites. The
advice on demonstrating a 5 year housing land supply at Appendix 25 does
not include Greenfield sites within its remit. At paragraph 8 of this advice note
only brownfield unallocated sites are referred to. The letter at Appendix 27
also refers to unallocated sites. This letter indicates that Greenfield sites
deemed suitable by virtue of a planning permission can be included in the 5
year supply. However, this letter makes it clear that CLG expects Greenfield
sites to be allocated. If they are not and there is a shortage of housing then
they should be bought forward for delivery by planning permission. However,
89

they only enter the 5 year supply if they have planning permission. Since that
is not the case here they should remain outside of the 5 year supply
otherwise the implication is that Greenfield sites are on a par with some
brownfield sites such as Star Lane, Rawreth Industrial Estate and the
remaining allocated housing site in the RRLP 2006.
A9.34 I conclude that for the sites identified in the 5 years supply the following is the
case:
78 dwellings from planning permissions
181 dwellings from an assessment of Appendix D of the SHLAA
20 dwellings rear of Asda
31 – 206 London Road
30 dwellings from an assessment of Appendix E of the SHLAA
0 dwellings from Appendix C of the SHLAA – Green Belt sites beyond the
urban area
A9.35 Total 5 year supply is 310 dwellings against a requirement of 1446
dwellings. It is therefore necessary to permit suitable Green Belt sites to
ensure a 5 year housing delivery.
a Requirement 2001-2021 (EEP) 4,600
b Completions (including assumption at A9.3) 2001-2010 1,615
c Outstanding requirement to 2021 2985
d 5 year requirement including shortfall 2010/11– 2014/15 1446
e Number of units classed as deliverable (with planning
permission or considered suitable/available for the period to
2015)
310
f Outstanding requirement [d-e] 1136
g Total number of years supply (e/1446)x100 21.4% or
1.07
years
supply
A9.36 If the alternative ‘smoothing’ method is adopted then the 5 year supply
minimum requirement is 1330 dwellings which is 310/1330 = 1.17 years
supply. Whichever approach is adopted a significant shortfall exists.
Sites beyond the 5 year housing land supply period
A9.37 I note that sites such as the Eldon Way Industrial Estate and Rawreth Lane
are beyond the 5 year land supply identified in the SHLAA. That said I feel it
necessary to comment on these in this evidence.
A9.38 Rawreth Industrial Estate, Rayleigh, SHLAA Ref EL1: The site is 5.9ha,
although the net developable area includes a range of 5-7.5 ha and a
capacity of 220 dwellings. In terms of whether this constitutes a reasonable
90

prospect, the site availability criteria RDC note that the site consists of a
range of buildings but accepts that the existence of ownership constraints or
any other legal constraints are unknown. The longevity of leases is important
if this site is to be reasonably included as an opportunity within the urban area
but there is no information on this. I also note that any delivery is contingent
on a replacement site being found which would presumably be on Green Belt
land as noted in the SCS at Policy ED4. I also note that the value attached to
the residential use in the pro-forma is high and the current employment use is
medium. Added to this site preparation costs are also noted to be high. This
indicates to me that viability could be an issue and in the absence of any
evidence I question the achievability of including this as an opportunity since
delivery is at issue in regard to PPS3 criteria. The loss of over 5 ha of
employment land which constitutes 1 of only 2 main employment areas in
Rayleigh would significantly erode the supply of land for economic
development in this town and this will be contrary to PPS4 (Policy EC2). I
note the aims of SCS Policy ED4 but this site is on the western side of the
District and serves a purpose. The appellant’s have objected to this policy
through the SCS and will be testing it at the Examination. There is therefore
uncertainty whether the site will be delivered for housing and the amount. On
this basis it cannot be classed, at present, as a development opportunity.
A9.39 PPS3 criteria focus attention on the reuse of vacant and derelict land or
underused employment areas (paragraph 38). This is not the case here. I
find, as I have for the Eldon Way site, that the objection lodged to the SCS
make the quantum of housing from this source a distinct uncertainty. I
conclude that this further reinforces my view that there is insufficient Green
Belt land devoted to housing development and that in the monger term more
housing will need to be found on Green Belt sites.
A9.40 Eldon Way/Foundry Estate SHLAA Ref EL4: This is known as the Hockley
Trading Estate and contains over 50 units most of which are occupied. The
estimated capacity is up to 260 dwellings on a site of 3.45ha. However, the
Hockley Area Action Plan Issues and Options Paper consults on options of
between 114 dwellings and 209 dwellings.
A9.41 The appellant has lodged objections to the SCS and the Hockley Area
Action Plan. Not to the principle of regeneration but to the balance between
new housing and other appropriate uses such as retail, leisure and
employment development. In view of the recent publication of PPS4 and
Policy EC3 to EC4 of PPS4, I conclude that the identified level of housing is
likely to be much less than RDC anticipate.
A9.42 The objections lodged mean that the Examination Inspector will carefully
review how this development opportunity is managed. The Eldon Way
Industrial Estate is strategically well placed. It is the only major employment
area in Hockley. The employment area is adjacent to the railway station and
located a short distance from the main bus routes that run along Spa Road.
Some of the residential areas of the town are also within walking distance of
this commercial area, thus providing a potential for sustainable travel by
employees. The Eldon Way Industrial Estate is therefore right at the heart of
91

the settlement of Hockley/Hawkwell and provides an opportunity to meet
sustainable transport objectives by reducing the need to travel by car.
Consequently, this employment area is a premier employment site in
sustainability terms, both in the context of PPG13 and PPS4.
A9.43 Whilst it is acknowledged that improvement to the Eldon Way Industrial
Estate can and should take place, the extent to which the mix of
employment uses should be altered in favour of alternative land uses does
require careful consideration and this is the basis of the objections to the
SCS. It is my view that a mix of existing or indeed new employment land
uses with some Town Centre type uses should dominate the Eldon Way
site. A mix of employment types between offices, light industry and other
high technology industries should be encouraged together with a strong
retail mix. PPS4 sets out what uses should comprise town centre uses.
A9.44 In the Hockley Area Action Plan RDC says that the existing uses on this site
are harmful to amenity. However, the site has operated for many years
without any significant issues and if renewal for B1 type uses are
encouraged then the employment area can be maintained without harm to
amenity. Renewal of the employment stock can help develop and improve
trade, improve the sustainability of businesses as a whole and make for a
more flexible labour market as skill levels are varied. This is one of the key
messages promoted by Policy EC3 and EC4 of PPS4. A singularly different
use altogether or a development dominated by residential could undermine
the long term sustainability of the area and Town Centre. As such I am of
the view that the residential opportunity presented by this site is much less
than the Council would wish.
A9.45 In view of saved Policy EB1 of the Adopted RRLP 2006 which seeks to
retain employment uses, the fact that objections have been lodged to the
employment strategy in the SCS and so the outcomes are far from certain,
and that PPS4 has been published after the preparation of the SCS I find
that none of the employment sites can yet be classed as development
opportunities in the sense that they are reasonable prospects as per the
SHLAA guidance.
92

Appendix 10 – Site Allocations DPD Consultation and Discussion Document
93

Appendix 11 - Extracts from Preferred Options Core Strategy
(Circulated in previous Conference papers)
94

Appendix 12 - Summary of Objections to Policy H1, H2 and H3 of SCS
12i - H1 of SCS
12ii - H2 of SCS
12iii - H3 of SCS
95

Appendix 13 - Summary of Objections to paragraph 4.19 of SCS
96

Appendix 14 - Hawkwell Parish Boundary and Potential sites south
Hawkwell
14i - Hawkwell Parish Boundary
14ii - Potential Sites classed as ‘South Hawkwell’
97

Appendix 15 - Previous Local Plan Inquiry Inspector’s comments
(circulated previously as part of Planning Statement)
98

Appendix 16 - New Green Belt Boundary
99

Appendix 17 - Extracts from Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic
Market Housing Assessment
(separately bound)
100

Appendix 18 - Essex Wildlife Comments
101

Appendix 19 - Annual Monitoring Report Extracts
(separately bound)
102

Appendix 20 - Extracts Of Completions And Commencement Figures
April 2009 To February 2010
103