Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

263 Mr P Kneen
264 Mr K Coleman
265 Mr R Pomery
267 Mr D Pointer
268 Mr S Crussell
Where should land be released from the Green Belt? Whilst the Draft East of England plan does not seek to provide for a
full scale review of the Green Belt boundaries within the East of England, Swan Hill considers that in order to continue to
meet the provisions of PPG3: Housing, and its sequential approach, a review of the boundary will be required. The
sequential approach sets out a hierarchy of locations for new residential developments, which the Council should seek to
apply as a policy approach in the Core Strategy to meet housing requirements. This should set out that the strategic
housing requirement should be met through both the use of brownfield sites in existing urban areas, and through the
provision of sustainable urban extensions to settlements. This second tier of the sequential approach would therefore
require a review of the Green Belt boundaries around existing settlements, in order for the District to meet its strategic
housing requirements. Swan Hill notes that the Council has sought to allocate only 10% of the strategic housing
For a new town to be sustainable, it should be large enough to support a full range of services, jobs and facilities and the
housing requirement for Rochford District is not sufficient to achieve that. The Green Belt environs of Hockley/Hawkwell
are especially sensitive in landscape, ecological and Green Belt terms, and peripheral development would in any event be
poorly related to the town centre. Rayleigh has experienced considerable growth and further peripheral (Green Belt)
development will be poorly related to the town centre and services. Rochford is therefore the logical area for the majority of
new development. The Rochford area should include the periphery of Southend in the Eastwood Area. Priority should be
given to the use of previsously developed land in sustainable locations in the Green Belt, in advance of further greenfield
development. We support Paragraph 4.2.5 of the draft strategy. We strongly support the objectives of the Spatial Vision as
set out in Paragraphs 2.22 and 2.23 regarding the need to secure a varity of housing options, and in particular the objective
It is acknowledged that a strategic reivew of the greenbelt (advised by East of England Regional Assembly) will not be
required until after 2021. However, the Council still needs to meet its own requirements via local releases. The Draft Core
Strategy confirms that there are no remaining major new housing developments planned for the District in the Rochford
District Replacement Local Plan. Realistic options for growth need to be identified. Land to the North and East of Rochford
town centre is ideally placed to meet the District's growth requirements. (See separate document highlighting development
opportunities in this location which we consider should influence the strategy for growth identified in the Core Strategy).
Paragraph 4.2.5 puts forward options for consideration in terms of issues relating to Green Belt and Strategic Gaps between
settlements. We would argue that this is not a realistic set of options. There is for example no option put forward for limited
local releases to meet development requirements for housing and employment, this contradicts the two tier approach to
Development should continue in and around Rochford/Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh. Other land released should be
medium parcels of land allowing current developed areas to extend slightly into green belt. These should be identified in
the plan to avoid uncontrolled ad-hoc development. Development of one village into a town should be allowed subject to
full infrastructure being provided first.
What is absolutely critical and sadly lacking is the infrastructure to support an extra burden on the area. There should be
more redevelopment of existing or brownfield areas rather than into new areas.