CASTLE POINT LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AND CASTLE POINT BOROUGH COUNCIL

DRAFT SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY AND CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

In partnership Castle Point Local Strategic Partnership and Castle Point Borough Council have prepared a draft Sustainable Community Strategy and a Core Strategy Issues and Options Report.

The draft Sustainable Community Strategy sets out Vision, Aims and Objectives for making Castle Point a place where everyone can prosper, be safe and live in a high quality environment.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report is a planning document which sets out options for how the draft Sustainable Community Strategy may be delivered on the ground in terms of development and making places and spaces in Castle Point better for people to live, work and visit.

The Local Strategic Partnership and the Borough Council would like to hear your views on these documents in order that we can make them meet your needs better.

Copies of the documents are available to view online at www.castlepoint.gov.uk. They can also be viewed in the following locations:

• Council Offices, Kiln Road • Council Cash Office, Canvey Island • Local Libraries

Alternatively, copies can be requested by phoning 01268 882384.

All responses to the consultations should be made on the questionnaire provided with the documents and returned to the Council by 9am on the 8th May 2007. They should be returned to Castle Point Borough Council, Council Offices, Kiln Road, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 1TF.

We look forward to hearing your comments, suggestions and ideas. They are important to us.

26th March 2007

My Ref: AR/POL/CORE25/2

Please ask for Miss Raffaelli on Ext.No.2384

26th March 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THE CASTLE POINT CORE STRATEGY

The Core Strategy for Castle Pont is an important document that will set out how Castle Point will change over the next 15 years in terms of the development that will occur and how places and spaces in Castle Point will be improved.

The Council has prepared a document that sets out the issues it believes need to be addressed in order to make the Borough better. It also sets out possible options and actions that could be pursued in dealing with these issues. A copy of the document can be viewed online at www.castlepoint.gov.uk , at the Council Offices in Benfleet, at the Council Cash Office on Canvey, or in local libraries.

The Council would like to know what you think about the issues identified and the options and issues proposed for dealing with them. A questionnaire is therefore available with the document and the Council would be grateful if you would take the time to answer the questions relevant to you.

In order that we can take your views into account when preparing the final Core Strategy it is important that you return your completed questionnaire by 9am on the 8th May 2007. This can be done electronically using an online form available on the website www.castlepoint.gov.uk or by post to the address above.

I would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to consider the Core Strategy and look forward to receiving your completed questionnaire. In the meantime, if you wish to discuss the document or its contents please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Policy Service on 01268 882384.

Yours faithfully,

CORPORATE DIRECTOR (ENVIRONMENT)

Consultees Issues and Options Consultation March 2007

givenName familyName organisation C TEBBUTT DICK SMITH HBC VEHICLE SERVICES TERRY BURGESS BUSINESS LINK ESSEX PATRICK CONNELL ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT BRANCH C KNIGHT P.A. THOMPSON NATALIE BLAKEN EEDA MARTIN & PAM HAYHURST MARY BROCKMAN ROBIN DRAPER JONATHAN PINNOCK LESLEY AND JOHN PALMBY R S SPARROW E LORKINS A MARSTON C ALLEN J BRINE GJ SINCLAIR ANN TREVARTHEN P ROACH BARRATT HOMES C/O BARTON WILMORE KIRSTY COUTTS RSPB EASTERN ENGLAND J E CASON C D SALE G B MAITLAND-RIX FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES C/O RPS PLANNING ANNE POPE P WASHINGTON BATIC FRANCOISE MONTEIL SUSAN HEINRICH EEDA HELEN DE LA RUE EERA D R BELLENIE D DEARSON D.H. PRICE V SUNDERLAND G CAVES HICKFORT LTD C/O DPDS CONSULTING GROUP LTD unknown unknown ROY WARREN Sport England (East) LEONARD & SUSAN DEWING S SAUNDERS JOANNA SAYER NATIONAL GRID PROPERTY HOLDING LTD C/O PLANNING PERSPECTIVES LLP JOHN R FRANKLIN ARGENT HOMES C/O DPDS CONSULTING MARDEN HOMES C/O CgMs JAMES TRIMMER PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY E SETCHELL HAMME LAUREN HOLLAS IRIS & DAVE TAYLOR JOYCE LONG A.L.H POPE D.D. LANSDOWNE C COOPER P ALLEN MARK & LYNN ACREMAN B DAVISON STEVEN HUGHES SHAROD Bradstrong ltd ANDREW MARTIN ASSOCIATES LIMITED MARTIN ROBERTS A.K THOMPSON K MINT A GREENAL E.C BEALE ANGELA HAMILTON M BAKER PAT ING MARIE BANHAM JOAN BURROWS KINGSTON MARION C BRAILEY BRENDA HOWE V. G. HESKINS

Page 1 Consultees Issues and Options Consultation March 2007

CHRISTINE JANZEN DIANE COOPER HAZEL STAFFORD S. LAYZELL M HUGHES G.E. PINNOCK LINDSAY JONES WILKS HEAD AND EVE (OBO LIONSGATE PROPERTIES LP) Ingleton Wood LLP on Behalf of G&K Groundworks Ltd J EDMUNDS NEVERN J. D. ARMITAGE OAK TREE FARM SUSAN HEINRICH EAST OF ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SIMON FISHER THE BARTON WILLMORE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP L BRALEY MARTIN BARRELL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FRANCIS ADAMS BRIAN WILSON CASTLE POINT LABOUR PARTY A SOPP DEREK REEVE JENIFER HOWLETT ANDREW MARSHALL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CASTLE POINT BC DRIVERS JONAS DRIVERS JONAS RITA ATKINS 23 MAISIE JONES TIM PINNOCK KATHARINE FLETCHER ENGLISH HERITAGE MICHELE COE ROB RUGG B & T LEE MARTIN TURNER MARTIN BARRELL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY SUE ANN SMITH R S PACKER JOHN LEWIS SYLVIA MARIE HELEN & TONLOMAN PAUL CRONK HBF REGIONAL PLANNER (EASTERN REGION) LINDA INGLIS SARAH WORTHINGTON PEACOCK & SMITH (OBO MORRISONS) PHILLIP PACKHAM KELL PATRICIA B KELL D LAVER M WHITE JESSICA JOHNSON MICHELLE THOMAS A.A GIBBS R.E. GIBBS P.M. JOHNSON 50 J.S. LITTLE MARY POWER SAVILLS COMMERCIAL LTD GORDON BATES 31 RAYMONDS DRIVE IRENE LOCK M FREED JACK TRING J BENNETT MAITLAND HYSLOP OBO: MR & MRS BARBER, MRS COWELL & MRS MEE PAUL ELLERBY D PRICE V ALLEN B BRAZIER HANNAH INGLIS PETER KLINKER PATRICK AMOS ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL ANTONY HARMS R KIMBERLEY R GREGORY P. GUNN ? KEELER SUSAN PURVIS P. GREGORY A. MOSS EILEEN PECK CHRIS SHAW HIGHWAYS AGENCY SUE REEVE D THOMAS POWER MARY SAVILLS R. WALTER LONDON INDUSTRIAL FABRICATION COMPANY LTD.

Page 2 Consultees Issues and Options Consultation March 2007

JOHN HOLDER PEGASUS PLANNING GROUP ALAN S. D POPE JOHN HILLS BOB SPINK HOUSE OF COMMONS T DEARSON NEIL FULLER NATURAL ENGLAND shelly birch ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL TERRY BOND SOUTHEND-ON-SEA BOROUGH COUNCIL E.J. TAPE WOOD J BARKER DAMIEN LYNCH LEVVEL P GENDALL SANDRA BRAGG LIFCO STEPHEN METCALFE STEVEN LORKINS ALAN KEENS JOHN LONG DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE GRAHAM KING COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY Stuart Farr Anglian Water Services Ltd unkown Basildon District Council Peter T Bennett EDF Energy Shaun Strutton Rochford District Council Richard Hatter Thurrock Borough Council unknown Essex and Suffolk Water Kerry Cumberland Clerk of Rayleigh Town Council unknown The National Grid Co Plc unknown British Telecommunications Plc unknown Essex Strategic Health Authority Paul Burrell Strategic Rail Authority Richard H. Walker Department of Transport unknown National Grid Gas Nicola Davies Mobile Operators Association unknown O2 UK unknown Hutchinson 3G (UK) Ltd unknown Orange PCS Ltd unknown Vodafone Ltd unknown T-Mobile (UK) Ltd James Trimmer Port of London Authority Viv Byczynski Thames Gateway South Essex Stephanie Sutton Age Concern (Essex) Joan Spye Age Concern (Canvey Island unknown Age Concern (mainland) Don Burton Anglia Polytechnic University Norman Chrisman Benfleet Historical Society Norman Chrisman Benfleet Methodist Church unknown British Pipeline Agency Abigail Dodds British Wind Energy Association Terry Burgess Business Link Ian Blanchard C2C Property Management unknown CABE Roger Esgrove Canvey Island Youth Project Corinne Wheeler Canvey Island Youth Project Doreen Balsara Canvey Residents Action Group E P Morgan Canvey Residents Association Richard Townsend CastlePoint Access Group Alan Eames Castle Point Access Group unknown Castlepoint Car Scheme Gill Witchell Castle Point & Rochford Adult Education Malcolm McCann Castle Point & Rochford PCT Liz McGranahan Castle Point & Rochford PCT Honorary Secretary CastlePoint Chamber of Trade Dave Godfrey Castle Point Council Tenants Association Helen Robinson CAVS Paul Norton-Ashley Citizens Advice Bureau unknown Department for Culture, Media and Sport Sue Dowsett Essex Badger Protection Group Roger Kemp Essex Chambers of Commerce unknown Essex County Archaeologist unknown Essex County Consumer Protection Department unknown Essex County Emergency Planning Officer McMillan Essex County Fire & Rescue Service unknown Essex County Highways Steve Leverett Essex County Council Learning Services Sue Roberts Essex County Learning Services (EYDCP)

Page 3 Consultees Issues and Options Consultation March 2007

Sue Williams Essex County Library Service unknown Essex County Planner Blaise Gammie Essex County Schools Planning Service John Zammit Essex County Social Services Chris Wood Essex Police Steve Rawlings Essex Police Strategic Regeneration Project Manager Essex Police Archie Duncan Essex Training for Tomorrow Phil Sturges Essex Wildlife Trust Fred Klass Federation of Small Business Terry Taber Federation of Small Business Rod Winkworth Hadleigh Youth Centre unknown Health and Safety Executive Gerry Moore Healthy Living Centre Carolyn Edmond Jobcentre Plus Sue Scraff Jobcentre Plus Serena Smith Learning & Skills Council Peter Hillman Legacy K Timms New Thundersley Residents Association unknown Ramblers Association unknown St Nicholas Church Beverley Egan Salvation Army Training Centre Geoff Arnott Seevic College unknown Southend Health Authority David Walsh Southend Hospital NHS Trust unknown South Essex Health Authority Val Thomas South Essex Health Authority Lyn Peek South Essex Health Authority Graham Bradley The Woodland Trust H L Keeley Thundersley Common Residents Association B Blazier Thundresley Rate Payers Association Rose Freeman The Theatres Trust unknown Pegasus Planning Group unknown Strutt & Parker J. Mckinnon Marden Signs & Design Ltd unknown Kemp Commercial Bodybuilders G. Smith G & K Groundworks LTD unknown RPS Planning Norman Kwan FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES PLC D.J. Damm Geoff Caves Chris Mulry J S Little Brian Martin Howard & Shirley Green Joan Hayward-Surry Lauren Hollas G Grant P.M. Hawks Christmas D Thomas M Whites M Paramor Draper Richard Martin Brain Martin Michael Tyler Joan Sayers S Green T.R. Gillett G.P. Smith Anne Pope Philip Menzies Morgan Alan Keens Lewis Ray Hilton Wright Keith Wilson Brenda Watkins Michael & Sandra Donnellan E Edwards J. Barker Bloor P Roach K Borley

Page 4 Consultees Issues and Options Consultation March 2007

Chapman Mary Keelar Ian Turnidge A.L.H Pope Stokes P. Gundil Clayden M. Melling E Allen T Fill Simone Costa-Miller Linda Inglis Pauline unknown Jennifer Groddulo R Grindy Steve Pegram Terri Burns D.G. Swindell Ashley Hitchcock Lynne Mahoney Christopher White B. Lee Steven Vickers Johnson Frarcoise Monteil Carol Nicholls M.P. Smith Ron & Brenda Kimberley Lewis J. Podd Sands P.J. Phelan J Davis T. Green J. Bell Kevin Allen Stephen Ellis Alan Wipperman ALAN WIPPERMAN & CO Antonia Lui G L HEARN AND PARTNERS Caroline Legg ANDREW MARTIN ASSOCIATES Chintu Shah Lidl Food Stores Chris Loon BELLWAY HOMES ESSEX Clive Richardson CLIVE RICHARDSON ASSOCIATES Dan Walker DAVID L. WALKER CHARTERED SURVEYORS Felicity Wye MALCOLM JUDD & PARTNERS Graeme Warriner FPD SAVILLS Graham Jolley DEDMAN PLANNING AND REGENERATION LTD James MacDonald LSI ARCHITECTS Jon Jennings Pegasus Planning Group Julie Taylor Katie Fluhrer PLANNING PERSPECTIVES Katy Walker Royal Mail Group Laura Atkinson RPS Marie Nagy Development Planning Partnership Martin Taylor HLL HUMBERTS LEISURE CONSULTING Matthew Hard DEVELOPMENT LAND AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS LTD Mike Benner Campaign for Real Ale Ormston COUNTRYSIDE RESIDENTIAL (SOUTHERN) LTD Alex Anderson PEGASUS PLANNING GROUP B Litman TOWER ELECTRICALS David Lewis HALLAM LAND MANAGEMENT LTD R.E. Patterson MOODY HOMES LTD T.L. Hughes TBH CHARTERED SURVEYORS V. Martin D.R. Hill Jackie Ford RAPLEYS Barber Sylvester-Kilroy OLD ROAD SECURITIES PLC Angela Turner JONES DAY Nicola Bickerstaff Strutt and Parker Paul Richards RUBICON WEST Phil Roberts National Air Traffic Services Phillip Thompson THE PLANNING BUREAU LTD Rachel Patterson Devplan UK Richard Dyer FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Roger Budgeon UK Rainwater Harvesting Association

Page 5 Consultees Issues and Options Consultation March 2007

Sarah Conlan CREST NICHOLSON PLC Simon Hollas JMP Consultancy Simon Smith SMITH STUART REYNOLDS Steve Scott HALCROW GROUP LTD Terence Hair HAIR AND SON Tracy-Ann Scanlan Tetlow King Planning unknown FAIRFAX TRUST (WESTCLIFF) unknown INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Mark Higgins Crown College unknown Bidwells unknown Terence Holland Associates Allan Last Andrew Hurrell Solicitors Caroline Parker

Page 6 Title: Planning for our borough’s future

Headline: Council seeks the communities’ views on proposed actions for making Castle Point a better place to live and work over the next 15 years.

Body: The planning team have compiled a report which is the first step in preparing a new Plan for Castle Point. The report describes the planning issues which are facing the Borough. It then goes on to describe the various options open to the Council to try to resolve those issues.

For example, 4000 new homes are needed in Castle Point by 2021, and so the report asks if these should be located throughout the urban areas of the borough, or in town centres and transport routes, or on current industrial land. It also describes the changing needs of the community and how these could be met. More local jobs are also suggested.

The planning team hope that residents and visitors to the Borough will help the Council by thinking about these issues and options and letting us know their views.

The planning report is called the “Core Strategy Issues and Options Report” and is available to see at the Council offices at Kiln Road, on Canvey Island and in the libraries in the borough.

It is also available to view on-line at the Planning & Building Control Planning Consultation Documents pages at www.castlepoint.gov.uk

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report is available from the 26th March 2007. Comments on the report are welcome until the morning of the 8th May 2007.

All comments will be carefully considered and used to inform the preferred options for the final Core Strategy.

your your community community your future your future your say your say The draft community strategy sets out the vision for Castle Point and describes some of the things The draft community strategy sets out the vision for Castle Point and describes some of the things partners in the Borough will do to make Castle Point a better place to live work and visit. The partners in the Borough will do to make Castle Point a better place to live work and visit. The document is being consulted on until 9 May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views. document is being consulted on until 9 May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views.

Have your say about the future of the Borough - call 01268 882369 for a copy of Have your say about the future of the Borough - call 01268 882369 for a copy of the Draft Community Strategy and questionnaire - or download the documents @ the Draft Community Strategy and questionnaire - or download the documents @ www.castlepoint.gov.uk www.castlepoint.gov.uk

your your community community your future your future your say your say The draft community strategy sets out the vision for Castle Point and describes some of the things The draft community strategy sets out the vision for Castle Point and describes some of the things partners in the Borough will do to make Castle Point a better place to live work and visit. The partners in the Borough will do to make Castle Point a better place to live work and visit. The document is being consulted on until 9 May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views. document is being consulted on until 9 May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views.

Have your say about the future of the Borough - call 01268 882369 for a copy of Have your say about the future of the Borough - call 01268 882369 for a copy of the Draft Community Strategy and questionnaire - or download the documents @ the Draft Community Strategy and questionnaire - or download the documents @ www.castlepoint.gov.uk www.castlepoint.gov.uk Planning for Planning for homes and jobs homes and jobs in Castle Point in Castle Point Have your Say Have your Say The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out the key issues affecting The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out the key issues affecting Castle Point and a vision and possible policies for making places and spaces in Castle Point and a vision and possible policies for making places and spaces in Castle Point better for those who live, work in and visit the Borough. The document Castle Point better for those who live, work in and visit the Borough. The document is being consulted on until 8th May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views. is being consulted on until 8th May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views.

Have your say about how the places and spaces in Castle Point can be improved Have your say about how the places and spaces in Castle Point can be improved for the future - call 01268 882384 for a copy of the Core Strategy Issues and Options for the future - call 01268 882384 for a copy of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report and questionnaire – or download the documents @ www.castlepoint.gov.uk Report and questionnaire – or download the documents @ www.castlepoint.gov.uk

Planning for Planning for homes and jobs homes and jobs in Castle Point in Castle Point Have your Say Have your Say The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out the key issues affecting The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out the key issues affecting Castle Point and a vision and possible policies for making places and spaces in Castle Point and a vision and possible policies for making places and spaces in Castle Point better for those who live, work in and visit the Borough. The document Castle Point better for those who live, work in and visit the Borough. The document is being consulted on until 8th May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views. is being consulted on until 8th May 2007 and we would really like to hear your views.

Have your say about how the places and spaces in Castle Point can be improved Have your say about how the places and spaces in Castle Point can be improved for the future - call 01268 882384 for a copy of the Core Strategy Issues and Options for the future - call 01268 882384 for a copy of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report and questionnaire – or download the documents @ www.castlepoint.gov.uk Report and questionnaire – or download the documents @ www.castlepoint.gov.uk

Core Strategy Issues & Options Report QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions for completion:

• You can complete an electronic version of this form online at www.castlepoint.gov.uk • • Please do not feel that you must answer all the questions. Only answer the questions you wish to.

• Please write in block capitals or print clearly in order that we can read your response and take it into account when preparing the final document.

• Please try and keep you answers within the boxes provided so that we can read your response and associate it with the right questions.

• Please send completed questionnaires to:

Planning Service Castle Point Borough Council Kiln Road Thundersley Benfleet Essex SS7 1TF

To discuss the Core Strategy document or its content please phone Planning Policy on 01268 882384. Core Strategy Issues & Options Report

Office Use Date Received Reference Only

Contact Details Title First Name Surname Position/Job Title Organisation/Company Address

Town/City Postcode Telephone No. Email

1) Are you an agent representing another company, organisation or individual?

Yes / No

2) If you are an agent, who do you represent?

3) Do you or the company/individual you represent have land interests in Castle Point?

Yes / No

4) If yes, please name the site/sites.

5) Do you agree with the list of distinctive characteristics of Castle Point identified? If no, please explain.

6) Do you agree with the issues identified for Castle Point? If no, please explain.

7) Do you agree with the opportunities identified for making Castle Point more sustainable in the Future? If no, please explain.

8) Do you agree with the draft spatial vision of Castle Point for 2021? If no, please explain.

9) Do you agree with the draft aims for the Core Strategy set out in the Report? If no, please explain.

10) Do you agree with the draft objectives of the Core Strategy set out in the Report? If no, please explain.

11) How should housing and employment allocations be distributed between Benfleet and Canvey Island? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

12) Where should new housing be located in the existing urban area? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 None of the above

13) Where should new employment be located in the existing urban area? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 None of the above

14) How many houses and jobs should be provided on previously developed land? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

15) Where should new homes and jobs on Greenfield land be located? Identify preferred options: Please explain your selection

16) When should sites in the Green Belt be made available for development? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

17) What infrastructure requirements will arise as a result of development?

18) Do you agree with the actions proposed for achieving sustainable development? If no, please explain.

19) Do you agree with the sustainability criteria for locating development in Castle Point? If no, please explain.

20) Do you agree with the actions proposed for creating inclusive communities? If no, please explain.

21) Do you agree with the actions proposed for meeting community needs? If no, please explain.

22) Which employment growth opportunities should the borough pursue? Identify preferred options: Please explain your selection

23) What economic growth infrastructure is required in Castle Point?

24) What role would you like to see each town centre in Castle Point fulfil?

25) Please list the town centres in the priority order in which you believe they should be regenerated?

26) Do you agree with the actions proposed to improve transport and accessibility in Castle Point? If no, please explain.

27) Do you agree with the target mix of housing types and sizes proposed, and the associated actions for delivery? If not please explain.

28) Do you agree with the targets for housing affordability and tenure proposed and the associated actions for delivery? If not please explain.

29) At what threshold should developers be expected to make contributions towards affordable housing? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

30) What level of contribution should developers be expected to make towards affordable housing? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

31) Do you agree with the actions proposed to protect and enhance the natural environment? If not, please explain.

32) Do you agree with the actions proposed for protecting and enhancing the built and historic environment? If not please explain.

33) How should the Green Belt be protected? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Neither of the above

34) How should the Green Belt be reviewed? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Neither of the above

35) At what density should new development be built in Castle Point? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

36) Do you agree with the actions proposed for maximising land use on large sites? If not, please explain.

37) Which of the flood risk management options do you prefer? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Neither of the above

38) Do you agree with the actions proposed to mitigate against the effects of flood risk and climate change? If not please explain.

39) How should the hazardous installations be dealt with in the future? Please select one option: Please explain your selection Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 None of the above

40) Do you agree with the actions proposed to increase the generation of renewable energy within Castle Point? If not please explain.

41) Do you agree with the actions proposed to improve the design and setting of new developments? If not please explain.

42) Do you agree that the Council should encourage an ideal standard of development? If not please explain.

43) Do you agree with the minimum standards for development proposed? If not please explain.

44) Do you agree with the actions proposed for dealing with contaminated land? If not please explain.

45) Do you agree with the actions proposed for protecting and enhancing the landscape and natural features in development? If not please explain.

46) Do you agree with the actions proposed to improve open space through development? If not please explain.

47) Do you agree with the actions proposed for protecting the historic environment in development? If not please explain.

48) Do you agree with the actions proposed for improving construction methods? If not please explain.

49) Do you agree with the actions proposed for managing employment uses? If not please explain.

50) Do you agree with the actions proposed for managing retail uses? If not please explain.

51) Do you agree with the actions proposed for controlling advertising? If not please explain.

52) Do you agree with the actions proposed for controlling the installation of telecommunications equipment? If not please explain.

Signature: Date:

Castle Point Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation

March-May 2007

Summary of Consultation Responses RESPONDENTS

Responses on the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report were received from fifty nine organisations, residents, businesses and landowners/developers. It is expected that respondents will have a range of different perspectives arising from different interests they have in future development of the Borough. As a result, the respondents are group below in interest areas.

Statutory Consultees (Specialist Bodies and Neighbouring Authorities) Anglian Water Services East of England Development Agency East of England Regional Assembly English Heritage Environment Agency Essex County Council Go-East Natural England

Non Statutory Consultees (Specialist Bodies, Service Providers and Voluntary Organisations) Essex Wildlife Trust House Builders Federation RSPB Sport England The Theatre Trust

Businesses BP-Petroplus (c/o Drivers Jonus)

Local Residents John Armitage Jill Barker Mr B.J. Brazier Philip Gilder Geoff Caves Christopher Grant Mrs Gwendoline Grant Mrs Patricia Gunn Angela Hamilton Jenifer Howlett Francoise Monteil Mr John Palmby Gillian Pinnock Jonathan Pinnock Mrs Anne Pope Anthony Pope Mrs Hazel Stafford Jack Tring Anonymous 1

Landowners/Developers • Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning) – Land Adjacent to London Road, Benfleet • Mr R. Beaumont (c/o The John Bishop Partnership) - Land adj. to 205 Thundersley Park Rd.Benfleet • Calor Gas Ltd (RPS Planning) – Calor Gas Site, Thames Road, Canvey • Daws Heath Ltd (c/o Smart Planning) – Land South of Rayleigh Weir, Hadleigh • Mr Lesley Evans – North West Benfleet • Fairview New Homes (RPS Planning) – no site identified. • Fox Land and Property Ltd (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) – Glebelands, Benfleet • Galley Land LLP (c/o Grainger Planning Associates) - Land at Vicarage Hill South Benfleet • Linda Hartman – North-west Benfleet • Hickfort Ltd (c/o Smart Planning) – North-west Benfleet • Hollowell Ltd (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) • Jetbury Investment Ltd (c/o Savills Plc) – Between Kiln Road and The Chase, Thundersley • Mr and Mrs Jones (c/o Whirledge and Nott) – East of Canvey Road, Canvey • Mr Litman (c/o JB Planning Associates) - Land north Clarence Road North, Benfleet • Morrisons Supermarkets Plc (c/o Rapleys LLP) – West of Canvey Road, Canvey • National Grid Property Holdings Ltd (c/o Planning Perspectives) South of Charfleets, Canvey • Persimmon Homes (c/o Pegasus Planning) – East of Canvey Road, Canvey • Port of London Authority – Oikos, Canvey • Mr Reeves (c/o Strutt and Parker) – Glyders, Benfleet • Robert Leonard Group (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) – Glebelands, west of Thundersley • Mr and Mrs Sanders – North-west Benfleet • Mr Denis Thomas – North-west Benfleet • Mrs Irene Thomas – North-west Benfleet • Miss Michelle Thomas – North-west Benfleet • Mrs Marie Thomas-White – North-west Benfleet • Mr Gary White – North-west Benfleet

The outcomes of the consultation are set out in the report that follows. The responses received for each section of the issues and options report are set out, along with the response of the officer for each comment made, and where necessary an action proposed to address any concerns.

A Distinctive Borough

Seven factors were identified in the Issues and Options Report that make Castle Point a Distinctive Borough. These factors are:

Contrasting Towns - Castle Point is a distinctive Borough located on the north bank of the Thames Estuary. It is a Borough most easily characterised by its contrasting features. Castle Point comprises two urban areas of Canvey Island and the mainland towns of Benfleet, Hadleigh and Thundersley. These towns have distinctively different landscapes, built environments and social conditions. This presents both issues and opportunities when developing a vision for the future.

Diverse Natural Environment – Castle Point’s urban area is tightly bound by the Thames Estuary and the metropolitan green belt and as a result the Borough benefits from a diverse natural environment including 6 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Protection Area and a migratory bird site (RAMSAR). These nationally and internationally important sites are thread together by local wildlife sites that are distinctive to the varying landscape in Castle Point and include marshland, grassland and ancient woodland. The diversity of the natural environment is a very important attribute of the Borough due to its location in the urbanised Thames Gateway South Essex Sub-region.

High Levels of Out-Commuting - Castle Point’s inclusion in the Thames Gateway South Essex is important in seeking to deal with other issues that influence the character of the Borough. The urban areas of Castle Point are predominantly residential. As a result Castle Point has the 3rd highest level of out-commuting in the East of England with 62% of economically active residents working outside the Borough. Commuters tend to travel to London, Basildon and Southend in particular for work. Whilst commuters to London typically travel by train due to improving journey times and reliability of the service, those travelling to Basildon and Southend rely on their cars. This results in severe congestion at peak times particularly at the Sadler’s Farm and Waterside Farm junctions and around Benfleet Station.

Low Skilled Economy - The level of out-commuting both impacts on and is influenced by the quality of local employment opportunities. Local jobs in Castle Point are typically low skilled and are provided by small businesses that are less able to invest in high quality premises or training and development of their staff. As a result, local jobs are largely located in rundown employment areas and typically pay around £172 (a third) less than jobs occupied by commuting residents of the Borough.

High levels of Home Ownership - The commuting population of the Borough typically earn around £450 per week. This is above the national average and has had an effect on the distribution of the housing stock in the Borough. At 91%, Castle Point has the highest level of home ownership in the Country. The vast majority of these properties have 3 bedrooms or more and are detached, semi detached or bungalows. Property prices in Castle Point have consistently increased over the last 20 years making it very difficult for first time buyers and locally employed people to enter then market.

Town Centres in need of vitality - Due to the high level of out-commuting from Castle Point, the local town centres lose a substantial proportion of the residential spend to other centres, particularly Basildon, Southend, Lakeside and Bluewater because people are more willing and used to travelling for what they need and want. As a result, the town centres in Castle Point are in need of regeneration in order to make them more attractive to existing residents and as business and housing locations in order to enhance their vitality. Regeneration is necessary to address the significant under investment in public space that has occurred within town centres in Castle Point.

Public Safety - The residential nature of the Borough is also an issue in respect of the risks posed to the Borough by the major hazardous installations (Calor and Oikos) located on Canvey Island, the risk of flooding and the associated access difficulties that might prevent a successful evacuation of parts of the Borough in the event of an incident. In light of the Bundsfield Initial Report, planning authorities should address the risk issues associated with hazardous installations located in close proximity to the residential population. As both forms of development are already present it is necessary to consider which form of development is most appropriate in creating a sustainable community in Castle Point.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the factors identified. 25 responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and where necessary a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with the Core Strategy Issues and Support for the list of distinctive features SERVICES LTD Options Report. identified noted. ENVIRONMENT We generally support this report and the Support welcomed AGENCY general direction that has been taken. We ACTION: None required. consider that the issues highlighted address the central matters for your Local Authority. In particular, we are pleased that flood risk and land contamination, have been reflected in the report, along with the opportunity to improve open space, biodiversity, cycling and walking provision. ESSEX COUNTY Recommend addition of a short section on It is agreed that the historic environment COUNCIL the historic environment alongside natural has contributed towards how Castle Point environment. is today, however the historic environment does not characterise Castle Point as it does in places such as Cambridge and there are features such as the natural environment that are much more prominent in distinguishing Castle Point from elsewhere. ACTION: No amendment to be made. NATURAL RAMSAR should be Ramsar site. Wording noted. ENGLAND ACTION: Ensuring correct wording in future documents. MR JOHN Two separate and distinct urban areas Recognising the Borough as two ARMITAGE may in the longer term prove divisive distinctive areas enables deprivation . issues to be addressed. It is not the What if out-commuting reduces intention to create a divided community. substantially. Would this upset projected ACTION: Check future documents to employment provision? ensure that divisions are not created. The Council aims to reduce out- It is too late to regenerate town centres commuting. particularly Hadleigh. ACTION: None required Consultants have advised that there is interest from private investors in Hadleigh. ACTION: Report outcome of Hadleigh Town Centre Masterplan and Retail Needs Assessment. MR B.J. BRAZIER Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features identified. identified noted. MR GEOFF Agrees with distinctive features identified. Support for the list of distinctive features CAVES identified noted. MRS PATRICIA In general yes but we are a very quickly Agree with comment made but would GUNN aging population and are in dire need of suggest this is not an issue distinctive to an influx of young families. Castle Point. As a result it is addressed in the Issues section. ACTION: None required. MRS ANGELA Agrees with distinctive features identified. Support for the list of distinctive features HAMILTON identified noted. JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features identified. identified noted. MRS GILLIAN Agrees with distinctive features identified. Support for the list of distinctive features PINNOCK identified noted. JACK TRING Consider the impact of internet trading. There is no evidence to indicate that Internet Trading is a distinctive feature of Public safety should use statistics for next Castle Point. 80-100 years, not 2007! The distinctive features look at features that currently exist. Unless changes are made these will perpetuate into the future. ACTION: None required. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features LTD (c/o Smart identified. identified noted. Planning Ltd) MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with distinctive features identified. Support for the list of distinctive features (c/o John Bishop identified noted. Partnership) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features (c/o Smart Planning identified. identified noted. Ltd) FOX LAND AND The list of characteristics stated in the Support for the list of distinctive features PROPERTY (c/o Issues and Options Report are identified noted. Andrew Martin recognised. Associates) GALLEY LAND Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features LLP (c/o Grainger identified. identified noted. Planning Associates Ltd) HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features (c/o Smart Planning identified. identified noted. Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features (c/o Roger identified. identified noted. Bullworthy Associates) MR AND MRS Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features JONES (c/o identified. identified noted. Whirledge and Nott) PORT OF The cargo-handling terminals on Canvey The cargo handling terminals include the LONDON Island are lawful and properly regulated by gas and oil storage facilities of Calor Gas AUTHORITY the relevant authorities. They utilise and Oikos. It is considered that whilst sustainable means of transport supported these facilities may be regulated they pose by national and regional policy and a risk to individuals and society more contribute towards securing the UK's widely. The presence of a Cordon future energy supplies. The PLA sees no Sanitaire around both installations planning evidence or basis for the indicates this. assessment under this section. It is an aim of both the Community Strategy and the Council to improve public safety and therefore the future presence of facilities that present such a risk must be examined. ACTION: Consider long-term existence of Calor and Oikos facilities as part of Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. ROBERT Inappropriate poor quality development in Such development, does not in the view of LEONARD GROUP the green belt should be redeveloped. This the Officer, make the Borough distinctive. (c/o Andrew Martin would have little impact on the openness As a result, no actions are proposed as a Associates) of land. result of this comment. ACTION: None required. MR REEVES (c/o Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features Strutt and Parker) identified. identified noted. DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features identified. identified noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the distinctive features Support for the list of distinctive features THOMAS identified. identified noted.

The list of distinctive features is generally well supported, although limited changes are required to ensure that they reflect the concerns and aspirations of all the consultees who responded. These changes will be made where appropriate.

This list has been used in the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Corporate Plan and therefore amendments will be passed on to the authors of these documents also. Issues for Castle Point

In addition to distinctive features of Castle Point, there are also wider issues that affect the Borough. Eleven issues were identified as being important in planning terms. These were:

Ageing Population – The population of the Borough is ageing with the proportion of people over the age of 65 expected to increase to 28% of the population by 2021. This has implications for accommodation provision and healthcare services in particular and should be reflected in plans for the future of the Borough.

Young People – Young people (under 20 years) will continue to make up over 20% of the population and it is important that their educational and social needs in particular are met. There is currently a perception that young people do not have enough to do, resulting in crime and anti-social behaviour. This issue needs to be addressed in order to achieve greater community cohesion.

Health Care Services – Primary Care Services in Castle Point are under increasing pressure with an ageing population. However, services are at stretched capacity and facilities are dated and need refurbishment or replacement. Proposals are in the pipeline to provide a total of three Primary Care Centres in the Borough delivering GP services and a range of associated care facilities. A location has been identified for one centre at the Paddocks on Canvey. A further site on Canvey is required and an additional site in Benfleet/Hadleigh will be required in the longer term.

Education and the Skills Gap – Educational attainment at school age level needs to be improved on Canvey Island where attainment (GCSE grades A*-C) is over 12% lower than the Essex average in all secondary schools on the Island. Skill levels within the working age population also need to be improved in order to stimulate growth in higher economy industries such as information technology or research and development, and higher paying occupations such as managerial and professional.

Regeneration of Employment Areas – The employment areas have low quality environments characterised by outdated and decaying buildings, disjointed and poorly maintained roads, a lack of signage and ugly street scenes. These areas are in multiple ownership and investment has not therefore been forthcoming in resolving these issues. A programme of investment is needed to improve the quality of these areas before they can expect to achieve economic growth.

Transport Infrastructure – The Borough has limited points of access and an insufficient road network to support the level of out-commuting that occurs at peak times resulting in congestion along key routes and junctions. Congestion is particularly severe when schools are open. Whilst the rail service is well used by commuters travelling to London, bus services are limited and less well utilised. These services need to be upgraded in order to offer a real alternative for those commuting for work and education locally. Opportunities for walking and cycling also need to be improved.

The Thames and the Seafront – Castle Point benefits from a prime location on the Thames Estuary, however the benefits of this are not fully realised. Ugly and imposing sea defences isolate the estuary and beach from the urban area. This has implications for the tourist industry which has declined, resulting in the decay of the Seafront Entertainment Area. The relationship with the Thames needs to be re-established and a new role for the Seafront Entertainment Area needs to be found.

Open Space – The Borough has a wide range and number of open spaces, however there are deficiencies in major provision areas. The number of formal parks needs to be improved; the quality of provision of play equipment for children and young people needs to be improved; access for people with disabilities needs improving; the quality of spaces and the provision of park furniture needs improving; and the connectivity between open spaces needs improving.

Maintaining Flood Protection – Canvey Island and parts of South Benfleet are located in Flood Risk Zone 3, however, the resident population are substantially protected from the risk of flooding by flood defences. It is important that these defences are maintained and that flood risk is given consideration by the Council when planning for development in order to ensure that additional people are not put at unnecessary risk.

Deprivation and Inequity – The level of deprivation varies considerably across the Borough with some wards finding access to a choice of job opportunities and healthcare, education and open space facilities limited. Parts of Canvey Island score poorly against the Index of Multiple Deprivation in relation to other Wards in the Borough and there is therefore a need to improve access to opportunities for local people.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the issues identified. Twenty-nine responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the Core Strategy Issues and Support for the list of issues identified noted. WATER Options Report. SERVICES LTD ESSEX Needs clarification whether 2 or 3 primary Variation noted. The PCT propose three COUNTY care centres are proposed. Primary Care centres for Castle Point. Two COUNCIL to be locate on Canvey Island and one on Discrepancy regarding Open Space - in the mainland. Only one location has text page 13 it indicates deficiencies but currently been identified. Page 17 indicates a ‘good quantity’ of open ACTION: Resolve variation for Preferred space within the Borough. Options Report With regard to open space, there is generally a good quantity of open space in Castle Point. Quality and Accessibility are the overarching issues. ACTION: Clarify results of Open Space Appraisal. GO-EAST The information on the environmental, The comments of GO-East are welcomed in social and economic characteristics of the ensuring that the Core Strategy is Borough is useful in setting the scene, but considered sound at examination. in the Preferred Options document will ACTION: Provide better linkage between need to be linked much more clearly to the distinctive features, issues and opportunities identification of issues, and to the evidence in future documents. base which underpins it. At the Preferred Options stage you should do more to indicate how the spatial portrait, and the issues flowing from it, link back to relevant studies. There should also be a clear articulation of how the issues link to those coming out of the Sustainable Community Strategy. NATURAL Approaches to managing flood risk should There is the potential to further highlight the ENGLAND be sustainable and in step with issues associated with flood risk. Environment Agency's estuary-wide ACTION: Revise wording of issue approach TE2100 project accordingly.

Should ensure natural assets are The natural environment is recognised as a conserved and enhanced and also provide distinctive feature. a multifunctional asset to meet wider green ACTION: None Required. grid and Thames leisure aspirations. RSPB Open Space - We would recommend that The natural environment is highlighted as a the Council investigate the opportunities for distinctive feature of the borough in the ‘wilder’ areas as well as formal spaces and previous section. play areas. These wilder spaces should be ACTION: None required. able to support high levels of biodiversity. Maintaining flood protection - The RSPB The role of “soft” flood defence mechanisms recognises the importance of reducing is recognised and the wording will be flood risk; we would, however, recommend amended to reflect them. that alternative approaches to hard ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. engineering be investigated. By reinstating naturally functioning floodplain and saltmarsh, the energy from fluvial and coastal flooding can be dissipated and absorbed. MR JOHN Transport infrastructure need to be Issue already identified and similar ARMITAGE upgraded and provided before either terminology used. regeneration or new development is ACTION: None required. contemplated. If national forecasts in respect to global The Council has had a Strategic Flood Risk warming prove to be accurate, the risk of Assessment prepared in line with PPS25 flooding to certain areas within the Borough which models the effects of flooding in may perhaps prove to have been seriously Castle Point. The risk of a flood event has under-estimated. also been assessed. ACTION: Set out evidence emerging from SFRA in Spatial Strategy Topic Paper, Sustainability Topic Paper and in Core Strategy document as appropriate. MR B.J. Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. BRAZIER MR GEOFF Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. CAVES MRS PATRICIA Everything is covered BUT we need much This section identifies issues. Measures to GUNN more emphasis on improving the improve accessibility are addressed later in infrastructure especially traffic problems. the report. ACTION: None required. MRS ANGELA The Natural Environment must be The natural environment is recognised as a HAMILTON protected. distinctive feature. ACTION: None Required. Accepts that Town centres are in Need of PPS6 and the East of England Plan require Vitality but does not want them to become a hierarchy of Town Centres to be like Basildon or Southend. established. Basildon and Southend are key regional centres and as such at the top of the hierarchy. It is not proposed to develop the town centres in castle point in a similar way as they fall further down the retail hierarchy. ACTION: Ensure role of town centres in Castle Point is clarified in the Town Centres New housing and business locations would Policy. destroy our suburban mix of rural and The purpose of the Core Strategy is to residential dwellings, and make the area control the mix and location of new overpopulated and therefore unattractive. development to retain positive characteristics of the Borough. ACTION: None required. JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. MRS GILLIAN Infrastructure is a major problem. Issue already identified and similar PINNOCK terminology used. ACTION: None required. MR JONATHAN A major issue is traffic congestion at key Issue already identified and similar PINNOCK points in the borough especially at peak terminology used. times during the day. This will be made ACTION: None required. worse by increasing housing levels. JACK TRING Over 65s should be discouraged from Whilst the Council can apply the vulnerability being in high risk flood areas. test in PPS25, the Council cannot stop older people living in the flood risk zone. ACTION: Set out evidence emerging from SFRA in Spatial Strategy Topic Paper, Education needs improving at Canvey Sustainability Topic Paper and in Core Now. Strategy document as appropriate. The County Council has prepared a plan to Canvey is an Island, parts are bound to renew school provision on Canvey Island. have lack of access. ACTION: Document further relevant details. Whilst poor access may be inevitable for Canvey Island, it does not mean it is not an issue. ACTION: None required. ARGENT Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. Agrees with issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) FOX LAND AND The strategy should seek to increase Issues already identified. PROPERTY (c/o prosperity and employment growth to meet ACTION: None Required. Andrew Martin the identified employment needs of the Associates) Borough and achieve a more sustainable

balance between workers and jobs. This will help to improve the vitality and viability of the Borough town centres and beyond. LINDA No the existing LPG sites cannot meet the This is not an issue for the borough. HARTMAN requirement taking in all the factors. ACTION: None required. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY Ageing population & Health Care – This is Ageing population and healthcare are INVESTMENTS a nationwide issue & Castle Point needs to addressed. However it is recognised that C2 LTD (c/o Savills reflect national policies & proactively uses (residential homes) are not identified Plc) support C2 and D1 uses. and this needs to be addressed. ACTION: There is no evidence to suggest that further C2 provision is required. As a result, there is no amendment required. MR AND MRS Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) PORT OF There is little reference to the use of the There is no passenger terminal at Canvey LONDON River Thames for transport of people and and no known plans to provide one. With the AUTHORITY cargo. exception of fuel there is limited cargo transport to Canvey. Due to road capacity cargo transport is not considered sustainable for Canvey Island. ACTION: None required. MR REEVES Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. (c/o Strutt and Parker) ROBERT Regeneration should be encouraged on all Issues already identified and similar LEONARD existing employment sites. terminology used. GROUP (c/o ACTION: None Required. Andrew Martin Associates) DENIS Agrees with the issues identified. Support for the list of issues identified noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with the issues identified. THOMAS MR GARY No – Where will the hazardous sites be The Calor and Oikos Sites are not discussed WHITE relocated? Calor wish to redevelop their in this section and therefore this comment is existing site & Oikos supplies major not relevant to the question posed. airports so will funding (provide) be ACTION: None Required. requested?

The list of issues is generally agreed with, although several changes are required to ensure that they reflect the concerns of all the consultees who responded. These changes will be made where appropriate.

Additionally there is a need to improve linkage between the distinctive features, issues and opportunities, with the vision, aims, objectives and policy proposals.

This list has been used in the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Corporate Plan and therefore amendments will be passed on to the authors of these documents also. Opportunities for a More Sustainable Borough

Despite the issues faced by Castle Point it is possible to identify opportunities for future improvements in the Borough. These opportunities were listed in the Issues and options report as:

Location - Castle Point’s key strength and key opportunity is its location. Castle Point is situated within the Thames Gateway, which is the Government’s main growth area and a regeneration priority. Whilst this may be viewed negatively as development follows this designation, it also means that funding and government interest is available for regeneration of key areas of Castle Point, most notably Canvey Island. Castle Point is also well located to benefit from opportunities arising elsewhere in the Thames Gateway (particularly South Essex and London), where appropriate transport systems are in place.

Natural Environment - Castle Point benefits from a diverse natural environment that affords an interesting landscape, fantastic views across the Thames Estuary, areas for informal recreation and nature conservation opportunities. Better recognition of this opportunity would have social benefits and benefits for the local economy in terms of attracting visitors to the area and encouraging inward investment, particularly in environmental technologies. In addition to this, the flat landscape of Canvey Island affords opportunities for delivering an improved cycle network.

The Green Grid – This encompasses both the natural environment and the network of public and private open spaces within the Borough, including the seafront. The Green Grid is a sub-regional strategy that aims to enhance the role of green spaces in regeneration, improve linkages between green spaces and the built environment, and encourage better use of green spaces by local residents, local workers and visitors. This will enable opportunity sites such as Canvey Heights, Canvey Lake, Canvey Marshes, Hadleigh Castle Country Park, the seafront and the Borough’s network of woodlands to be developed to meet their full potential as green spaces.

Initiatives to Regenerate Canvey Island - There is considerable interest in regenerating Canvey Island. A Sustainable Regeneration Report has been prepared for the Island and has identified key actions that will make the Island a better place to live. There appears to be a commitment from national, regional and local representatives to achieving this and therefore the regeneration of Canvey Island, including Charfleets Industrial Estate, the Seafront and the Paddocks Site are key opportunities for the Borough. In addition to this, EEDA own a site on Northwick Road, Canvey Island and are seeking to see this developed for employment purposes. The Regeneration Partnership is also seeking to find a solution regarding the presence of the hazardous installation facilities on Canvey Island.

Initiatives to Regenerate Town Centres - The town centres in Castle Point currently comprise of worn out properties that have been subject to developer interests in recent years. As a result funding has been or will be put in place to prepare master plans for Hadleigh Town Centre and Canvey Town Centre in order to encourage the sustainable regeneration of these centres and improve their day time and where appropriate the evening vitality.

Local Transport Plan – The Local Transport Plan sets out a number of opportunities for Castle Point including junction improvements at Sadlers Farm, the extension of Roscommon Way (improving access to Charfleets) and the introduction of a Rapid Transit System for South Essex (SERT). The introduction of SERT will provide improved access for residents of the Borough to opportunities in Basildon, Southend and elsewhere in the Thames Gateway. A route is proposed from Canvey to Basildon and the Council supports the delivery of this route. In addition to this the Council supports the delivery of a route from Basildon to Southend as this would pass through the mainland part of the Borough.

Primary Healthcare Provision – As part of the Primary Care Trusts programme to improve healthcare provision in Castle Point and Rochford, a primary care centre has been approved for the Paddocks Site on Canvey. In addition to this it is proposed to build at least one further primary care centre in the Borough by 2021. The location of the second centre has yet to be decided however the Council will work with the Primary Care Trust to locate a sustainable and accessible site.

21st Century Education Vision for Canvey Island – As a result of demographic change, and the need to improve educational attainment on Canvey Island a programme of renewal of secondary school provision on the Island is to be put in place. This will see a new school built as part of the schools for the future programme, and the current provision reduced from three secondary schools to two. On the site of one of the previous schools a further education college will be developed to provide vocational training opportunities for local people.

Open Spaces Strategy and Playground Renewal – Open spaces are important in meeting the social and health needs of local people. The open space appraisal of the Borough revealed that there is a good quantity and diverse mix of most types of open space within the Borough, although quality was somewhat lacking. The Open Space Strategy and the Programme for Playground Renewal will see these issues addressed, supported by good planning policies.

Leisure Provision – Leisure provision in the Borough is mainly through schools, the Virgin Active Centre and the two Council owned leisure centres – Waterside and Runnymede. There are also a number of independent gyms. The two Council owned centres have a key role to play in supporting local needs, however both are in need of renewal. The Council is working with management consultants in order to identify a sustainable future for wider leisure provision in order that they continue to meet local needs into the future.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the opportunities identified. Thirty responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the Core Strategy Issues and Support for identified opportunities noted. WATER Options Report. SERVICES LTD ESSEX The Green Grid – Recommend addition of Wording amendment accepted having COUNTY the word ‘historic’ in the first line considered Green Grid Strategy. COUNCIL ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. SERT routes ultimately taken forward may Whilst recognising the views of Essex not fully match with the particular route County Council, it is important that the aspirations implied by the Issues and Borough Council pursues opportunities to Options Report. improve local public transport provision and provides a case for SERT routes that meet the Borough’s needs through the Local Development Framework. ACTION: None required as the opportunity is expressed in terms of support of delivery rather than actual delivery. NATURAL An informed, creative approach working in Agree with comments made. Actions to ENGLAND partnership will be necessary to secure secure opportunities are identified later in opportunities in the natural environment. the report. ACTION: None required. RSPB Natural Environment – Promotion of the Concerns regarding the impact of visitors on landscape and wildlife in the area as a the natural environment are noted. tourist attraction should be encouraged as ACTION: Ensure policies are in place to long as the environment itself is not protect the natural environment from compromised by inappropriate development inappropriate development. or disturbance. The improvement of sustainable transport options such as cycleways and walkways should be encouraged.

The Green Grid – The RSPB supports the enhancement of existing green spaces and Support for implementation of green grid the aim to improve linkages between them. noted. MR JOHN Open spaces need to be far better managed, The need to ensure on-going maintenance ARMITAGE maintained and supervised that they are at of open spaces. present. ACTION: Include this matter in the open spaces policy. Questions the benefits of regenerating A Masterplan of Hadleigh Town Centre is Hadleigh Town centre. underway, as is a retail needs assessment. This will set out the potential for Hadleigh Town Centre. ACTION: Report outcome of Hadleigh Town Centre Masterplan and Retail Needs Assessment as they become available. MR B.J. Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. BRAZIER MR GEOFF Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. CAVES MRS Every new build in the area MUST be Sustainability and infrastructure provision PATRICIA sustainable and developers should be made are considered later in the document. GUNN to make new houses greener and provide ACTION: None required. roads. MRS ANGELA Local Transport Plan - do we really want The local transport plan does not propose an HAMILTON another road from Basildon to Southend to additional road from Basildon to Southend. pass through our borough?! ACTION: None required.

Towns in Need of Vitality - the fact that CP Town Centres in Castle Point are not at the isn't overcrowded is what sets it apart from same level of the retail hierarchy as Basildon bigger towns such as Basildon or Southend. and Southend ACTION: This matter will be addressed as part of the town centres policy. JOHN Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. PALMBY MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. PINNOCK MR Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. JONATHAN PINNOCK JACK TRING Is Canvey a key area? ( 40,000 Canvey, The population split implied is incorrect. mainland 120,000) Census 2001 indicated approximately 37,500 people on Canvey and 49,000 in Benfleet, Hadleigh and Thundersley. ACTION: None required. This will be considered in the monitoring and Sources of finance implementation framework. ACTION: Develop a draft monitoring and implementation framework. There is no evidence to indicate that online On line purchase increasing rapidly. purchasing will have a significant effect on town centres in Castle Point. ACTION: None required. ARGENT Reservations about the deliverability of a Essex County Council is working on plans HOMES LTD number of the initiatives identified in the for Roscommon Way with delivery potentially (c/o Smart Local Transport Plan, in particular the occurring 2010-2012. Consultation on the Planning) extension of Roscommon Way. In order to route is programmed to occur in Autumn deliver these improvements, private funding 2007. will be required, and it is unlikely that this will ACTION: None required. be viable. SERT is not due to be brought on-line until With regard to SERT, is important that the 2020 at the earliest. The routes which the Borough Council pursues opportunities to Borough Council refer to are not within the improve local public transport provision and first or second tranche of SERT, and provides a case for SERT routes that meet therefore will undermine the initiatives to the Borough’s needs through the Local regenerate Canvey Island. Development Framework. ACTION: None required MR R. Agrees with opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) CALOR GAS The Core Strategy should recognise that The Core Strategy sets out the Council’s LTD (c/o RPS Calor Gas Ltd is committed to the long term concerns and aspirations for the South of Planning) operation of its existing LPG Terminal at Canvey Island. Thames Road. The site is not therefore ACTION: Consider this matter as part of the available for other forms of development. Spatial Strategy Topic Paper and amend Core Strategy accordingly. DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning) FOX LAND The vision is overly prescriptive and biased There is a deprivation issue for Canvey AND at placing emphasis towards the Island in comparison to the rest of the PROPERTY regeneration of Canvey Island. In view of the Borough which requires a regeneration LTD (c/o constraints to development at Canvey focus. It is not therefore unreasonable to Andrew Martin Island, it is considered that the vision should identify this as part of the Core Strategy. It Associates) be less prescriptive to enable flexibility in the should be noted that Southend have Core Strategy should flood risk implications identified Shoeburyness and the Town and other associated constraints obstruct Centre as focal points for their Borough due fulfilment of the Core Strategy strategic to regeneration need. The Core Strategy is a visions. spatial plan that goes beyond simply delivering housing. ACTION: None required.

It is the Council’s intention to make the It is understood that a Sustainable Canvey Sustainable Regeneration Report Regeneration Report has been prepared, available when it is clear which aspects of its which identifies the regeneration of Canvey recommendations will be taken forward Island as a key opportunity for the Borough’s through the LDF and the Regeneration Spatial Vision. This document is not in the Framework. public domain. Accordingly, the credibility of ACTION: Identify a release date for the this Report, which recognises Canvey Island Canvey Sustainable Regeneration Report. as a key opportunity, is treated with a high degree of caution. The SFRA identifies the risk and hazard of Significant flood risk, the necessity for flooding on Canvey Island. significant infrastructure delivery, and ACTION: Document a clear evidence base associated infrastructure contributions and for flood risk in the topic papers and the potential contaminated land remediation Preferred Options Report. costs associated with regeneration existing ACTION: The Regeneration Partnership is hazardous installations which will have preparing a Regeneration Framework for negative impacts on the viability of Canvey Island to address infrastructure developing these sites and as such the problems. provision of community benefits such as a ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework significant proportion of affordable housing. in Core Strategy.

Finally, the Spatial Vision issues and This matter is addressed in the spatial vision opportunities should be uncompromising in and strategy. its focus to deliver for the entire Borough’s ACTION: None required. identified housing needs in the Plan period. HICKFORT As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY The initiatives do not consider existing The opportunities consider projects, INVESTMENT settlements & places such as Thundersley programmes and plans that have the LTD (c/o which could equally make a sustainable potential to bring about significant change in Savills Plc) development contribution. Castle Point. There are no such opportunities in Thundersley. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Agrees with the opportunities identified. Support for identified opportunities noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) PORT OF The PLA were unaware of any activities The Regeneration Partnership have only LONDON undertaken by the Regeneration Partnership given informal consideration to the future of AUTHORITY to find a 'solution' to the presence of the the area. The options they have considered cargo-handling facilities and questions what are set out later in this report. proposals these include. ACTION: Consider Calor Gas and Oikos sites as part of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. ROBERT Existing developments in the Green Belt are Development in the Green Belt, with limited LEONARD a fact and should accordingly be considered exception, is contrary to national Green Belt GROUP (c/o on their merits if proposed for redevelopment policy set out in PPG2 and is not therefore Andrew Martin or change of use. an opportunity for Castle Point. Associates) ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS No – The indicatives for the regeneration of The Regeneration Partnership is preparing a SANDERS Canvey Island are undermined by the lack of Regeneration Framework for Canvey Island infrastructure and further development on to address infrastructure problems. the Island is unsustainable. ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework in Core Strategy. DENIS No Canvey is already congested and major Essex County Council is working on plans THOMAS road development is not proposed to 2020 for Roscommon Way with delivery potentially also who will fund the project? Private? occurring 2010-2012. Consultation on the route is programmed to occur in Autumn 2007. Initial work is being carried out by Essex County Council re: third access to Canvey. ACTION: None required. MRS IRENE No Canvey is full and congested now The Council notes the concerns expressed THOMAS regarding the opportunity that Regeneration on Canvey Island actually presents. ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework in Core Strategy. MISS No – I believe that easier access to Canvey Initial work is being carried out by Essex MICHELLE Island would be very problematic and County Council re: third access to Canvey. THOMAS unlikely to be achievable. ACTION: None required. MRS MARIE Unsure that Local transport plan can be Essex County Council is working on plans THOMAS- fulfilled re: Canvey Island and Charfleets. for Roscommon Way with delivery potentially WHITE How will this be funded? If privately will this occurring 2010-2012. Consultation on the be viable? route is programmed to occur in Autumn 2007. Initial work is being carried out by Essex County Council re: third access to Canvey. ACTION: None required. MR GARY No – I don’t think Calor & Oikas can meet This section does not seek to identify how WHITE the requirements. Calor and Oikos will be used in the future and therefore this comment is out of context to the question asked.

The list of opportunities is generally agreed with, although there are concerns about the potential of the Calor and Oikos Sites and the delivery of transport infrastructure projects. Several changes are required to ensure that the concerns of the consultees are reflected in the wording where appropriate.

This list has been used in the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Corporate Plan and therefore amendments will be passed on to the authors of these documents also. Our Spatial Vision

Building on the distinctive features, issues and opportunities for Castle Point a draft spatial vision was developed for the Core Strategy which read as follows:

Our vision for Castle Point is that by 2021 the Borough will have: “A vibrant local economy providing more skilled and higher-paying jobs suited to the skills and aspirations of local people. Out-commuting will be reduced and undertaken by more sustainable travel modes. Employment areas on Canvey and in Benfleet will have been regenerated to provide for business excellence supported by excellent infrastructure, skills, training, and high standards of local educational attainment. The town centres in Canvey, Benfleet, Hadleigh, and Tarpots will have been regenerated to provide a greater range and quality of retailing and local services, with high quality built environments, so that they are more attractive to local residents. The evening/leisure economy in the Canvey Island Seafront entertainment area will be strengthened.

The local housing stock will provide for a much greater choice of dwelling types, sizes, tenures, and kinds of accommodation. In particular, greater provision will have been made for the housing needs of the elderly, young people and those with special needs (including smaller properties at affordable prices, and more social rented and low cost private market housing). Existing housing stock will have been improved and renewed. New housing will have been provided in sustainable locations with good access to public transport, retailing, and local services.

Castle Point will appear much greener and sustainable, and there will be greater access to recreational opportunities in the natural environment. The Metropolitan Green Belt will continue to separate existing settlements, support an open and attractive green environment, and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation, nature conservation, and woodland. A Green Grid structure will link together urban and rural areas, and connect a more diverse pattern of open spaces. Formal space will have good quality, well designed and distinctive furniture and playgrounds. The natural environment will be well managed and support a range of biodiversity. SSSIs and wildlife sites will be in a favourable condition and other sites including Canvey Heights, Canvey Lake, Canvey Marshes and the Seafront will play an enhanced role in the habitat mosaic of the Borough.

Residents, workers, and visitors will have access to a first class range of community services including three new primary healthcare centres, 21st Century Schools, training opportunities including a new vocational college on Canvey Island, and renewed leisure provision at Waterside and Runnymede. Points of access into the Borough and local road infrastructure will be improved. There will be greater access to more sustainable methods of transport. There will be an improved bus network serving residential areas, the town centres and employment areas throughout the daytime and evening. This will be integrated with South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) serving our Town Centres, providing sustainable and rapid public transport connections with job, training and retail opportunities elsewhere in South Essex. A comprehensive network of cycle routes and footpaths will enable people to access local jobs and commuter hubs with greater ease.

In recognition of the substantial risks posed to Castle Point by the hazardous installations (Calor and Oikos) currently located on Canvey Island, the area will be secured for safe and sustainable redevelopment for new uses. Additionally, the risks posed by climate change and flood risk will be managed by ensuring that all new building will be designed in a manner that is sustainable. Carbon emissions from energy consumption and transport use will be reduced, more waste will be reused or recycled, resources such as water and building materials will be used more sparingly and buildings will be made more tolerant to weather events. The Council and public sector partners will play a lead role in promoting and implementing these changes.”

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the draft spatial vision proposed. Thirty-four responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with the Spatial Vision. Support for spatial vision noted. SERVICES LTD ENGLISH There is no direct reference to the historic It is noted that the historic environment HERITAGE environment here. While there are has been omitted from the draft vision, relatively few listed buildings the historic however it is consider as an aspect of the attributes of the area are, nevertheless, an environment that will not be subject to essential element of its quality which can significant change during the plan period. be used to establish distinctive new As a result, it is not considered appropriate environments. The position of the Borough to include it in the forward looking vision of means it has a long history of human the borough, which is focused on growth activity associated with the river and and change. important archaeological remains. We ACTION: None required. suggest that the vision might seek to realise the benefits of individual historic sites and the area’s wider historic character as part of the proposed enhancement of the Borough. ENVIRONMENT The vision should also aim for an overall Whilst respecting the Environment AGENCY improvement regarding flood risk, waste Agency’s views, we believe the specificity management and water resources. The desired would be better achieved in the wording could be more explicit, for aims and objectives than in the vision. example stating that flood risk would be ACTION: Reconsider aims and objectives reduced and that in addition to better re: Flood Risk, waste management and design development would be located water resources. appropriately. GO-EAST The Issues & Options Report contains a Whilst respecting the views of GO-East it more focused and locally distinctive vision is considered inappropriate to provide the than presented previously. In taking this high level of detail specified in their forward you may wish to consider whether response to the Core Strategy within the more can be done to indicate relevant vision. It would appear more appropriate to timescales and targets for key provide specific details on targets and components of the vision (by date x… locations within the aims and objectives or etc.). The vision could also do more to under the policies in order that they are set indicate where change is likely to occur within a clear context of their origins. This (as opposed to “New housing will have would also help to ensure that the vision is been provided in sustainable locations…”), kept to a succinct and reasonable length. and the quantities involved (e.g. targets for This matter was discussed with GO-East. dwelling provision). ACTION: Minor amendments made to include more detail as appropriate. NATURAL Need to be mindful of the hierarchy of This matter is addressed in the Natural ENGLAND protection afforded to nature conservation Environment Policy. It is not the role of the interest as set out within PPS9 and vision to outline such specific details. supporting ODPM Circular 06/2005. ACTION: None required.

There is a need to consider whether an Point noted. Appropriate Assessment, in accordance ACTION: Screen Core Strategy for need with the Habitat Regulations is necessary. for an Appropriate Assessment. ESSEX WILDLIFE It will be very challenging to deliver all the It is important to have a challenging vision TRUST aspirations of the draft spatial vision. in order to promote action and positive change. ACTION: Develop a draft monitoring and implementation framework. RSPB the RSPB supports the Spatial Vision for Support for the proposed vision noted. the Borough, particularly the commitment made by the Council to protect and enhance the environment of the Borough. We support the Council’s intention to encourage sustainability and the reduction of energy, water usage and waste. MR JOHN Yes: The vision is fine but will inevitably An implementation framework is needed to ARMITAGE require input and investment from so many highlight how aspects of the core strategy interested parties, organisations and will be delivered. sources it is difficult to imagine everything ACTION: Develop a draft monitoring and falling into place. implementation framework. MR B.J. BRAZIER ALL roads need to be made cycle friendly, This matter will be considered in the since a defined "network" of specific cycle transport and accessibility policy. routes will not, in itself, facilitate Borough ACTION: Reconsider cycling in Transport wide door to door cycle travel. policy section. MR GEOFF Agrees with the draft spatial vision. Support for spatial vision noted. CAVES MRS P. GUNN On the whole! Support for spatial vision noted. MRS ANGELA Social rented and low cost private market The community of Castle Point includes HAMILTON housing will bring the value/tone down of many people in need of socially rented our community. accommodation (around 1400 on housing waiting list) and younger people living with their parents (around 1,000 HNS 2004). Therefore such housing provision will bring benefits to our community. ACTION: Outline housing need in housing topic paper.

CP has much character but will become This issue is addressed in the Built the same as any other large town if so Environment Policy. much development and building occurs. ACTION: None required.

People commute because they want to The Employment Study reveals a low keep work and home separate. number of high economy jobs in Castle Point. This is considered to be particularly influential in commuting rates. ACTION: Prepare an Employment topic paper.

Increased population will increase crime This matter is covered in the inclusive rates to levels experienced in Basildon communities policy. and Southend. ACTION: None required. JOHN PALMBY Does not believe the Calor/Oikos sites are The Council’s aspiration is see the South viable. of Canvey regenerated and to improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the spatial strategy topic paper. MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the draft spatial vision. Support for spatial vision noted. PINNOCK MR JONATHAN Agrees with the draft spatial vision. Support for spatial vision noted. PINNOCK JACK TRING Observing progress at the moment I see The purpose of the Core Strategy is no chance of the vision being met. As stimulated and direct progress towards the time goes on the flood risk in Canvey gets vision. greater. ACTION: Develop a draft monitoring and implementation framework. ANONYMOUS NO. Agrees with the draft spatial vision in the Support for spatial vision noted. 1 main. ARGENT HOMES Sceptical about the redevelopment The Council’s aspiration is see the South LTD (c/o Smart prospects of both the Calor and Oikos of Canvey regenerated and to improve the Planning Ltd) sites on Canvey Island. Neither operator safety of residents. has publicly declared that their sites are ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as surplus to requirements, and no alternative part of the spatial strategy topic paper. sites for their re-provision have been identified. Currently both sites are within the Both sites are within the functional flood functional flood plain and a hazard to plain. On this basis, Argent Homes existing residents of the Island. It is therefore disagree with the draft spatial suggested that their existing level of risk is vision. therefore greater. ACTION: None required. MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with draft spatial vision. Support for spatial vision noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) CALOR GAS LTD Calor Gas Ltd strongly object to the final The Council’s aspiration is see the South (c/o RPS Planning) paragraph of the proposed 'Vision for of Canvey regenerated and to improve the Castle Point' (page 19), which indicates safety of residents. It is recognised that that the LPA will seek to remove the Calor this may be a long-term aspiration and that Gas operation from Canvey Island and it may be influenced by the outcome of the encourage the redevelopment of the forthcoming appeal enquiry for the Calor Terminal site for alternative uses. Gas site. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as The Vision fails to recognise that Calor will part of the spatial strategy topic paper. continue to operate the Terminal site for the long-term.

PPS12: Local Development Frameworks (2004) at Section 4 sets out a number of tests to ensure that a development plan document is ‘sound’. Paragraph 4.24 refers to these tests, which include under (vii) and (viii), that policies/allocations should be founded on a robust and credible evidence base and that there are also clear mechanisms for implementation.

The final paragraph of the Vision clearly fails these tests. DAWS HEATH LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY The redevelopment of the Canvey sites The Council’s aspiration is see the South EVANS proposed is questionable. Where will they of Canvey regenerated and to improve the go? Is Canvey a safe place to built safety of residents. additional housing. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the spatial strategy topic paper. FOX LAND AND The vision of the Issues and Options Support for the vision noted. PROPERTY LTD Report is broadly endorsed. Fundamental (c/o Andrew Martin to delivering the vision will be the need to Associates) provide sufficient housing to meet local needs. Historically locally generated household demands have outstripped supply.

Representation continues with a detailed Detailed analysis of the housing trajectory analysis of the Council’s housing trajectory is out of context with the question posed set out in the AMR. regarding the vision.

The need for Greenfield development The focus of the vision is sustainable should be acknowledged in the vision. regeneration and sustainable development. Whilst Greenfield development may be required it is not something that the Council strives for and will try to avoid if at all possible. It is therefore inappropriate to highlight it in a visionary statement. ACTION: None required. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the draft spatial vision. Support for spatial vision noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY Objectives concerning stemming the flow The Regeneration Partnership is preparing INVESTMENT LTD of out commuting appear unrealistic a Regeneration Framework is seeking to (c/o Savills Plc) compared to the new job opportunities & improve the quality of job opportunities in local skills, that might be created in Castle point to reduce out-commuting. Canvey or elsewhere locally. ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework in Core Strategy. MR AND MRS The Metropolitan Greenbelt boundaries Review of the Green Belt is considered in JONES (c/o should be reviewed on Canvey Island to the Protecting Open Land policy. It is the Whirledge and assist with regeneration. Council’s intention to protect the Green Nott) Belt generally in line with PPG2. ACTION: None required. PORT OF The PLA disagrees with the proposals to The Regeneration Partnership have only LONDON redevelop the borough's cargo-handling given informal consideration to the future AUTHORITY facilities, and questions what evidence is of the area. The options they have available to substantiate the claims made. considered are set out later in this report. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the spatial strategy topic paper. ROBERT Existing development sites should be PPS1 seeks to achieve sustainable LEONARD GROUP assessed on their merits for new development through the planning (c/o Andrew martin development, even if sustainability process, therefore it is important that Associates) indicators cannot be met, but providing no future development sites are sustainable net increase in journeys results. and therefore this should remain a key part of the vision. ACTION: None required. DENIS THOMAS No we need all forms of energy and LPG With regard to the need for energy, it is the is required. Also Calor wants to Council’s role to ensure that the need for redevelop. Also where will the existing energy is balanced against the risk posed stations be moved to. Also moving the to the safety of residents in Castle Point. existing stations could be expensive. The Council’s aspiration is see the South of Canvey regenerated and to improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the spatial strategy topic paper. MRS IRENE No – Why move what we need, we need The Council’s aspiration is see the South THOMAS fuel. of Canvey regenerated and to improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the spatial strategy topic paper. MISS MICHELLE No – I do not believe that moving The Council’s aspiration is see the South THOMAS hazardous sites would be achievable or of Canvey regenerated and to improve the practical. safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the spatial strategy topic paper. MRS MARIE No – Where will the Calor & Oikins sites The Council’s aspiration is see the South THOMAS-WHITE be relocated? It was my understanding of Canvey regenerated and to improve the that Calor wished to redevelop their safety of residents. It is the Council’s existing site and as the gas is required understanding that Oikos is not used to its could this not cause more harm than good. full potential. Furthermore, Oikos supplies airlines, so ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as will private funding be required to develop part of the spatial strategy topic paper. solar sites? MR GARY WHITE No – Where will the hazardous sites be The Council’s aspiration is see the South relocated? Calor wish to redevelop their of Canvey regenerated and to improve the existing site & Oikos supplies major safety of residents. airports so will funding (provide) be ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as requested? part of the spatial strategy topic paper.

The vision is generally agreed with, although there are concerns about the inclusion of the Calor and Oikos Sites within it. The wording will be amended to reflect these concerns following a consideration of the evidence base.

Additionally, several consultees requested that more detail be included within the vision with regard to their specific interest area. Whilst some wording may be appropriately amended, it was considered that the level of specificity sought was generally too detailed for an overarching vision of Castle Point. Aims and Objectives of the Core Strategy

In order to deliver the draft spatial vision, possible Aims and Objectives for the Core Strategy were identified, as follows:

1 To promote and deliver more sustainable patterns of development that reduces the need to travel, makes efficient use of land and resources, and promote high quality energy efficient design, improving the quality of life for people who live in, work in or visit the Borough.

Objectives: 1) Secure sustainable regeneration and growth focused on the urban areas in Castle Point; 2) Secure a more diverse mix of uses in Canvey, Hadleigh, South Benfleet and Tarpots town centres; 3) Secure improved access to public transport provision between and within all town centres, employment areas, the seafront and residential areas; 4) Secure the application of sustainable construction and operation in all development, in particular through the prudent use of natural resources, energy efficiency and the maximum use of renewable and recycled resources.

2 To improve the natural beauty of the Borough by protecting and enhancing the landscape, biodiversity and habitats, creating new areas of natural interest and improving links between the natural environment and urban fabric of the Borough.

Objectives: 6) Contribute towards the creation of a “Green Grid” of high quality, linked and publicly accessible open spaces across South Essex; 7) Protect the Metropolitan Green Belt from inappropriate development; and 8) Maximise opportunities in leisure, tourism and recreation afforded to Castle Point through its unique and diverse natural environmental and coastal location.

3 To protect architectural and historic heritage in the Borough and encourage high quality design in new developments in order to enhance the built environment and promote civic pride and inward investment.

Objectives: 9) Protect and encourage sensitive improvement of Castle Point’s conservation areas, listed buildings and other sites of architectural and historic interest; 10) Secure the redevelopment of previously developed land, which would otherwise detract from the quality of the urban built environment; 11) Secure high quality design in new development that makes effective and efficient use of land, is accessible and is reflective of local character;

4 To improve the vitality, viability and accessibility of the town centres, the seafront and employment areas through a process of regeneration and environmental enhancement that makes these areas more attractive and usable for local people, visitors and investors.

Objectives 12) Secure regeneration, access and environmental improvements to existing Castle Point’s three main employment areas and its four town centres; 13) Deliver regeneration of Canvey seafront as a leisure and entertainment area for local people and visitors;

5 To encourage sustainable growth of a diverse local economy providing opportunities for local employment in a high quality business environment, supported by excellent infrastructure, training facilities and first class education provision.

Objectives: 14) Provide not less than 2,000 jobs between 2001 and 2021 in Castle Point; 15) Exploit locational opportunities at the Rayleigh Weir and develop the Northwick Road site as a secure business location; 16) Improve access to employment and training opportunities within the Borough and elsewhere in South Essex by public transport including SERT; 17) Secure the provision of renewed first class education provision on Canvey Island, including improved further education provision in relevant vocational skills.

6 To improve community safety by addressing the issues of crime, removing the risk posed by the hazardous installation facilities on Canvey (Calor and Oikos) and managing risks from the natural environment including climate change and flood risk, and ensuring that local people have good access to emergency services, health and social care provision. Objectives: 18) Ensure that developments are designed to deter crime and encourage social cohesion; 19) Encourage the redevelopment of the hazardous installation sites (Calor and Oikos) for safe and sustainable uses; 20) Ensure that developments are located and designed to minimise flood risk and the effects of climate change; 21) In partnership with the PCT deliver two new primary care centres in Castle Point and support other service providers in delivering community infrastructure.

7 To ensure that everyone can afford to live in the Borough in decent homes that are well served by public transport provision, local facilities and jobs, and are close to high quality open spaces and recreational opportunities.

Objectives: 22) Provide not less than 4,000 homes between 2001-2021 in Castle Point; 23) Target future dwelling provision to meet the needs of local people, including the provision of affordable housing; and 24) Secure the high quality open space provision in the Borough through a programme of renewal and environmental enhancement.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the draft aims and objectives of the core strategy proposed. Thirty-nine responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with the aims and objectives. Support for the proposed aims and SERVICES LTD objectives noted. ENVIRONMENT With regard to Aim 1 we recommend that it Whilst respecting the views of the AGENCY makes mention of PPS23 and the issue of Environment Agency it is not considered land contamination. Objective 4 should appropriate to refer to national policy include remediation of land contamination. guidance in the Aims – this is part of the evidence base for the contaminated land policy. The oversight with regard to contaminated land remediation is noted. ACTION: None required as regeneration of urban areas ultimately leads to the remediation and reuse of contaminated land. ESSEX COUNTY Objective 16 (p 21) needs to be Objective 17 covers educational issues for COUNCIL complemented by a further objective young people. attaining to meeting the educational needs ACTION: None required. and aspirations of all young people.

Aim 3: Recommend a clear reference to Archaeology is covered in ‘historical archaeology is included. interest’. The policy on Built and Historic Environment has a role in expanding on this. ACTION: None required. GO-EAST In taking the revised objectives forward The comments of Go-East are noted you will need to show clearly how these regarding the structure and linkage flow from the key issues and vision. This is between sections of the Core Strategy. not always the case – for instance heritage ACTION: Improve the structure and and community safety issues are raised linkages in future documents. here, without earlier reference to these issues. NATURAL There is a need to consider whether an Point noted. ENGLAND Appropriate Assessment, in accordance ACTION: The Core Strategy has been with the Habitat Regulations is necessary. screened for an appropriate assessment as part of the SA.

Agree with the list but also believe that This oversight is noted. conserving and enhancing nature ACTION: Amend the aims/objectives to conservation assets (as set out in PPS9) include more specific reference to nature should be an objective. conservation. ESSEX WILDLIFE Essex Wildlife Trust supports Aim 1 Support for aims 1, 2 and 3 noted. TRUST (Objective 4), all of Aim 2 and Aim 3 Support for objectives 4 and 10 noted. (Objective 10). HOUSE BUILDER Objective 21: PPS3 now requires it to The Council has noted this requirement FEDERATION make housing provision for a 15 year and will extend the housing delivery period from the time of the Plan’s eventual requirement to 2026. adoption. Therefore, this additional ACTION: Prepare housing need topic provision will need to be taken on board. paper.

Objective 22: It is unclear as to precisely The Council intends to ensure that new what it is meant by this, particularly in the housing meets the needs of local people in context of Castle Point’s location within a terms of size, type and tenure. Growth Area. ACTION: Prepare housing need topic paper. RSPB Aim 1 - Cycleways and walkways should This is a matter of quality that will be dealt be accompanied by appropriate street with in the Design and Setting section. furniture such as benches and parking ACTION: Consider the quality of access facilities, and where possible connected to routes as part of the design and setting the public transport system. section.

Aim 2 - The RSPB supports the Council’s Support for aim 2 noted. aim to improve the natural environment in the Borough, through the creation of a ‘Green Grid’, and protection of the green belt. THE THEATRE We support Aim 4. Due to the Trust's Support for aim 4 noted. TRUST specific remit we are concerned with the protection and promotion of theatres and therefore anticipate policies relating to cultural facilities. JOHN ARMITAGE The draft aims are as above very An implementation framework is needed to optimistic and rely on stable conditions highlight how aspects of the core strategy and circumstances. It will be important to will be delivered. monitor progress as the plan period ACTION: Develop a draft monitoring and progresses. implementation framework. MR B.J. BRAZIER Objective 3 (under Aim 1) should be Cycling provision will be considered in the extended with the words "and make all transport and accessibility policy. roads walking and cycling friendly to ACTION: Reconsider cycling in Transport reduce dependence on private car travel" policy section.

Insert additional objective between An oversight regarding nature numbers 5 and 6 (under Aim 2) "Enhance conservation is noted. and encourage opportunities for linking ACTION: Amend the aims/objectives to wildlife sites together with green corridors include more specific reference to nature to promote wildlife conservation and conservation. distribution". MR GEOFF Agrees with the suggested aims and Support for the aims and objectives noted. CAVES objectives. MRS PATRICIA FAR TOO WORDY!! Comment noted. GUNN ACTION: Consider how wording of aims and objectives can be improved without losing context. MRS ANGELA Aim 1 and objective , objective 22 - CP will This is a target set by the RSS. It is line HAMILTON become overcrowded, unattractive and with household growth for Castle Point as decrease in value if this aim is to be met. identified by the Chelmer Model. ACTION: None required. Aim 4 - yes provided these don't become Town centres in Castle Point fall lower huge centres such as Basildon, Southend down the retail hierarchy than key centres or Lakeside. Linked to explanations above. such as Basildon and Southend. ACTION: None required. Aim 5 - if people are content to work in This target is set by the RSS. Delivery Basildon, Southend or London, why options are set out in the Employment destroy CP's character by introducing policy. large businesses. ACTION: None required.

Aim 6 - yes but what about a new hospital The Local Health Authority have not made to support this growth in population? representations to the Authority that Health Centres won't be enough alone. indicate a need for a new hospital in Castle Point based on projected housing numbers. ACTION: None required. Green Belt has been named as such for a This matter is addressed by objective 7. reason, and that should be respected. ACTION: None required.

Obj. 22 – will lower the tone in our People requiring affordable housing are in borough by attracting undesirables! many cases already resident in Castle Point and therefore already part of the community. ACTION: Prepare a housing need topic paper. JOHN PALMBY Too many dwellings already exist on The Regeneration Partnership is preparing Canvey with insufficient roads to cope with a Regeneration Framework for Canvey traffic in the (light) of an emergency Island to address infrastructure problems. services would be unable to attend. ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework in Core Strategy. MRS GILLIAN An addtional objective I would like to add It is noted that the aims and objectives do PINNOCK is to secure better road and rail not cover these issues well. infrastructure. ACTION: Reconsider aims and objectives to ensure road and rail improvements are included. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the aims identified. Support for the aims and objectives noted. PINNOCK JACK TRING Jobs for locals cannot be guaranteed. First class education is covered by the First class education needs NOW on objectives. Canvey. ACTION: None required.

Northwick Road site is a secure business EEDA and Morrisons are working hard to location??? Not on present evidence, secure the Northwick Road site from illegal read the echo. motorcycle access. ACTION: None required. ANONYMOUS NO Agrees with the suggested aims and Support for the aims and objectives noted. 1. objectives. ARGENT HOMES Aim 6 (18) is undeliverable and contrary to The Council’s aspiration is see the South LTD (c/o Smart PPS3. of Canvey regenerated in order to Planning Ltd) amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with aims and objectives identified. Support for the aims and objectives noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) CALOR GAS LTD Calor Gas strongly objects to Aim 6 and The Council’s aspiration is see the South (c/o RPS Planning) objective 18 of the emerging Core of Canvey regenerated in order to Strategy document, which indicates that amongst other things improve the safety of the LPA will seek to remove the Calor Gas residents. operation from Canvey Island and ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites encourage the redevelopment of the as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. Terminal site for alternative uses, potentially residential and employment. DAWS HEATH LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Not entirely. The redevelopment of the The Council’s aspiration is see the South EVANS Canvey sites proposed is questionable. of Canvey regenerated in order to amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. FOX LAND AND Ensure the policies are put in place to The quantum of development required in PROPERTY LTD ensure that the right quantum of Castle Point is set out in the aims. (c/o Andrew Martin development is correctly identified ACTION: None required. Associates) together with appropriate deliverability An implementation framework is needed to strategies to ensure that the borough’s highlight how aspects of the core strategy future needs can be properly will be delivered. implemented. ACTION: Develop a draft monitoring and implementation framework. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the draft aims and objectives. Support for the aims and objectives noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) MR AND MRS Aim 2 - the green grid should be improved PPG2 has a presumption against JONES (c/o to provide high quality open space. Poor development in the green belt. This will be Whirledge and quality green areas within the metropolitan reflected in the core strategy. Further to Nott) green belt can be developed offering this PPS9 encourages local authorities to improvement to the landscape. protect and enhance landscape features. ACTION: None Required. MORRISONS Aim 4: Out of town retail compliments town Whilst the importance of out of town SUPERMARKETS centres and planning policy should reflect shopping areas in Castle Point is PLC (c/o Rapleys this. recognised, the town centres, in LLP) Aim 7: Morrisons support this aim. accordance with PPS6 will be the focal points for growth in the retail sector. ACTION: Report findings of Retail Needs Assessment when available. NATIONAL GRID Providing sustainable housing growth in Aim 7 and associated objectives deals PROPERTY the Borough cannot be achieved in urban with meeting housing needs. The location HOLDINGS LTD areas alone and more peripheral for this is discussed within the spatial (c/o Planning opportunities will need to be explored. strategy. This is the appropriate location Perspectives) Accordingly, it would be helpful if this were for such a discussion and does not need recognised under Part 7 of the aims and to be brought into the aims and objectives. objectives. ACTION: None Required. PORT OF The PLA questions why the presence of The Council’s aspiration is see the South LONDON the cargo-handling facilities is within Aim of Canvey regenerated in order to AUTHORITY 6, and Objective 18, and what evidence is amongst other things improve the safety of there that the percieved risks, which are residents. regulated by the HSE, are now considered ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites to be so great as to promote the loss of as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. these facilities, which are of regional and national significance in securing strategic energy supply. MR REEVES (c/o South Benfleet is considered to be an This is a matter for consideration under Strutt and Parker) urban area which can accommodate the spatial strategy, not the aims. additional housing growth. ACTION: None required. ROBERT Aims: Any assessment of the sustainability PPS1 seeks to achieve sustainable LEONARD GROUP credentials of a proposal should be in the development through the planning (c/o Andrew Martin context of the existing and any fallback process, therefore it is important that Associates) scenario. future development sites are sustainable Objectives should include presumption in and therefore this should remain an aim of favour of redevelopment/improvement of the core strategy. Green Belt sites if net benefits can be ACTION: None required. demonstrated. PPG2 has a presumption against development in the green belt. This will be reflected in the core strategy. ACTION: None Required. MR AND MRS No – The aims for the regeneration of The Regeneration Partnership is preparing SANDERS Canvey Island are undermined by the lack a Regeneration Framework for Canvey of infrastructure and further development Island to address infrastructure problems. on the Island is unsustainable. ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework in Core Strategy. DENIS THOMAS No the existing LPG sites cannot meet the The Council’s aspiration is see the South requirement taking in all the factors. of Canvey regenerated in order to amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. MRS IRENE No – The sites will not meet what required. The Council’s aspiration is see the South THOMAS Why should the existing fuel sites be of Canvey regenerated in order to moved? amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. MISS MICHELLE No – I do not believe that the Calor Gas or The Council’s aspiration is see the South THOMAS Oikas sites can meet the requirements for of Canvey regenerated in order to Castle Point. amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. I also believe that the infrastructure of the The Regeneration Partnership is preparing area could not cope with the added burden a Regeneration Framework for Canvey of more homes & development. Island to address infrastructure problems. ACTION: Reflect Regeneration Framework in Core Strategy. MRS MARIE I am not convinced that the Calor & Oikos The Council’s aspiration is see the South THOMAS-WHITE sites on Canvey can meet the of Canvey regenerated in order to requirements. amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper. MR GARY WHITE No – I don’t think Calor & Oikos can meet The Council’s aspiration is see the South the requirements. of Canvey regenerated in order to amongst other things improve the safety of residents. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos Sites as part of Spatial Strategy Topic paper.

The aims and objectives are generally agreed with, although there are concerns about the inclusion of redevelopment of the Calor and Oikos Sites as a specific aim and objective. The wording will be amended to reflect these concerns following a consideration of the evidence base.

Additionally, several consultees requested that more detail be included within the aims and objectives with regard to their specific interest area. Whilst some wording may be appropriately amended, it was considered that the level of specificity sought was generally too detailed for the aims and objectives. The Spatial Strategy

In order to deliver the spatial vision it is necessary to have a spatial strategy that sets out in broad terms how spaces and places will be used. The spatial strategy will identify the broad location of future development and the infrastructure needed to support development in the locations identified. The broad principle of Urban Intensification supported by sustainable urban peripheral development will underpin the locational choices.

Due to the broad nature of the spatial strategy, there are various considerations. These are set out below in sub-sections.

How Should Employment and Housing be distributed between Benfleet and Canvey Island?

Option 1: Locate development based on the supply of sustainable land for development. Option 2: Locate development based on the demand for housing arising from each town. Option 3: Located development based on a combination of supply of sustainable sites and demand for housing.

Consultees were asked to comment on which option they preferred. Thirty-seven responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Prefers Option 1. Support for option 1 noted. SERVICES LTD Allocation should take into account the This is included as a sustainability criteria. existing infrastructure (e.g. water supply ACTION: Amend sustainability criteria as and wastewater treatment) and the ability appropriate. of the environment to support the development. EERA The options put forward in this section Consideration of flood risk is part of the should take account of Policy WAT4 of the sustainability criteria and will be Proposed Changes Document and include considered there. options which place no development in ACTION 1: Amend sustainability criteria as flood risk areas or only certain types of appropriate. development in flood risk areas. ACTION 2: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. ENVIRONMENT Location and distribution should be based Consideration of flood risk is part of the AGENCY on a sound evidence base. In particular, sustainability criteria and will be we would highlight the importance of the considered there. sequential test in PPS25 and the South ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment spatial strategy and sustainability topic (SFRA) when considering these matters. papers. GO-EAST The Issues & Options report poses some Consultation on the Issues and Options of the questions necessary to shape the Report will be used by the Council to spatial strategy, but it is disappointing that gather information on the feasibility and it fails to provide information about the implications of the options set out in the extent to which the different options are spatial strategy. This is part of the role of feasible (linked to the evidence base), or such consultation. about the implications of the options in ACTION: Feed information on constraints, terms of environmental, social and issues and opportunities arising from economic impacts. We note that some of consultation into further documents. this material is provided in the Technical The SA for the previous preferred options Report, although not for every question work was reported in the technical paper (e.g. the feasibility of the options raised by and used to inform the Issues and Options Question 1). It is also unclear to what Report. The consultants have been asked extent the alternatives have been to appraise the Issues and Options Report scrutinised through initial sustainability in order to help identify preferred options appraisal work. for the future documents. ACTION: Ensure SA work informs Preferred Options. It would also be helpful if a key diagram The Issues and Options Report did not set were used to give visual expression to the out a preferred approach and therefore it preferred approach. was not possible to have a key diagram. This will be included in the preferred options report. ACTION: Prepare Key Diagram. NATURAL Need to have an informed approach that Consideration of nature conservation is ENGLAND accounts for aspirations to conserve and part of the sustainability criteria and will be enhance nature conservation interests, considered there. sustainability targets etc. Need to be ACTION: Ensure the consideration of aware that previously developed land may nature conservation, including that on support significant biodiversity interest or Brownfield sites, in revising Sustainability provide a key role informal recreational Criteria. greenspace role. ESSEX WILDLIFE in our view it will be very difficult to Having regard to the requirement to meet TRUST accommodate 4,000 new houses and the targets for jobs and homes set out in 2,000 new jobs within the Borough in a the East of England Plan, the Council will truly sustainable way that does not impact seek to identify the most sustainable sites. adversely on the natural environment. ACTION: None required. HOUSE BUILDERS Realistically, the Council will need to The Thames Gateway South Essex FEDERATION locate development based on a Partnership is preparing a Strategic combination of supply of sustainable sites Housing Market Assessment. and demand for housing (taking on board ACTION: Update Core Strategy as the findings of its Strategic Housing information becomes available on this Market Assessment). assessment. MR JOHN Option Three offers the best balance This matter is to be addressed in the ARMITAGE subject to new and improved infrastructure infrastructure requirement section of the always having been provided first. Spatial Strategy. ACTION: None required as matter is raised in infrastructure section. MR B.J. BRAZIER Prefers option 1: Priority should be given Support for option 1 noted. to the development of the most sustainable land available, even at the expense of some possible reduction of locational choice for potential occupiers. MR GEOFF Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. CAVES MRS ANGELA Option 3: Won't be building on every bit of Support for option 3 noted. HAMILTON land but takes into account both considerations. JOHN PALMBY Road users in particular Sadlers Farm and This matter is to be addressed in the Tarpots and flood risk at canvey. infrastructure requirement section of the Spatial Strategy. ACTION: None required as matter is raised in infrastructure section. MRS GILLIAN Until the infrastructure is improved, every This matter is to be addressed in the PINNOCK effort should be made to resist further infrastructure requirement section of the medium/large scale developments. Spatial Strategy. ACTION: None required as matter is raised in infrastructure section. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 3: Will not concentrate all Support for option 3 noted. PINNOCK the problems or benefits in one local area. MRS ANNE POPE Preferred option 3 – This seems to be the Support for option 3 noted. most sensible option.

MRS HAZEL Additional housing on Canvey should not With regard to infrastructure, see the STAFFORD be considered until there are infrastructure infrastructure requirement section of the improvements & the effects of global Spatial Strategy. warming are fully known. ACTION: None required as matter is raised in infrastructure section. Consideration of flood risk is part of the sustainability criteria and will be considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. JACK TRING Preferred option 2- To complete to Support for option 2 noted. advantage to neighbouring councils.

ANONYMOUS NO Accept that we are a commuter town. This matter is to be addressed in the 1. Improve the woeful infrastructure for the infrastructure requirement section of the existing population. Don't allow any further Spatial Strategy. development until its sorted. ACTION: None required as matter is raised in infrastructure section. ARGENT HOMES It is not possible to formally distribute As specified by GO-East’s response, the LTD (c/o Smart housing and employment allocations Council is required to identify how housing Planning) between Benfleet and Canvey Island and employment allocations will be based on the options outlined without distributed between different settlements having proper regard to the policy in the Borough. constraints, in particular areas of flood risk Consideration of flood risk is part of the which precludes significant development sustainability criteria and will be at Canvey Island. considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. Canvey suffers from substandard road and This matter is to be addressed in the public transport links that could not infrastructure requirement section of the support new development without Spatial Strategy. substantial improvements and funding, ACTION: None required as matter is which are unlikely to be unviable to a raised in infrastructure section. prospective developer.

MR R. BEAUMONT Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) BP-PETROLPLUS There is no scope for further housing and Concerns regarding proximity to the (c/o Drivers Jonus) employment allocations in the south west Coryton Oil Refinery Complex will be fed of Canvey Island due to its proximity to into considerations regarding the location Coryton Oil Refinery Complex, and the of future development. existing Green Belt designations. ACTION: Identify Coryton Oil Refinery as a constraint. DAWS HEATH LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning) MR LESLEY Cannot be decided until decision regarding Unsure as to what decision is being EVANS Canvey has been made. referred to.

FOX LAND AND Development distribution option 3, is The Core Strategy, having carried out PROPERTY LTD considered to be the preferred option. This previous work identifies the preferred (c/o Andrew Martin approach would allow for peripheral spatial approach to be Urban Associates) Greenfield expansion sites to be identified intensification supported by sustainable in the Plan in advance of Brownfield sites urban peripheral development. There is a if they are more sustainable. clear emphasis on ensuring that the best use is made of brownfield land in Castle Point. ACTION: Re-emphasis the Core

Strategy’s position regarding brownfield development as a priority.

With reference to paragraph 33 of PPS3, A SHMA is currently being prepared by the the Borough’s housing need and TGSE Partnership. Previous document for distribution should be based on an the Core Strategy was prepared in updated Strategic Housing Market advance of PPS3 being adopted by the Assessments. Government. ACTION: Report on SHMA as it becomes available.

These matters will be addressed in the Should consider long-term sustainability sustainability criteria where appropriate. objectives which would include reducing Greenfield allocations are not long-term the risk/constraints to development sustainability objectives for Castle Point. associated with flood risk, contamination, ACTION: None required. lead in times in delivery and Greenfield allocations.

HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning) JETBURY Preferred option 3 – development can only Support for option 3 noted. INVESTMENT LTD occur where there are economically (c/o Savills Plc) available sites related to demand for homes.

MR AND MRS Prefers option 3: Sustainable sites are not Support for option 3 noted. JONES (c/o always related to demand and investment Whirledge and in such sites can be wasted. There should Nott) be a common sense balance between the two objectives.

MR LITMAN (c/o The provision of new sites should The proposed sustainability criteria will JB Planning represent a balanced portfolio of sites, consider the appropriateness of sites in Associates) taking into account available sites which relation to environmental considerations assist in meeting a range of local needs inc. green belt. across the various settlements in the Whilst deliverability is not mentioned Borough. explicitly, the Council has indicated its intention to meet the housing target for the The document only refers to "sustainable" Borough. This will not be achieved by sites. There are additional considerations using undeliverable sites and therefore to be taken into account, including: deliverability is at the heart of the plan. a) Deliverability of sites; ACTION: Make it clear that sites will be (b) Appropriateness of the sites in relation deliverable. to the impact on the Green Belt and other planning and environmental constraints. MORRISONS Consideration should be given to the The Core Strategy proposes that each site SUPERMARKETS individual merits of each site promoted by is given individual consideration – against PLC (c/o Rapleys developers or identified by the Local the proposed sustainability criteria. LLP) Authority. ACTION: None required.

NATIONAL GRID Option 3 is preferred because it seeks to Support for option 3 noted. PROPERTY accommodate the needs of the market in a HOLDINGS LTD sustainable manner. It would represents a (c/o Planning more rigorous analysis of potential. Perspectives) MR REEVES (c/o Prefers option 3: development should be Support for option 3 noted. Strutt and Parker) located. Based on a combination of sustainable sites and demand for housing to ensure that there is a balanced supply of housing, providing people with a choice of where they live.

MR AND MRS Preferred None of the above. Dissatisfaction with the options presented SANDERS noted. DENIS THOMAS Canvey is a flood zone? Consideration of flood risk is part of the sustainability criteria and will be considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. MRS IRENE Is not Canvey a flood zone. Consideration of flood risk is part of the THOMAS sustainability criteria and will be considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. MISS MICHELLE I do not believe that it is realistically With regard to infrastructure, see the THOMAS possible to formally distribute housing & infrastructure requirement section of the employment between Benfleet & Canvey Spatial Strategy. Island since Canvey is a flood risk, and is ACTION: None required as matter is troubled by heavy congestion. raised in infrastructure section. Consideration of flood risk is part of the sustainability criteria and will be considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. MRS MARIE Surely this is not possible bearing in mind Consideration of flood risk is part of the THOMAS-WHITE the flood risk in respect of Canvey Island. sustainability criteria and will be considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. MR GARY WHITE Would the flood risk in Canvey make this Consideration of flood risk is part of the not possible? sustainability criteria and will be considered there. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers.

Responses with regard to this question were varied, with a range of sustainability issues being raised. Generally options 1 and option 3 were supported the most as a result, with developers with land interests on the mainland attempting to demonstrate that Canvey Island is an unsustainable location for new development. These two options will be given further consideration in advance of preparing the preferred options report.

Where should new housing be located in the existing urban area?

Option 1: Throughout the urban area, including within existing residential areas. Option 2: Focused in the town centres and along main public transport routes. Option 3: On the existing Calor Gas and Oikos sites to the South of Canvey Island (Is deliverable). Option 4: On Manor Trading Estate (if it can be relocated).

Consultees were asked to comment on which option/s they preferred. Thirty-eight responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Option 1: The use of Brownfield allocation Support for option 1 noted. SERVICES LTD should be maximised. ESSEX COUNTY Option 2 is better from a transportation Support for accessible locations is noted. COUNCIL perspective. However, locations could also Additional public transport provision (with be considered outside Town Centres or the exception of SERT in the longer term) is existing Public transport routes where not proposed for Castle Point in the LTP. It segregated or prioritised new public is therefore questioned as to whether the transport corridors could be provided. level of development proposed for Castle Point is sufficient to stimulate private The allocation of 4,000 homes would not provision of new public transport corridors sustain a new secondary school. It is as proposed by ECC. important that the additional homes are ACTION: ECC advised that relatively small distributed between locations served by a developments (100’s rather than 1000’s) number of secondary schools. Option 3 can stimulate new public transport would put pressure on Canvey Secondary provision. Schools. Need to consider secondary education provision noted. ACTION: Matter discussed with ECC and it was concluded that they do not oppose development but would like to be kept informed of the potential for significant change in the school age population. NATURAL Need to be aware that previously This is matter best addressed in the ENGLAND developed land may support significant sustainability criteria section. biodiversity interest or provide a key role ACTION: Ensure nature conservation is informal recreational green space within addressed in the Sustainability Criteria. green grid MR JOHN Prefers option 1: Will hopefully protect the Support for option 1 noted. ARMITAGE Green belt from further incursions. MR B.J. BRAZIER Prefers option 1: Development should be Support for option 1 and town centre focus distributed throughout the existing urban noted. area, with emphasis or bias towards concentration in town centres. This is likely to give a greater mix of housing types. Existing and improved public transport will benefit and benefit from town centre development.

Concern is expressed regarding the second Concerns about ribbon development noted. part of option 2 (along main transport ACTION: None required given the compact routes) that this may lead to a form of nature of the borough. "ribbon development".

Options 3 and 4 would require the Concerns regarding the need for green belt relocation of existing employment, almost land requirements and additional travel certainly needing "green" land take and requirements for options 3 and 4 noted. increasing the requirement for travelling ACTION: Address Greenfield land between home and the relocated requirements and travel requirements in employment. wording for options. MR GEOFF Prefers option 1: Option 4 is possible, Support for option 1 noted. CAVES provided it is NOT part of the Hickfort Concern about Manor Trading Estate scheme. Could move Manor Trading to the noted. A127/A130 corner and include the existing ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading ind estate there. Estate in Employment topic paper. MRS Prefers option 4 Support for option 4 noted. GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: If we are to have so many Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON new homes, I think they should try to remain quite central, instead of clogging up the existing residential areas. Will make it easier for residents to access public transport. JENIFER Preferred Options 1, 3 & 4 – All three seem Support for options 1 and 3 noted. HOWLETT reasonable, however 4 only if the Trading Conditional support for option 4 noted, Estate can be relocated outside of Green although there is perceived difficulties in Belt. allocating land for employment outside the green belt. ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper. MS. FRANCOISE New housing should not be located on Objection to option 4 noted. MONTEIL Manor Trading Estate (as per Hickfort proposal). This should be retained for employment purposes. JOHN PALMBY Option 4 could be taken up by transfer in Support for option 4 noted. Manor Trading Estate to the Blinking Owl site thus easing the traffic at Sadlers Farm and Tarpots and developing Green Field site. MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 1: Prevents development on Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK Green Belt land. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 1: Will not concentrate all the Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK problems or benefits in one local area. MRS ANNE New housing could be located on a Support for options 1,2 and 3 noted. POPE combination of options 1-3 I don’t think locating new housing on Manor Trading Concerns about manor trading estate estate is a good idea as re-location would noted. be too difficult it. It would be better to ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading regenerate Manor Trading Estate making it Estate in Employment topic paper. a more prosperous employment area. MRS HAZEL Prefers option 4 – The extension to North Option 4 is with regard to the reallocation of STAFFORD West Benfleet. Why? It Makes Common a brownfield site, not the significant Sense! extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. JACK TRING Preferred option 4 – The other three include Support for option 4 noted. Canvey and are not sensible. ANONYMOUS Who is going to live in these 4000 homes. The Chelmer Model prepared for the East NO 1. Not local people. The reason that people of England Plan evidence base concluded choose to move to Castle Point is its that 3,800 homes would be required in relatively 'cheap' housing and its close, Castle Point to accommodate new commutable distances to well paid jobs in households arising between 2001 and the City. 2021. Given the additional regeneration impetus for Canvey Island, 4,000 homes is not therefore an unreasonable requirement in terms of locally generated need. ACTION: Set out housing requirements in housing need topic paper. ARGENT HOMES Whilst option 1 is supported in part subject Support for option 1 noted. LTD (c/o Smart to site constraints, option 3 is not Planning Ltd) deliverable despite the Council's reference Concerns regarding the delivery of option 3 to it being so. Option 4 can be delivered as noted. part of a planned urban extension to north- ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part west Benfleet which can accommodate an of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. alternative relocation site for Manor Trading Estate which will meet the Council's The proposed development to the North regeneration and enhancement objectives, west of Benfleet is predominantly beyond and secure the retention of a major the existing urban area and not for employment area in the Borough. consideration in this section. With regard to Manor Trading Estate, it is noted that deliverability is questionable without Greenfield release. ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper. BP- BP/Petroplus would strongly object to any No urban housing is proposed for the area PETROLPLUS residential designations that extend beyond concerned. (c/o Drivers the line of existing housing in south west ACTION: None required. Jonus) Canvey Island. In particular BP would object strongly to any housing designations to the west of Canvey Road, or south of Northwick Road.

CALOR GAS LTD Calor Gas strongly objects to Option 3. Objection to option 3 noted. (c/o RPS Calor Gas submitted representations to the ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part Planning) emerging Core Strategy in early 2006, of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. making clear that the company remains committed to the long-term operation of the existing LPG Terminal at Thames Road. This remains the case, and the LPG Terminal will continue to operate in the long-term irrespective of the outcome of the current appeals in relation to the refusals of Planning and Hazardous Substance Consent for a combined LPG/LNG importation facility at the site.

DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Prefers option 4. Support for option 4 noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND Housing Option 1 is broadly supported. It is Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY LTD considered that Option 1 provides sufficient (c/o Andrew flexibility to respond to changing Concern about evidence base noted. Martin Associates) circumstances, lead in times and However Council is in the process of constraints associated with housing growth preparing an SHLAA. in the urban environment. However, for ACTION: Include findings of SHLAA in reasons set out in response to Question 1.2 evidence base as it becomes available. the Council’s UCS (2004) projected housing figures should be treated with a high degree of caution. Over reliance on urban housing will lead to underperformance in housing delivery. The Council should reassess its UCS in the light of PPS3. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments are required.

The remaining Urban Housing Options (2- Constraints affecting other sites will be 4) are overly prescriptive and specific, and considered. constrained. ACTION: Amend wording of Options to reflect constraints where appropriate. LINDA HARTMAN Manor Trading estate. Support for option 4 noted.

HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd. As For Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Preferred option 1 – There are few Support for option 1 noted. INVESTMENT available sites and need must be met LTD (c/o Savills where sites are available & sustainable. Plc) MR AND MRS Overdevelopment of urban areas does not Densities of development are considered in JONES (c/o provide high quality living environment as the section entitled Optimising Land Use. Whirledge and detailed in your aims. We consider ACTION: Ensure overcrowding is Nott) spreading residential development considered in Optimising Land Use section. throughout the borough where suitable sites are available linking into existing sites is preferable.

MR LITMAN (c/o There has been a history in Castle Point of The core strategy and subsequent LDF JB Planning redevelopment of non-residential uses documents should seek to ensure that land Associates) within the urban areas which has is allocated for the most appropriate progressively led to a loss of local facilities, purpose. In some cases this may result in jobs, and open space within the urban employment uses being reallocated to more areas, in favour of homogenous residential appropriate locations. Open spaces are areas. however protected from development in the existing local plan and by the proposals in 'Town cramming' via over-development in the Issues and Options Report. the urban areas will also need to be ACTION: Ensure that Open Spaces are avoided. explicitly protected from inappropriate development. MORRISONS The approach to future development should Support for overall spatial strategy noted. SUPERMARKETS be based on urban intensification supported PLC (c/o Rapleys by sustainable peripheral development in Comments with regard to urban peripheral LLP) appropriate locations. It is considered that sites are not a consideration in this section land within the ownership of Morrisons as it is concerned with urban development. would assist in providing appropriate ACTION: None required. sustainable urban peripheral development.

NATIONAL GRID A combination of Option 1 and Option 2 is Support for options 1 and 2 noted. PROPERTY preferred. The deliverability of Option 3 Concerns regarding Calor and Oikos sites HOLDINGS LTD (Calor and Oikos) must be questionable noted – as identified it is necessary to await (c/o Planning now that appeals have been lodged against the outcome of the appeal to have any Perspectives) the Council’s refusal of the planning certainty regarding the site. However, it is applications seeking to maintain this site in the Council’s aspirations to see south operational use. Equally, Option 4 Canvey regenerated. (redevelopment of Manor Trading Estate) ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part should not be encouraged because it would of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. go against the Council’s strategic ambition It is agreed that the delivery of Manor for the regeneration of the existing Trading estate is questionable (evidenced employment areas. by the employment study). ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper. PORT OF Option 2: This is the most sustainable Support for option 2 noted. LONDON option. Notwithstanding this, the PLA With regard to option 3, the Council’s AUTHORITY objects to the presence of Option 3. There aspiration is see the South of Canvey is no certainty on the delivery of this option regenerated in order to amongst other and the PLA sees no justification, in things improve the safety of residents. planning policy terms, for its inclusion. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. MR REEVES (c/o Prefers option 1: throughout the urban Support for option 1 noted. Strutt and Parker) area, including within existing residential area. It is considered that a range of sites should be identified and the housing allocations should not be limited to one site or area.

MR AND MRS Preferred option 4 – The urban extension to Option 4 is with regard to the reallocation of SANDERS North West Benfleet. a brownfield site, not the significant extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. DENIS THOMAS Option 4 can’t be part of a major urban Objection to option 4 noted. development to North West Benfleet relocating Manor Trading etc. Making use of previously developed land would not meet all the needs. MISS MICHELLE I believe that new housing should be The options under consideration in this THOMAS located to North – West Benfleet since it section are urban sites, not the significant seems the only suitable site and benefits extension of the urban area into the green from major roads close by which would belt. This representation is misplaced. minimise congestion. MRS MARIE The effective use of land should be made Support for option 1 is noted. THOMAS-WHITE option 1 is ok. Option 3 cannot be Concerns about the delivery of option 3 are delivered, option 4 can be developed on be noted. viable if Manor Trading is relocated as part ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of a major urban extension. of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. Option 4 is with regard to the reallocation of a brownfield site, not the significant extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. MRS IRENE Preferred none of the above – Use north The options under consideration in this THOMAS west Benfleet proposal to meet most section are urban sites, not the significant needs. extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. MR GARY WHITE Land use should be effective option 2 is Support for option 2 noted. viable but option 3 cannot be delivered & Concerns regarding the delivery of options option 4 only viable if Manor Trading is 3 and 4 noted. relocated. ACTION 1: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. ACTION 2: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper.

There was generally a lack of support for option 3, with statutory consultees, residents and developers generally preferring options 1 and 2 in terms of sustainability.

Amongst developers and those residents with land interest in particular, there was also support for option 4 – redevelopment of Manor Trading Estate, although this was in many cases associated with wider green belt development in North West Benfleet.

Options 1, 2 and 4 will therefore be given further consideration for in advance of preparation of the Preferred Options Report.

Where should new employment be located in the existing urban area?

Option 1: In existing employment areas at Charfleets, Manor trading Estate and Rayleigh Weir, through regeneration and enhancement. Option 2: On vacant employment land to the south of Northwick Road. Option 3: Within town centres. Option 4. On smaller employment areas throughout the borough.

Consultees were asked to comment on which option/s they preferred. Thirty-four responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Any employment allocation should be This matter will be addressed through SERVICES LTD based upon sustainability principles. application of the sustainability criteria. ACTION: None required. ESSEX COUNTY Options 1,2 and 3 supported from Support for options 1,2 and 3 noted. COUNCIL transportation viewpoint. NATURAL Option 2 potentially conflicts with special These matters have already been agreed ENGLAND interest of Canvey Wick SSSI - would need with Natural England via the Planning detailed environmental assessments and Application Process for the site. careful design, noting protection afforded to ACTION: Address issue in Employment SSSIs. topic paper. MR JOHN Prefers option 1: Would enable existing Support for option 1 noted. ARMITAGE settlements to be consolidated and improved although limited examples of Limited support for option 4 noted. Option 4 may be also be considered reasonable and indeed desirable. MR B.J. BRAZIER A combination of all four options should be Support for all options noted. pursued, although it is recognised that options 3 & 4 will be limited in extent and a Note concerns about striking a balance balance will need to be struck with the between housing and employment for housing options 1 & 2 above. options 3 and 4. ACTION: Outline principles for ensuring appropriate mix of development in “optimising Land use” section. MR GEOFF All options are good. Support for all option noted. CAVES MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS ANGELA Prefers option 1: Employment is then more Support for option 1 noted. HAMILTON centralised. JENIFER Supports All 4 options. Support for all options noted. HOWLETT MS. FRANCOISE All these options would be suitable for new Support for all options noted. MONTEIL employment. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 1: Existing employment Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK areas need regeneration. MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 1: Improves existing Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK locations without spoiling other areas. MRS ANNE New employment could be located on all of Support for all options noted. POPE these sites. MRS HAZEL The extension to North West Benfleet. The options under consideration in this STAFFORD Why? It Makes Common Sense! section are urban sites, not the significant extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. JACK TRING Preferred option 4- Mixed use minimises Support for option 4 noted. transport needs. ANONYMOUS Prefers option 1: No point in creating Support for option 1 noted. NO 1. eyesores like Manor Trading in other places. Put money into improving existing sites and access. ARGENT HOMES New employment growth in the urban area Support for employment growth at Rayleigh LTD (c/o Smart should be located at Rayleigh Weir. Weir noted. Planning Ltd) It would not be appropriate to direct new The Council agrees that Charfleets needs growth to Charfleets due to the regeneration. Recent work carried out by substandard road network serving Canvey Tribal suggests this is viable. Island and also because it lies within the This representation contains mis- functional flood plain. There is little demand information. The Employment Study clearly for units in this location which is indicates a good occupancy rate of demonstrated by the high level of vacant Charfleets. floor space that exists.

It would not be desirable to direct new The Council agrees that Manor Trading employment growth to Manor Trading Estate is in poor environmental quality and Estate in it's existing location. The majority suffers with access issues. However, this of the buildings are poor structurally, and question is focused on urban employment suffer from out-dated configuration, provision. Discussion of new employment in furthermore the local residential area is the green belt is inappropriate in respect of affected by high volumes of HGV traffic. this question. Can be accommodated within a proposed ACTION: Present new and existing urban extension to north-west Benfleet. information on employment sites in employment topic paper. BP- BP/Petroplus would strongly object to any The area under consideration is already PETROLPLUS further employment designations at allocated in the Local Plan. Further (c/o Drivers Northwick Road. allocations are not possible due to wildlife Jonus) constraints. ACTION: Address issue in Employment topic paper. DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Develop Manor Trading at the Blinking Owl The options under consideration in this EVANS estate which has good road access. section are urban sites, not the significant extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. FOX LAND AND Option 1 is broadly supported. Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY LTD Employment uses are generally classified (c/o Andrew by PPS25 as ‘less vulnerable’ uses in Martin Associates) respect of flooding and may therefore be more appropriate uses in areas at highest risk from flooding in the Borough. LINDA HARTMAN North west Benfleet. The options under consideration in this section are urban sites, not the significant extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As For Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR LITMAN (c/o The answer is actually all of the above. Support for all option noted. JB Planning Existing employment sites should be Associates) protected, and new employment within the urban areas encouraged as a priority on suitable sites, potentially in advance of residential use. NATIONAL GRID Option 1 is preferred as the Council’s Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY overall strategic employment objectives are HOLDINGS LTD based on the regeneration of its existing (c/o Planning industrial estates. perspectives) MORRISONS Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc support the Support for options 1 and 2 noted. SUPERMARKETS regeneration and enhancement of Charfleet PLC (c/o Rapleys and the development of employment on the LLP) land to the south of Northwick Road. MR AND MRS North West Benfleet. The options under consideration in this SANDERS section are urban sites, not the significant extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. DENIS THOMAS Use of existing employment areas must be Support for option 1 noted. looked at but Manor Trading must be Concerns regarding the location of Manor relocated. Trading Estate noted. ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper. MRS IRENE Preferred none of the above – Manor Concerns about the capacity of Manor THOMAS Trading needs to be moved. Trading Estate. ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper. MISS MICHELLE I believe that it Manor Trading Estate was The options under consideration in this THOMAS relocated to North – West Benfleet this section are urban sites, not the significant would be an ideal site for new employment. extension of the urban area into the green belt. This representation is misplaced. MRS MARIE Surely new employment to Manor Trading Concerns about the capacity of Manor THOMAS – estate is not viable? Trading Estate. WHITE ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper. MR GARY WHITE Manor Trading estate location means not Concerns about the capacity of Manor really an option. Trading Estate. ACTION: Set out info on manor Trading Estate in Employment topic paper.

There is clear support for option 1 from a significant proportion of consultees, although those with land interests in North-west Benfleet were notable in questioning the capacity of Manor Trading Estate to be regenerated. Other options received less support, although some consultees noted that all options were possible, and there were no objections to them.

As a result, all options will be given further consideration before preparation of the preferred options report.

How many houses and jobs should be provided on previously developed land?

Option 1: At least 60% of homes and 60% of jobs. Option 2: At least 80% of homes and 60% of jobs. Option 3: At least 80% of homes and 40% of jobs.

Consultees were asked to comment on which options they preferred. Thirty-four responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Option 2: Maximise use of Brownfield Support for option 2 noted. WATER allocation. SERVICES LTD NATURAL Cannot advise at this stage. Need to have This is matter best addressed in the ENGLAND an informed approach that accounts for sustainability criteria section. aspirations to conserve and enhance nature ACTION: Ensure nature conservation is conservation interests, sustainability targets addressed in the Sustainability Criteria. etc. Need to be aware that previously developed land may support significant biodiversity interest or provide a key role informal recreational greenspace within green grid. ESSEX the nature conservation value of previously This is matter best addressed in the WILDLIFE developed land must be assessed as sustainability criteria section. TRUST derelict brownfield sites may develop ACTION: Ensure nature conservation is significant biodiversity value. addressed in the Sustainability Criteria. HOUSE It seems somewhat pointless to specify PPS3 requires the Local development BUILDERS different minimum levels of homes and jobs Framework to specify a target for FEDERATION provision on previously developed land in development on PDL. the absence of any evidence base to With regard to the evidence base for the indicate that these options are realistic. The PDL target, it is noted that it could be made Council will need to focus its efforts on more explicit. ensuring the delivery of both new homes ACTION: Develop more explicit evidence and jobs requirements. on PDL delivery in Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. MR JOHN Option 2 offers the best balance and will Support for option 2 noted. ARMITAGE ensure the re-use of existing developed land. MR B.J. Prefers option 2: Best use of existing Urban Support for option 2 noted. BRAZIER land should be made, whilst taking into account other sustainability issues. MR GEOFF Prefers option 3: Should not use greenfield Support for option 3 noted. CAVES sites, as they are getting scarce. MRS Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 noted. GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: Not then putting up Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON buildings all over every existing piece of land. Wouldn't affect area as much. JENIFER 100% if possible Support for the maximum use of PDL HOWLETT noted. MS FRANCOISE As many houses and jobs as possible Support for the best use of PDL noted. MONTEIL should be located on previously developed land. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 2: Minimise building on Support for option 2 noted. PINNOCK Green field sites. MRS GILLIAN As close to 100% as possible to prevent Support for the maximum use of PDL PINNOCK building on the Green Belt. noted. MRS ANNE As many houses and jobs as possible Support for the maximum use of PDL POPE should be provided on previously noted. developed land. MRS HAZEL Development on previously developed land This is a matter to be considered in the STAFFORD must be sustainable and not vulnerable to sustainability criteria. flooding. ACTION: None required. JACK TRING Preferred option 1 – Not easily carried out. Support for option 1 noted. ANONYMOUS This should not be a consideration. There is This response does not help to quantify a NO 1. not the space for either, unless green belt target. land is to be used. ARGENT In accordance with PPS 3, at least 60% of Support for option 1 noted. HOMES LTD (c/o homes should be provided on previously Smart Planning developed land. The quantum of housing The Council is preparing a SHLAA to Ltd) and employment growth can only be replace the UCS. confirmed once an up to date urban ACTION: Include findings within evidence capacity study has been completed and all base as available. sites have been tested against the Sites will be tested against PPS25, along provisions of PPS 25 (Development & with other sustainability criteria. Flood Risk). ACTION: Consider flood risk in the spatial strategy and sustainability topic papers. MR R. Option 1: This is line with government Support for option 1 noted. BEAUMONT (c/o requirements and a realistic attainment. John Bishop Partnership) BP-PETROPLUS The vast majority of housing and jobs Support for maximum development on PDL (c/o Drivers should be provided on previously noted. Jonus) developed land within the Borough. DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) FOX LAND AND We broadly support Option 1, which Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY LTD proposes ‘at least 60% of homes and 60% (c/o Andrew of jobs’. The regeneration of the Borough Martin will be constrained by the small amount of Associates) land available for development. Current infrastructure provision, particularly roads are already at capacity and would not be able to cope with increased development without significant improvement. It is therefore unrealistic to set higher targets.

Furthermore, this target of growth is consistent with PPS3. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY As many as is realistically achievable on This response does not commit to any INVESTMENT Brownfield sites – aim for highest but this particular option. LTD (c/o Savills can not rule out Greenfield sites if need Plc) exists & if Greenfield site is more sustainable. MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR LITMAN (c/o It is unrealistic to set artificial targets. PPS3 requires the Local development JB Planning Clearly best use of previously developed Framework to specify a target for Associates) land should be made, provided this does development on PDL. not result in over-development. The The Council has been clear to identify the presumption should not however be that need for a PDL target for employment also- this should always be new homes, and responding to concerns regarding the need there is equally a need to bring forward new to ensure employment is also provided. employment on previously developed land. ACTION: None required. MORRISONS Castle Point Borough Council should aspire Support for option 1 noted. SUPERMARKET to at least 60% of houses and 60% of jobs PLC (c/o Rapleys in such areas but also acknowledge that LLP) variations may be necessary to meet housing and employment needs. NATIONAL GRID Option 1, namely delivering a minimum of Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY 60% of new housing development on HOLDINGS LTD previously developed land, is preferred, as (c/o Planning this appears more realistic and achievable. Perspectives) MR AND MRS As many houses as possible should be Support for the maximum use of PDL SANDERS provided on previously developed land, as noted. long as they are sustainable and not in the flood zone. DENIS THOMAS A proper survey would be needed taking With regard to the evidence base for the into consideration various factors e.g. flood PDL target, it is noted that it could be made zone. more explicit. ACTION: Develop more explicit evidence on PDL delivery in Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. MRS IRENE Must not use Canvey other areas could be This response is not reflective of the THOMAS used. question posed. MISS MICHELLE Further assessment would be needed to This is a matter to be considered in the THOMAS access viability and flood risk. sustainability criteria. ACTION: None required. MRS MARIE PPS3 states 60%. on previously developed The Council is preparing a SHLAA to THOMAS-WHITE land. However flood plan will prohibit this. replace the UCS. An up to date urban capacity study will ACTION: Include findings within evidence state amount. base as available. Sites will be tested against PPS25, along with other sustainability criteria. ACTION: Consider flood risk as part of the Spatial Strategy and Sustainability Topic Papers. MR GARY Flood plain will prohibit this so an urban The Council is preparing a SHLAA to WHITE capacity study will assist. replace the UCS. ACTION: Include findings within evidence base as available.

Local residents generally supported option 2, which sought the highest level of delivery on Brownfield land. Developers meanwhile generally preferred option 1 which sought the national standard level of delivery on brownfield land, enabling more development to take place on the Greenfield sites in which they have an interest.

Housing trajectory work will be used to assess options 1 and 2 carefully and identify which option can be taken forward in the preferred options report.

Should Greenfield sites be required to meet housing and job targets, where should new homes and jobs on Greenfield land (the Green Belt) be located?

Housing Only Option 1: Benfleet’s western fringe. Option 2: Around Hadleigh. Option 3: Close to Benfleet Station. Option 4: East of Canvey Road, Canvey.

Employment Only Option 1: Adjacent to Charfleets Industrial Estate, Canvey

Either Housing and/or Employment Option 1: East of Rayleigh Road, Benfleet. Option 2: North West of Benfleet

Consultees were asked to comment on which option/s they preferred. Forty-two responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Support housing options 1 and 3 and mixed Support for housing options 1 and 3 and WATER option 2 because they are close to existing mixed option 2 noted due to relation with SERVICES LTD wastewater treatment works, therefore water treatment facilities. impact on the sewerage system will be minimised. ENVIRONMENT A sound evidence base should also be This is a matter for consideration in the AGENCY provided regarding Question 5. sustainability criteria. Consideration of the biodiversity value of ACTION: Apply sustainability criteria to each both brownfield and greenfield sites should site. be considered. When comparing alternative sites, it is possible that a brownfield site could have a higher biodiversity value that a greenfield site and the Core Strategy should be able to reflect the need to protect and enhance the most valuable areas. ESSEX Concerns regarding secondary school Concern regarding housing option 4 noted COUNTY provision associated with option 4 given the with regard to secondary school provision. COUNCIL programme to reduce provision of places on ACTION: If option 4 selected to be taken Canvey Island. forward secondary school contributions will need to be part of infrastructure package. “Housing only” options 1 to 4 all would put pressure on the existing highway network to Concern regarding housing option 1 noted varying degrees. Option 1 in particular with regard to impact on highway network. would not be supported from a highways ACTION: Discuss with ECC Highways viewpoint because of the particular whether any infrastructure could be additional demand that would be placed provided to overcome this. upon the London Road / Tarpots area, which is already heavily congested. Option Note preference for housing option 3 in 3 in contrast would at least offer potential terms of egress. egress via Canvey Way to avoid the Tarpots junction. Regarding “Either Housing Concern about mixed option 1 noted with and/or Employment” Option 1 East of regard to impact on highway network. Rayleigh Road, Benfleet, ECC should ACTION: If mixed option 1 is selected to be express concern about potential extra taken forward public transport infrastructure impact on the already congested A127 and will need to be part of the infrastructure Rayleigh Weir junction. Any sizeable package. development would need to contain high quality dedicated public transport with Concern regarding mixed option 2 noted linkages towards Rayleigh station to try and with regard to the impact on the Highway minimise car commuting. As far as Option 2 Network. is concerned, ECC would point out that very ACTION: Discuss with ECC Highways careful consideration would have to be whether any infrastructure could be given to the impacts on the highway provided to overcome this. network of any housing/employment development north west of Benfleet. NATURAL Need to have an informed approach that The application of the sustainability criteria ENGLAND accounts for aspirations to conserve and will ensure that nature conservation enhance nature conservation interests, interests are given careful consideration. sustainability targets etc. Need to be aware ACTION: Apply Sustainability Criteria to that green belt land may be important asset each site. for flood risk management options, wildlife corridors, supporting agricultural practices that support nature conservation delivery and can be enhanced through targeted agri- environment schemes. They may also support significant biodiversity interest or provide a key role informal recreational greenspace within green grid. ESSEX concerns over those options which may Concerns about wildlife effects of Housing WILDLIFE affect wildlife (i.e. Greenfield Housing Option 2. Employment option 1 and mixed TRUST Option 2, Greenfield Employment Option 1 options 2 and 3 noted. and Greenfield Mixed Options 2 & 3). HOUSE Greenfield sites will be required to meet This response is not in context with the BUILDERS housing targets. question posed. FEDERATION MR JOHN Prefers option 1: East of Rayleigh Road, Support for mixed option 1 noted. ARMITAGE Benfleet. While land is limited in this location, it will ensure the regeneration of Brownfield sites within the Borough. MR B.J. Housing Option 1 - consideration should be Objection to housing option 1 on the bases BRAZIER incorporated for future road revision. of future infrastructure provision is noted. Reducing congestion Boroughwide should be a target to achieve before this land is released.

Housing Option 2 - the report is not specific The report presents locations not sites. enough to comment. ACTION: None required

Housing Option 3 - housing for commuters Support for housing option 3 is noted. in this location would reduce the impact of commuting to the station in preference to developing the housing elsewhere in the Borough.

Housing Option 4 - this would need flood Conditional support for Housing option 4 risk measures to be implemented, but could noted. benefit the adjacent developed area if ACTION: If Housing option 4 is carried improved non-car transport opportunities forward include flood mitigation measures in were to be provided as part of the infrastructure package. development

Employment option 1 - Wildlife issues will Concern about wildlife effects of need careful consideration. Employment option 1 noted.

Mixed Option 1 - this could lead to the Concern about the coalescence of place is coalescence of "places" within the Borough noted with regard to mixed option 1. which should be avoided. Visual separation on road frontage gives a sense of "place" and assists community identification. However, limited scope for release may be possible.

Mixed Option 2 (north west of Benfleet) - Concern about the social and economic this is tantamount to providing a complete effects of Mixed option 2 is noted. new development area, isolated from the remainder of the Borough, which would divert investment away from the existing urban and employment centres. For this to be viable as a separate centre, an "all or nothing" approach would be needed. Without this, piecemeal development may result, similar to the "Plotlands" growth of the early 20th century.

Mixed Option 3 (west of Canvey Road) - Concern about breaching established Canvey Road forms a natural boundary to development boundaries noted. the developed area and any development to the west of this road is likely to set a precedent for further insidious development. MR GEOFF Prefers housing option 1. Support for housing option 1 noted. CAVES MRS PATRICIA No WHERE !! We have enough brown field Initial assessments of the urban area reveal GUNN areas for sites. a need to use some green belt land to meet housing targets set out in the RSS. The SHLAA will confirm this. ACTION: Report on SHLAA when complete. MRS ANGELA Prefers housing option 4: Less traffic Support for housing option 4 noted. HAMILTON coming off island. JENIFER Green field land must be protected at all Concern about loss of Greenfield land HOWLETT costs. noted. MS FRANCOISE New housing and/or employment should Objection to mixed option 2 noted. MONTEIL NOT be located to the North West of Benfleet (as per Hickfort proposals). This area is too valuable a site for local wildlife. JOHN PALMBY North West Benfleet – scrub land access to Support for mixed option 2 noted. park – transfer of Manor Trading. Ease of traffic congestion, Tarports, Sadlers Farm – no major road works required. MR JONATHAN Prefers housing option 3: Reduced traffic + Support for housing option 3 noted. PINNOCK encourages use of trains. MRS GILLIAN Prefers employment option 1: I object to Support for employment option 1 noted. PINNOCK building on Green field sites at all. Given that the question doesn't give me this option to select, the least worst option available would be to increase employment at Charfleets. MRS ANNE Housing only option 2&3 – It seems sensible Support for housing options 2 and 3 and POPE to choose sites close to existing mixed option 1 noted. infrastructure and amenities. Either housing and or employment option 1 Objection to mixed option 2 noted. – The other option seems very much like the location of development proposed by Hickfort Ltd which is one plan with which I do not agree. ANTHONY Green Belt to be preserved for existing wild Concern about the loss of Greenfield land POPE life etc. with respect to wildlife conservation noted.

MRS HAZEL North West Benfleet mixed option 2 – The Support for mixed option 2 noted. STAFFORD redevelopment of the Manor Trading Estate makes sense it’s free from flood zone & will ease congestion at Sadler’s farm. JACK TRING Option 1: Only practical one Option 2: First class site. ANONYMOUS One of your aims and objectives states Whilst this is the Council’s aim, work on NO 1. 'Protect the Metropolitan Green Belt from housing numbers suggests that minimal inappropriate development' and I agree with releases will be required to meet housing that. targets set out in the RSS. ACTION: Set out housing figures in the Housing Topic Paper. ARGENT Prefers mixed option 2: New homes and Support for mixed option 2 noted. HOMES LTD jobs should be located on greenfield land in (c/o Smart the most sustainable locations, and where Planning Ltd) the Green Belt no longer performs the functions set out in PPG2.

Other sustainable sites within the Green It is noted that this location is not included in Belt should be considered for the list of options. It will be given due accommodating housing growth. This consideration against the sustainability should include a review of the Green Belt criteria along with the options presented and along major public transport corridors, such locations emerging from the Call for Sites. as the A13 London Road which is an ACTION: Consider location proposed accepted sustainable location for housing against sustainability criteria for comment in growth. the preferred options report. MR R. Housing Option 3: In order to achieve the Support for Housing option 3 noted. BEAUMONT (c/o sustainability targets. John Bishop Partnership) BP- BP/Petroplus have consistently supported The constraints posed by the oil refinery at PETROPLUS the Green Belt designations in Canvey Coryton are noted, however the (c/o Drivers Island as part of a buffer zone around the Consultation Zone does not extend the Jonus) Petrol Chemical Complex. The Green Belt areas of South West Canvey identified in plays an important role, particularly in the the plan. It is however noted that the south west of Canvey Island, in limiting outcomes of consultation on the extent of development and providing an important consultation zones and sensitivity zones physical separation as a buffer between around such installations may change this, Coryton Oil Refinery and the built up area of although it is unlikely to affect all areas Canvey Island. identified. ACTION: Be aware of hazardous installation BP/Petroplus would strongly object to the at Coryton when making locational development of land for employment uses decisions. adjacent to Charlfeets Industrial Estate in the Green Belt. The Coryton Oil Refinery Complex is of such importance both locally and nationally that development should not take place near to it which might prejudice or fetter its future development. DAWS HEATH Prefers mixed option 1: Support the Support for mixed option 1 noted. LTD (c/o Smart identification of land to the east of Rayleigh Planning Ltd) Road, Benfleet that adjoins Stadium Way as a location for new employment growth. Rayleigh Weir Industrial Estate is already an established location for business activity, transport, storage and communications, and further employment accommodated on greenfield land by reviewing the Green Belt in this sustainable location would further strengthen the role of this employment area. MR LESLEY Prefers mixed option 2. Support for mixed option 2 noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND We fully support Greenfield Housing Option Support for housing option 1 noted. PROPERTY 1, which identifies the need for housing LTD (c/o Andrew releases along ‘western fringe’ of the Martin mainland in the Borough. Associates) The western fringe, particularly in relation to Land to the west of Glebelands, Thundersley does not perform an important Green Belt function;

Release of this area, in particular Land to the west of Glebelands, Thundersley for development would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the landscape;

This area, in particular Land to the west of Glebelands, Thundersley satisfies other wider National policy and local objectives; and other considerations. GALLEY LAND Prefers option 3. Support for housing option 3 noted. LLP (c/o Grainger Planning Associates Ltd) LINDA North west Benfleet. Support for mixed option 2 noted. HARTMAN HICKFORT LTD Prefers mixed option 2: Support the Support for mixed option 2 noted. (c/o Smart identification of a sustainable urban Planning Ltd) extension to north-west Benfleet as a location for housing and employment growth which is referred to as Option 2 (either housing and/or employment). A separate 'call for sites' representation has been submitted to the Borough Council setting out the sustainability credentials of this site, in conjunction with the redevelopment of Manor Trading Estate. JETBURY Land off Kiln Road Thundersley – It is noted that this location is not included in INVESTMENT Sustainable location in heart of existing the list of options. It will be given due LTD (c/o Savills settlement well located to existing services consideration against the sustainability Plc) & public transport. criteria along with the options presented and locations emerging from the Call for Sites.. MR AND MRS Prefers employment option 1. Support for employment option 1 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR LTIMAN (c/o The options above do not relate to the The Council presented reasonable locations JB Planning options listed in the Issues and Options that is was aware of in the Issues and Associates) document. Options Report.

Furthermore, there is no provision to The opportunity to submit further sites for disagree with the options listed and present consideration was provided by the “Call for an alternative solution to the options listed. Sites” that run concurrently with the Issues This question is therefore highly leading, and Options Report. New sites should have, and does not allow the respondent a fair and were submitted there. The information choice of answers. from the “call for sites” will be used in conjunction with the information gathered If the Council relies on the responses to this through the Issues and Options consultation question to identify its Preferred Options to identify the preferred location (not sites) then a procedural objection will be lodged to of further development in the Borough. the Core Strategy, on the basis that the ACTION: Use Call for Sites to inform a more Council's evidence base is unsound. robust location list. MORRISONS The sites identified within the Issues and The Core Strategy does not identify sites it SUPERMARKET Options document are noted, albeit it is also identifies locations, hence the boundaries PLC (c/o noted their boundaries are not confirmed by not being defined. Rapleys LLP) way of a plan. (SITE SPECIFIC REP) ACTION: None required.

With respect to employment only land, Support for extension to Charfleets reference is made to land adjacent to Industrial Estate is noted. Charfleets Industrial Estate, Canvey. Given that this is the most established industrial area in Canvey and is well located in terms of its relationship to residential properties, this would be a natural extension for further employment use. Whether or not the former football ground forms part of this expansion is subject to ongoing discussions with the Council as it may have other appropriate alternative uses. NATIONAL NGPHL believes that its land to the south of Support for employment option 1 is noted. GRID the Charfleets Industrial Estate has the PROPERTY ability to contribute towards the Council’s It is noted that the consultee wishes for this HOLDINGS LTD employment and housing requirements. In location to be considered for housing (c/o Planning this respect, Employment Option 1 is provision also. This may raise concerns with Perspectives) supported, although the Council should be the HSE due proximity of this site to Coryton aware that the recent environmental Oil Refinery and Calor/Oikos. analysis and assessment NGPHL has ACTION: Examine the site in terms of the carried out on its site suggests that further HSE consultation and sensitivity zones. development could be accommodated beyond the proposed employment allocation without harming the important and acknowledged ecological habitats. MR REEVES With reference to the site representation Support for housing option 3 noted. (c/o Strutt and submitted for the land adjacent to the Parker) glyders, it is considered that this site in south benfleet is suitable for residential development. MR AND MRS Mixed option 2 North/West Benfleet. Support for mixed option 2 noted. SANDERS The redevelopment of Manor Trading Estate will ease congestion at Sadlers Farm and assist the residents of Canvey. DENIS THOMAS Mixed option 2. Housing and employment Support for mixed option 2 noted. as in option 2 relocation of manor trading etc. MISS Mixed option 2 – New homes and jobs Support for mixed option 2 noted. MICHELLE should be relocated to the North – West THOMAS Benfleet area where easy access to the A127 & A130 would mean minimal congestion. MRS MARIE Mixed option 2 – The North West Benfleet Support for mixed option 2 noted. THOMAS- area highlighted seems a solution for both WHITE homes & jobs for the borough. MRS IRENE Option 2- Housing and moving Manor Support for mixed option 2 noted. THOMAS Trading. MR GARY Mixed option 2 – The North West Benfleet Support for mixed option 2 noted. WHITE area proposed development. New homes & jobs.

At this stage it is not possible to identify general support for any given option due to the range of sustainability issues raised and the known land interests of specific consultees. As a result, each option will be assessed against the sustainability criteria to identify the best locations for future Greenfield development in Castle Point.

Additionally, new locations presented themselves through the consultation process and the call for sites. These locations will also be assessed against the criteria before the preferred options report is prepared.

Should Greenfield sites be required to meet housing and job targets, when should sites in the Green Belt be made available for development?

Option 1: When the number of outstanding planning approvals for new homes falls below the target amount for three continuous years. Option 2: When the number of homes built each year falls below the target amount for three continuous years. Option 3: The date at which green belt sites are released should be determined now.

Consultees were asked to comment on which options they preferred. Thirty-seven responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Planning allocations should be based upon The need for sustainability is noted. SERVICES LTD a sustainable strategy - for water and wastewater services, these should be determined through a Water Cycle Study providing a framework strategy. NATURAL When it is clearly shown through up to date The need for sustainability and respect for ENGLAND assessment (including ecological appraisal) the natural environment is noted. that the strategic sustainable development aspirations of the Council can be met without compromising their capacity to conserve and enhance nature conservation assets and respect environmental limits. HOUSE The Council will carefully need to consider This response appears to favour option 3. BUILDERS the overall housing requirement, and how FEDERATION and when it will be capable of being realistically delivered. It will need to ensure that suitable green belt land is brought forward in good time in order to ensure that housing delivery rates are not threatened.

Option 1’s suggestion that the number of Concerns regarding option 1 noted. outstanding planning approvals for new homes falls below the target amount for three continuous years should somehow dictate the release of green belt sites does not make much sense. The Council is required by the RSS to ensure that the overall housing requirement figure is delivered, not to ensure that sufficient provision is just made on paper, through planning permissions granted. MR JOHN Prefers option 2: To ensure continuity of Support for option 2 noted. ARMITAGE housing provision. MR B.J. BRAZIER Option 1 as printed in the Technical Report Support for option 1 noted. (page 49 - Option 1) should be adopted. The key criterium is the amount of DEVELOPABLE land remaining, NOT how many unimplemented planning approvals remain extant or how many (or how few) homes have been completed. MR GEOFF Greenbelt land should not be developed at Support for tight restrictions on green belt CAVES all, other than one-off private applications. release attached to full urban intensification Land should only be released when all noted. brownfield or other identified areas have been used. MRS Never – Protect our Green Belt. There is Work on housing numbers suggest that GWENDOLINE no need to release additional land for limited release of land in the green belt will GRANT housing within the Green Belt during the be required to meet housing targets. period 2006- 2016. ACTION: Set out housing number in housing topic paper. MRS PATRICIA Never. Green Belt should be sacrosanct Work on housing numbers suggest that GUNN until extra housing can be sustained. limited release of land in the green belt will be required to meet housing targets. ACTION: Set out housing number in housing topic paper. MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: Planning applications can Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON fall through. at least one knows where one is with actual houses (solid confirmation). JENIFER Needs can be met without violating the HOWLETT Green Belt if the will is there. Work on it. MS FRANCOISE Green belt should not be made available for Support for tight restrictions on green belt MONTEIL development until all previously developed release attached to full urban intensification land and those greenfield sites which are noted. not within the greenbelt have been exhausted. JOHN PALMBY Option 3. Support for option 3 noted. To ensure a steady flow of new housing coupled with good road links and conserving the area making maximum use of existing facilities and expanding Woodside Park. MR JONATHAN Development shouldn't take place on the Work on housing numbers suggest that PINNOCK Green Belt. There is more than enough limited release of land in the green belt will capacity on brownfield sites for all the be required to meet housing targets. development that is required. ACTION: Set out housing number in housing topic paper. MRS GILLIAN It is not necessary to develop in the Green Work on housing numbers suggest that PINNOCK Belt because enough potential development limited release of land in the green belt will locations to fulfil quotas/projections have be required to meet housing targets. already been identified by the council on ACTION: Set out housing number in previously developed land. housing topic paper. MRS ANNE According to housing trajectories the Support for delayed release of green belt POPE number of homes built will fall below targets land until after 2016 is noted. for the next 5 years but will still exceed the target for the period after 2011. The delivery is expected to increase until 2016. In view of this the earliest date Green Fields should be released is 2016. ANTHONY POPE Preferred Option 2 – Preservation of Green Support for option 2 noted. Belt. MRS HAZEL Prefers option 3 – With Canvey Island Support for option 3 noted. STAFFORD vulnerable to global warming, Green Belt land should be released NOW, to assist our housing needs. JACK TRING Preferred option 3 – The only feasible one. Support for option 3 noted. ANONYMOUS Green field sites must not be used. Work on housing numbers suggest that NO 1. limited release of land in the green belt will be required to meet housing targets. ACTION: Set out housing number in housing topic paper. ARGENT HOMES Prefers option 3: Because of the individual Support for option 3 noted. LTD (c/o Smart characteristics of Castle Point recognised Planning) by the Borough Council and the policy constraints which exist, it is essential that the date at which Green Belt sites are released should be determined now. MR R. Prefers Option 3 Support for option 3 noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd LTD (c/o Smart Planning) MR LESLEY Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND We broadly support the principles of Option Support for option 3 noted. PROPERTY LTD 3, which promotes the release of Greenfield (c/o Andrew sites phased from the start of the Plan, to Martin Associates) meet the capacity of shortfall identified at this time. This is because there is an identified shortfall in housing trajectory for the Plan period, which is expected to increase.

The proposed trigger mechanisms are not Concerns regarding compliance of options in accordance with PPS3. This approach 1 and 2 with PPS3 noted. should therefore be re-evaluated. ACTION: Set out policy context for trigger mechanism eventually identified in Early identification of Greenfield sites is preferred options report. required if strategic housing requirements are to be met, particularly in the light of the likely shortfall in housing land supply for the period 2001-2021 that has been identified above. GALLEY LAND Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. LLP (c/o Grainger Planning Associates Ltd) HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning) JETBURY Preferred option 3 – To accord with national Support for option 3 noted. INVESTMENT & RSS planning policies to plan monitor & LTD (c/o Savills manage housing supply, the Council must Plc) ensure that a 5 year supply is available. MR AND MRS Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR LITMAN (c/o It is encumbent on the Council to Support for option 3 noted. JB Planning demonstrate that it has a deliverable plan, Associates) and a key element of delivery is ensuring that there is sufficient land to meet the housing requirement.

If that requirement entails the use of Greenfield/Green Belt sites that they should be identified and allocated now, even if they are subject to phasing policies. MORRISONS The date at which Greenfield sites should Unclear as to the option supported. SUPERMARKETS be released should be determined now as PLC (c/o Rapleys part of an appraisal of potential LLP) development sites. Clearly, there are some sites which are protected by Green Belt at the current time but which serve no useful purpose as such land. This includes some sites currently being promoted by Morrisons and in particular, the triangular parcel of land bounded by Roscommon Way, Northwick Road and Canvey Road (see below). Such sites should be reviewed on their own merits and the Council’s strategy should be determined as part of the preparation of this Local Development Framework. NATIONAL GRID Option 1 is preferred because it would Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY provide developers with some certainty that HOLDINGS LTD a greenfield site can come forward within (c/o Planning the identified 5 year time horizon. However, Perspectives) there must be recognition that the most sustainable sites may be on the urban periphery. MR AND MRS Preferred option 3. Support for option 3 noted. SANDERS Due to the uncertainty of the impact of climate change, development in the Green Belt should be considered as on alternative now, until the true impact of the flood zone is understood we can always return to further development on Canvey. DENIS THOMAS Option 3 Revisions of the Green Belt is Support for option 3 noted. needed now to meet all future needs. MRS IRENE Preferred option 3 – Today needs means Support for option 3 noted. THOMAS we need to use some Green Belt areas now. MISS MICHELLE Preferred option 3- Dates should be Support for option 3 noted. THOMAS decided soon. MRS MARIE Preferred option 3- The dates should be Support for option 3 noted. THOMAS WHITE determine now. MR GARY WHITE Preferred option 3 – The dates should be Support for option 3 noted. determined asap.

Local residents generally support tight control on the release of Greenfield sites. Meanwhile developers and landowners are generally in favour of planned release – option 3. There is a need to balance these two views through the preferred options report by finding a suitable alternative option that meets the needs of both parties.

What infrastructure requirements will arise as a result of development?

A list of possible infrastructure requirements was set out in the technical report but consultees were also asked to identify specific requirements for infrastructure they would like to see delivered as part of new developments.

The list set out in the technical report was as follows:

1) Access to public transport and cycle path provision; 2) Reduced congestion on the local road network; 3) Open space and green corridor provision; 4) Environmental enhancements including public art, street furniture and lighting; 5) Access to leisure, sports and recreation opportunities; 6) Access to training opportunities, high quality schools and childcare provision; 7) Access to primary healthcare services; 8) Reduced levels of crime and improved crime prevention; 9) The provision of affordable housing that meets local needs; and 10) Sustainable drainage and waste water management, on-site renewable energy generation and energy efficiency measures.

The response to consultation was as follows:

Consultee Summary of Comments ANGLIAN WATER Increased capacity of sewers and wastewater treatment works. SERVICES LTD ENVIRONMENT We note that you have already complied a list of infrastructure. We recommend that if AGENCY you have not already done so, you review the East of England Capacity Delivery Study: Phase 1, dated 2006, undertaken by Halcrow. This study was commission by us to assess the capacity of the existing wastewater infrastructure and receiving watercourses to accommodate new growth proposed in the Panel Report (July 2006) on the East of England Plan. ESSEX COUNTY Should include land and finance for pre-school, primary school, secondary school and COUNCIL post sixteen education buildings, facilities and associated open space. NATURAL Need to manage green infrastructure to ensure that accessible natural greenspace ENGLAND targets can be met to relieve pressure on Natura 2000 sites and sites of nature conservation significance. Integrate biodiversity into developments. There is a need to consider providing managed off-road motorcycle facilities within the Borough to alleviate pressure on areas such as Canvey Wick SSSI. Need to support livestock management. Need to consider increase range of options for flood risk management, which may rely on supporting infrastructure. SPORT ENGLAND Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facilities. (EAST) MR JOHN A major review of the transport infrastructure throughout Castle Point is essential before ARMITAGE either regeneration or development is considered and programmed. The required infrastructure must always be in place before any development commences. The risk of flooding to certain areas of the Borough may have been seriously under- estimated. MR B.J. BRAZIER . Access to public transport - yes

1. Cycle path provision - no. Provision of cycle paths is NOT the answer to increasing cycle use. All ROADS need to be made cycle friendly. Cycle paths are inevitably (owing to practical limitations) piecemeal, disjointed, interrupted by roads, used by pedestrians resulting in conflict and will never be able to provide a Borough wide door to door facility for cyclists. By providing SOME cycle paths, people are encouraged to believe that they can ride on any pavement, which is illegal, antisocial and (from a cycling point of view) inefficient. We already have a comprehensive network of cycle routes, accessing every address in the Borough (and beyond) and accessible to all. These routes are called roads. They are continuous, hard surfaced, maintained and enable efficient everyday utility cycling. Rather than spend money on localised and limited sections of cycle path, the Council should encourage (perhaps by way of Developer contributions) the promotion of cycle training for all ages through the new National Standard Cycle Training scheme in order to encourage responsible and increased cycle use on the Borough's roads. (I comment as a daily cyclist commuter riding some 2,500 miles per year on the roads of Castle Point and Southend)

3. Open space and green corridor - yes 4. Street lighting - yes 5. Leisure, sport & recreation - yes 6. Training opportunities and schools - yes 7. Healthcare services - yes 8. Reduced levels of crime & improved prevention - yes. More police officers are needed to patrol the streets, including traffic police to counter the appalling driving standards observed on a daily basis. 9. Affordable housing - yes 10. Sustanable drainage, water management and energy efficiency - yes MR GEOFF Transport is main concern - the road infrastructure cannot cope now, let alone with CAVES more building, and public transport is not good enough to get people off the roads. MRS New roads, new hospitals GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS PATRICIA Another road off Canvey and a fly over at Sadlers hall Roundabout. GUNN MRS ANGELA Health Care Support - in addition to health care centres, there either needs to be a new HAMILTON hospital or the existing ones expanded. e.g. 4000 new homes, approx. 14,000 new people - have things such as people needing surgery or maternity provisions been taken into account? Our hospitals currently are struggling - how can the cope with even residents entering the borough?

Extra Roads - our roads are currently under strain with the amount of vehicles on them. I understand the new roads will help to improve this situation but can they really support another 4000 homes, when most people own two cars per household?! JENIFER Another exit road for Canvey is a must. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY New educating facilities, public transport, sporting facilities, traffic links.

MR JONATHAN Train station on Canvey plus new dual carriageway from Canvey to the west. Flyover or PINNOCK underpass at Sadler's Farm for A130 traffic. Redesign Tarpots to reduce congestion that blocks A130 and A13. MRS GILLIAN Extra homes will result in extra cars (perhaps at least 2 per home), therefore the road PINNOCK system which is already overloaded at certain times would need significant improvement. Extra access from Canvey avoiding Sadler's Farm would help as would a train station on Canvey. MRS HAZEL Less congestion at Sadlers farm will mean less pollution. STAFFORD JACK TRING Provision of affordable housing. Reduced congestion. ANONYMOUS NO Where do you start. Currently areas of Castle Point are regularly Grid Locked at certain 1. times of the day. I am sure you know where. Adding 4000 home (6000 cars?). Dentists, Doctors, Hospitals, Policing, road quality, water shortage, where do you stop. No development should be started until the infrastructure issues are corrected. Uncontrolled development without infrastructure has caused the mess we are already in. ARGENT HOMES The following infrastructure requirements will result from development: LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) New education facilities.

Improved public open space, formal and informal, both indoor and outdoor sports/leisure facilities. Improvements to public transport provision, an increase in bus services and upgrading the road network to accommodate SERT.

Additional primary healthcare facilities.

Delivery of local transport plan objectives such as A127 route management measures.

BP-PETROPLUS BP/Petroplus support the broad aims of improving transport and accessibility in the (c/o Drivers Jonus) Borough.

BP/Petroplus would strongly object to any proposals to create a new access road onto Canvey Island from Stanford-Le-Hope. Such a proposal would cut right through the Oil Refinery Complex and Refinery Expansion land. For this reason, as well as the consequential impact on traffic and safety and on the current and future operations of the refinery, BP/Petroplus would strongly resist any such proposal. DAWS HEATH LTD The following infrastructure requirements will result from development: (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) New education facilities. Improved public open space, formal and informal, both indoor and outdoor sports/leisure facilities. Improvements to public transport provision, an increase in bus services and upgrading the road network to accommodate SERT. Additional primary healthcare facilities Delivery of local transport plan objectives such as A127 route management measures.

MR LESLEY Sadlers farm & Tarpots road improvements. EVANS New schools Improved public spaces, sports & housing facilities additional Healthcare facilities. FOX LAND AND We broadly accept the list of infrastructure requirements identified within the report. PROPERTY LTD (c/o Andrew Martin The release of larger greenfield sites will provide greater community benefits including Associates) the delivery of affordable housing. These benefits are not deliverable with an over reliance on the development of smaller sites, single plots and town centre sites such as Canvey Island which have physical, environmental, land ownership, land use, investment constraints or risks.

Greenfield releases such as land west of Glebelands, Thundersley are likely to deliver and provide greater infrastructure benefits such as:

o Access to public transport and cycle path provision;

o Reduced congestion on the local road network;

o Open space and green corridor provision; and

o Other Environmental enhancements.

HICKFORT LTD The following infrastructure requirements will result from development: (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) New education facilities. Improved public open space, formal and informal, both indoor and outdoor sports/leisure facilities. Improvements to public transport provision, an increase in bus services and upgrading the road network to accommodate SERT. Additional primary healthcare facilities Delivery of local transport plan objectives such as A127 route management measures.

MORRISONS The importance of the provision of infrastructure is recognised by Morrisons, and SUPERMARKETS discussions are currently being held between the company and the Council in relation to PLC (c/o Rapleys the link road to regenerate the Charfleets Industrial Estate. LLP) PORT OF The PLA agrees with need 3 that employment land should be protected from LONDON development pressures arising from the residential sector, yet notes that would be the AUTHORITY natural result of the approach that appears to be promoted in relation to the borough's two cargo-handling facilities. MR AND MRS Improvements to Sadlars farm and the management of local transport around North SANDERS Benfleet. DENIS THOMAS New open land (for public use) Healthcare clinics Doctors etc. Schools, childcare units (all forms of education) Better transport Better / improved existing roads e.g. sadlers etc. MISS MICHELLE Upgrading Road networks Improvements to Saddlers farm & the A127. Improvements THOMAS to public transport provision improved. Leisure facilities & public open spaces additional education & health care facilities. MRS MARIE Education THOMAS-WHITE Improved public transport New open land & leisure faculties Healthcare Improvements to Sadlers farm & A127. MRS IRENE Schools THOMAS Sports Health care OAP homes Public open areas. MR GARY WHITE Improved public transport Education Health care New leisure facilities New open land Improvement to Sadlers farm A127

The infrastructure requirements vary depending on the locations identified for future development in Castle Point. As a result, list of infrastructure requirements will be drawn up, informed by the list emerging from consultation, as part of the preferred options report. Achieving Sustainable Development

It is proposed to include a policy in the Core Strategy on achieving sustainable development. The proposed policy will have two purposes, 1) to encourage sustainable practices throughout the development process and 2) to set out the sustainability criteria for choosing the best sites for development.

Actions for Achieving Sustainable Development

Six actions were proposed for achieving sustainable development. These were:

1 Ensuring that the themes of the community strategy are delivered in a balanced and sustainable manner in Partnership with other public, private and voluntary organisations; 2 Promoting sustainable practices such as carbon neutrality, water efficiency and the reuse and recycling of waste products; 3 Acting as local exemplar in implementing sustainable practices; 4 Promoting improved carbon neutrality and water efficiency within existing developments; 5 Ensuring that the quality of new developments is enhance through sustainable design, efficient use of resources and respect for the natural environment; and 6 Ensuring that the location of new developments set out in the spatial strategy and specific sites for new development are sustainable by assessing them against the sustainability criteria.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the draft actions for achieving sustainable development. Thirty-four responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. SERVICES EERA The text is weak with regard to economic Note the comments made by EERA and development and how the Core Strategy will make changes to strengthen policy. can seek to ensure a balanced approach ACTION: Revise policy to reflect to sustainable development. It therefore is dimensions of sustainable development not wholly consistent with policy SS1. better, including sub-regional context.

The section does not explicitly take into account the vision for the Essex Thames Gateway laid out in policy ETG1. ENVIRONMENT The actions proposed to achieve Support for actions proposed noted. AGENCY sustainable development show a strong It is agreed that actions 2 and 4 could be approach to improving the overall quality combined. of development. ACTION: Combine actions 2 and 4. We believe that Points 2 & 4 are very similar and could be amalgamated. ESSEX COUNTY It is considered that in order to achieve Incorporating recycling into aim 1 would COUNCIL Aim 1 development should be designed make it too specific about a particular and constructed in such as way as to aspect of sustainability and is therefore facilitate recycling processes. inappropriate. ACTION: None required.

The County Council recommends that the The information included in the Urban guidelines set out on page 49-51 of the 2nd Place Supplement is very detailed and consultation draft of the Essex Design inappropriate for a strategic policy. Guide Urban Place Supplement are ACTION: None required. incorporated into policy. NATURAL Yes, but should also address air quality It is agreed that this could be incorporated ENGLAND and water quality. in the wording of this policy. ACTION: Amend wording accordingly – Biodiversity is a key test of sustainable environmental quality is all embracing. development so, reference to conserving Biodiversity is included in the and enhancing designated sites and BAP Sustainability Criteria. There is also a targets would be appropriate. specific policy on the Natural environment. It is therefore not necessary to address the matter here also. ACTION: None required. ESSEX WILDLIFE The 6 elements cover the integration of Support for actions proposed noted. TRUST economic, social and environmental needs It is agreed that actions 2 and 4 could be and should provide a good foundation to combined. deliver sustainable development ACTION: Combine actions 2 and 4. objectives (in our view elements 2 and 4 could be combined). HOUSE BUILDERS The Council’s ‘Achieving Sustainable It should be noted that the word “promote” FEDERATION Development Actions’ refer in item 2 to was used rather than “require” or “expect”. promoting sustainable practices such as The Council is not attempting to impose carbon neutrality. However, any policies new standards or requirements. must have full regard to the Code for ACTION: None required. Sustainable Homes and not seek to set new standards or requirements that cannot be currently delivered due to their cost or technical specifications. MR JOHN It is not apparent how sustainability criteria This would be achieved by identifying ARMITAGE can reduce the risk posed by flooding and locations that may be at less risk of climate change. flooding. ACTION: None required. MR B.J. BRAZIER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA They don’t go far enough. Developers are Support for stronger actions noted. GUNN given far too much leeway. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Yes, but all words, I see no action. The Core Strategy will contain a PPS25 not being currently applied. Monitoring and Implementation Framework. ACTION: Prepare a draft Monitoring and Implementation Framework. The Application of PPS25 is discussed in a later section entitled “Beyond 2021- Safe and Sustainable” ACTION: None required. ANONYMOUS NO Nice in theory!! How will you enforce it. The Core Strategy will contain a 1. Monitoring and Implementation Framework. ACTION: Prepare a draft Monitoring and Implementation Framework. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND We support the general actions proposed, Support for actions proposed noted. PROPERTY LTD provided they do not go beyond the remit (c/o Andrew Martin of National Policy set out in PPS1, PPS3, The Council is mindful of national policy. Associates) PPG13, PPS7, and PPS25. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Policies must reflect national strategy, The actual requirements of these actions INVESTMENT LTD however, sustainable development do not place an onerous requirement on (c/o Savills Plc) initiatives must be applied flexibly & in developers. It is flexibly worded to reflect accordance with site circumstances & the policies strategic nature. This viability considerations. Technology & comment is therefore not in the context of supply has not yet caught up with policy the actions being considered. ambitions which will prevent schemes ACTION: None required. coming forward. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR REEVES (c/o Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. Strutt and Parker) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted.

The actions proposed for achieving sustainable development were generally supported by all consultees, with limited amendments needed to respond to concerns and perceived omissions identified.

The actions, once amended as necessary will be used to form a preferred policy in the Preferred Options Report.

Sustainability Criteria

Ten possible sustainability criteria were identified in the Issues and Options Report. These are set out below:

a) Makes the best use of previously developed land within the existing urban area; b) Makes the best use of existing infrastructure and community facilities; c) Contributes to improvements in infrastructure and community facility provision in the wider area for the wider community, where appropriate; d) Reduces the need to travel, particularly by private vehicle; e) Supports the vitality and viability of local Town Centres; f) Does not have adverse impacts on wildlife, habitats or landscape character; g) Improves the quality of the built environment; h) Reduces the risks posed by flooding and climate change; i) Encourages the creation of mixed and sustainable communities that benefit from social cohesion and inclusion; j) Makes the best use of natural resources including building materials, water, energy and waste products.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the draft sustainability criteria proposed. Thirty-one responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. SERVICES ENVIRONMENT We recommend that, in addition to the Using PDL ultimately means that land AGENCY existing wording of Point a) it also include needs to remediated if contaminated. the need to ensure contaminated land is ACTION: None required remediated back to a favourable condition. This matter is addressed in more detail as We also suggest that Point f) be amended part of the natural environment policies. to include enhancement of biodiversity, ACTION: None required. habitats and landscape character. This would be in accordance with PPS9. ESSEX COUNTY Sustainability Criteria – suggest (d) is It is agreed that access to public transport COUNCIL reworded to: ‘reduces the need to travel, should be included within the criteria, particularly by private vehicles, but however the need to travel in itself is the enhances opportunities for usage of sustainability issue that needs addressing walking, cycling and public transport as because some people will always use modes of travel, and access to such private vehicles despite other provisions modes.” being made. Provision of cycling and walking facilities is considered more of a requirement for development and is included in the “transport and accessibility” section. ACTION: Amend wording to ensure access to public transport provision is part of the sustainability criteria. ESSEX WILDLIFE In our view the most important criteria are Notes support for the criteria a,e and f. TRUST a, e & f. Criterion f should be given the Notes support for attaching greater weight highest weighting. to criteria f. ACTION: Prepare a Sustainability topic paper. 6a should assess the biodiversity value of Criteria f is not so specific as to exclude previously developed land. PDL and it is not considered necessary to amend criteria a) to reflect this representation. ACTION: None required. MR JOHN Town centres should be capable of Town centres require catchment ARMITAGE supporting themselves and will if the populations to support shops and services. community needs and uses them. Planning should facilitate this as per Again we question the ability of policy to PPS6. actually influence flooding and climate ACTION: Give consideration to PPS6 in change, both of which are doubtless drafting both this policy and the town serious issues. centre policies. Policy itself will not influence climate change and flooding, however its delivery should. ACTION: Prepare a monitoring and implementation framework. MR B.J. BRAZIER Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. MRS PATRICIA We need to recycle far more then we do. Agrees there is an oversight regarding GUNN Plastic waste is hazardous and should be recycling and this can be included in dealt with. criterion j. ACTION: Amend criterion j accordingly. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING 6 (h) required reduced risk from flooding Detailed flood risk policy is addressed in and climate change. the “Beyond 2021 – Safe and Sustainable” section. ACTION: None required. ANONYMOUS NO Agrees with the criteria proposed but feels The Council agrees that priority issues 1. that different areas require different such as housing, employment and priorities and they should be assessed regeneration are not identified within the accordingly. sustainability criteria and may need considering in order to achieve social and economic improvements that contribute to sustainability. ACTION: Consider an additional criteria that enables local priority issues to be considered. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. LTD (C/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. (C/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND Criteria (a) should be flexibly worded to The overarching spatial strategy is urban PROPERTY LTD include support for sustainable urban development supported by sustainable (c/o Andrew Martin fringe ‘Greenfield’ site releases which may urban peripheral development. Therefore Associates) support the overall objectives of the the use of PDL is an important remaining criteria of element 6. sustainability criterion. Clearly where such sites become limited the criteria will be used to identify sustainable sites on the urban periphery. ACTION: Specify weight attached to different criteria through the topic paper. Element 6 should include criteria to reduce Flood risk is addressed by criteria h. the risk posed to lives and property by ACTION: None required. positively locating development away from areas at risk from flooding. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. (C/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY No- Castle Point has limited previously The location of future development is dealt INVESTMENT LTD developed sites to meet housing needs. A with within the spatial strategy, where this (c/o Savills Plc) review of sustainable located Greenfield/ matter has already been raised. Green Belt sites must be considered as ACTION: None required. part of the Core Strategy in order to meet needs. MR AND MRS Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR REEVES (c/o Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. Strutt and Parker) MR AND MRS Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the criteria proposed. Support for criteria noted. GRANT

There is general support for the sustainability criteria proposed, although some amendments are necessary to meet the concerns of specific consultees. There was some push to make the criteria less onerous by not seeking development on previously developed land; however this is a criterion set out in national policy.

The criteria, once amended as necessary will be used to form a policy in the preferred options report.

Creating Inclusive Communities

It is proposed that a policy on creating inclusive communities is included in the core strategy in order to help ensure that places and spaces are accessible to everyone within the community and to promote better relations between different groups of people.

Seven actions were proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report for creating more inclusive communities. These were:

Action 1: The Council will lead by example in addressing equality and diversity issues by ensuring that the Council improves its equality standard and ensures high levels of accessibility to its own buildings and services. Action 2: The Council will place Design and Access Statements at the heart of the development control process to secure inclusive access in all new developments. Action 3: The Council will encourage community cohesion by ensuring the creation of mixed communities that promote social interaction. Action 4: In partnership, the Council will develop and promote public art and open space programmes that engage the community, increase cultural understanding and respect, and reduce anti-social behaviour. Action 5: In partnership, the Council will promote and support business and employment opportunities for people socially excluded from employment. Action 6: In partnership, the Council will meet the housing, social and healthcare needs of vulnerable groups within the community. Action 7: The Council will support partners in addressing education and health deprivation issues on Canvey Island.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for creating inclusive communities. Twenty-four responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES MR JOHN The actions proposed do not appear to Whilst some people may have a choice in ARMITAGE take account of the increasing tendency of whether they partake in the community people to withdraw behind fences, walls (and may choose not to) other people are and gates. excluded from the community for a number of reasons. This is the issue that is the focus of the policy, although it is also hoped that an increasing number of people would want to be part of the community through the changes that occur. ACTION: Ensure focus of policy is clear. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Actions 3 & 5 will lower the tone of Castle Creating mixed communities is HAMILTON Point because they may attract underpinned by government policy set out undesirable people to the Borough. in PPS1 and PP3. ACTION: None Required. A range of people are excluded from employment including people with disabilities, single parents and school leavers. These people are already part of our community. ACTION: None required. JENIFER I agree with the words. I do not agree the The Council has developed a range of HOWLETT council complies. It treats those without strategies, services and plans to ensure internet access as second class citizens. access to the Council and its services. The internet is a tool in this due to the significant commuting population and in order to reduce waste through distribution of paper copies of documents. ACTION: Feed comment into customer service working group. JOHN PALMBY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD ANONYMOUS NO It is not only old people who believe there This point is accepted. 1. is an increasing fear of crime. ACTION: Re-phrase preamble to policy.

Actively promote education against anti This point is covered by action 7. social behaviour in schools. ACTION: None required.

Council should promote a scheme of public This is beyond the remit of spatial policing of anti-social behaviour. planning. ACTION: Pass suggestion on to CDRP. Make residents young or old proud of the This point is covered by actions 4 and 7. Castle Point environment. ACTION: None required.

Action 7. Why only Canvey Island. Education and health deprivation issues are worse on Canvey Island. Point however noted. ACTION: Amend wording to reflect whole borough. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND We agree with the broad principles and the The actions proposed provide an PROPERTY LTD sentiments of creating inclusive overarching framework for ensuring that (c/o Andrew Martin communities but it is more of a “statement the planning system in Castle Point Associates) of intent” rather than something that should contributes towards creating inclusive be formulated into policy. communities by identifying focus points for consideration in dealing with the mix of development, public art, social facilities and employment provision. ACTION: Reword the action list to ensure it emphasises a policy stance for creating inclusive communities. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR REEVES (c/o Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. Strutt and Parker) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted.

There was general support from the majority of consultees for the actions set out for creating inclusive communities. Some rewording of the actions is necessary to meet specific concerns and to ensure that the actions can be successfully translated into a policy for the preferred option report. Meeting Community Needs

It is proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report that a policy on meeting community needs is required in the Core Strategy to help ensure that the spaces and places are designed to meet the needs of the community and that facilities vital to making a place sustainable and pleasant for its residents are provided in the right place at the right time.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report suggests twelve possible actions for meeting community needs in Castle Point. These are:

Education and Learning Actions Action 1: Support the Delivery of the Canvey Island Renewal of Education Provision Programme, including the provision of a Further Education College on Canvey Island. Action 2: Ensure that the capacity of local schools is a consideration in seeking locations and sites for new housing development, and ensure that the capacity is expanded where a deficiency is identified. Action 3: Work with partners to promote the uptake of higher education opportunities, in particular those available in Southend. Action 4: Support the County Council and private enterprises in delivering relevant training opportunities and lifetime learning, including library services, and where necessary seek to ensure the capacity of such services is expanded where a deficiency is identified. Healthcare Services Actions Action 5: Support the Primary Care Trust in delivering two Primary Care Centre, one at the Paddocks and one in a location to the West of Canvey Island. Action 6: Support the Primary Care Trust in delivering GP Surgeries throughout the Borough that are fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Action 7: Using Health Impact Assessments, where appropriate, ensure that the capacity of local healthcare provision is a consideration in seeking locations and sites for new housing development, and ensure that the capacity is expanded where a deficiency is identified. Leisure, Recreation and Open Space Facilities Actions Action 8: In partnership, secure the long-term future for Council-Owned leisure facilities in the Borough. Action 9: In partnership deliver the playground renewal programme and open space strategy throughout Castle Point, securing high quality multifunctional open space provision that meets Green Flag Standards. Action 10: Support new open space provision at Canvey Heights and Canvey Marshes and the renewal of the seafront open space as part of the Green Grid Strategy. Community Safety Actions Action 11: Support partners and local voluntary organisations in delivering community facilities specifically for young people, with the aim of reducing antisocial behaviour and the perception of antisocial behaviour. This includes but is not restricted to the provision of skate parks, youth shelters and multi-use games areas. Action 12: Ensure that community safety issues are addressed through the planning system by referring to government guidance in “Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention“ and securing measures to deter criminal and antisocial activity including the provision of CCTV where appropriate.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for meeting community needs. Twnety-nine responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES ESSEX COUNTY Action 2 is welcomed but should be It is agreed that action 2 could be widened COUNCIL widened to include pre school and post although there is concern that some pre- sixteen provision. The footnote that such school provision is profit making and capacity increases are funded through developer contributions should not be used developer contributions needs to be to fund these enterprises. With regard to strengthened i.e. 'to meet the full cost'. “full cost” the County Council receives funding from the Government for each school place it provides each year. It is unreasonable for developers to cover on- going costs for school places in light of this. ACTION: Reword action 2. Why specify just actions 2,4,7,9 and 12 for It is agreed that this list could be widened, developer contribution? Suggest that it is although Circular 5/05 and other sources appropriate to cite more. of funding should not be overlooked. ACTION: Reconsider developer contributions list. GO-EAST Fails to provide a clear indication of the full The concerns of GO-East are noted and range of matters which the local authority the development contribution requirements might seek contributions towards. Circular of all policy areas within the core strategy 05/2005 indicates that DPDs should will be drawn together into one section. contain high-level policies on planning ACTION: Ensure wording integrates the obligations to provide a clear expectation SPD on Developer contributions to ensure and basis for negotiations. detail is provided. HOUSE Need to ensure that any payments sought There are instances, particularly in relation BUILDERS from housing developers are in full to employment provision and town centre FEDERATION compliance with the tests of development where training, lifetime reasonableness set out in Circular 5/05. learning and CCTV provision may be Some of those identified do not appear to reasonably requested as part of a S106 be, for instance; delivering training agreement. Contributions are not only opportunities and lifetime learning, and sought from housing developments. CCTV provision. ACTION: None required. SPORT Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ENGLAND (EAST) MR JOHN The needs of two separate and distinct It is important to recognise the ARMITAGE communities, Benfleet and Canvey Island, communities that exist in Castle Point and may prove divisive and even competitive respond to their individual needs in a within the constraint of limited funding. prioritised manner that maintains a reasonable overall standard of service across the entire borough. ACTION: None required. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK JACK TRING Several hundred increasing over 55% & no School closures do not mean that children cause school closure and remaining provision should be increasing draw on services. substandard. Additionally they do not affect Benfleet where school places are limited. ACTION: None required. Option 5 – Are you saying that the EEDA No. A Primary Care Centre is not a prison. site will be good for a prison. ACTION: None required. ANONYMOUS NO Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. 1 ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND Yes. It is considered, the release of larger It is uncertain as to whether this approach PROPERTY LTD Greenfield sites, will provide for greater will deliver facilities where they are (c/o Andrew Martin community benefits including the delivery needed. Additionally, affordable housing is Associates) of affordable housing. not addressed in this section (see Housing). ACTION: None required. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR REEVES (c/o Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. Strutt and Parker) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted.

There is general support for the actions proposed for meeting community needs with limited amendments needed to meet the concerns of consultees with specific interests. These actions will therefore be taken forward in the form of a policy into the preferred options report, with some amendments as necessary.

There is also a need to provide greater information on the delivery of the actions proposed in this section. This will be addressed through a monitoring and implementation framework, a draft of which will be included in the preferred options report. Delivering Employment Opportunities

It is considered necessary in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report to include a policy in the Core Strategy on delivering employment opportunities in Castle Point. The proposed purpose of the policy is to consider the growth sectors and locations for employment growth in the Borough, new economic opportunities available to the Borough and the infrastructure needed to stimulate more employment.

Employment Growth Opportunities

Emerging from the employment study employment growth opportunities for the Borough have been identified as follows:

Option 1: Retail and Office development in the Town Centres. Option 2: Regeneration and access improvements to Charfleets Industrial Estate. Option 3: Regeneration and access improvements to Manor Trading Estate. Option 4: Business activity and transport, storage and communications at Rayleigh Weir Industrial Estate, building on locational opportunities. Option 5: Development of the Northwick Road Site as a secure business location. Option 6: Pursue the development of employment sites regardless of industrial sector growth. Option 7: The environmental technologies sector building on local biodiversity and climate change issues and opportunities. Option 8: Sports, leisure and tourism in the natural environment.

Consultees were asked to comment on which option/s they preferred. Twenty-nine responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment EERA From the information available, including The Council has an employment study date the technical report, it is not clear as to 2006. There is also a RNA underway. whether the evidence base is up to date. Additionally, detailed work has been carried out by Tribal for Charfleets Industrial Estate The text is consistent with policy ETG5 of and Northwick Road. the Proposed Changes Document. ACTION: Present evidence base in Employment Topic Paper. NATURAL Cannot advise at this stage. Option 5 has Conditional support for option 5 noted. ENGLAND been identified as a potential hub of exemplar sustainable development, with Support for option 7 noted. support from EEDA, Provided this progresses in accordance with the Vision of Canvey Wick and compliments work by the RSPB, Natural England would be happy to see this project be a part of the regeneration initiatives. Would also welcome Option 7. ESSEX WILDLIFE concern that land south of Charfleets Concerns regarding nature conservation TRUST Industrial Estate and land south of are noted in respect of land in south-west Morrisons, Canvey Island (Option 2) is Canvey. likely to support significant nature ACTION: None required. conservation interest as part of the existing wildlife corridor. MR JOHN Prefers option 4: Within well established Support for option 4 noted. ARMITAGE commercial/industrial areas. The Manor Trading Estate is a disgrace, Objection to option 3 noted. were it possible to relocate this estate, this would be a positive step and could release the site for housing, which would be more applicable to the locality generally. MR B.J. BRAZIER ALL options should be pursued. Support for all options noted. MR GEOFF Need to provide mixed range of jobs to It is agreed that a diverse economy is CAVES encourage people to work within the important to reduce commuting from the borough, rather than commuting out, borough. particularly on Canvey. CHRISTOPHER Preferred option 3 – Feel the manor Regeneration is not the same as relocation. GRANT Trading Estate should be relocated having This response is not therefore in the context better access for HGV’s onto main roads of the question posed. (A127/A130) and away from school vicinity in Church Road. MRS ANGELA Prefers options 2,3 and 5: As employment Support for option 2, 3 and 5 noted. HAMILTON already exists in these parts, I think they should be built upon and improved, thus keeping businesses more centralised. JOHN PALMBY Option 3. Transfer of Manor Trading Estate Support for option 3 noted. aiding better HGV links, better prospect for business park providing additional employment. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 6. Support for option 6 noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 8: Apart from jobs, this also Support for option 8 noted. PINNOCK gives activities for local people to engage in (inc. young people). MRS HAZEL Prefers option 3 – The redevelopment of Support for option 3 noted. STAFFORD the Manor Trading Estate to new facilities will bring considerable employment growth opportunities. JACK TRING Hickfort site – Site with 1st class logistics. Regeneration is not the same as relocation. Canvey sites have 3rd class logistics and This response is not therefore in the context will only attract 3rd class employers. of the question posed.

ANONYMOUS Prefers options 1, Option 2, Option 3, Support for options 1,2,3 and 5 noted. NO 1 Option 5. ARGENT HOMES Prefers option 3: but consider that it would Regeneration is not the same as relocation. LTD (c/o Smart be more appropriate to relocate it to north- This response is not therefore in the context Planning Ltd) west Benfleet. of the question posed. DAWS HEATH Prefers option 4: Further growth in this Support for option 4 noted. LTD (c/o Smart location, adjoining Stadium Way would Planning Ltd) build on the strong locational opportunities that this site already offers in terms of public transport and the road network. There is also a demand for premises in this location from new and existing users. MR LESLEY Preferred option 3 – As previously – Manor Regeneration is not the same as relocation. EVANS Trading relocation to Blinking Owl has great This response is not therefore in the context potential. of the question posed. FOX LAND AND We support the general principles of Option Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY LTD 1, which will encourage the regeneration (c/o Andrew and revitalisation of town centres with ‘less Martin Associates) vulnerable’ uses to risk of flooding. HICKFORT LTD Prefers option 3: support the Regeneration is not the same as relocation. (c/o Smart redevelopment of Manor Trading Estate for This response is not therefore in the context Planning Ltd) housing purposes, and relocating it within of the question posed. their proposals for a proposed urban extension to north-west Benfleet JETBURY Options too prescriptive- Objective should Supports inward investment and renewal of INVESTMENT be to encourage & promote inward employment areas. LTD (c/o Savills investment & renewable of existing Plc) employment sites to meet strategic objectives for employment growth. No one option does this. MR AND MRS Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MORRISIONS Employment on Canvey Island should be Support for locations on Canvey Island is SUPERMARKETS encouraged as much as possible. noted. PLC (c/o Rapleys LLP) NATIONAL GRID Option 2 is preferred, as the regeneration of Support for option 2 noted. PROPERTY the Charfleets Industrial Estate is clearly HOLDINGS LTD important to the Council’s overall economic (c/o Planning strategy. Perspectives) MR AND MRS Prefers option 3 – The redevelopment of Regeneration is not the same as relocation. SANDERS Manor Trading Estate for housing, and This response is not therefore in the context West Benfleet will accommodate new of the question posed. employment growth. DENIS THOMAS Option 3. Manor Trading to be relocated to Regeneration is not the same as relocation. north west Benfleet more employment. This response is not therefore in the context of the question posed. MRS IRENE Preferred option 3 – Move Manor Trading to Regeneration is not the same as relocation. THOMAS North West Benfleet. This response is not therefore in the context of the question posed. MISS MICHELLE Preferred option 3 – I believe that Manor Regeneration is not the same as relocation. THOMAS Trading Estate should be redeveloped for This response is not therefore in the context housing, and relocated to north – West of the question posed. Benfleet. MRS MARIE Preferred option 3 – Relocation of Manor Regeneration is not the same as relocation. THOMAS-WHITE Trading estate to North – West Benfleet will This response is not therefore in the context ensure employment growth. of the question posed. MR GARY WHITE Preferred option 3 – Employment growth Regeneration is not the same as relocation. should occur if Manor Trading is relocated This response is not therefore in the context to North West Benfleet as this will allow of the question posed. expansion.

Due to the range of interests and concerns raised it is not possible to identify a preferred option with regard to this policy area as all options received some support. As a result, sustainability criteria and economic data in the employment study, Charfleets Feasibility Study and Northwick Road Feasibility Study will be used to identify the best employment growth opportunities for the Preferred Options Report.

A significant number of the responses received were influenced by development proposals for a green belt location in North-West Benfleet. These responses were disregarded as they were not focused on the questioned posed.

Economic Growth Infrastructure

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out a list of economic growth infrastructure that could be provided in order to improve the local economy in Castle Point. The list is as follows:

Need 1: Education and training provision in relation with growth sector requirements. Need 2: Improved access by public transport and the road networks to employment opportunities. Need 3: Employment land needs to be protected from development pressures arising from the residential sector. Need 4: The existing employment building stock needs to be upgraded and made more flexible and fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Need 5: The environmental quality of employment areas needs to be upgraded and made more welcoming. Need 6: A Business Strategy needs to be devised to support start-up businesses and business enterprise in the Borough. Need 7: Managed Workspace for start-up businesses needs to be provided.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of infrastructure proposed and what they would like to see delivered in Castle Point. Twenty responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ESSEX Suggest amending to read “Improved access Agree with wording recommendation. COUNTY to employment opportunities by road and by ACTION: Change wording accordingly. COUNCIL public transport, pedestrians and cyclists”. MR JOHN A third route for Canvey Island has long been The Council notes support for a third access ARMITAGE recognised and is urgently essential within for Canvey Island, however constraints mean the plan period. that delivery is likely to be a long-term objective. ACTION: Ensure that uncertainty about the delivery of third access is clearly expressed. MR B.J. All points listed are important. Support for all infrastructure needs noted. BRAZIER MR GEOFF Needs 2 & 4 very important Support for needs 2 and 4 noted. CAVES MRS More facilities for the young which would This is an interesting point that will be given PATRICIA bring in more visitors to the area. further consideration. GUNN ACTION: Consider in employment topic paper. MRS ANGELA Supports needs 1. Support for needs 1, 2, 4 and 5 noted. HAMILTON Need 2 - our roads already have too much traffic on.

Needs 4 & 5 - concentrate on our existing businesses. And environment is always of upmost importance in my view. MR Supports the delivery of needs 2, 5, 6 and 7. Support for needs 2, 5, 6 and 7 noted. JONATHAN PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN All the infrastructure listed is needed. Support for all infrastructure needs noted. PINNOCK JACK TRING Choose a site to 1st class logistics to attract Support for the provision of road 1st class employers (Canvey 3rd class infrastructure noted. logistics). ANONYMOUS Encourage Nautical enterprise to make best The employment study did not indicate an NO 1. use of our coastline and position. interest from the nautical sector in Castle Point. ACTION: Investigate within the Employment topic paper. ARGENT Not all employment land needs to be There is a need to reduce out-commuting HOMES LTD protected from development pressures from the Borough. The TGSE Economic (c/o Smart arising from the residential sector. There is Strategy seeks to half out-commuting from Planning Ltd) no embargo placed on the protection of the sub-region by 2021. It is therefore employment land in PPS3 (Housing). This necessary to protect employment land from Guidance suggests that options for housing residential development. may include sites that are vacant or derelict ACTION: Prepare an employment topic in industrial or commercial use. paper. DAWS In order to attract inward investment into the Support for needs 2, 4 and 5 noted. HEATH LTD Borough, it is essential that existing (c/o Smart employment building stock is upgraded to be Planning Ltd) made more flexible and fit for modern day users, and the environmental quality of employment areas is improved. In addition, improved access by public transport and the road networks to employment opportunities is required. HICKFORT As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR AND MRS Improved access, upgraded employment Support for needs 2, 4 and 5 noted. JONES (c/o buildings and improvement to environmental Whirledge and quality of employment sites. Nott) PORT OF The PLA agrees with need 3 that Support for need 3 noted. LONDON employment land should be protected from AUTHORITY inappropriate pressure arising from residential development. DENIS Moving Manor Trading is a must and use This is not an infrastructure requirement and THOMAS existing Manor Trading for affordable homes therefore this response is not in the context etc. of the question posed.

MRS IRENE You must move Manor Trading The relocation of Manor Trading Estate is not THOMAS an infrastructure requirement and therefore this response is not in the context of the question posed. MISS I believe the relocation of Manor Trading This is not an infrastructure requirement and MICHELLE Estate should be considered a priority. therefore this response is not in the context THOMAS of the question posed. MRS MARIE PPS3 Does not place an embargo on the The relocation of Manor Trading Estate is not THOMAS- protection of employment land. Survey an infrastructure requirement and therefore WHITE relocating Manor Trading estate from a this response is not in the context of the highly residential area should be deemed question posed. appropriate. MR GARY I think relocation of Manor Trading Estate The relocation of Manor Trading Estate is not WHITE should be a priority. an infrastructure requirement and therefore this response is not in the context of the question posed.

There was support for all of the needs identified with needs 2, 4 and 5 being identified most often. This list will therefore be taken forward into the preferred options report, following necessary amendments to meet the limited concerns expressed with the priority focused on needs,2, 4 and 5.

Again, a significant number of the responses received were influenced by development proposals for a green belt location in North-West Benfleet. These responses were disregarded as they were not focused on the questioned posed. Improving the Vitality of Town Centres

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report identified the need to include a policy on improving the vitality of town centres in the final policy document. Such a policy is necessary to make Castle Point more sustainable by reducing the level of out-commuting for shopping needs.

PPS6 requires local authorities to identify the current and future role of each town centre. Consultees were therefore asked to comment on what role they would like to see each town centre in Castle Point fulfil. 14 responses were received.

Consultee Summary of Comments THE THEATRE The vitality of town centres depends upon a good mix of interesting and relevant shops TRUST combined with leisure and cultural facilities for the evening economy. Local restaurants and cafes should be available for shoppers and evening audiences. Both day and evening offers are necessary, preferably in a pedestrianised setting with good public transport connections and adequate car parking nearby. MR JOHN Canvey Island Town Centre is larger and more diverse than that of Hadleigh and may be ARMITAGE worth future investment and expansion. Hadleigh has become largely irrelevant as a shopping centre, other perhaps than the super-market which has a high usage. Hadleigh has become a place to drive through rather than a place to shop. It is also a recognised traffic bottle-neck which is to be avoided whenever possible. MR B.J. Daytime use should be as a focus for the community with - BRAZIER - wide range of "everyday" type small shops - library - community facilities generally including rooms/halls for community groups to meet, facilities for art/craft promotion, exhibitions, classes etc - cafe/coffee shop type meeting places - small scale public focussed offices eg solicitor, estate agent and other professional services - Evening use for entertainment, eating out, meeting places cinema (some hope) etc.

All served by good public transport links and to be a pedestrian friendly, litter free, attractive environment. MRS Encourage small shops to open, particularly specialist shops. GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS PATRICIA They are all different and should remain that way – I would like to see more leisure GUNN facilities around the creek and the sea wall. MRS ANGELA More specialist shops and improvements on car-parking. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Dependent upon the outcome of planning and the needs forthcoming from the decision. MR JONATHAN More evening uses for all of them, less car dealers in Hadleigh. More restaurants & PINNOCK bars/coffee shops, more boutique type shops and less stack'em high, sell 'em cheap ones. JACK TRING To encourage community cohesion clubs, libraries, churches resources etc. Shopping role distribution as people switch to the internet & travel further a field. ANONYMOUS Look at Leigh and you have your answer. Provide the right environment and business will NO 1 thrive. After all people are relatively well off in Castle Point, but most of them spend their money, leisure and essentials outside the borough. ARGENT To provide a range of retail and community facilities, create active frontages, and minimise HOMES LTD (c/o the need for car borne travel. Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH To provide a range of retail and community facilities, create active frontages, and minimise LTD (c/o Smart the need for car borne travel. Planning Ltd) HICKFORT LTD To provide a range of retail and community facilities, create active frontages, and minimise (c/o Smart the need for car borne travel. Planning Ltd) JETBURY The Council should seek a retail expert view on considering the role & function of each INVESTMENT centre relevant to the catchments it serves in accord with PPS 6. LTD (c/o Savills Plc)

The responses indicate a preference for more independent but quality shops and more community facilities to be located in town centres. These responses will be used to inform a retail needs assessment, which in turn will inform the final policy in the Core Strategy.

Previous work on the Core Strategy suggested that whilst all town centres in Castle Point need to be regenerated, the Council should focus efforts on two town centres in the Borough. The retail needs assessment will provide recommendations in this regard, however, the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report also sought the views of consultees in this regard. 25 responses were received on this matter.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment GO-EAST Question how realistic regeneration options There is known interest in regenerating for town centres are. Canvey and Hadleigh. The Council was seeking to gauge support for the regeneration of these centres and the other town centres in Castle Point. ACTION: None required. MR JOHN South Benfleet and Canvey Island. Support for the regeneration of South ARMITAGE Well used shopping centres which offer the Benfleet and Canvey noted. best potential for inward investment, renewal and regeneration. MR B.J. BRAZIER Canvey and Hadleigh: These are the two Support for Canvey and Hadleigh noted. main centres in the Borough. Concerns about traffic impacts at Tarpots Tarpots also has scope for improvement and Hadleigh noted. following the opening of the new Tesco, but suffers by being divided three ways by congested roads. Until road traffic is significantly reduced, it is difficult to see how this area can be regenerated as a thriving centre. In this respect, Hadleigh offers more hope with pedestrian/traffic management being easier owing to the one way system. CHRISTOPHER South Benfleet Support for the regeneration of South GRANT Tarpots Benfleet and Tarpots as a priority noted. MRS Hadleigh Support for the regeneration of Hadleigh GWENDOLINE Benfleet (South) and South Benfleet as a priority noted. GRANT Canvey Tarpots MRS PATRICIA Canvey above all! It is being let down badly. Support for the regeneration of Canvey, GUNN Tarpots, Tarpots and Hadleigh noted. Hadleigh MRS ANGELA Prefers South Benfleet and Tarpots: Support for the regeneration of South HAMILTON Hadleigh and Canvey already have some Benfleet and Tarpots noted. fairly main shops, businesses in them. Would be nice, being a resident of Benfleet for our towns to have a facelift. JOHN PALMBY Tarpots – South Benfleet. Support for the regeneration of Tarpots and South Benfleet noted. MR JONATHAN Hadleigh and Tarpots: These towns in Support for the regeneration of Hadleigh PINNOCK particular suffer from large gangs of youths and Tarpots noted. hanging around at night. If Hadleigh and Tarpots could follow the Leigh pattern and become more cosmopolitan/less run down, this problem would diminish. MRS GILLIAN Prefers Hadleigh and Tarpots: With the A13 Support for the regeneration of Hadleigh PINNOCK passing through both and the types of and Tarpots noted. businesses (e.g. car sales, LIDLs, Tescos) that exist, they have little character or charm. MRS HAZEL Canvey Island needs regeneration without Support for the regeneration of Canvey STAFFORD the additional congestion of more residential noted. development. JACK TRING Hadleigh (good logistics) Support for the regeneration of Hadleigh Tarpots (good logistics) and Tarpots noted. South Benfleet (poorer logistics) Canvey (very poor logistics) ARGENT HOMES South Benfleet and Tarpots in order to Support for the regeneration of South LTD (c/o Smart improve the level of services and retail offer, Benfleet and Tarpots noted. Planning) and encourage economic development in the Borough. DAWS HEATH Hadleigh, in order to improve the level of Support for the regeneration of Hadleigh LTD (c/o Smart services and retail offer, and encourage noted. Planning) economic development in the Borough. MR LESLEY Tarpots Support for the regeneration of South EVANS South Benfleet Benfleet and Tarpots noted.

HICKFORT LTD Hadleigh and Tarpots in order to improve Support for the regeneration of Hadleigh (c/o Smart the level of services and retail offer, and and Tarpots noted. Planning Ltd) encourage economic development in the Borough. JETBURY If they are all in need all should be listed. It is intended to seek improvements to all INVESTMENT the centres however it is necessary to LTD (c/o Savills prioritise the centres for funding purposes. Plc) ACTION: Clarify funding situation in preferred options report. MR AND MRS Prefers Canvey Town centre. Support for the regeneration of Canvey JONES (c/o noted. Whirledge and Nott) MORRISIONS The existing Morrisons store at Northwick This is out of context with the question SUPERMARKETS Road and the associated outline permission posed regarding the prioritisation of town PLC (c/o Rapleys for retail warehousing will provide a centre regeneration. LLP) complimentary retail offer to that found in the Town Centre. This will meet local need and reduce travel. It is important that that the existing retail allocation in relation to the sites are retained in the Emerging Local Development Framework, both in the Core Strategy and Site Allocation documents. MR AND MRS North Benfleet North Benfleet is not a town centre in SANDERS Tarpots Castle Point. Canvey needs regeneration without further Support for the regeneration of Tarpots and residential Development. Canvey noted. DENIS THOMAS South Benfleet. Tarpots. Support for the regeneration of Tarpots and South Benfleet noted. MRS IRENE South Benfleet, Tarpots, Hadleigh Support for the regeneration of South THOMAS Benfleet, Tarpots and Hadleigh noted. MISS MICHELLE 1.) South Benfleet Support for the regeneration of South THOMAS 2.) Tarpots Benfleet and Tarpots as a priority noted. 3.) Hadleigh 4.) Canvey Island MRS MARIE South Benfleet, Tarpots Support for the regeneration of South THOMAS-WHITE Benfleet and Tarpots noted. MR GARY WHITE South Benfleet Support for the regeneration of South Tarpots Benfleet and Tarpots as a priority noted.

Due to the irregular dispersal of residents responding to the consultation it is not possible to use these results to accurately gauge support for town centre regeneration of any particular location. It is however notable that there is considerable support for improvements to be made at the Tarpots, which due to its current size as a shopping area is surprising. This information will be fed into the retail needs assessment, which will be used to inform the final report. Improving Transport and Accessibility

Due to the level of congestion that the Borough experiences, especially at peak times it is considered necessary to include a policy on improving Transport and Accessibility in Castle Point in order to make the borough a more sustainable place to live and work.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report proposes a list of actions that the Council and its partners could take to improve transport and accessibility in Castle Point. The actions were:

Action 1: Improvement of public transport is a priority with increased frequency of services into the night time, upgrading bus shelters and a greater network coverage. Action 2: Improvement of opportunities for cycling and walking in the Borough. Action 3: Support route management improvement on the A127, the A13 and the A130. This is in accordance with the provision outlined in the Local Transport Plan 2006-2011. Action 4: Support strategic junction improvements at Sadler’s Farm, linking the A13 from the west with the A130 to the North. This is in accordance with the provision outlined in the Local Transport Plan 2006-2011. Action 5: Support the extension of Roscommon Way south of Charfleets, to join with Eastern Esplanade, Canvey Island. Action 6: Support a new or improved access onto Canvey Island. Action 7: Development proposals will be required to contribute to delivering improved, integrated and sustainable transport networks that relieve congestion and reduce reliance on the private car.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed to improve transport and accessibility in Castle Point. Thirty-two responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment EERA Suggest a minor change in Action 6 so Agree with wording change proposed. that ‘onto’ is replaced by ‘for’. ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. ESSEX COUNTY The actions appear strong on specific Agree with the view of ECC regarding COUNCIL road schemes and need to be made specificity, however, the policy is based on equally specific (rather than aspirations) the Local Transport Plan which is more on improving other modes. Safer direct spatial specific about road schemes than routes to schools and traffic calming other programmes. around schools could be added as a focus ACTION: Consider how non-road scheme for action. actions can be made more specific.

Action 4 – Error – A130 not A30, plus Wording changes agreed with. Action 5 – another error - should refer to ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. joining Thorney Bay Road and not Eastern Esplanade. Suggest also adding to end of this point “….Thorney Bay Road, which will also enable improved access to Charfleets Industrial Estate.” NATURAL Object to a road bridge over Holehaven Nature concerns regarding possible third ENGLAND Creek SSSI. access to Canvey Island noted. ACTION: None required at present. ESSEX WILDLIFE Actions 5 & 6 are likely to have significant Nature concerns regarding Roscommon TRUST adverse impacts on statutory and non- Way and possible third access to Canvey statutory nature conservation sites. Island noted. ACTION: None required at present. Car dependence should be actively Actions 1, 2 and 7 seek to achieve this, discouraged, out-commuting reduced, although it is agreed that they could be public transport improved and cycling & more explicitly worded. walking promoted. ACTION: Amend wording appropriately. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MR B.J. BRAZIER Agree generally (particularly regarding the Essex County Council is being consulted improvement of public transport), but with regard to cycle provision in Castle wasting money in building "cycle paths" Point. ACTION: None required. Reservations are held regarding the detail This is a matter of detail dealt with by ECC. of the proposed Sadler's farm scheme. This has already been subject to public The facility for access to Canvey Way consultation and such comments should across the centre of the "roundabout" have been made at that time. looks hopelessly inadequate. ACTION: None required. MR GEOFF Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. CAVES MRS Action 1: Public transport is a priority. Support for action 1 noted. GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS PATRICIA Much more emphasis on another road off Action 6 covers this issue adequately. GUNN Canvey. ACTION: None required. MRS ANGELA Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY The cost that this would load upon the An economic viability test is proposed in the developers would add to further cost in housing section. It may be appropriate to relation to Canvey affecting viability. bring this forward into the monitoring and implementation framework. ACTION: Bring Economic viability test forward to Monitoring and Implementation Framework. MR JONATHAN Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL NO, an additional access road for Canvey The Core Strategy sets out a spatial vision STAFFORD is required, and plans are not even on the for Castle point up to 2021, therefore long- drawing board. term projects can be included. ACTION: None required. JACK TRING New access onto Canvey will not be The funding of a third access to Canvey financed by government (except by Island is an issue. electronic charges.) ACTION: Identify issue for third access. ANONYMOUS NO Again specifics mentioned for Canvey, but The Core Strategy identifies key projects for 1. nothing for the rest of Castle Point other Castle Point in terms of transport. It is not than Sadlers Farm, which will only help appropriate to propose new works as part through traffic. What about Tarpots, of the Core Strategy. It may however be Hadleigh, Woodmans Arms. How about a possible to propose junction improvements new road leading north out of borough in association with new development as (relieving Tarpots, Sadlers Farm and part of the site allocation documents. Woodmans and Rayleigh Weir). New road ACTION: Ensure Core Strategy accurately through Jotmans Farm directly onto the reflects LTP. A13 again avoiding Tarpots and Sadlers Farm ARGENT HOMES The Borough Council acknowledge in the The location of development opportunities LTD (c/o Smart Technical Report that a new or improved is considered in the spatial strategy. Planning Ltd) access onto Canvey Island is not probable Comments regarding the suitability of within the Plan period and is expected Canvey Island are therefore out of context. beyond 2021. Whilst reference is made and is considered favourable, it is highly The delivery of a third access to Canvey unlikely that it will be financially viable. Island is a long-term project that the Therefore, identification of development Council acknowledges has financial opportunities on Canvey Island is implications and nature concerns. inappropriate. ACTION: None required at present.

The proposed road link extending from Manor Way across Hole Creek to provide vehicular access with Stanford Le Hope would have significant environmental impacts upon flood risk, the landscape and numerous ecological constraints which are of International and National importance, and therefore would be totally inappropriate to pursue.

Criticism is also made in relation to 13 bus routes serve Canvey Island. All actions proposed for public transport, at routes pass Benfleet Station. SERT will be present only one bus route services additional to this when delivered. Canvey, and the introduction of SERT is ACTION: None required. not expected until 2020. Therefore these actions are invalid.

Overall, the SERT proposal is laudable, The Core Strategy reflects the Local however, it does not go far enough, and Transport Plan and identifies projects that should be delivered in conjunction with a should be forwarded in future Local fully integrated package of road, rail and Transport Plans. bus links. Furthermore, Argent would urge ACTION: None Required. the Highway Authority and the Borough Council to engage in joined up thinking, otherwise it will undermine the delivery of their strategic objectives. MR R. Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Once again Canvey Island being an issue. This comment is related to the location of EVANS development not the question posed and is therefore out of context. FOX LAND AND It is recognised that land West of This is a matter of detail to be considered PROPERTY LTD Glebelands, Thundersley may have a role by Essex County Council. The Core (c/o Andrew Martin to play in assisting with the junction Strategy is a strategic document. Associates) improvements to Saddlers Farm. ACTION: None required. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. INVESTMENT LTD (c/o Savills Plc) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) NATIONAL GRID NGPHL notes the three proposed delivery The infrastructure deficit model is being PROPERTY mechanisms but is unable to comment prepared by Essex County Council. This HOLDINGS LTD any further without a fuller understanding will be considered upon completion. (c/o Planning of how the proposed “infrastructure deficit ACTION: This matter is being considered Perspectives) model” (mechanism 3) actually works. as part of the SPD on Developer Contributions. Such contributions should be negotiated and it is considered that the infrastructure deficit model should only be used as a guide in such matters. PORT OF There is no reference to the increased use The use of cargo handling facilities on LONDON of the River Thames for the transport of Canvey Island is an issue due to associated AUTHORITY cargo. onward transport and the impacts this would have on the road network. As a result, this is not a means of transportation that can be supported for Castle Point. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS No – at present there is no plan for an The Core Strategy sets out a spatial vision SANDERS additional access road for Canvey Island for Castle point up to 2021, therefore long- before 2021 and therefore farther term projects can be included. The development is unsustainable. appropriateness of development sites will be accessed against the sustainability criteria. This matter was dealt with in earlier sections of the report. ACTION: None required. DENIS THOMAS Canvey proposal is 2020 for roads etc. The Core Strategy sets out a spatial vision for Castle point up to 2021, therefore long- term projects can be included. ACTION: None required. MRS IRENE No – Canvey must not be used. This comment is related to the location of THOMAS development not the question posed and is therefore out of context. MISS MICHELLE Since access roads to Canvey are not The Core Strategy sets out a spatial vision THOMAS likely to be improved until 2021, for Castle point up to 2021, therefore long- development opportunities on Canvey term projects can be included. The Island could be deemed to be appropriateness of development sites will inappropriate. be accessed against the sustainability criteria. This matter was dealt with in earlier sections of the report. ACTION: None required. MRS MARIE No – The new improved access on to The Core Strategy sets out a spatial vision THOMAS-WHITE Canvey is expected 2021, so development for Castle point up to 2021, therefore long- opportunities on Canvey Island is not term projects can be included. The really appropriate. appropriateness of development sites will be accessed against the sustainability criteria. This matter was dealt with in earlier sections of the report. ACTION: None required. MR GARY WHITE I don’t think the development opportunities This comment is related to the location of on Canvey are really viable. development not the question posed and is therefore out of context.

The list of transport and accessibility actions whilst generally supported is questioned by several consultees with regards to deliverability. This is particularly in relation to larger projects such as Roscommon Way, the Third Access to Canvey Island and SERT. The deliverability of these actions will be given further consideration before the preferred options report is prepared.

Meeting Housing Needs

The Council is required to provide 4,000 new homes in the Borough by 2021. In order that the new homes meet the needs of local people a policy is required in the Core Strategy that details the type, tenure and size of homes that the Council seeks to encourage and ensures that the needs of specialist groups are met.

Housing Mix (type and size)

In this regard, the Housing Needs Assessment (2002 and 2004) and details regarding the current housing waiting list were used to identify targets for the housing mix and actions for delivering the targets in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report. The targets suggested were:

Target 1: 1,000 small homes (1 or 2 bedrooms). Target 2: 1,000 shelter homes for those over 55 years. Target 3: 250 homes for those with special needs. Target 4: Renewal of existing housing stock to provide a range of family homes.

The actions proposed for meeting these targets were:

Action 1: Encourage higher density development in town centres and along main public transport routes in order to encourage development of small homes and sheltered accommodation; Action 2: Work proactively with Housing Associations to secure the delivery of accommodation for those people with special needs in Castle Point; Action 3: Encourage the high quality renewal of housing stock in residential areas in order to secure the delivery of new family homes and bungalows; Action 4: In making site allocations in the Canvey Area Action Plan and Benfleet, Hadleigh and Thundersley Plan, specify the mix of housing types the Council will expect to see delivered on each site in order to provide guidance to developers.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the targets and list of actions proposed for delivering the right mix (type and size) of housing in Castle Point. Twenty-eight responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment EERA Policy H4 of the Proposed Changes The requirement to make provision for requires Gypsy and Traveller provision in Gypsies and Travellers is noted and the Local Development Documents to be based Core Strategy will be amended to ensure upon the latest available information both that the minimum provision of 2 permanent locally and within the region. It is therefore pitches is considered. considered that there is a need to take into ACTION: Consider Gypsy and Travellers account the recently published research Accommodation needs as part of the report “Preparing Regional Spatial Strategy Housing Topic Paper. reviews on Gypsies and Travellers”. That report suggests a need for an additional 2 permanent pitches for Gypsies and Travellers within the Castle Point Borough up to 2011. GO-EAST The origin of specific targets and options The evidence base will be set out more (such as those for housing mix and clearly in the Housing Topic Paper. density); ACTION: Prepare a housing topic paper.

Gypsies and travellers. While we welcome The requirement to make provision for the recognition on page 32 that the need to Gypsies and Travellers is noted and the make appropriate provision exists, we Core Strategy will be amended to ensure would have liked the Issues & Options that the minimum provision of 2 permanent report to contain some discussion of the pitches is considered. approaches open to the authority in ACTION: Consider Gypsy and Travellers addressing this requirement. This can and Accommodation needs as part of the should be progressed in advance of the Housing Topic Paper. precise level of need that emerges from the mini review of the RSS. HOUSE The Council completely fails to adhere to It is noted that the word specify is used in BUILDERS national planning guidance. It is seeking to Action 4. As the end of action 4 indicates FEDERATION dictate the specific housing mix of each the intention is for any quantities set out in housing allocation site. This completely the allocations documents to guide ignores the operation of the housing market negotiations. It is therefore suggested that and issues of viability. the word “specify” is replaced with “indicate”. ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. Neither is it backed up by any proper The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in evidence base (i.e. a full and up to date 2004. This clearly indicates a lack fo 1 and Strategic Housing Market Assessment) 2 bedroom properties. This is supported by justifying why so many 1 or 2 bedroom affordability analysis that indicates an small homes are required. Furthermore, it above average increase in the cost of 1 and seemingly also fails to have regard to the 2 bedroom properties indicating that needs for new family housing provision (as demand is outstripping supply. A SHMA is referred to in PPS3). Consequently, the currently being prepared by the TGSE proposal (which fails to include any Partnership. The requirement to carry out a alternative options as required) is strongly SHMA was only adopted in national policy opposed by the HBF. The Federation in March 2007 and therefore it is unrealistic believes that such an approach would to expect one to already be in place. undoubtedly make the Core Strategy ACTION: Report on SHMA when it unsound. becomes available. MR JOHN The high land costs are always intentionally The role of planning policy is to influence ARMITAGE or otherwise going to drive what is built and the market and meet local needs better. the Local Authority may, due to many ACTION: None required. factors have limited opportunities to influence such decisions. MR GEOFF Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. CAVES MRS ANGELA 1000 for small homes and 1000 for shelter The HNS Study 2002 and its update 2004 HAMILTON home is too large. Whilst CP has an ageing indicate a demand for small properties and population, we've already recently had sheltered units in the quantities specified. shelter homes/retirement apartments built Provision during the period 2001-2006 in Benfleet and Hadleigh. counts towards these targets. ACTION: None required. Higher density in town centres and main Point of view noted. public transport routes will only attract trouble. JOHN PALMBY No up to date housing survey needed. The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MR JONATHAN Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK ANTHONY POPE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JACK TRING Yes but be specific NO MORE FLATS. The HNS 2002, as updated in 2004 Antisocial behaviour will cause school highlights a need for smaller properties closures plus limited parking reduces including flats, as they are under provided prosperity at owners. for in Castle Point. This has resulted in an above average increase in prices for this type of property excluding first time buyers from the market. ACTION: None required. ANONYMOUS Don't understand. You say you are required Confusion noted. There is a requirement to NO 1. to provide 4000 new homes by 2021. In provide at least 4,000 homes in Castle addition you have 1300 households on the Point between 2001 and 2021. Ensuring housing waiting list. Is the the total 4000 or this provision is important in helping the 5300? In either case your housing mix does 1,300 people on the housing waiting list to not equate to ether. As previously stated find somewhere to live. It is anticipated that there is no point in these targets until the the mix of homes will include 1,000 small infrastructure is agreed. units, 1,000 sheltered units and 250 units for people with special needs. It is anticipated that the remainder will be family housing (1,750). ACTION: Provide greater clarity in preamble of Housing Section. Action 1: I suppose you mean flats and These locations offer the best access to apartments. Why put the old, aged and shops, public transport and other services. young in the noisiest, most polluted areas? ACTION: None required. ARGENT HOMES Local housing need should be based on an The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in LTD (c/o Smart up to date housing needs survey. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Planning Ltd) ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MR R. Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH Local housing need should be based on an The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in LTD (c/o Smart up to date housing needs survey. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Planning Ltd) ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MR LESLEY Yes provided an up to date survey upholds The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in EVANS the need. 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. FAIRVIEW NEW Fairview object to the Council’s proposal It is noted that the word specify is used in HOMES (c/o RPS whereby it intends to specify the mix of Action 4. As the end of action 4 indicates Planning) housing types on each site in order to the intention is for any quantities set out in provide guidance for developers (Action 4, the allocations documents to guide page 32). The Council should not be in a negotiations. It is therefore suggested that position to impose a level of restriction on the word “specify” is replaced with housing development that goes well beyond “indicate”. normal responsibilities of planning and the ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. intentions of the original Town & Country Planning Act. FOX LAND AND We consider that the Council’s current The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in PROPERTY LTD estimates should be treated with a high 2004. This clearly indicates a lack fo 1 and (c/o Andrew degree of caution. The Council’s current 2 bedroom properties. This is supported by Martin Associates) estimates for housing mix are based on its affordability analysis that indicates an Housing Needs Study Update 2004. In light above average increase in the cost of 1 and of PPS3 the Council must produce a 2 bedroom properties indicating that Strategic Market Housing Assessment demand is outstripping supply. A SHMA is which provides an up to date robust currently being prepared by the TGSE baseline information for its housing Partnership. The requirement to carry out a requirements in the Borough. It is our that SHMA was only adopted in national policy at present there is an over reliance on the in March 2007 and therefore it is unrealistic deliverability of 1 and 2 bedroom to expect one to already be in place. accommodation. ACTION: Report on SHMA when it becomes available. HICKFORT LTD Local housing need should be based on an The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in (c/o Smart up to date housing needs survey. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Planning Ltd) ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. JETBURY No – Up to date housing survey needed. The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in INVESTMENT 2004. A SHMA is underway. LTD (c/o Savills ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. Plc) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MORRISONS Developers should be encouraged to It is noted that the word specify is used in SUPERMARKETS provide a mix of housing on development Action 4. As the end of action 4 indicates PLC (c/o Rapleys sites to meet local needs and to create the intention is for any quantities set out in LLP) sustainable communities. However, the allocations documents to guide specific mixes should not be prescribed and negotiations. It is therefore suggested that developers should be allowed to respond to the word “specify” is replaced with market needs. “indicate”. ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. MR AND MRS No – The previous housing needs survey is The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in SANDERS out of date. 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. DENIS THOMAS No – More thought is needed e.g. survey The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in etc. 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MRS IRENE No needs survey The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in THOMAS 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MISS MICHELLE No – an up to date housing needs survey The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in THOMAS would be needed to accurately access local 2004. A SHMA is underway. housing needs. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MRS MARIE No – A survey will need to monitor the The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in THOMAS-WHITE housing needs. 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MR GARY WHITE No – A survey should highlight the housing The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in needs/requirements. 2004. A SHMA is underway. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available.

There is a need to carry out further work on this policy section in three regards: 1) Need to address the needs of gypsies and travellers; 2) Need to set out evidence base for targets more explicitly; 3) Need to reword action 4 to meet the concerns of developers.

Following on from this work it will be possible to rework the targets and actions proposed into a policy for the preferred options report.

Housing Affordability and Tenure

The Housing Needs Assessment (2002 and 2004) along with details regarding the current housing waiting list were used to identify targets in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report related to the tenure and affordability of new homes delivered in the Borough. Actions were proposed to assist in the delivery of these targets. The targets proposed were:

Target 1: 1,400 Affordable Homes. Target 2: 50% of affordable homes available for social rent. Target 3: Improve the uptake of shared ownership schemes. The actions proposed to meet these targets were:

Action 1: Require developers to negotiate with the Council regarding the contribution of affordable housing on-site and in kind having regard to thresholds and levels of contribution discussed later in this section; Action 2: Work with Housing Associations to secure the delivery of a mix of general and specialist accommodation available for social rent and shared ownership. Action 3: In making site allocations in the Canvey Area Action Plan and Benfleet, Hadleigh and Thundersley Plan, specify the affordable housing requirement and mix of housing tenures that the Council will expect to see delivered on each site in order to provide guidance to developers when entering negotiations with the Council.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the targets and list of actions proposed for delivering the right number of affordable homes and the right tenure mix in Castle Point. Twenty-three responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment HOUSE The Council should ensure that a proper A SHMA is currently being prepared by the BUILDERS Strategic Housing Market Assessment is TGSE Partnership. The requirement to FEDERATION undertaken with the full involvement of the carry out a SHMA was only adopted in property industry in order to help to more national policy in March 2007 and therefore fully underpin the evidence base for any it is unrealistic to expect one to already be policies and requirements, and to accord in place. with PPS3. ACTION: Report on SHMA when it becomes available. The Council specifies affordable housing It is agreed that 1400 affordable units is not requirements that do not always appear to achievable, however a lower figure would be realistic or viable, or take account of the be out of conformity with RSS14. availability of grant funding. ACTION: Discuss this matter with EERA.

It is seeking to dictate the specific It is noted that the word specify is used in affordable housing mix of each housing Action 3. As the end of action 3 indicates allocation site. Whilst it is appropriate for it the intention is for any quantities set out in to identify which types of provision are most the allocations documents to guide needed and where, it is inappropriate for it negotiations. It is therefore suggested that to set rigid housing mix requirements the word “specify” is replaced with without regard to the nature of the overall “indicate”. development proposed, and other relevant ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. considerations. MR JOHN As already stated the provision of The purpose of planning policy is to ARMITAGE affordable housing will fundamentally influence the housing market. See action 1. depend on land cost and the Local ACTION: None required. Authority may find that they have limited Action 2 seeks partnership working with opportunities to influence this section of the RSL, who can access government grants housing market. Partnerships with the for social housing. Private Sector may be the best way ACTION: None required. forward, provide positive results and achieve affordable housing more quickly. MRS ANGELA Castle Point is not an appropriate place for The HNS 2002 and its update 2004 indicate HAMILTON Affordable Housing. It will increase a need for affordable housing in Castle antisocial behaviour and crime. Point, arising from existing residents. In March 2007 there were around 1300 50% of affordable homes available for households on the Council’s housing social rent is way too high. Perhaps 25%? waiting list – requiring social rent properties. ACTION: Set out information in Housing Topic Paper. JOHN PALMBY No current needs should take precedence. The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MR JONATHAN The targets are not so bad as long as the Support for mixed communities noted. PINNOCK lower cost homes are not located in large ACTION: Introduce the idea of “pepper groups together. They should be distributed potting” more explicitly in Core Strategy. throughout the borough. MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK ANTHONY POPE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ANONYMOUS Affordable for whom. People in Castle Point The HNS 2002 and its update 2004 indicate NO 1. who are on the waiting list or people from a need for affordable housing in Castle East London for example. How will you Point, arising from existing residents. In control that the right people are given March 2007 there were around 1300 priority. households on the Council’s housing waiting list. S106 agreements can ensure affordable housing is used to reducing Housing waiting list. ACTION: Set out information in Housing Topic Paper. ARGENT HOMES The targets are commendable, but must be The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in LTD (c/o Smart based on current need. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in Planning Ltd) March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. DAWS HEATH As for Argent homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Again a survey to be based on current The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in EVANS needs. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. FOX LAND AND It should be ensured that provision does not The policy proposed does not go beyond PROPERTY LTD go beyond requirements set out in National PPS3 requirements. (c/o Andrew Policy guidance. ACTION: None required. Martin Associates) We would caution that the Council prepare It is agreed that 1400 affordable units is not robust information to support 1400 achievable, however a lower figure would affordable units are realistic and be out of conformity with RSS14. deliverable. ACTION: EERA are adamant that affordable housing should make up 35% of With regard to the requirement to provide of housing provision. Given the under 50% of new affordable homes available for provision to date it is not possible to social rent, what is the Council proposing achieve this across the whole plan for the remaining 50%? requirement. It is however possible to achieve following the adoption of policies on affordable housing. The target will therefore be 35% of the remaining provision from 2008 – 2021.

Intermediate housing as specified in the definition of Affordable Housing in PPS3. ACTION: Word the policy more explicitly. GALLEY LAND Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LLP (c/o Grainger Planning Associates Ltd) HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY No – the target for affordable exceeds RSS 1400 affordable homes equates to 35% of INVESTMENT proposals at 40% targets. the Borough’s Housing target. This is in LTD (c/o Savills Do not agree with Action 3 – the council is conformity with the RSS. Plc) not in a position to accurately assess the ACTION: None required. tenure and housing mix for allocation sites. The SHMA will enable the Council to Such assessments must be left with the identify tenure and housing mix for sites private sector and RSL’s to consider each from which negotiations can take place. site on its merit in accord with needs ACTION: Word action 3 more clearly. prevailing at the time. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MORRISONS This should be guided by an assessment of The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in SUPERMARKETS need. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in PLC (c/o Rapleys March 2007 there were 1300 households LLP) on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. Should be based on site specific Action 1 requires negotiations, allowing opportunities and constraints. such matters to be considered. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS No – current needs must be assessed. The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in SANDERS 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. DENIS THOMAS No – today’s needs must come first. The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MRS IRENE No today’s needs must be considered first. The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in THOMAS 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MISS MICHELLE No – Targets should be based on current The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in THOMAS need. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MRS MARIE No – Targets must be based upon current The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in THOMAS-WHITE needs. 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. MR GARY WHITE No targets = needs The Council has a HNS 2002, updated in 2004. A SHMA is underway. Additionally, in March 2007 there were 1300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. ACTION: Report on SHMA when available.

There is a need to carry out further work on this policy section in three regards: 1) Need to set out evidence base for targets more explicitly; 2) Need to discuss an affordable housing target with EERA as RSS target not achievable due to low delivery to date; 3) Need to reword action 4 to meet the concerns of developers.

Following on from this work it will be possible to rework the targets and actions proposed into a policy for the preferred options report.

Affordable Housing Threshold

PPS3 requires the Council to set out the Threshold at which affordable housing contributions will be sought. The national threshold is 15 dwelling units. However, many development sites in Castle Point fall below this level. PPS3 allows the threshold to be reduced if it can be justified.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sought the views of consultees on three different threshold options. These options are set out below:

Option 1: All new dwellings to make an equal contribution. Option 2: All new dwellings to make a contribution, although developments under 15 units in size to make a smaller contribution. Option 3: All developments of 15 dwellings or more to make a contribution.

Twenty-three consultation responses were received regarding these options. The responses are set out below:

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Prefers Option 1: Development has an This comment is out of context with the SERVICES LTD equitable effect on wastewater question posed re: Affordable housing. infrastructure GO-EAST Questions how realistic threshold options The realisations of the threshold options are. vary according to the level of contribution sought. ACTION: Present a model of affordable housing thresholds/levels in the Housing Topic Paper. MR JOHN Prefers option 3: To encourage small Support for option 3 noted. ARMITAGE developments of housing, which are still important and make a valuable contribution to overall provision. MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: Seems fair. Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Prefers option 2 - Other than 1 for 1 Support for option 2 noted. HOWLETT replacement.

JOHN PALMBY Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 1: If housing is spread Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK throughout the borough, options 2 & 3 allow developers off the hook more. MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 1: Maximises potential Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK contributions. JACK TRING Prefers option 1 – The only are that suits Support for option 1 noted. CP. ARGENT HOMES Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. Prefers Option 3 Support for option 3 noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH Prefers option 3: 15 dwellings and above is Support for option 3 noted. LTD (c/o Smart the minimum threshold that should apply. Planning Ltd) Below this threshold is unviable for smaller developments. MR LESLEY Prefers option 3 Support for option 3 noted EVANS FOX LAND AND It is considered that Affordable Household Support for option 3 noted. PROPERTY LTD Threshold Option 3 is broadly supported. (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) HICKFORT LTD Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Preferred option 3 – accords with PPS 3 Support for option 3 noted. INVESTMENT guidance. LTD (c/o Savills Plc) MR AND MRS Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) ROBERT Encouragement of best use of small sites. Uncertain as to which option is supported. LEONARD GROUP (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) MR AND MRS Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. MISS MICHELLE Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Preferred option 3 Support for option 3 noted.

There is clear support for option 3 from developers although residents tended towards options 1 or 2. This split was anticipated and indicates the differing views between those who would benefit from provision and those who would be expected to provide it. In light of this split it is therefore necessary to model likely outputs of the options proposed against the contribution levels to identify the threshold/contribution combination that is most likely to deliver sufficient provision of affordable housing in Castle Point to meet local needs.

Affordable Housing Contribution Level

PPS3 requires local planning authorities to specify the level of affordable housing contribution required from developers in their local development framework. The East of England Plan suggests that at least 35% of all new homes in the East of England should be affordable. This would equate to 1400 homes in Castle Point. In order to go someway in achieving this through developer contributions the following contribution level options were suggested in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report.

Option 1: 35% of dwellings on site. Option 2: For developments under 15 – 20% of dwellings on site. For developments 15+ - 35% of dwellings on site. Option 3: 40% of dwellings on site.

The views of consultees were sought on these options. Twenty-five responses were received. They are set out below.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment NATURAL The adequacy of the green space This comment is out of context with the ENGLAND provision and biodiversity requirements question posed re: Affordable housing should be taken into account, wherever levels versus overall provision. possible. MR JOHN Prefers option 2: An economic viability test Support for option 2 noted. ARMITAGE may always prove important. MRS ANGELA Prefers Option 2: seems fair. Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Not that simple. Uncertain as to option supported. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Prefers option 1: Based upon viability in Support for option 1 noted. relation to contaminated. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 3: Developers make Support for option 3 noted. PINNOCK significant profits and should put some of it back into the community. MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 3: Maximises potential Support for option 3 noted. PINNOCK contributions. JACK TRING Prefers option 1- The only one that suits Support for option 1 noted. CP. ARGENT HOMES Prefers option 1: Argent Homes Limited Support for option 1 noted. LTD (c/o Smart support the application of the proposed Planning) economic viability test whereby the level of developer contribution is adjusted in accordance with the level of contamination. MR R. Prefers Option 2 Support for option 2 noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning) MR LESLEY Prefers option 1 Support for option 1 noted. EVANS FAIRVIEW NEW Fairview object to the Council’s PPS3 requires local authorities to set local HOMES (c/o RPS proposal to specify a quantum of targets for the provision of affordable Planning) affordable housing required for housing. It is clear from the actions residential development (Options 1, 2 proposed in the Tenure mix and and 3, page 33). This could have a Affordability section that the actual level of detrimental effect on the viability of provision will be the subject of negotiation – development and may prohibit, if applied i.e. not a requirement but a starting point. inflexibly without having the regard to the ACTION: None required. merits of each case, housing development in the area.

PPS3 stipulates that planning authorities An economic viability test is proposed as will need to undertake an informed part of the Issues and Options Report. assessment of the economic viability of ACTION: None required. any thresholds and proportions of affordable housing proposed, including their likely impact upon overall levels of housing delivery and creating mixed communities. FOX LAND AND We broadly support Option 1, Support for option 1 is noted. PROPERTY LTD (c/o Andrew However we would caution by the It is agreed that 1400 affordable units is not Martin Associates) Council’s own estimates that the delivery achievable, however a lower figure would of affordable housing under this option is be out of conformity with RSS14. likely to be 750 units which is 650 short of ACTION: Discuss this matter with EERA. its identified needs over the Plan period.

We would caution that it is the Housing PPS3 was only adopted as national policy Needs Study Update 2004 is current in March 2007. It is unreasonable to expect evidence base which sets this target of a SHMA in place already. The TGSE is in 35% for the borough. PPS3 stipulates that the process of preparing one. Strategic Market Housing Assessments ACTION: Report on SHMA when available. should provide the baseline data to set the target for affordable housing. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning) JETBURY Contribution should accord with RSS All options can conform to RSS target INVESTMENT target but subject to consideration of site depending on the threshold applied. An LTD (c/o Savills circumstances and viability appraisal. economic viability test is proposed. Plc) ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MORRISIONS It is considered that a requirement of 30% The level proposed is unlikely to meet local SUPERMARKETS affordable housing would be appropriate. needs. It is also not in conformity with the PLC (c/o Rapleys RSS. LLP) ACTION: Set out contribution level model in Housing Topic Paper. ROBERT Encouragement of best use of small sites. Uncertain as to which option is supported. LEONARD GROUP (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Prefer Option 1. Developers must be fair Support for option 1 noted. and so must the Council. MRS IRENE Council and developers must work Uncertain as to option supported. THOMAS together and share costs. MISS MICHELLE Prefers option 1 – Contribution could be Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS adjusted in accordance with contamination levels. MRS MARIE Prefers option 1 – Contribution in Support for option 1 Noted. THOMAS-WHITE proportion to the level of contamination. MR GARY WHITE Preferred option 1 Support for option 1 supported.

There is clear support for option 1 from developers although residents tended towards options 2 or 3. This split was anticipated and indicates the differing views between those who would benefit from provision and those who would be expected to provide it. In light of this split it is therefore necessary to model likely outputs of the options proposed against the thresholds to identify the threshold/contribution combination that is most likely to deliver sufficient provision of affordable housing in Castle Point to meet local needs.

An economic viability test, as set out in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report and explained in more detail in the Technical Report will also be developed further and set out in the Preferred Options Report as part of the Monitoring and Implementation Framework. Enhancing the Natural Environment

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report found that a policy on enhancing the natural environment is necessary to ensure that the diverse and unique natural environment of the Borough is recognised, protected and enhanced. Actions, as set out below were proposed in the report to achieve this:

Actions to Protect the Natural Environment Action 1: Having regard to international, national and local designations, resist development locations which threaten the integrity of biodiversity, habitats and the landscape. Action 2: Use an environmental baseline as set out in PPS9 to identify sites for development that have the least effect on the natural environment. Action 3: Ensure the retention of natural features such as trees, hedgerows, woodlands, landscape features and water features on development sites.

Actions to Enhance Natural Environment Action 1: Work in partnership to conserve and enhance significant nature conservation and landscape interests to ensure that targets for SSSI condition, biodiversity protection, green infrastructure provision and landscape enhancement are met. Action 2: Work in partnership to deliver strategic opportunities arising through the Thames Gateway South Essex Green Grid Strategy including Benfleet Creek; Canvey Heights; Canvey Lake; and Canvey Seafront. Action 3: Work in partnership with the RSPB to secure access to informal recreation opportunities at Canvey Marshes, whilst enhancing biodiversity in this important wildlife area. Action 4: Work in partnership and seek contributions to enhance connectivity between the built and natural environments by planning for and delivering a network of Greenways and strategic rights of way that link the townscape and open spaces with the wider natural environment.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for protecting and enhancing the natural environment in Castle Point. Thirty-two responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES EERA Suggest a change to incorporate It is agreed that this section is an geological conservation in this section, to appropriate place to include geological ensure consistency with policy ENV3 of conservation and consideration will be Proposed Changes Document. given to this matter. ACTION: Consider wording of this section in light of RSS policy ENV3. ENVIRONMENT We support the need for a policy in this Support for proposed actions noted. AGENCY section and confirm that we are satisfied that the report has considered the key issues regarding this matter. NATURAL Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ENGLAND ESSEX WILDLIFE Supports the actions proposed. Support for actions proposed noted. TRUST Due to the ecological sensitivity of the The Council will organise a meeting with coastline in Castle Point Borough, the nature conservation interests to discuss Waterfront Strategy should be subject to Appropriate Assessment. Appropriate Assessment under the ACTION: Screen Core Strategy to assess Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) the requirement for an appropriate Regulations 1994 and Amendments 2000 assessment. (the “Habitats Regulations”). RSPB Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for the proposed actions noted. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MR B.J. BRAZIER Agree with the actions listed BUT an The proposed wording is too specific with additional action to protect the Natural regard to a strategic policy and repeats Environment should be included national legislation regarding TPOs. As a result it will not be included in the Action 4: Working in partnership with preferred options report in the proposed conservation and community groups, form. Consideration will however be given review all existing trees, hedgerows, to rewording action 3 in order to capture woodlands etc and make Tree the essence of this comment. Preservation Orders where specific ACTION: Consider the rewording of action examples contribute to the visual or 3. wildlife amenity of the Borough or where a threat to their well-being is suspected or perceived. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN In addition to the stated actions I would The area is a local Wildlife Site and as PINNOCK like to see the Green space between New such actions 1 and 3 provide protection. Thundersley, the A130 and the A127 Specific reference to this area is not maintained and hopefully improved. This therefore required here. It is however will continue to provide not only wildlife referred with regard to the Green Belt habitats but a "green gap" between this Section later. borough and Basildon. If Basildon Council ACTION: None required. should ever choose to develop west of the A130, this would be our only protection against conurbation. MRS GILLIAN I agree with the actions mentioned but The area is a local Wildlife Site and as PINNOCK would like the area to the west/north-west such actions 1 and 3 provide protection. of Benfleet added to the list as it not only Specific reference to this area is not needs protecting but also enhancing. therefore required here. It is however referred with regard to the Green Belt Section later. ACTION: None required. MRS HAZEL Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Grading as SSSI seems to have no effect. The landowners – Morrisons and EEDA See what is happening at Canvey Wick. are working together to secure the Canvey Wick Site from illegal Motorcyclists. ACTION: None required. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY Such requirements, other than in regard to The actions set out are not site specific INVESTMENT LTD international and national designations, and focus on protection and enhancement (c/o Savills Plc) must be applies on a site basis in of the natural environment. They are accordance with proposals for mitigation therefore flexible if site and development and or improvement if natural features are proposals respect the natural environment. to be removed. Development may make a ACTION: None required. positive contribution to biodiversity and enhance the natural environment. Appropriate sites for development must be made in respect of sustainable development considerations and may require a balance judgement between competing interests. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MORRISIONS Whilst the need to protect SSSI’s is fully It is a responsibility of the Local Planning SUPERMARKETS acknowledged, they should not be used as Authority to protect SSSIs from PLC (c/o Rapleys) a blanket restriction to development as in development that may result in harm. As a some circumstances there may be other result many developments will be objectives and needs which support the restricted. Where other objectives are development in such locations. The considered important the Council will work justification for such development should with English Nature to see if a solution can be supported by evidence. be identified. ACTION: Consider the wording of Action 1. MR AND MRS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted.

There is general support for the actions proposed to protect and enhance the natural environment. Some minor word changes are required to reflect specific concerns of interest groups but otherwise the actions proposed will be carried forward in a policy format into the preferred options report. Enhancing the Built and Historic Environment

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report found that a policy on enhancing the built and historic environment is necessary to protect positive characteristics and improve the quality of the built environment in areas that lack character or quality. Actions, as set out below were proposed in the report to achieve this:

Actions to Protect the Built Environment Action 1: Protect the built and historic environment from significant adverse effects arising from development. Action 2: Protect and enhance the suburban streetscene in residential areas, having regard to the desire to secure high levels of residential amenity.

Actions to Enhance the Built Environment Action 1: Improve the quality of the urban environment in the town centres by preparing and implementing Town Centre Plans. Action 2: Improve the quality of the urban environment in employment areas in partnership with businesses and other service providers. Action 3: In partnership with property owners, developers and the wider community enhance the quality, accessibility and legibility of the historic environment. Action 4: Secure good quality landscaping as part of all new development and require developers to contribute towards open space, public art and street furniture in appropriate locations. Action 5: Through the development of Generic Development Control Policies and Urban Design Standards Guidance, secure developments that are of a sustainable, high quality design that induce identity and sense of place, and accentuate the unique characteristics of the Borough. Action 6: Secure developments which are designed in favour of pedestrian movement and provide adequate levels of off-street parking, as specified in the vehicle parking standards, without dominating the streetscene.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for protecting and enhancing the built and historic environment in Castle Point. Thirty-one responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES EERA Add text to clarify the standard of the Consistency with RSS noted. evidence base to support this area of policy. The text is consistent with policy Evidence base will be clearly set out in ENV6 of the Proposed Changes future reports. Document. ACTION: Set out evidence base is Preferred Options Report. ENGLISH We support the actions proposed but Support for proposed actions noted. HERITAGE suggest some strengthening: - Since ‘built environment’ does not Agree with proposed amendment to always cover archaeological headings. remains we suggest that ‘historic ACTION: Amend headings accordingly. environment’ should be added to the two headings with actions listed under them. - In the first set of Actions, it would Agreed that the inclusion of the word be better to omit ‘significant’ as a significant would allow harm. qualification of ‘adverse impact’ in ACTION: Consider how wording can be Action 1, since this establishes amended. acceptance of some harm as a standard. Action 1 should also seek enhancement as in Action 2. - In the second set of Actions, a It is agreed that archaeological remains commitment to safeguarding should be offered protection, however this archaeological remains should be would be more appropriately located under included. “Protecting the Built and Historic Environment”. ACTION: Revise action list accordingly. ENVIRONMENT The Actions proposed to enhance the built This issue is addressed in the “Achieving AGENCY environment do not include sustainable Sustainable Development” section. There construction techniques. We recommend is no need to readdress it here. that a seventh action be included to ACTION: None required. address this issue, since it would affect all development proposed within the Borough. ESSEX COUNTY – The first block should preferably read, Agree with proposed amendment to COUNCIL ‘Actions to protect the Built and Historic headings. Environment’. ACTION: Amend headings accordingly.

GO-EAST Some of the actions suggested in this part It is noted that there is some overlap of the report relate more to the detailed between this policy and the DC policies management of development, and indeed exist. This will be addressed in the overlap with some of the material intended preferred options report. to be covered by the development control ACTION: Review actions and ensure they policies (e.g. the actions to are in the correct part of the document. protect/enhance the built environment). MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE CHRISTOPHER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA More could be made of the histories sites The need to provide further protection for GUNN especially on Canvey – Where have all the historic environment is noted. gone? ACTION: Consider actions that achieve this in the Preferred options report. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JENIFER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK ANTHONY POPE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS HAZEL Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Yes except you have done nothing about This response is out of context with the the destruction of the SSSI site of Canvey question posed. Wick. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning) MR R. BEAUMONT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY Action 2 is not based on national planning Sustainable communities are focused on INVESTMENT LTD policy principles or rational planning creating places where people want to live. (c/o Savills Plc) considerations. Protection of an area Good quality suburban residential areas should not be maintained as is just are an important aspect of why people live because it exists. Change from in Castle Point, making it one of the best development can deliver improvement. places in England to raise a family. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted.

There is general support for the actions proposed to Protect and Enhance the Built environment, although minor amendments are needed to ensure the policy also covers the Historic Environment adequately too. Additionally, GO-East noted some overlap between this policy and the Generic DC Policies that need to be addressed as part of the preferred options report. Protecting Open Land: The Green Belt

A policy on protecting open land, including the Green Belt, was considered necessary by the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report to ensure that the countryside that enhances the character of Castle Point and prevents towns within the Borough and beyond from merging is protected from development.

It was considered that there should be three aspects to such a policy: 1) Protection of the Green Belt 2) Review of the Green Belt 3) Positive Projects in the Green Belt

Protection of the Green Belt

In order to provide protection of the Green Belt through the Core Strategy it is necessary to ensure appropriate policy is in place. Two options were considered in this regard:

Option 1: Rely on national policy to limit development supported by local guidance. Option 2: Provide local detailed guidance to protect the green belt, setting out detailed design and size parameters.

The views of consultees were sought on these options. Thirty-three responses were received. They are set out below.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment NATURAL Cannot advise at this stage. Need to Sustainability concerns noted. ENGLAND ensure approach ensures delivery of sustainability objectives. ESSEX Both options should ensure protection of Concerns regarding the protection of the WILDLIFE the wider countryside, which is likely to countryside and wildlife noted. TRUST have positive impact on biodiversity protection, as long as it does not cause the displacement of development onto sites with higher biodiversity / landscape value. RSPB Would prefer to see option 2 pursued as Support for option 2 noted. the preferred option. Although national policy should govern decision-making, we believe local guidance is needed to ensure protection to the most sensitive areas of greenbelt. MR JOHN Prefers option 2: Provide local detailed Support for option 2 noted. ARMITAGE guidance which should always be supported by National Policy. MR B.J. Prefers option 1: Local guidance needs to Support for option 1 noted. BRAZIER be clear and unambiguous, NOT including vague wording such as "on its own merits" Support for clear local guidance noted. which can give rise to loose or subjective interpretation. MR GEOFF Existing guidelines are adequate to protect Support for retaining existing green belt CAVES Greenbelt. policies noted. CHRISTOPHER Preferred option 1 – In line with national Support for option 1 noted. GRANT policy for protecting green belt. MRS PATRICIA At all costs! Uncertain as to the option preferred. GUNN MRS ANGELA Prefers option 1: Green Belt should Support for option 1 noted. HAMILTON definitely be protected from developers and the national policy should be strong enough Support for strong protection noted. to do this, if rules are adhered to. MS Current policies should continue to protect Support for retaining existing green belt FRANCOISE the green belt. policies noted. MONTEIL JOHN PALMBY Option 1. Support for option 1 noted. National policy covering this item. MR JONATHAN The current Green Belt extent should be This response is out of context with the PINNOCK maintained. Reviews will allow developers question posed. to influence and diminish the extent. MRS GILLIAN The current extent of the Green Belt This response is out of context with the PINNOCK shouldn't be reduced. question posed. MRS ANNE The Green Belt should continue to be Support for retaining existing green belt POPE protected by the policies currently in place. policies noted. ANTHONY Preferred Option 2- Local residents know Support for option 2 noted. POPE the district. MRS HAZEL Prefers option 1 – National guidance. Support for option 1 noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Preferred option 2 – CP have a resort of Support for option 2 noted. developing on the Green Belt e.g Waterside form and the council offices. ARGENT Prefers Options 1: PPG2 (Green Belts) Support for option 1 noted. HOMES LTD provides the relevant National policy (c/o Smart guidance for protecting the Green Belt. Planning Ltd) Local guidance should support this. MR R. Prefers option 2. Adhering to National Support for option 2 noted. BEAUMONT Policy will not provide for sustainable (c/o John Bishop development whereas there are small Partnership) areas of green Belt close to residential areas that could with careful planning contribute to housing DAWS HEATH Prefers Options 1: PPG2 (Green Belts) Support for option 1 noted. LTD (c/o Smart provides the relevant National policy Planning Ltd) guidance for protecting the Green Belt. Local guidance should support this. MR LESLEY Prefers option 1 Support for option 1 noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND We understand the principle of the policy Support for option 1 is noted. PROPERTY and broadly support Option 1. PPG2 is LTD (c/o Andrew clear in its approach to controlling Martin development within the Green Belt. The Associates) Council’s attention is drawn to paragraphs 2.28 to 2.30 of PPS12 and the need to ensure that the suite of policies is limited and of direct relevance to the content of the LDF.

Option 2 is therefore unnecessary and contrary to the objectives of PPS12 which seeks to simplify LDDs by avoiding repetition of national policies and objectives. GALLEY LAND Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 is noted. LLP (c/o Grainger Planning Associates Ltd) HICKFORT LTD Prefers Options 1: PPG2 (Green Belts) Support for option 1 is noted. (c/o Smart provides the relevant National policy Planning Ltd) guidance for protecting the Green Belt. Local guidance should support this. JETBURY Preferred option 1 – Option 1 is secured by Support for option 1 is noted. INVESTMENT application of national planning policy – LTD (c/o Savills local policies are unnecessary in the LDF Plc) process and objective of simplifying the planning process. MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 is noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) ROBERT Reflect local circumstances. Uncertain as to the option preferred. LEONARD GROUP (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. SANDERS DENIS Option 1. National policy should be used / Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS supported by local guidelines (there is green belt and green belt?) MRS IRENE Preferred option 1 - Some Green Belt is not Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS used by the public and in locations not seen by the public. MISS Preferred option 1 – Green Belt should be Support for option 1 noted. MICHELLE protected in accordance to PPG 2. THOMAS MRS MARIE Prefers option 1 – Local guidance should Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS- support PPG2 WHITE MR GARY Preferred option 1 – The local guidance Support for option 1 noted. WHITE should be as per the PPG2.

With regard to protecting the Green Belt there was strong support for option 1 (although numbers are influenced by developers and landowners), although option 2 was also supported by a number of consultees. There is therefore a need to give further consideration to this matter in a topic paper in order that a preferred option can be identified for the Preferred Options Report.

Reviewing the Green Belt

In order to ensure that the Green Belt is fulfilling its function, whilst concentrating on issues that are important in Castle Point it is necessary to set out a strategy for reviewing the Green Belt. Two options were considered in the Issues and Options Report in this regard:

Option 1: A full review of the Green Belt in Castle Point covering the whole borough. Option 2: A review solely focused on specific locations for new development as identified in the spatial strategy.

The views of consultees were sought on these options. Forty responses were received. They are set out below.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment EERA Option 1 is not consistent with policy SS7 Noted that Option 1 is not consistent with of the Proposed Changes Document. RSS. Other than this, the text is consistent with the Proposed Changes Document. ENVIRONMENT A review of the Green Belt around Support for limited review of green belt AGENCY locations allocated for new development noted. may be sufficient to ensure that this land is still performing the purpose for which it has been protected. We also recommend that consideration be made for large infrastructure projects that will be required within the Borough over the next 15 years. NATURAL Cannot advise at this stage. Need to Support for consideration of sustainability ENGLAND ensure approach ensures delivery of objectives noted. sustainability objectives. ESSEX WILDLIFE Option 2 seems the logical approach as it Support for option 2 noted. TRUST is in compliance with PPS3. HOUSE BUILDERS The HBF considers that a full review of the Support for option 1 noted. FEDERATION Green Belt in Castle Point is desirable (Option 1). MR JOHN Prefers option 1: full review of the Green Support for option 1 noted. ARMITAGE Belt and controlled adjustment within Castle Point is now required. MR B.J. BRAZIER Prefers option 2: The Regional Spatial Support for option 2 noted. Strategy process rejected the necessity for a full review of the Green Belt for this part of Essex. MR GEOFF Already have enough information on Does not wish to see green belt reviewed CAVES greenbelt to make decisions. at all. CHRISTOPHER Preferred option 2 – As per the Baker Support for option 2 noted. GRANT review recently published. MRS PATRICIA I agree with Ms Howlett! Does not wish to see green belt reviewed GUNN at all. MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: To disrupt as little as Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON possible. JENIFER Neither. The Green Belt boundaries are Does not wish to see green belt reviewed HOWLETT fine as they are- unless more land can be at all. included. MS FRANCOISE There is no need for a review of the green Does not wish to see green belt reviewed MONTEIL belt at this time. at all. JOHN PALMBY Option 2. Support for option 2 noted. For the reasons outlined in the Barker review. MR JONATHAN The current Green Belt extent should not Does not wish to see green belt reviewed PINNOCK be altered, therefore there is no need for a at all. costly review. MRS GILLIAN The current extent of the Green Belt Does not wish to see green belt reviewed PINNOCK shouldn't be reduced. at all. MRS ANNE POPE The East of England draft plan has It is agreed that a review of the green belt recommended the deletion of a need to would be inconsistent with the East of review the Green Belt in Thames Gateway England Plan. However, it is not possible South Essex at this time. to achieve the target for homes in the East of England Plan without a review of some kind. ACTION: None required. ANTHONY POPE Preferred option 2- Green Belt essentially Support for option 2 noted. to be preserved. MRS HAZEL Prefers option 2 – Green belt development Support for option 2 noted. STAFFORD is not always detrimental to the environment & sustainability mean living locally. JACK TRING Preferred option 1 – The only sensible one Support for option 1 noted. for the residents of CP. Everything seems to be based towards Canvey – 3rd class logistics. ARGENT HOMES Prefers option 2: Argent Homes Limited Support for option 2 noted. LTD (c/o Smart support a review solely focused on specific Planning Ltd) locations for new development in the most sustainable locations as identified in the spatial strategy. This is supported in the Barker Review. MR R. BEAUMONT Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH LTD Prefers option 2: Argent Homes Limited Support for option 2 noted. (c/o Smart Planning support a review solely focused on specific Ltd) locations for new development in the most sustainable locations as identified in the spatial strategy. MR LESLEY Preferred option 2 – as per PPS3, give or Support for option 2 noted. EVANS take. FOX LAND AND We support fully the Councils policy to Support for option 2 noted. PROPERTY LTD undertake a Strategic Review of the Green (c/o Andrew Martin Belt (Option 2), reviewing only Green Belt Associates) locations identified in the spatial strategy as potential for future development. GALLEY LAND Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. LLP (c/o Grainger Planning Associates Ltd) HICKFORT LTD Prefers option 2: Hickfort Limited support a Support for option 2 noted. (c/o Smart Planning review solely focused on specific locations Ltd) for new development in the most sustainable locations as identified in the spatial strategy. HOLLOWELL LTD A review of the Green Belt will identify Uncertain as to the option supported. (c/o Roger sites which do not perform a Green Belt Bullworthy function. Associates) JETBURY Either option could be pursued but it would Support for a sustainable approach to INVESTMENT LTD be rational in the context of sustainable selecting sites for development noted. (c/o Savills Plc) policies to support sustainable town & places and accommodating new jobs and homes. MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR LITMAN (c/o We would be happy to support a targeted Support for option 2 noted. JB Planning review of the Green Belt, provided that the Associates) areas selected for study at the Site Allocations stage are the subject of proper testing and a proper rationale as part of the Core Strategy.

It may well be possible to meet the Support for small localised amendments to Council's development requirement via the green belt boundary noted. small localised amendments to the boundary, that do not have significant impacts on the Green Belt, either individually or cumulatively. MORRISIONS it is important that the Green Belt Uncertain as to the option supported. SUPERMARKETS boundaries are reviewed to enable the PLC (c/o Rapleys Borough to provide for the appropriate LLP) housing and employment needs. NATIONAL GRID Option 2 is preferred because it would be Support for option 2 noted. PROPERTY consistent with the established guidance HOLDINGS LTD contained in PPS 3 and, as the Council (c/o Planning has acknowledged, would involve Perspectives) reviewing the Green Belt only in those locations identified in the spatial strategy for potential future development. MR REEVES (c/o It is considered that some greenbelt land Uncertain as to the option supported. Strutt and Parker) should be released where suitable sustainable sites for housing development are identified. ROBERT Comprehensive flexibility. Uncertain as to the option supported. LEONARD GROUP (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) MR AND MRS Preferred option 2. New developments in Support for option 2 noted. SANDERS the most sustainable locations, taking into account the flood risk assessment. DENIS THOMAS Option 2. Specific locations should be Support for option 2 noted. looked at e.g. most sustainable locations used first. MRS IRENE Preferred option 2 - Saleable locations Support for option 2 noted. THOMAS used first. MRS MARIE Prefers option 2 – The most sustainable Support for option 2 noted. THOMAS-WHITE locations should be identified. MR GARY WHITE Preferred option 2 – The most sustainable Support for option 2 noted. locations should be chosen.

The majority of respondents supported option 2 with regard to a review of the green belt, which is consistent with the Regional Spatial Strategy. However, it is noted that a number of residents did not wish to see the Green Belt reviewed at all and therefore this option needs to be revised in order to address the concerns of these residents as far as is possible before being presented in the preferred options report.

Positive Projects in the Green Belt

PPG2 highlights the positive role that the Green Belt can play in delivering sustainable communities including offering opportunities for recreation and protecting wildlife and the landscape. Opportunities to achieve this exist in Castle Point and actions are proposed to capture these opportunities:

Action 1: Continued development and enhancement of Canvey Heights Country Park; Action 2: Improvement to the quality and accessibility of the open land to the West of Canvey through the development of informal recreational opportunities at West Canvey Marshes; and Action 3: Improvement of the landscape to the North of New Thundersley through the enforcement of development control and the development and delivery of a landscape improvement plan.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for enabling positive projects in the Green Belt. Five responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ESSEX The 3 Actions should help to deliver positive Supports the actions proposed. WILDLIFE benefits for biodiversity and people. TRUST RSPB The RSPB supports appropriate Concerns regarding the impact on development. This development should act biodiversity noted. to enhance the biodiversity of the greenbelt ACTION: amend wording accordingly to and access to green space, rather than address concerns. compromise its value. MR B.J. With reference to the "Positive Projects in the Support for action 3 noted. It is agreed that BRAZIER Green Belt" on page 36 of the Issues and nothing has been done to-date with regard to Options Report, Action 3 (Improvement of this area. This will be addressed through the the landscape to the north of New LDF. Thundersley) is particularly welcome. This ACTION: None required. area was included in earlier Local Plans as a "Landscape Improvement Area", but nothing so far has materialised. MR GEOFF What is 'Action 3' in the Positive Projects in Action 3 is not associated with the proposed CAVES greenbelt? If this is in conjunction with the redevelopment of the N.W. Benfleet plotland Hickfort scheme, then it is not a 'positive area. It is concerned with environmental project' and be deleted as an action. enhancement of the existing area. ACTION: None required. MRS ANNE With regard to action 3 The location needs to It is agreed that action 3 could be amended POPE be defined along with the statement. ‘The to provide more detail. It is also possible to development of a landscape improvement provide a map of the location referred to. plan.’ ACTION: Amend action 3 accordingly.

The actions proposed for positive projects in the Green Belt were generally supported although there were some concerns raised with regard to action 3 that can be addressed through re-wording before being presented in the Preferred Options Report. Optimising Land Use

An important aspect of achieving sustainable development is making the m9ost efficient use of resources, in particular land. As a result it is considered necessary to include a policy on optimising land use in the core strategy. This is also in line with the requirements of PPS3, which requires local development frameworks to set out required development densities for housing.

With regard to the policy on optimising land use, two distinct areas were considered: 1) Development Densities; and 2) Actions for optimising land use on large sites.

Development Densities

PPS3 establishes a minimum development density of 30 dwelling units per hectare. However, through design and in certain locations it is possible to achieve higher densities, potentially achieving greater levels of sustainability by increasing the catchment population for services. The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report therefore set out options for development densities in Castle Point:

Option 1: Ensure that all new residential developments meet or exceed the dwelling density of 30 dwelling units per hectare. Option 2: Ensure that all new residential developments meet or exceed the dwelling density of 65 dwelling units per hectare. Option 3: Require new developments to meet or exceed different density standards depending on their location as follows: Town Centres and main road frontages – 65 dwelling units per hectare. Small sites in existing residential areas – 30 dwelling units per hectare. Large sites beyond a main road frontage – 50 dwelling units per hectare.

The views of consultees were sought on these options. Thirty-one responses were received. They are set out below.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Densities on Brownfield sites should take This issue is an infrastructure requirement WATER into account existing use and capacity of that should be considered as part of the SERVICES LTD existing wastewater infrastructure. package for a site on an individual bases. ACTION: Consider in development considerations section. GO-EAST Questions how realistic density options are. The evidence base, which include the UPS will be set out in the preferred options document. ACTION: Ensure evidence base is clear in preferred options report. NATURAL Cannot advise at this stage. Need to ensure This is an issue covered by the natural ENGLAND that accessible natural greenspace environment and open space sections of provision is adequate, and that accounts for the report. ecological sensitivity of location. ACTION: None required. HOUSE Options 2 & 3 include minimum densities of It is agreed that in some locations these BUILDERS 50 and 65 dwellings per hectare. Such high densities would be inappropriate and it is FEDERATION densities are not always going to be therefore considered necessary to make the appropriate or desirable even in town policy eventually taken forward more centres, main road frontages, and on large complex to reflect this. sites. ACTION: Amend policy wording appropriately. Such high-densities may well exclude These densities are not so high as to provision of family housing, as required by exclude family housing. Flatted PPS3. developments in Castle Point are often at densities far higher than these, providing flexibility. ACTION: Set out density evidence base in preferred options report. MR JOHN Prefers option 3: Although higher town Support for option 3 noted – potential for ARMITAGE centre densities should possibly be higher targets also noted. considered in town centres to actively discourage car usage, say 65 - 90 units per hectare. MR B.J. Option 3 will give the opportunity to vary Support for option 3 noted. BRAZIER density according to the type of location.

The figure of 50 dwellings per hectare for Preference for a lower density on large sites large sites beyond a main road frontage noted. could be seen as a little high, perhaps a figure of 45 per hectare is more reasonable. MR GEOFF Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. CAVES MRS ANGELA Prefers option 3: Keep the development to Support for option 3 noted. HAMILTON town centres - less imposing on existing residential areas. JENIFER Prefers option 3 – I believe the local plan Support for option 3 noted. HOWLETT policy restricting development to a minimum Design SPG will be revised as part of Urban of 30ft frontages should be reviewed. Design Standards SPD. ACTION: None required. JOHN PALMBY Option 1. The National guide policy should Support for option 1 noted. prevail. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 3. Appears to be a sensible Support for option 3 noted. PINNOCK compromise. MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 1: Consistent with existing Support for option 1 noted. PINNOCK density. MRS HAZEL Prefers option 1 – New developments must Support for option 1 noted. STAFFORD be sustainable & affordable. JACK TRING Preferred option 3 – The only sensible one. Support for option 3 noted. ARGENT Prefers option 1: PPS3 (Housing) confirms Support for option 1 noted. HOMES LTD that 30 dwellings per hectare should be (c/o Smart used as a national indicative minimum to Planning Ltd0 guide policy development and decision making. Each development site has different physical constraints, and therefore it is more appropriate to use a national indicative minimum as a baseline, and increase densities on a site specific basis depending on its characteristics. MR R. Prefers option 3. This is more appropriate Support for option 3 noted. BEAUMONT (c/o level to protect the character of the area. John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd0 MR LESLEY Prefers option 1 Support for option 1 noted. EVANS FAIRVIEW NEW Fairview request that the Council’s housing The Council is aware of national policy and HOMES (c/o density policy should accord with national seeks to make the best use of land by RPS Planning) planning guidance, PPS3. Paragraph 47 of identifying a density policy that would PPS3 states that “the indicative national achieve this. minimum density of 30 dwellings per ACTION: None required. hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum”. Paragraph 46 goes on to state that LPAs should develop housing density policies such as having regard to “the level of housing demand and need and the availability of suitable land in the area”. FOX LAND AND Option 1 is broadly supported. In is in Support for option 1 is noted. PROPERTY LTD accordance with PPS3 which sets out that (c/o Andrew the density of 30 dwellings per hectare Martin should be used as a national indicative Associates) minimum to guide decision making. Further, PPS3 is clear in its commitment to making effective and efficient use of land available that is paramount.

Density maximums should not be fixed and The proposed options did not set density should be established through the maximums. development control process. PPS3 states ACTION: None required. that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Preferred none of the above – None the Option 1 is PPS3 minimum. INVESTMENT policy must apply PPS3 minimum densities ACTION: None required. LTD (c/o Savills of 30 dph and therefore consider densities Plc) in accordance with sustainability criteria/ PTAL ratings and particular site circumstances. MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. Support for option 1 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) NATIONAL A combination of Options 1 and Option 2 is Support for option 1 noted with GRID probably the most appropriate. Provided sustainability criteria used to seek higher PROPERTY there is a clear recognition that all new densities on specific sites. HOLDINGS LTD residential development should be expected ACTION: Make policy wording more (c/o Planning to either meet or exceed the minimum complex. Perspectives) dwelling density of 30 dwellings per hectare, sites can then be assessed on their own respective merits in terms of their ability to accommodate higher density development in a sustainable manner. MR REEVES Density should depend on the location of Uncertain as the option preferred. (c/o Strutt and the sites. Parker) MR AND MRS Prefers option 1. The development must be Support for option 1 noted. SANDERS sustainable and include affordable family and executive dwellings – 30 dwellings per hectare should be the minimum guidance. DENIS THOMAS Option 1. Maximum use to meet all needs, Support for option 1 noted. use national minimum and when possible maximise land available. MRS IRENE Preferred option 1 – Maximum use of land Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS to help our children to get homes & jobs. MISS MICHELLE Preferred option 2 – The most sustainable Support for option 2 noted. THOMAS need to be identified. MRS MARIE Preferred option 1 – PPS3 indicates 30 Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS- dwellings per hectare but a national WHITE indicative minimum would be more appropriate. MR GARY PPG3 = 30 dwellings per hectare but a Uncertain as to the option supported. WHITE national indicative minimum may be better suited.

There is mixed support for the options proposed for development densities. Both option 1 and option 3 are supported by consultees, with residents seeking the best use of land whilst developers are seeking flexibility offered by lower densities. It would appear that a smarter policy is needed which combines these two options and a topic paper will be used to find the best way forward in this regard. The preferred options report will set out the revised policy.

Optimising Land Use on Large Sites

Large sites if developed with the right mix of development and supported by the right infrastructure can be made more sustainable. As a result, actions are proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report for encouraging large sites to be better developed in terms of optimising their land use:

Action 1: The Council will ensure that there is an appropriate mix of sizes, types and designs of residential or business units within large development sites to optimise usage of the site and meet local needs. Action 2: The Council should require development to be phased in order that the necessary infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion that optimises usage of the development site. Action 3: The Council should seek to optimise land use by encouraging the comprehensive development of larger sites in order to ensure that the layout of development is efficient and that all infrastructure requirements are delivered.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for enabling optimising land use on large sites. Twenty-five responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ESSEX Suggest adding a second sentence: Where Whilst agreeing with the sentiment of the COUNTY appropriate, the layout of the development wording proposed it is too detailed for the COUNCIL on these sites should enable priority policy in question and should be part of the access for public transport, pedestrian and design and setting policy. cycling movements from the outset. ACTION: Consider response as part of design and setting policy. NATURAL Cannot advise at this stage. Need to This response is out of context with the ENGLAND ensure that accessible natural greenspace actions under consideration. provision is adequate, and accounts for ecological sensitivity of location & biodiversity significance of the site. Conserving in situ where possible is usually a preferred option. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MR B.J. Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. BRAZIER CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA If so much development has to take place, Supports for the proposed actions noted. HAMILTON then the actions sound appropriate. JENIFER Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOWLETT JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Does not wish to see development of large It is considered necessary to quantify what a PINNOCK sites. large site would be. ACTION: Quantify a large site in preferred options report. MRS GILLIAN Large developments should not be allowed It is considered necessary to quantify what a PINNOCK to proceed. large site would be. ACTION: Quantify a large site in preferred options report. MRS HAZEL Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Yes, the only future for CP anything else Support for proposed actions noted. cuts the residents throats. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND The policy is supported, provided that it The Council is confident that the proposed PROPERTY does not extend beyond the emphasis of actions do not contravene national policy. LTD (c/o Andrew National Policy particularly PPS3, which ACTION: None required. Martin relates to efficient and effective use of Associates) land. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Large sites are not defined – PPS 3 It is considered necessary to quantify what a INVESTMENT requires the efficient use of all sites. large site would be. LTD (c/o Savills ACTION: Quantify a large site in preferred Plc) options report. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

The actions proposed for optimising land-use on large sites were generally supported by consultees, although it was noted that the term “large sites” was not defined. As a result the wording will be amended in this regard before the actions are made into a policy for the Preferred Options Report. Beyond 2021: Safe and Sustainable

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report recognises that the world does not stop at 2021 and that therefore a policy is required to address long-term issues affecting the Borough such as flood risk, climate change and the presence of hazardous installations and energy requirements in order that residents and businesses are as safe from harm as is possible into the future.

Flood Risk Options

PPS25 requires the local authority to consider flood risk alongside other policy matters in determining the location of new development. A sequential test is set out for the allocation of land in respect of flood risk. Further to this, an exception test is set out where development is to be located on land at risk of flooding. However, PPS25 does not stipulate when these tests should be applied in relation to other policy matters. As a result, options are considered as part of the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report:

Option 1: Flood risk management should be considered in advance of other sustainability issues when allocating locations for development. Option 2: Consider a range of sustainability issues in locating development including flood risk and the specific needs of individual towns.

The views of consultees were sought on these options. Twenty Eight responses were received. They are set out below.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Flood risk should be addressed in The Council is aware of this requirement. SERVICES LTD accordance with PPS 25. The response does not respond to the question posed. ENVIRONMENT With regard to the Flood Risk The Council notes that the Environment AGENCY Management Options, we do not believe Agency is of the view that flood risk should that either option is suitable in their current be considered alongside other issues that form. Flood risk should be considered are required to ensure sustainable alongside other issues that are required to development. It is considered that this, ensure sustainable development. PPS25 with some wording amendments to make requires a sequential test to be applied to the option more complex and reflect all new development to ensure that it is PPS25 better, is consistent with option 2. located in areas at low probability of ACTION: Consider how option 2 could be flooding (Flood Zone 1), wherever made more complex to reflect PPS25 possible. If, following the application of better. the sequential test, it were shown that no reasonable locations in Flood Zone 1 existed then the policy does allow for other sustainability criteria to be considered. Although this is dependant on the development type proposed, it may allow for an allocation to be made in a higher risk flood zone. GO-EAST Questions how realistic flood risk options The Council is seeking some indication as are. to whether PPS25 is considered more or less important than other sustainability criteria. The options posed were intended to prompt this discussion. ACTION: None Required. NATURAL Flood Risk Management needs to align The Council notes the need to consider ENGLAND with emerging TE2100 project. This could TE2100 project findings in the evidence demand longer term approach to spatial base. planning with implications of land-use ACTION: Include TE2100 project findings allocations. in the evidence base. RSPB We would prefer to see option 2 pursued Support for option 2 noted. as the preferred option. A range of sustainability issues should be considered Support for a presumption against when identifying locations for future development in the FRZ noted. development. We would however like to see a presumption against development in Support for SuDs noted. This is addressed high flood risk areas. The Council should in the Development Considerations seek to reinstate naturally functioning Section. floodplains to reduce flood risk and may want to consider requiring new developments to install Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). The restoration of naturally functioning floodplains is a key objective of the Water Framework Directive. MR JOHN Prefers option 1: Flood risk may still be Support for option 1 noted. ARMITAGE under-estimated, risk wise, and could have a far greater impact than anticipated thus far in certain areas within the Borough. CHRISTOPHER No – Do not feel any housing should be Support for no development in the flood GRANT built on land at risk of flooding, despite risk zone if there is an alternative noted. taking measures, if there is a viable alternative. MRS PATRICIA More should be made of the sea wall. It is Support for enhancement of the seawall GUNN very under used!! noted. MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: All options need to be Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON considered. JOHN PALMBY Neither of the above. Does not support either option. Do not comply with National Guidance. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Developing in flood zone 2 or 3 in the next Does not support short-term development STAFFORD 10 years does not make sense! in the flood risk zone. JACK TRING Prefers option 2 – The only sensible one. Support for option 2 noted. Whatever housing needs exist on Canvey, Uncertain as to the accuracy of the needs the need on the mainland is 3x as great. assessment presented. ARGENT HOMES The location of housing and employment The Council is proposing to follow PPS25 LTD (c/o Smart growth should be identified in accordance as set out in the preamble. However, the Planning) with the sequential test identified in PPS25 Council is dealing with extensive areas of (Development and Flood Risk) which flood zone 3. It also has other confirms that sequential testing must be sustainability criteria that need to be carried out at all stages of the planning fulfilled. This response does not answer process to verify that no suitable sites are the question posed and therefore doe not available with lesser flood risks. All help to identify a way forward for the Core residential allocations in Zone 2 or 3 must Strategy in this matter. pass the Exception Test. The Exception Test should only be applied where extensive areas of Zone 2 and 3 exist or where broader sustainability benefits outweigh flood risk, preferably having been identified in the SFRA. Neither of the options suggested by the Borough Council follow the approach prescribed in PPS25, and therefore do not comply with National Guidance. ROBERT Floodrisk may be mitigated and hence Flood mitigation is discussed in the LEONARD GROUP should be but one of the criteria. following section. (c/o Andrew Martin Associates) DAWS HEATH LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning) MR LESLEY Neither option is totally satisfactory. Neither option is supported. EVANS FOX LAND AND Flood risk Option 1 is considered to be the Support for option 1 noted. PROPERTY LTD preferred option. In considering (c/o Andrew Martin developments the Council should apply Associates) the Sequential and Exception Test set out in PPS25 to the whole Borough, followed by the hazard test set out in the SFRA where necessary. This approach is compliant with the tenets of PPS25 which seeks to ensure flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk.

It is recognised that there are social and economic considerations to be taken into account when allocating areas for growth, however such considerations should not be recognised at the cost of risk to life and property from flooding.

The SFRA should be given serious consideration in guiding spatial planning in the Borough. LINDA HARTMAN Needs to meet national guidance etc. Uncertain as to option supported. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning) JETBURY The council must apply PPS25 criteria and This is set out in the preamble to the INVESTMENT LTD assessments. options. This response does not therefore (c/o Savills Plc) help to answer the question posed. MR AND MRS Prefers option 2. Support for option 2 noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Any further development in flood zones 2 The Council has a SFRA which models SANDERS or 3 before knowing the true extent of the impacts of Climate Change as required climate change can not make sense. by PPS25. DENIS THOMAS Needs to meet national guidance etc. This is set out in the preamble to the options. This response does not therefore help to answer the question posed. MRS IRENE Use national guidelines. This is set out in the preamble to the THOMAS options. This response does not therefore help to answer the question posed. MISS MICHELLE Must comply with national guidance. This is set out in the preamble to the THOMAS options. This response does not therefore help to answer the question posed. MRS MARIE Option 1 & 2 does not seem to follow This is set out in the preamble to the THOMAS-WHITE PPS25, so by virtue doesn’t comply with options. This response does not therefore national guidance. help to answer the question posed. MR GARY WHITE PPG25 is not followed in options 1 & 2. This is set out in the preamble to the options. This response does not therefore help to answer the question posed.

The responses received with regard to this question did not focus on the question posed but on national policy. As a result, they were not helpful in identifying a preferred option for managing flood risk in Castle Point. A topic paper will therefore be prepared for flood risk that will be used to identify a method for managing flood risk in Castle Point, obviously having regard to national policy. This method will be set out in the preferred options report.

Flood Risk and Climate Change Mitigation Actions

Protection measures are in place to prevent flooding for the significant proportion of the Borough and new buildings can be designed to withstand both flooding and extreme climate events better. It is necessary to ensure that these precautions are taken into the future and further precautionary measures are put in place to protect people from harm as far as is reasonably possible. The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report proposes four actions for achieving this:

Action 1: Secure appropriate flood mitigation measures for all developments located in Flood Risk Zone 3. Action 2: Secure appropriate climate change mitigation measures within the design for all developments. Action 3: Secure developer contributions towards the maintenance of flood defences for all developments within Flood Risk Zone 3. Action 4: Secure a third access to Canvey Island in order to facilitate the controlled and timely evacuation of the Island in the event of an extreme flood or climate change event.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for mitigating against the effects of flood risk and climate change. Twenty-seven responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES LTD ENVIRONMENT Action 1 of the Flood and Climate Change Agree with wording change for action 1. AGENCY Mitigation Actions should refer to Flood ACTION: Amend flood risk policy. Zone 2 and 3, since suitable mitigation would be required in both zones.

We also recommend that another action Agree that the Hazard zone maps from the be included to ensure that only appropriate SFRA should be used to identify the types development is permitted in areas of flood of development appropriate in locations in risk. The Hazard Zone Map in the SFRA the FRZ. provides significant detail regarding the ACTION: amend policy wording/add an danger posed to development and action to include this. occupants and this should be incorporated into either the policy or the accompanying text for this section.

We note that there are no policies for flood Agree that reference should be made to risk proposed in the Development Control the Flood Risk Guidance SPD and SFRA. DPD. We therefore recommend that the ACTION: Amend wording to include this. policy in the Core Strategy refers to the Flood Risk Assessment SPD and the SFRA. This would strengthen the requirements for development within your Borough, especially on Canvey Island. We also recommend that you consider whether further detailed information is required relating to flood risk in other areas of the Borough.

When considering suitable wording for this It is noted that future plans to maintain policy please also note that our powers to flood defences at South Benfleet and maintain flood defences are only Canvey have yet to be determined. permissive. Therefore whilst we ACTION: Include appropriate wording in understand the statement on Page 13 that the preamble to reflect this. “It is important that these defences are maintained…”, referring to Canvey Island and South Benfleet, this cannot be guaranteed beyond the scope of the latest Shoreline Management Plan (currently 50 years). However, we also note and It is noted that the location, development strongly support your Authority when you type and design are all considerations go on to state that “…flood risk [be] given when contemplating flood risk. consideration by the Council when ACTION: Ensure wording of preamble and planning for development”. It is important policy reflects this. that this refers to location and development type as well as the design. EERA The issue of climate change needs to be Detailed issues such as construction made more explicit along with the various methods and sustainable homes are methods of tackling this. The document considered in more detail as part of the should also make mention of the various Generic Development control policies. standards that should be adhered, such as ACTION: Link between this section and the Code for Sustainable Homes, BREAM the GDC policies. Standards and the use of sustainable urban drainage (SUDs) techniques. NATURAL Flood Risk Management needs to align The Council notes the need to consider ENGLAND with emerging TE2100 project. This could TE2100 project findings in the evidence demand longer term approach to spatial base. planning with implications of land-use ACTION: Include TE2100 project findings allocations. in the evidence base.

Object to road bridge over Holehaven Objection to action 4 noted. Creek SSSI. ESSEX WILDLIFE Essex Wildlife Trust has serious concerns Wildlife concerns associated with action 4 TRUST over a third access route to Canvey Island noted. (Action 4). The island is surrounded by international, European and national areas of importance for nature conservation. Any new access road proposals are likely to harm the integrity of these sites. RSPB We recommend the Council investigate a The Council notes the role soft range of coastal and fluvial defence engineering measures can play in measures, rather than solely hard protecting against flood risk. engineered defences. Salt marsh for ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. example absorbs significant quantities of water and dissipates the energy of waves, The Council agrees that adaptation to reducing flood risk. We encourage the climate change is also required. Council to consider, not only actions for ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. mitigating climate change but also, actions for adapting to climate change. The Council should seek to ensure future development is adapted to accommodate and thrive in a changing climate. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MRS ANGELA Agrees with actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY No the proposed development fails to This response is not in the context of the meet the flood risk zone 3. I remember question posed. the floods on Canvey in 53 do not endanger further lives when the opportunity to develop on high ground exists. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL No, more time is needed to access the This response is not in the context of the STAFFORD flood risks and additional development is question posed. inappropriate. JACK TRING Developer contributions needed for roads This would require the Gas project to go and flood defences. Canvey gas project ahead. This scheme is not supported by developers should be SQUEEZED to Castle point Council. provide a new road. ACTION: None required. ARGENT HOMES Whilst Actions 1 -3 are correct in setting The proposed actions respond to the LTD (c/o Smart out what mitigation measures need to be difficulties the Borough faces due to an Planning Ltd) applied, the Actions generally promote a extensive proportion of its area being bias towards development in Flood Risk located within the FRZ. It is therefore Zone 3, which is inappropriate in the reasonable to include policies which seek context of PPS25 as it has failed to apply mitigation measures. the sequential test to the location of new ACTION: None required. development. DAWS HEATH LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Do not think Canvey development is the This response is not in the context of the EVANS answer. question posed. FAIRVIEW NEW Fairview object to the Council’s proposal With regard to the reasonableness of HOMES (c/o RPS to secure developer contributions towards requiring contributions for the maintenance Planning) the maintenance of flood defences for all of flood defences the Council believes it is developments within Flood Risk Zone 3. acting in conformity with circular 5/05. Fairview require that the use of planning contributions should conform to Central Managing flood risk is relevant to planning, Government guidance issued in Circular hence PPS25. 05/2005. The need for such provision should be applied on a site-by-site basis The flood defences reduce the risk of and planning obligations should adhere to flooding to all properties on Canvey Island the tests that they should be: considerably. Without them development would not be possible – i.e. unacceptable i) relevant to planning; in planning terms and all properties would ii) necessary to make the be at high risk of flooding – directly proposed development related. acceptable in planning terms; iii) directly related to the The Developer Contributions SPD will set proposed development; out the level of contributions sought. This iv) fairly and reasonably related will be based on the size of development – in scale and kind to the reasonable in scale. proposed development; and v) reasonable in all other Whilst obligations affect the economic respects. viability of development, inability to develop on land at all has greater Fairview request that the document economic consequences. recognises the impact that planning ACTION: Provide explanation of level of obligations can have on the viability of contribution to be expected. development. FOX LAND AND We are concerned that LPA have Action 1 seeks mitigation measures to be PROPERTY LTD simplified the guidance of PPS25 by provided as part of a development. Action (c/o Andrew Martin simply requesting contributions in 3 is concerned with shared infrastructure Associates) mitigation against risk to life and property where it is reasonable that contributions when development is proposed with areas would be made. There is a clear at high risk from flooding. difference. ACTION: None Required. The Action 1 implies that development The intention of action 1 is to ensure that within flood risk zone 3 is acceptable. development that occurs within FRZ3 is made acceptable if it is to be allowed. ACTION: Amend wording appropriately. We are concerned that the Council’s The Council has constantly referred to approach to managing flood risk is not PPS25, although it is noted that consistent with the guidance of PPS25 developers with land interests elsewhere and should be reassessed in light of the in the borough have interpreted it guidance of PPS25. differently. ACTION: Set out policy context for flood risk management in Preferred options report. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY In principle subject to consideration of site Support for proposed actions noted. INVESTMENT PLC circumstances and viability. (c/o Savills Plc) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) ROBERT It would not be viable for small-scale Any development within FRZ 3 on Canvey LEONARD GROUP developments to contribute to large Island is only possible because of the (c/o Andrew Martin infrastructure schemes. presence of flood defences. It is therefore Associates) reasonable under circular 5/05 that all developments that occur within this zone make a reasonable contribution (based on size of development) to maintaining said defences. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS The science and data on global warming is Objects to all the actions proposed. SANDERS being updated all the time. Further development in flood risk zones should not continue until the effects of climate change are completely understood. DENIS THOMAS No surely flood zones (like Canvey) must This response is not in the context of the not be used when other options are question posed. available e.g North West Benfleet. MRS IRENE No – Canvey is a flood zone use North This response is not in the context of the THOMAS West Benfleet. question posed. MISS MICHELLE Canvey is a flood risk and against national This response is not in the context of the THOMAS guidelines. question posed. MRS MARIE Action 1-3 seen to indicate development in The intention of actions 1- 3 is to ensure THOMAS-WHITE a flood risk zone 3, so is inappropriate if that development that occurs within FRZ3 applying PPS25 as it fails the test. is made acceptable if it is to be allowed. ACTION: Amend wording appropriately. MR GARY WHITE No – Canvey is a flood zone use North This response is not in the context of the West Benfleet. question posed.

There is general support for the actions proposed for mitigating the effects of climate change and flood risk, however some changes are required to make the actions meet the needs of specific consultees. Once these changes are made the actions can be transformed into a policy for the Preferred Options Report.

Hazardous Installations

The future of the Calor Gas and Oikos Sites are considered as part of this section due to the potential risk these uses pose to the resident population of Canvey Island. The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report therefore sets out three possible options for the future uses of this area of land:

Option 1: Encourage the retention and expansion of Hazardous uses to the South of Canvey Island. Option 2: Encourage the redevelopment of the site for employment uses only supported by open space, with a focus on waterfront wharfage development and uses. Option 3: Encourage the redevelopment of this site for a mixed use development comprising homes, employment opportunities, open space and a marina.

The views of consultees were sought on these options. NO responses were received. They are set out below.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment GO-EAST Questions how realistic options for the It is considered that the options regarding hazardous installations sites are. the hazardous installation sites may be realistic in the longer-term, depending on the outcome of the Calor Gas Appeal. It is important that this question was asked as part of the Issues and Options consultation in order to gather evidence and gauge opinion on the future of the area. ACTION: Consider Calor and Oikos as part of the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper. NATURAL Development needs to be mindful of Nature concerns noted. ENGLAND significant environmental assets in vicinity of these locations. So Options 1, 2 & 3 would need to ensure, potentially through screening and appropriate assessment, that it will not adversely affect Natura 2000 sites. ESSEX We do not support any of the options Rejection of all proposed option noted. WILDLIFE presented. TRUST MR JOHN Prefers option 2: The retention of Support for option 2 noted. ARMITAGE hazardous installations in the longer term is fraught with risks, and generally considered undesirable and certainly should not be intentionally consolidated or increased. MR B.J. Prefers option 2: In the event of the existing Support for option 2 noted. BRAZIER hazardous uses ceasing, these existing employment sites on Canvey should be retained for employment use. Focussing on the river frontage and wharfage opportunities should be encouraged PROVIDING that this does not lead to increased road freight movements. MR GEOFF Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. CAVES MRS PATRICIA We are far too urban for any hazardous Concerns regarding the safety of hazardous GUNN installations! installations noted. MRS ANGELA Prefers option 2: Keep away from Support for option 2 noted. HAMILTON residential areas as much as possible. JENIFER Prefers option 2 – Although I would not Support for option 2 noted. HOWLETT oppose 3. No opposition to option 3 noted. JOHN PALMBY Option 1. Sites are currently operational Support for option 1 noted. and therefore not surplus to requirements. MR JONATHAN Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Prefers option 3. Support for option 3 noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL We strongly oppose the expansion of the Not clear as to the option supported. STAFFORD hazardous installations without infrastructure improvements are unsustainable. JACK TRING The only employer offering new jobs on the Support for option 1 noted. island. Options 2 & 3 dubious. ARGENT Prefers option 1: Both of the sites are Support for option 1 noted. HOMES LTD currently operational, and an Inquiry date (c/o Smart for a Section 78 Appeal for the It is agreed that the Council’s aspirations are Planning Ltd) redevelopment of Calor to provide an LNG reflected in options 2 and 3. However, it facility is awaited. Neither of the hazardous should be noted that this section is entitled installation sites are surplus to “beyond 2021” which reflects the long-term requirements, the Borough Council's view the Council is taking. The wording will Options 2 and 3 are aspirational rather than be amended to reflect this. realistic or deliverable in the Plan period, ACTION: Amend wording to ensure long- and therefore they should be deleted from term view is clear. the Core Strategy as site specific locations for housing and employment growth. CALOR GAS Option 1 should be pursued. Support for option 1 noted. LTD (c/o RPS Planning) Calor Gas submitted representations to the emerging Core Strategy in early 2006, making clear that the company remains committed to the long-term operation of the existing LPG Terminal at Thames Road. This remains the case, and the LPG Terminal will continue to operate in the long-term irrespective of the outcome of the current appeals in relation to the refusals of Planning and Hazardous Substance Consent for a combined LPG/LNG importation facility at the site.

PPS12: Local Development Frameworks (2004) at Section 4 sets out a number of tests to ensure that a development plan document is ‘sound’. Paragraph 4.24 refers to these tests, which include under (vii) and (viii), that policies/allocations should be founded on a robust and credible evidence base and that there are also clear mechanisms for implementation. DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Preferred option 1 – Cannot see 2 & 3 Support for option 1 noted. EVANS being realistic or deliverable. FOX LAND AND We broadly support the aims of Option 2. Support for option 2 noted. PROPERTY Employment uses are classified as ‘less LTD (c/o Andrew vulnerable’ developments to flood risk in Martin the context of PPS25. In this respect, the Associates) option is in accordance with the guidance of PPS25 and is acceptable. Further, the developments proposed would support the case for a third access from Canvey Island and provided the necessary contributions to support such infrastructure demands are secured from developments. HICKFORT LTD As for Argent Homes Ltd As for Argent Homes Ltd. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) PORT OF Option 1: These uses are essential to Support for option 1 noted. LONDON securing the long-term supply of the UK's AUTHORITY energy and, subject to compliance with Concerns about the use of the TGSE relevant legislation, should be permitted to Waterfront Strategy noted. expand in the national interest. ACTION: Reconsider the use of the waterfront strategy within the evidence base. The technical report places considerable weight on the TGSE Waterfront Strategy as a justification for the approach taken within the issues and options paper.

The PLA doesn't accept the use of the Waterfront Strategy as a major justification for the removal and proposed redevelopment of these sites as appropriate or warranted. The strategy adopted the position of safeguarding key waterfront dependent assets as indicated on Figure 4.1 These assets, which included the terminals on Canvey, should be supported in terms of their expansion and stability.

The PLA therefore questions the approach adopted within the consultation in relation to the promotion of the removal and redevelopment of both the Oikos and Calor sites on the basis that such an approach is justified by the Waterfront Strategy. MR AND MRS Further development access road is Not clear as to the option supported. SANDERS unsustainable. Expansion of hazardous installations without an additional access road is criminal. DENIS Option 1. Surely both hazardous sites are Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS still in use? And are needed to meet energy requirements. MRS IRENE Preferred option 1 – These sites are Support for option 1noted. THOMAS needed and still used. MISS Both sites are still needed, and may not be Not clear as to the option supported. MICHELLE realistic. THOMAS MRS MARIE Preferred option 1 – Neither hazardous Support for option 1 noted. THOMAS- sites are surplus to requirements! They are WHITE not realistic sites. MR GARY Preferred option 1 – I understand both of Support for option 1 noted. WHITE the hazardous sites are still in use.

There is a split in the support for options regarding the long-term future of the hazardous installation sites. Those with land interest in the site or in Benfleet support option 1. Meanwhile, residents in the main support options 2 or 3. There is therefore a need to give further consideration to the evidence base for this matter before the preferred options report is prepared. A topic paper for the Calor Gas and Oikos Sites will be prepared.

Renewable Energy

Many of the arguments surrounding the retention of the hazardous installations on Canvey Island focus around the need to diversify the countries energy supply. There is a national drive towards renewable forms of energy and the Core Strategy therefore proposes that the following actions could be promoted in Castle Point:

Action 1: Require new developments to achieve greater energy efficiency and generate a proportion of their own energy from renewable resources. Action 2: Identify potential locations for the generation of renewable energy within Castle Point.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for the increased generation of renewable energy in Castle Point. Twenty-four responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD EERA The Core Strategy should include a As Castle Point does not generate any statement demonstrating commitment to energy currently then it is not possible to achieving at least the standard outlined in meaningfully achieve the targets in ENG2, policy ENG2 of the Proposed Changes as 44% of nothing is nothing. Additionally, Document for Renewable Energy there are no proposed/available sites in Generation. This sets a target of 10% (by Castle Point for renewable energy 2010) and 44% (by 2020). These figures generation and PPS22 is quite clear that exclude offshore wind power generation. sites must be proposed in order for them to be allocated. As a result, it is not possible at this time to prepare a possible energy output target either. ACTION: Discussion of regional policy in preamble to policy in preferred options report. NATURAL Broadly support, but need to be mindful of As with all applications for development, ENGLAND significant environmental assets in vicinity of applications for renewable energy facilities proposed locations. will be subject to the suite of Generic DC Policies, including a Landscape and Natural features policy. Location selection as part of an Allocations Document would be subject to the Sustainability Criteria and Natural Environment Policy. ACTION: None required. ESSEX Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WILDLIFE TRUST RSPB The RSPB is pleased with the actions Support for renewable energy actions noted. proposed for the creation of renewable energy technologies in the Borough. We The Council agrees with the RSPB that would recommend that the Council lay out specific targets should be set for new specific targets for new developments, i.e. all developments. The ability to do this is limited developments must meet BREEAM by the planning system, however the section EcoHomes ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ criteria. on Development Considerations provides some minimum standards. ACTION: Consider wording.

MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MR GEOFF Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. CAVES MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN No, Renewable energy cannot be relied As for Argent Homes Ltd. PALMBY upon although every effort should be made to source other forms. MR Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONATHAN PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD ARGENT The Actions proposed are commendable National policy on energy identifies the need HOMES LTD and should be encouraged within new for a diverse energy supply. As there is no (c/o Smart developments. However, the reality is that energy generation in Castle Point presently, Planning Ltd) renewable energy cannot be relied upon. renewable energy generation in the Borough can only contribute to the diverse energy supply required. ACTION: None required. DAWS HEATH As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY No – Can we rely on renewable energy As for Argent Homes Ltd. EVANS totally. HICKFORT As for Argent Homes Ltd. As for Argent Homes Ltd. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY Renewable energy should be encouraged This policy is not prescriptive. INVESTMENT but not prescriptively and must be ACTION: None required. LTD (c/o considered in relation to site circumstance Savills Plc) and viability considerations. PORT OF The PLA questions whether the proposed There is not a direct relationship, just a LONDON actions, which appear to be in direct relation realisation through the consideration of AUTHORITY to the future of the borough's cargo-handling national energy policy surrounding Gas that sites, will be sufficient to offset the UK's more renewable energy sources are also requirement for its necessary future energy required. supplies. ACTION: The preamble to this policy needs clarification. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS No renewable energy is not reliable and we As for Argent Homes Ltd. THOMAS need action now, when renewable is proved viable then let us consider it then. MRS IRENE No – not reliable and is costly. As for Argent Homes Ltd. THOMAS MISS No renewable energy may not be relied As for Argent Homes Ltd. MICHELLE upon. THOMAS MRS MARIE No renewable energy cannot be relied upon. As for Argent Homes Ltd. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY No – I thought that renewable energy was As for Argent Homes Ltd. WHITE not reliable?

There is generally support for Renewable energy generation in Castle Point from residents and statutory/non-statutory consultees provided that biodiversity is not impacted. However, land owners and developers associated with Smart Planning and Hickfort Ltd generally objected to the policy on the bases of unreliability of renewable energy. This matter will be addressed through the evidence base set out in the preferred options report, with the policy wording reflecting the outcomes.

Generic Development Control Policy – Design and Setting

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report set out proposed actions for ensuring that the design and setting of new development is reflective of positive aspects of the surrounding environment and contributes to the quality of the built environment, whilst minimising effects of development on surrounding residents and businesses. The proposed actions are:

Action 1: The scale, massing and appearance of developments should be designed to reflect and/or enhance the character of the surrounding area and create an urban grain that is respectful of positive aspects of the natural, built and historic environment. Action 2: Access should be provided to all developments for pedestrians’, cyclists and public transport users. Designs should incorporate safe access routes for non-vehicular traffic and limit the dominance of car movements and parking adjacent to and within the site. Action 3: A clear distinction should exist between public and private spaces within a site. Public spaces should be available or be provided within the locality of the site to provide opportunities for physical activity and recreation. These spaces should be accessible, safe, well lit, attractive and suitable for their purpose. Provision for landscaping, street furniture and public art should be required where appropriate, in order to ensure such spaces contribute to local distinctiveness. Action 4: Building spaces are orientated to gain benefit from sunlight and passive solar energy unless the solar orientation conflicts with the grain of the surrounding areas townscape, landscape or topography; Action 5: The entire development should be designed to reduce opportunities for crime (practical illustrations to assist with this are provided in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) publication ‘Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention 2004). Windows and doors are to appear in front elevations in order to assist in public surveillance. Action 6: Development proposals should be refused where they would have a significant adverse effect upon health, the natural environment or the residential amenity of the surrounding area by reason of: i) Traffic, noise, fumes or other forms of disturbance; ii) The release of pollutants to water, land or air; or iii) Dust, vibrations, light or heat. Action 7: Where it is possible to negate some of the nuisance of new development by means of conditions, the council will seek to impose limitations on matters such as hours of operation, emission of fumes, noise and light, and parking and servicing. The council may also require appropriate screening and landscaping.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the list of actions proposed for the increased generation of renewable energy in Castle Point. Twenty-six responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD NATURAL There should also be space for integrating This matter is dealt with under Developer ENGLAND biodiversity into development - eg. Considerations and The Landscape and landscaping, green roofs, SuDS etc. Natural Features. ACTION: None required. THE THEATRE Agree with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. TRUST MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA Roads first! This policy is concerned with design and GUNN setting. This comment is out of context and related to infrastructure requirements considered in an earlier section. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Yes, but little evidence of this is seen in This is a new set of policies that are more planning meetings. focused on sustainable development than the existing suite. ACTION: None required. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR R. Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. BEAUMONT (c/o John Bishop Partnership) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY In principle. Support for proposed actions noted. INVESTMENT LTD (c/o Savills Ltd) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

There is general support for the actions to improve the design and setting of development. Generic Development Control Policy – Development Considerations

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report notes that the planning process has an important role to play in ensuring that development is sustainable and inclusive. These are considerations to be taken into account in designing a development.

A number of schemes exist which promote ideal standards for developments that are sustainable and inclusive. However, the planning process has no ability to enforce these schemes. As a result, the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out a set of ideal standards that it wishes to encourage and a set of minimum standards that are also more enforceable.

Development Consideration: The Ideal

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report makes the following statement regarding the ideal application of development considerations:

Residential development proposals will outline their intentions for achieving at least a four star rating against the Code for Sustainable Homes. As part of this, the proposals will include details regarding the full application of the Lifetime Homes Standard. Meanwhile, non-residential proposals will outline their intentions for achieving at least a “very good” rating against the BRE Environmental Assessment Method.

The Council will encourage the uptake of this level of environmental sustainability in development by giving favourable consideration to schemes comprising such proposals and by working with developers to promote locally, regionally and nationally successful developments of this kind.

In order to ensure that proposals are implemented following planning consent the Council will enter into a Section 106 Agreement with the developer.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the ideal standards for development statement set out in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report. Thirty-one responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. SERVICES LTD ENVIRONMENT We recommend that a 6 star rating be The Council is only seeking to encourage AGENCY sought for residential development against the application of the Code for Sustainable the Code for Sustainable Homes. 4 stars Homes in Castle Point through the Core would not equate to a significant Strategy because it cannot require its improvement. However, a 6 star rating application through the Planning System. requires development to incorporate a The level has therefore been set at 4 star high standard of energy and water to encourage uptake without being efficiency and would further strengthen excessively challenging and discouraging your aim for achieving sustainable developers from considering the code. development (in particular, Actions 2, 3 & ACTION: None required. 4 from the Core Strategy chapter Achieving Sustainable Development). GO-EAST We fully support your intention to seek The Council will ensure that the respective higher standards of environmental roles are clear and that the policy only performance in new development encourages the application of standards (Development Considerations, page 43), that are beyond the remit of the planning although it is important to be clear about system. the respective roles of planning policy ACTION: Provide clarity in the preferred (regulating the location, siting and form of options report. development), Building Regulations (matters such as energy conservation and accessibility) and the Code for Sustainable Homes (sustainability standards for residential properties).

You will want to have regard to the advice The preferred options report will be contained in the draft PPS on Planning amended to have regard to draft PPS on and Climate Change (Supplement to Planning and Climate Change. PPS1, December 2006). You are also ACTION: Amend preamble to policy reminded that PPS22 requires authorities section accordingly. to include positive, criteria-based policies in DPDs to reflect local circumstances as a The requirements of PPS22 are reflected basis for judging planning applications in the Minimum Development involving renewable energy related Considerations section. development proposals. ACTION: None required. NATURAL Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. ENGLAND ESSEX WILDLIFE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. TRUST HOUSE BUILDERS Planning policy should be concerned This policy seeks to encourage, not FEDERATION solely with removing barriers to the siting require, the application of the code for or development of new innovations such sustainable homes to new developments as wind turbines, CHP plants and other in Castle Point. The Council is of the view energy generation development. It should that this is in accordance with PPS12. not seek to control the use of power within ACTION: None required. dwellings (since this would, in any event, be unenforceable) or be concerned with the fabric of the building, which is covered adequately by the Code for Sustainable Homes. RSPB The RSPB supports the Council’s ‘ideal’ Support for ideal standards noted. for achieving more sustainable developments. THE THEATRE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. TRUST CHRISTOPHER Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. MRS GILLIAN Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. PINNOCK ANTHONY POPE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. MRS HAZEL Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Yes – but take action NOW. Support for ideal standards noted. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. EVANS FAIRVIEW NEW FNH also object to the proposal whereby The Issues and Options report was clear HOMES (c/o RPS residential development proposals will that it could not require the Code for Planning) require the outlining of their intentions for Sustainable Homes to be implemented. It achieving at least a four star rating against was clear that it wished to encourage such the ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’. standards only. ACTION: None required. FOX LAND AND We understand the principle of the The Issues and Options report was clear PROPERTY LTD statement, however it must be framed in that it could not require the Code for (c/o Andrew Martin accordance with National Policy. Further, Sustainable Homes and lifetime homes Associates) we would expect the Council to provide standard to be implemented. It was clear robust supporting evidence for requiring a that it wished to encourage such 4 star rating in the ‘sustainable code for standards only. development’, and a full application of ACTION: None required. lifetime homes in all developments. The Council will ensure that this policy The Council must be assured of the complies with the RSS, although EERA compliance with any new policy which has not indicated a conflict. replaces ENV9 in the RSS. ACTION: Check RSS14. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY The Council should not impose standards It is not intended to impose standards INVESTMENT LTD other than in accord with national policy. under this section – merely to promote an (c/o Savills Plc) ideal standard of development. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) ROBERT Could lead to formulaic designs that are These standards have resulted in a range LEONARD GROUP unresponsive to the particular of interesting and inspirational designs (c/o Andrew Martin characteristics of the local environment. elsewhere. Associates) ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with ideal standards proposed. Support for ideal standards noted.

The proposed ideal standards were generally supported by consultees although some developers were concerned about the Council’s intentions with regard to these standards. It is therefore necessary to make it explicitly clear in the Preferred Options Report that the Council wishes to promote high standards of sustainable design rather than enforce them.

Development Considerations: The Minimum

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report set out a proposed list of minimum standards that developments should achieve:

The developer should show that the following considerations have been included in the design of the development: 1) The means of access to all buildings is inclusive and does not prevent people from accessing services. Buildings that are not fully accessible should not be used for a community purpose. 2) The internal arrangement of the building has been given full consideration with regards to the Building Regulations. 3) The installation of water efficient technologies has been incorporated into the design of the development with the aim of achieving a level of water consumption below 125 l/p/d. 4) SUDs technology has been included within the design in order to reduce the predicted levels of surface water runoff and grey water expected to arise from the development entering the traditional drainage network. 5) The requirement to reduce predicted CO2 emissions from new developments using a combination of building performance improvements, on-site renewable energy and / or efficient supply of heat, cooling and power. The percentage reduction shall be at least 10 per cent for non-residential developments over 1000m², and 25 per cent for all housing developments. 6) That high quality, private or communal amenity space has been provided within the development.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the minimum standards for development set out in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report. NO responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. SERVICES LTD proposed. ENVIRONMENT With regard to Point 3) & 5) we are pleased Higher targets are set out by the AGENCY that water efficiency is to be required in all Government to be delivered in a stepped new development and that and CO2 process through the Building Regulations. reduction would be sought in larger The planning system is not placed to seek developments. However, we believe that, more stringent levels of sustainability. even as a minimum, this standard could be ACTION: None required. set higher without placing an onerous constraint on developers.

We also note that Point 4) discusses using It is suggested that a combination of water SuDS to reduce levels of grey-water efficient technologies and SuDs will produced by a development. Whilst the reduce further the amount of grey water management of grey-water can be produced by a development. It would achieved via SuDS we believe that this therefore be unwise to remove this from issue fits better with the use of water point 4. efficient technologies discussed above in ACTION: None required. Point 3). NATURAL Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. ENGLAND proposed. ESSEX WILDLIFE Agree with the actions proposed. Support for minimum standards noted. TRUST RSPB supports the considerations outlined for It is agreed that waste management is promoting more sustainable overlooked by these actions and will be developments. The installation of water given consideration before the preferred and energy saving technologies and the options report is prepared. use of renewable energy will help reduce ACTION: Include waste management consumption in new developments. We within these actions. also support the use of SUDS to reduce flood risk; these should be designed in such a way that they have a biodiversity value and provide a functioning habitat. We would like to see an additional point added ‘to enable and encourage residents to recycle their waste, through the provision of segregated waste facilities in each unit and community recycling centres’. MR JOHN Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. ARMITAGE proposed. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. GRANT proposed. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. HAMILTON proposed. JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. proposed. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. PINNOCK proposed. MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. PINNOCK proposed. MRS HAZEL Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. STAFFORD proposed. JACK TRING Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. proposed. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. LTD (c/o Smart proposed. Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. (c/o Smart Planning proposed. Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. EVANS proposed. FAIRVIEW NEW Fairview object to the Council’s proposal This is a reasonable requirement in line HOMES (c/o RPS whereby the percentage reduction of CO2 with the practice of other local authorities Planning) emissions from new residential and the Code for Sustainable Homes. It is development should be 25% for all also consistent with PPS22. housing developments (page 43). ACTION: None required. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. (c/o Smart Planning proposed. Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. (c/o Roger proposed. Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY These are too simplistic and do not take It is agreed that retrofitting of buildings can INVESTMENT LTD account of common sense use of buildings in some cases be costly and or not (c/o Savills Plc) and re-use of existing historic buildings possible. The proposed policy requires the which may have design attributes that can developer to demonstrate how each of the not be changes. Targets should be set matters has been considered in the down in the context of site circumstances design. It is accepted that in exceptional and should not be applied rigidly. Some cases the developer may demonstrate that measures are uneconomic in it is not possible to achieve the minimum refurbishments and small scale developer considerations. Such developments. development proposals will be considered on their individual merits. ACTION: Amend wording of justification to allow for exceptional circumstances. MR AND MRS Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. JONES (c/o proposed. Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. SANDERS proposed. DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. proposed. MRS IRENE Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. THOMAS proposed. MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. THOMAS proposed. MRS MARIE Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. THOMAS-WHITE proposed. MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the minimum standards Support for minimum standards noted. proposed.

There is general support for the minimum development criteria proposed, although some minor amendments are required to meet the specific concerns of some consultees. These amendments will be made before the requirements are set into a policy in the preferred options report. Contaminated Land

Due to the risk posed to human health, it is considered necessary to include a policy on contaminated land within the Generic Development Control Policies. Actions were proposed in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report for dealing with contaminated land in the development control process. These actions are as follows:

Action 1: Where development is proposed on land which is either classed as potentially contaminated or suspected as being contaminated a desktop environmental study (and if guidance from statutory consultees indicates it is necessary – an intrusive site investigation) should be carried out and submitted with the application. (Guidance on the expected content of this study is contained in the Council’s document ‘Land Affected by Contamination Technical Guidance for Applicants and Developers.’) Action 2: Where the proposed development conforms to all other relevant policies of the LDF, the Council should only permit development where it is satisfied that land is capable of remediation and fit for the proposed use. Action 3: An agreed programme of remediation and validation should first be undertaken before the implementation of any planning consent on a contaminated site. The land should also not pose a threat of pollution to controlled waters including groundwater, evidence of which should be to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for dealing with contaminated land through the development control process. Twenty-seven responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES LTD ENVIRONMENT We support this approach and consider it Support for approach noted. AGENCY to be in accordance with PPS23. With regard to your guidance document The document was prepared in ‘Land Affected by Contamination accordance with PPG23. It is currently Technical Guidance for Applicants and being updated to accord with PPS23. Developers’ we have no objection to this ACTION: None required. document being stated in the policy but would advise your Authority to ensure it is fully in accordance with PPS23.

We recommend that the policy explicitly Oversight noted. states that contamination must be ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. considered in relation to both human health and controlled waters. NATURAL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ENGLAND ESSEX WILDLIFE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. TRUST MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MR B.J. BRAZIER The wording of the first line of the The location of development is dealt with introduction gives a negative view of re- in the spatial strategy. This policy section developing contaminated land. This is concerned with protection of human negative view may give encouragement to health from contaminated land through the such brownfield sites being rejected in development control process. As the favour of developing greenfield sites. A effects of contaminated land are often not more positive attitude should be a consideration for developers it is encouraged for the re-development of important to highlight why the policy is contaminated land, SUBJECT TO full there. It should be noted that the remediation having been completed prior developers who have responded to to the start of any new construction. consultation have not found the actions Action Points 1 and 3 appear to be good proposed overly onerous suggesting that practice, but Action Point 2 needs re- the policy would not deter brownfield wording in a more positive vein. development. ACTION: None required. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA The council haven’t actually said how it will The landowner/developer is responsible GUNN be dealt with. for dealing with contaminated land. The method used to deal with each case of contamination will depend on the type and level of contamination. This is too specific to be set out in the Core Strategy. ACTION: None required. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) ROBERT Appropriate to limit extent of assessment Support for proposed actions noted. LEONARD GROUP to non-intrusive study to avoid potential (c/o Andrew Martin abortive costs, unless evidence exists of Associates) presence of contamination. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted.

There is general support for the actions proposed with only minor amendments required to meet the concerns of consultees. These actions will therefore be translated into a policy for the preferred options report with just the minor amendments required. Generic Development Control Policy - The Landscape and Natural Features

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report recognises that the Council has a duty to protect the natural environment from inappropriate development. The Council also has the ability through the development control process to enhance the quality of the built environment by ensuring that natural features are retained on development sites and incorporated into the design of buildings.

Having regard to statutory duties and potential opportunities to create a Greener Borough, the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report proposed the following actions:

Action 1: The Council should refuse applications for development that would have a significant adverse effect on sites protected for their biological or geological significance under International, European or National legislation. Action 2: The Council should refuse applications for development that would have a significant adverse effect on local sites of landscape or wildlife importance, where it cannot be demonstrated that mitigation or management efforts would minimise these effects. Action 3: The Council should require developers to submit ecological surveys with their planning application where it is known or suspected that biodiversity may be impacted on by the development proposed. In these circumstances the Council would expect the design and access statement to indicate how ecological issues are addressed in the design of the development. Action 4: The Council should expect as part of the planning application that the developer will submit a landscaping scheme that retains where possible existing natural features and comprises the use of native species appropriate to the surrounding natural environment and their location within the townscape. Action 5: The Council should encourage developments that integrate biodiversity into development, having regard to the guidance prepared by the Essex Biodiversity Project. In doing so the Council should work with the developer to promote exemplar projects locally, regionally and nationally.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for protecting and enhancing the landscape and natural features through the development control process. Twenty-seven responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN WATER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SERVICES LTD ENVIRONMENT It does not promote the need to improve Action 4 seeks to retain existing features. AGENCY existing features. ACTION: None required.

PPS9, Par 5 states that LDFs should Whilst strategic sites such as Canvey identify areas or sites for restoration or Heights are referred to, the Core Strategy creation of new priority habitat. The PPS9 is generally a strategic document and not Companion Guide provides further site specific. The allocations documents information for the creation of the Core will be where new sites would be Strategy DPD and Development Control identified. Policies DPD. ACTION: None required.

We also recommend that reference be SuDs are referred to in the Development made in the policy to the use of SuDS in Considerations policy. meeting biodiversity targets. ACTION: None required. NATURAL Supports actions proposed but need to Support for actions proposed noted. ENGLAND acknowledge provisions of Habitat Regulations and PPS9 for alone and in Agreed that reference to national combination with other plans or projects. regulations and policy should be made in the preamble to policy. ACTION: Amend preamble accordingly. ESSEX WILDLIFE Essex Wildlife Trust is particularly pleased Support for proposed actions noted. TRUST to see the inclusion of ecological surveys and the promotion on “Integrating Biodiversity into Development” (Essex Biodiversity Project). RSPB Policies should acknowledge local The matters raised by this response are Biodiversity Action Plan targets and seek strategic matters applicable to the Natural to contribute towards their delivery. We Environment Section. would like to remind the Council of their ACTION: None required. duties as a public body under Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the special interest features of SSSIs. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MR B.J. BRAZIER Action points 1 - 5 are supported. The document is phrased with regard to what the Council could do. Where it is HOWEVER, I would suggest that the agreed that actions are acceptable they syntax should state "The Council will ..." will be rephrased – where appropriate – to rather than "The Council should ...". carry more force in the next document. ACTION: Ensure force of actions is correct throughout the preferred options report. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARGENT HOMES Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY There must be evidence of ecology or The Council has a Wildlife Survey and INVESTMENT LTD protected species if the Council is to Habitat Review 2002. This is currently (c/o Savills Plc) impose requirements of specialist reports. being updated for 2007. ACTION: Report on outcome of Habitat Review 2007. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS-WHITE MR GARY WHITE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted.

There is general support for the actions proposed for controlling impacts on the environment and natural features through the development control process. Some minor amendments are required to the wording before the policy is included within the Preferred Options Report.

Additionally, it is necessary to ensure there is consistency and no overlap with the Strategic Natural Environment Policy. Generic Development Control Policy – Open Space

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report identified the role open spaces can play in delivering more sustainable patterns of development that contribute towards creating inclusive communities and enhancing the health and well-being of local people.

The development control process can contribute towards achieving this by applying targets arising from the Open Space Appraisal prepared for the Council in 2005. The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report identifies specific actions in this regard:

Action 1: The Council should protect all existing open spaces, playing fields and children’s playspaces from development unless the development proposed would enhance the opportunity to take part in play, sport or recreation in that location. Action 2: The Council should require that all new developments have access to at least one area of good quality public open space (within 480-720m), and in the case of residential development one good quality children’s playspace (within 480m). Where there is a deficiency in the quality or accessibility of such open space developer contributions should be sought in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD. Action 3: Where accessibility to open space is an issue, the Council should require developer contributions to be sought in-kind, on-site where appropriate. This would apply particularly in relation to children’s playspaces, where safe access and parental surveillance are desirable. Action 4: Where developers are providing open space within a development or off-site in lieu of on-site provision, the Council would expect the design of the open space to be of a high quality and inspiring in terms of the potential users. The open space should be accessible by users with mobility and visual difficulties. The details of the open space design should be submitted to the Council for approval before the development commences.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for enhancing open space provision through the development control process. Thirty responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD ESSEX Has the potential to prevent the sale of The Open Space Appraisal identified the COUNTY surplus school land to the detriment of importance of School playing fields to the COUNCIL enhanced alternative provision. Should be overall sports provision in Castle Point and revised to limit the policy to public open therefore it would be unwise to have no space and accepting reprovision as an restriction on school playing fields. It is alternative to enhancement. better to have a generic policy and then consider exceptional circumstances on their merit as they arise. ACTION: Amend wording of action 1. GO-EAST Where specific standards are suggested The standards identified are based on (e.g. open space) there should be a clear standards identified for Castle Point in the link to the evidence base, and consideration Open Space Appraisal. of alternative options where these exist. ACTION: Set out evidence base for this policy. NATURAL Opportunities should be sought for Local This is a matter best addressed under the ENGLAND Nature Reserve designation and following Strategic Natural Environment Policy. the Phase 1 survey by EECOS, potential ACTION: Local Nature Reserve designation local wildlife site status. to be considered as part of strategic natural environment policy. ESSEX We feel that the opportunity to link open Again this is a more strategic issue best WILDLIFE space with the Green Grid strategy, and to addressed under the natural environment TRUST promote biodiversity enhancement for the policy. benefit of people and wildlife has been ACTION: Address linkages between open missed. In our view these functions should space and the wider environment as part of be explicitly stated in the Actions. the strategic natural environment policy. HOUSE It is not appropriate for the Council to seek The open space appraisal recommended BUILDERS to safeguard all existing open space the safeguarding and enhancement of FEDERATION provision, regardless of whether it is existing open spaces. There were no actually still required. recommendations to reduce the number of open spaces in Castle Point. ACTION: None required. The Council will need to ensure that any The Council is mindful of circular 5/05 and payments sought from housing developers will negotiate contributions from developers for further open space provision are in full with that guidance in mind. compliance with the tests of ACTION: None required. reasonableness set out in Circular 5/05. SPORT Developer contributions should be extended This view point will be considered as part of ENGLAND to include leisure facilities as well as open the strategic meeting community needs (EAST) space e.g. financial contributions in lieu of policy. direct provision which could be used ACTION: Consider the appropriateness of towards enhancing the Council's leisure seeking developer contributions for leisure centres or new facilities provided on school provision in the Meeting Community Needs sites. Policy. RSPB The Council should consider the provision The definition of open space used by the of ‘wilder’ spaces, such as nature reserves Council is that included in PPG17. This and wildlife gardens, as a way of providing includes natural and semi natural open benefits for both the community and local spaces. wildlife. ACTION: NONE Required. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed but not The Developer Contributions Guidance will ARMITAGE without systems being in place for improved set out guidance for calculating management, supervision, control maintenance payments for open spaces. and maintenance. ACTION: None required. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS FOX LAND AND The principle of the actions is broadly The actions proposed are in accordance PROPERTY LTD supported however, it must be framed in with PPG17 and Circular 5/05. (c/o Andrew accordance with National Policy. ACTION: None required. Martin Associates) The main barrier to provision in accordance This is incorrect the Open Space Appraisal with the findings of the Councils open space found that whilst there were minor appraisal is associated with the difficulty in accessibility issues the overall quantity of providing extra open space within densely open space in Castle Point was sufficient. It built up areas. was quality that was found to be lacking. ACTION: None required. HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY Protection of all open spaces can only take The evidence base for the protection of INVESTMENT place following a detailed assessment of open space arises from the open space LTD (c/o Savills housing and employment needs. Some appraisal. The policy bases for this are set Plc) redevelopment can be beneficial to open out in PPG17. space provision and could be improved in ACTION: None required. the wider context of redevelopment planning of the area. The Council must be clear that designations align to national policy objectives/ designations and in accordance with space assessed needs. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

There is general support for the actions set out for managing open space provision through the development control process. Some minor wording revisions are however required to respond to concerns raised. Additionally there is a need to provide linkage and reduce overlap with the “community needs” and “natural environment” strategic policies. Generic Development Control Policy – Historic Environment

Castle Point has a little known but diverse and interesting history. This is reflected in aspects of the built and natural environment and as a result contributes towards the character of the Borough. It is therefore considered necessary to protect and enhance the historic environment through the planning process in order to deliver a better quality, more sustainable pattern of development that enhances the borough’s identity.

Having regard to the different elements of the Borough’s history, the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report proposes three actions for its protection through the development control process:

Action 1: The Council should require development to preserve and enhance the historic, architectural and aesthetic character of the environment where the development effects: (1) Conservation Areas; (2) Listed Buildings; (3) Local Listed Buildings; (4) Scheduled Ancient Monuments; (5) Archaeology; (6) Historic Natural Environment(e.g. ancient landscape and ancient woodland); and/or (7) The setting of those features listed above. Action 2: The Council should require development that effects the historic environment or its setting to incorporate a high standard of design that compliments the historic features and contribute towards creating an attractive environment. Details of how historic features have been considered in the design of a development proposal should be set out in the design and access statement. Action 3: Archaeological evaluation may be required prior to a planning application being determined in order to assess the presence and nature of any archaeological deposits. Where significant deposits are known to exist and if preservation in situ is not possible or feasible, a programme of archaeological mitigation may be approved to the satisfaction of Essex County Councils Historic Environment Branch. Where aspects of the historic environment may be lost as a result of appropriate development, the Council should ensure that the opportunity is allowed to investigate and record historical information.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for protecting the historic environment through the development control process. Twenty-six responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD ENGLISH We support this policy, although ‘will’ It is intended that the wording is HERITAGE rather than ‘should’ would be more strengthened as the actions are turned into appropriate in Actions 1 and 2. An policies. additional Action could be added – ‘The ACTION: Strengthen wording in policy. Council will ensure that new development is designed to respect local distinctiveness The proposed action is implied by Action 2. It and historic character, and will require is not therefore necessary to include an masterplans to be prepared for larger additional action, merely make the existing sites’. one more explicit. ACTION: Amend wording of action 2. ESSEX Suggested rewording of Action 3. Rewording will be considered as the policy is COUNTY revised for the Preferred Options Report. COUNCIL ACTION: Consider proposed wording when revising policy. GO-EAST There should be no need to restate It is agreed that this would be contrary to statutory obligations in policies (e.g. PPS12. As a result the wording will be safeguards relating to listed buildings and amended. conservation areas) ACTION: Amend wording accordingly. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA We must look after historic sites. We have Supports historic preservation GUNN lost far too many already. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY Locally listed buildings must be considered The wording of the action does not exclude INVESTMENT in relation to the proposals for a the redevelopment of locally listed buildings LTD (c/o Savills replacement building and should not be – it requires the development to preserve Plc) ruled out given the absence of a statutory and enhance the historic, architectural and designation. The assessment must be in aesthetic character of the environment. In the context of the proposed replacement some cases redevelopment may therefore be building and its contribution to the the best course of action. environment/ conservation area. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE There is general support for the actions proposed, although some minor wording amendments are required to meet the concerns of statutory consultees. These will be made before the actions are translated into a policy in the preferred options report. Generic Development Control Policy – Construction Methods

Methods of construction can have an important influence on the sustainability of a development in terms of its lifecycle and in terms of its long-term environmental impacts. It is possible to control construction methods through the development control process in order to achieve a better quality more sustainable development.

In order to achieve this the core Strategy Issues and Options Report proposes the following actions:

Action 1: The Council should encourage all new development to be built using sustainable construction methods including waste re-use and recycling and locally sources materials. The Council will refer applicants to the Council’s Recycling Officer and guidance from the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) for further technical advice. Action 2: The Council should require all new developments of 5 dwellings or more, or 500m² floorspace or more to submit, prior to commencement of the development, a site waste management plan. The plan should demonstrate how construction waste will be managed to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of to landfill and evaluate what level of re-use and recycling is possible. The Council will work with developers, where appropriate, to promote exemplar practices of sustainable construction locally, regionally and nationally. Action 3: The Council should expect that during site clearance and construction, development shall be carried out to ensure there are no adverse impacts on the local environment or local amenity. Where the Council is of the view that this is not possible, it will require by condition the applicant to use appropriate techniques to adequately control and mitigate any adverse environmental and amenity impacts. Action 4: Where appropriate, the Council should require a plan detailing the temporary construction haul route to be submitted for approval in advance of the development's commencement. Where construction traffic enters the public highway, the Council expects that the developer will make provision for the cleaning of the wheels and underside chassis to prevent material being deposited on the public highway. Action 5: The Council expects that storage compounds, plant or machinery must be located, designed and used to avoid noise, smell, dust, visual or other adverse impact on existing residents and businesses. This may be required be a condition attached to the grant of consent for development.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for ensuring more sustainable construction methods through the development control process. Twenty-three responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD HOUSE It is stated that the Council will encourage Action 1 “encourages” rather than “requires” BUILDERS the use of locally sourced materials. developers to use locally sourced materials. FEDERATION However, this totally ignores the fact that This does not place an onerous the sustainable construction industry in requirement on developers and there is particular is still in its infancy, and that therefore no need to amend this action. therefore it is highly unlikely that it will often ACTION: None required. be presently possible to source appropriate construction materials from local sources. MR JOHN Considerable increases in controls are The requirements of these actions either ARMITAGE already in place with more doubtless to require developers to apply common sense follow. and courtesies or think about their This is a matter for considerable concern development proposals from a resource and again in the long run only major point of view. There is no strict system of developers may be in a position to take control suggested that would incur everything on board. significant additional cost. ACTION: None required. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA Every developer (and builder) should be This is out of context of the question posed. GUNN made (by law if necessary) to install solar This matter is dealt with in the development panels and other energy saving devices in considerations section. all new builds! ACTION: None required. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Yes – but must be seen to take action. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY The requirement for sites waste Site waste management plans can help INVESTMENT management plan of 5 dwellings/500sqm or developers save money by reducing waste LTD (c/o Savills more is too onerous. The requirement disposal costs and reducing the amount of Plc) should relate to medium to large scale new material they require. It is not therefore developments only. The actions are too inappropriate to get smaller developers to idealistic. prepare such a plan. Development always has a short term Development does not only have short-term impact. Current legislative requirements impacts – poor waste management can ensures adequate protection for the have a long-term impact on the neighbourhood/environment. environment. Insensitive developers can make it hard for new residents to become part of the community. ACTION: None required. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed but must SANDERS be seen to take action. DENIS THOMAS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS MICHELLE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

There is general support for the actions proposed for managing construction methods through the development control process and therefore they will translated into a policy for the Preferred Options Report. Generic Development Control Policy – Employment Uses

In order to protect employment land and encourage the development of sustainable communities the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report proposes that a policy on Employment uses, covering office developments, industrial developments, warehouse developments and all other (non-retail) developments that offer employment, is included in the Core Strategy.

The purpose of the proposed policy will be to inform the location of such developments within the Borough and encourage the enhancement of employment areas to improve the economic viability of the Borough. Five actions are proposed by the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report for managing employment uses through the development control process:

Action 1: Within existing employment areas development should be restricted to appropriate employment purposes, falling within classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Action 2: Proposals for Sui Generis uses within the employment areas should be considered on their individual merits having regard to their potential to provide employment opportunities consistent with those generated under B classes of the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Action 3: The Council should allow limited A3 uses within employment areas, in order to meet the needs of people working in these locations. Applications for A3 use within employment areas will be considered as exceptional and should cumulatively represent less than 5% of the units within the employment area in question. Such uses should be conditioned, limiting hours of operation to between 6am and 4pm. Action 4: When considering proposals for Office Developments and other high density employment uses, the Council will apply the sequential test in PPS6, having particular regard to the accessibility of the site by a range of transport modes. Action 5: The Council should require developments within employment areas to enhance the quality of the environment by incorporating a high standard of design. Development proposals should demonstrate a transition towards regeneration rather than a continuation of existing low quality characteristics.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for ensuring that employment uses are correctly located and contribute to improving the local economy through the development control process. Twenty-two responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD GO-EAST It is agreed that the current extent of Where policies relate to defined areas (e.g. employment areas should be illustrated in town centres, existing employment areas) future work for the Core Strategy. their proposed extent should be illustrated ACTION: Include maps in preferred options on maps. report. Policies should not need to make provision It is agreed that the exception for A3 uses for ‘exceptions’ (e.g. A3 uses in employment should be worded more positively in order to areas), as exceptional circumstances can be make employment areas more sustainable addressed on a case-by-case basis through by discouraging lunchtime trips. other material considerations. If a specific ACTION: Reword action 3. circumstance is anticipated to occur regularly, or needs to be encouraged through policy, then the approach should be worded more positively. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed but much Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE will depend on the willingness and level of investment the private sector is willing to provide. CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS ANGELA Would rather new employment areas weren't This policy is concerned with development HAMILTON introduced into CP. within employment areas rather than creating new ones. New locations for employment development are discussed in the Spatial Strategy and Employment sections. ACTION: None required. JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING If on Canvey poor logistics therefore little This is out of context with the policy area done. In general mixed housing & being discussed. This matter was addressed employment reduces transport & by the spatial strategy. encourages communities. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) HOLLOWELL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Roger Bullworthy Associates) JETBURY These actions are okay in principle but too The Council has clearly defined employment INVESTMENT prescriptive in failing to recognise the areas to which these actions would apply. LTD (c/o Savills employment benefits arising from other uses The location of development is discussed in Plc) and the sustainability/diversity that can be the spatial strategy and is out of context added by other employment generating here. uses. The council needs to make a ACTION: None required. distinction between sites that are major employment generators and other sites where mixed use/flexibility might apply. PORT OF There is no action in relation to the This policy is a generic development control LONDON operational development of the cargo- policy and does not refer to any specific AUTHORITY handling facilities on Canvey Island, which industrial sector. the PLA finds unusual due to their presence ACTION: None required. within the remainder of the document. Furthermore, there is no policy or actions in relation to the River Thames. MR AND MRS If on Canvey poor logistics therefore little This is out of context with the policy area SANDERS done. In general mixed housing & being discussed. This matter was addressed employment reduces transport & by the spatial strategy. encourages communities. DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

There is general support for the actions proposed to manage the location and design of employment uses through the development control process. Some minor amendments to the wording of the actions are required in response to concerns from consultees before the actions are translated into a policy in the preferred options report. Generic Development Control Policy – Retail Uses

An important tool for improving the vitality of town centres is the ability of planning and the development control process to control the location of retail development in the Borough, with town centres as the primary focus for shops, offices, restaurants, takeaways, bars, leisure facilities and community facilities.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report therefore proposes four actions that can be taken through the development control process to manage retail uses in Castle Point.

Action 1: In existing town centre locations the Council will encourage mixed used developments with uses at ground floor level restricted to classes A1 – A5 or D1 – D2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Action 2: Within Primary Shopping Frontages A1 uses should comprise at least 55% of the ground floor frontage. Where a use falling outside class A1 would result in this falling below 55% the proposed use will be refused. Action 3: Beyond the town centres all proposed applications for retail developments will be tested against the sequential test in PPS6. In instances where edge of town retail development is acceptable such developments will only be permitted in specified shopping areas. Action 4: Local Shopping Parades will be protected from non-retail uses in order to ensure the continuation of sustainable convenience shopping locations. Exceptionally, D1 uses (e.g. doctor’s surgeries) may be permitted in these parades.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for managing retail uses through the development control process. Twenty-three responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD EERA The text should be revised to ensure that the Strategic matters associated with the retail specifics of retail hierarchy are laid out in line hierarchy will be set out in the Town Centre with policy E5 of the Proposed Changes Strategic Policy. This policy is for detailed Document. consideration of applications. ACTION: None required. GO-EAST An indicative map can be provided. This may Where policies relate to defined areas (e.g. be revised following review of town centre town centres, existing employment areas) boundaries as part of allocations documents. their proposed extent should be illustrated on ACTION: Include an indicative map of town maps; centre boundaries. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE CHRISTOPHER Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GRANT MRS PATRICIA Allowing a Tesco Extra at Tarpots was not a The Tesco Metro at the Tarpots was in GUNN good idea. It has destroyed businesses that accordance with the sequential test in PPS6. were on the current site! ACTION: None required. MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON JOHN PALMBY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR JONATHAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARGENT Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HOMES LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) DAWS HEATH Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. LTD (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS HICKFORT LTD Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. (c/o Smart Planning Ltd) JETBURY No – PPS 6 is not adequately reflected. It There is some agreement with this view, INVESTMENT could be argued that 55% non A1 in however, the planning policy legacy for LTD (c/o Savills shopping frontage has already undermined Castle Point results in this being the local Plc) the primary function – most authorities set standard. A recommendation on this matter this at 65% plus. will be sought via the RNA. ACTION: Ask RNA providers to provide a view on the standard A1 use for Primary Shopping Frontages in Castle Point. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

There is general support for the actions proposed for managing the location of retail development through the development control process. Some minor amendments are required before the actions are translated into a policy in the preferred options report.

Additionally, there is a need to establish a clear linkage between the “town Centre” policy and this policy, and ensure overlaps do not exist. Generic Development Control Policy – Advertisements

Advertising can play an important role in securing the success of businesses. However, poorly designed advertising, advertising that is poorly maintained or too much advertising can have a detrimental impact on how a place looks and functions. To ensure that advertisements are harmonious with their surroundings, the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report considers that policies are required to control the design, location and level of illumination of adverts. The control of illumination is also important in ensuring road safety.

The Core Strategy Issues and Options Report sets out three actions for controlling advertising that can be implemented through the development control process:

Action 1: The Council should refuse applications for advertisements that are not well designed, well sited and well relate to the character of the building, site and local area in which they are to be displayed. Regard will be had to their location, size, materials, design, intensity of illumination and relationship with nearby advertisements in considering applications. Action 2: The Council should not grant consent for advertisements which would have an adverse effect upon the safe operation of any form of traffic or transportation, or upon the safety or ease of movement of pedestrians. Action 3: In areas of conservation and regeneration, advertisement control will be strictly applied to protect the character of the historic environment and to contribute towards the creation of economically successful business areas respectively.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for controlling advertising through the development control process. Twelve responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MRS ANGELA Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. HAMILTON MR Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONATHAN PINNOCK MRS GILLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PINNOCK MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JETBURY Must reflect the acts and national guidance. The Council is confident that that proposed INVESTMENT policy meets national guidance. This will be LTD (c/o set out in the evidence base of the preferred Savills Plc) options report. ACTION: Set out clear evidence base in preferred options report. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. JONES (c/o Whirledge and Nott) MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS

There is general support for the actions proposed to control advertisements through the development control process. The actions will therefore be further checked against the evidence base and then translated appropriately into a policy within the preferred options report.

Generic Development Control Policy – Telecommunications Equipment

Telecommunications equipment can have an adverse impact on the environment due to its prominence in the skyline. There are also concerns regarding the health impacts of such equipment. Many issues concerning the visual impacts of telecommunications equipment are covered by other proposed policy areas, notably Design and Setting and Landscape and Natural features. Further to this, telecommunications applications should be submitted with a Certificate of Compliance with national safety guidelines for such equipment (ICNIRP). However, the Council has successfully applied a policy of Mast Sharing over the past nine years and therefore a policy on Telecommunications Equipment was considered necessary by the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report in order to continue this practice.

Two actions are proposed by the Core Strategy Issues and Options Report in order to successfully continue the Mast Sharing policy of the Council into the Core Strategy:

Action 1: The Council encourages telecommunications operators to share large masts in order to prevent the erection of a proliferation of smaller structures. Where a new mast is proposed the operator needs to provide robust evidence, at the time of application that the mast will bring about a significant improvement in Network coverage in the local area. Action 2: Where the Council determines in favour of telecommunications on a shared mast, the approval may be subject to a condition requiring the removal of redundant equipment from the mast within 28 days of the installation of the new equipment. This will be done to reduce the visual impact of the mast.

Consultees were asked to comment on whether they agreed with the actions proposed for encouraging mast sharing for telecommunications equipment through the development control process. Eighteen responses were received. Against each response an officers comment is provided and a recommendation for action suggested.

Consultee Summary of Comments Officer’s Comment ANGLIAN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WATER SERVICES LTD EERA Additional text should be included to ensure PPS12 seeks Local Planning Authorities to that there is adequate protection for the have a more generic suite of policies. It is landscape and this section should clearly therefore inappropriate to have a specific relate back to policy 4. policy that sets landscape requirements for telecoms, particularly when there is already a generic policy on landscape protection. The link can however be made more explicit. ACTION: Amend preamble to policy accordingly. ESSEX The erection of large multi transmitter masts The Borough already has a number of large COUNTY as opposed to cleverly disguised smaller masts that provide good coverage of the COUNCIL structures may not be the best strategy either Borough. As a result it is unlikely that in terms of public fears or visual impact. many/any more would arise and this policy would therefore ensure best use is made of the existing infrastructure. ACTION: Check telecommunication industry plans for coverage in area. MR JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. ARMITAGE MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. GWENDOLINE GRANT MRS ANGELA A new mast will also bring down the tone of This matter would be dealt with under the HAMILTON the area. design and setting policy or the landscape and natural features policy. ACTION: None required. JOHN Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. PALMBY MR Given the national concern about the effects The Council is unable to refuse JONATHAN of radiation from these masts, I think more telecommunications equipment on the basis PINNOCK restrictive controls should be in place. of health risk if a certificate of compliance Additionally, concentrating equipment in one with national safety guidelines accompanies place could increase the risk to local the application. residents. ACTION: None required. MRS GILLIAN Additional equipment should be heavily The Council is unable to refuse PINNOCK restricted until evidence can be shown that it telecommunications equipment on the basis is not a health risk to local people. of health risk if a certificate of compliance with national safety guidelines accompanies the application. ACTION: None required. MRS HAZEL Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. STAFFORD JACK TRING Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MR AND MRS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. SANDERS MR LESLEY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. EVANS DENIS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MRS IRENE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS MISS Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. MICHELLE THOMAS MRS MARIE Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. THOMAS- WHITE MR GARY Agrees with the actions proposed. Support for proposed actions noted. WHITE

There is general support for the actions proposed to manage the distribution of telecommunications equipment in Castle Point, although despite repeated requests the Mobile Operators Association have nor submitted a response to the consultation on the Issues and Options Report and therefore there may be a need to amend the actions before they are translated into a policy in the Preferred Options Report.