APPENDIX 1 TO ECC CABINET MEMBER ACTION DATED 24 JUNE 2016, FP/511/05/16

ECC RESPONSE TO THE NEW LOCAL PLAN (PRE-SUBMISSION), MAY 2016 (the New Plan)

1. INTRODUCTION

Essex County Council (ECC) supports the preparation of a new Local Plan for Castle Point Borough Council (CPBC) and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the New Plan (public consultation from 16 May 2016 – 30 June 2016).

In preparing the New Plan, a high level Issues Consultation took place in 2012 followed by a detailed Draft New Plan Consultation (Draft Plan) in 2014. Since the 2014 Draft Plan, substantial changes have been made by CPBC. These changes raise significant concern and necessitate an ECC objection to the New Plan.

In March 2014 ECC submitted a response to CPBC raising the following objections and concerns:

a. Proposed level of housing growth - concerns and implications on how the potential shortfall could be accommodated elsewhere.

b. Two site objections, on highway grounds at: i. Land at North West Thundersley (Policy H18) safeguarded for 1,200 homes. Transportation objections to the inappropriate access opportunities to the strategic (A127/A130); in addition to other viability issues. ii. Land East of Rayleigh Road (H10) for 450 homes. Transportation objections to the omission of a site requirement for a ‘spine road’.

c. Five site concerns, on evidence and infrastructure requirements at: i. Land at Thorney Bay Caravan Park, (600 homes) (H5). ii. Land West of Benfleet (800 homes) (H14). iii. Land off Kiln Road, Thundersley (450 homes) (H4). iv. Land South of Eastwood Old Road, Eastwood (50 homes) (H12). v. Land East of Canvey Road (275 homes) (H16).

The objection to land at North West Thundersley on highway grounds was further endorsed by ECC in a letter dated 30 October 2015 (see attached).

In summary, the 2016 New Plan now proposes: a. A reduction in the housing target to 2,000 new homes (equating to a quarter of the OAN of 8,000); to be met from six housing site allocations with the capacity to provide 2,140 new homes; and a reduction in site allocations identified from 4,925 to 2,140, due to the removal of specific Green Belt allocations. b. Retention of safeguarded land at North West Thundersley proposal (former site H18) despite ECC objection in 2014 and 2015. c. The removal of seven housing allocations and their specific site requirements, such as access arrangements (including the ‘spine road’ associated with the Land East of Rayleigh Road – despite ECC objection in 2014).

There are direct implications for ECC Services as a result of the proposal set out in the New Plan, most notably for Transportation and Education, concerning the provision of current and future services and improvements. The shortfall in housing growth in the borough may need to be met in other areas of south leading to further costs and changes to infrastructure provision and could prejudice the adoption of the Local Plans in those areas.

ECC would also lose its share of council tax and other funding based on numbers of new dwellings for the Castle Point Borough. The New Plan does not adequately provide for the stream of developer contributions from new development that is needed to fund new infrastructure. The ongoing absence of an adoptable Local Plan in Castle Point is likely to mean opportunistic planning applications in relation to land in that area, which ECC will need to negotiate contributions without the backing of a coherent Local Plan strategy. This could result in appeals being brought, which would have the effect of absorbing additional ECC (as well as CPBC) resource and expenditure.

ECC, as a service provider and deliverer of enabling infrastructure would struggle to promote funding bids because of the lack of return on investment in what is a competitive funding environment. In addition, ECC may not be able to maintain, or grow, services to meet demand at such a low level of growth. ECC therefore seek the revision of the New Plan which would put Castle Point on a more sustainable path for the future.

CPBC will need to satisfy itself that the New Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, is legally compliant and meets the tests of soundness. ECC would argue that CPBC has failed to meet these requirements.

2. DUTY TO CO-OPERATE

The duty to cooperate (the Duty) was introduced by the Localism Act in November 2011. The Act inserted a new Section 33A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This placed a legal duty on all local authorities and public bodies (defined in regulations) to ‘engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis’ to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation relating to strategic cross boundary matters, and in particular with County Councils on strategic matters.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides detail on how strategic planning matters should be addressed in local plans (paragraphs 178-181). Local planning authorities are expected to work ‘collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local authority boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual local plans’ (paragraph 179). ‘Strategic priorities’ to which local planning authorities should have particular regard are set out in paragraph 156 of the NPPF.

Specific guidance on how the Duty should be applied is included in the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). This makes it clear that the Duty requires a proactive, ongoing and focussed approach to strategic matters. Constructive cooperation must be an integral part of plan preparation and result in clear policy outcomes which can be demonstrated through the examination process.

The PPG makes it clear that the Duty requires cooperation in two tier local planning authority areas and states ‘Close cooperation between district local planning authorities and county councils in two tier local planning authority areas will be critical to ensure that both tiers are effective when planning for strategic matters such as minerals, waste, transport and education.’

ECC object to the New Plan as proposed, for reasons of non-compliance with the Duty, for the following reasons:

a. There has been no engagement with ECC, since CPBC’s decision on 23 March 2016, to reduce the housing provision by half. There is no supporting evidence to substantiate the change or to consider the wider implications on the New Plan in its entirety, which as proposed seeks to retain the previously identified infrastructure requirements.

2

b. There has been no consideration or engagement with ECC to review the implications of the proposed changes in housing provision on the New Plan in its entirety, including viability and deliverability and further costs and changes to the provision of infrastructure and services. The housing chapter has been significantly changed so that allocations over the New Plan period have been “halved” from 4,000 homes to circa 2,000 homes. No engagement has been undertaken with ECC since the decision to half the housing provision in March 2016. ECC has not been engaged with the process to review the implications of the changes in housing provision whilst retaining the previously identified infrastructure requirements. The wider implications of the shortfall in housing growth should it be met in other areas of south Essex will lead to further costs and changes to infrastructure provisions.

c. The New Plan is not justified by new evidence to support the reduction in housing provision and consistency with the remainder of the Plan’s requirements and proposals.

d. There is no supporting evidence that the Duty has been undertaken to consider where and how the 6,000 new homes comprising the “unmet need for housing” within CPBC will be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities within the South Essex Strategic Market Housing Area, or as part of the wider South Essex duty to co-operate framework.

e. There is little to no evidence of a structured (and transparent) approach for the de-selection of sites previously identified and consulted on.

f. ECC maintains its objection to the retention of the allocation of the land at North West Thundersley (site H11) as Highway Authority and wider concerns regarding deliverability. ECC’s objections have not been addressed and the site as proposed is contrary to CPBC’s own evidence (SA/SEA) and viability assessments. It is not evident how these significant issues have been addressed or how the sites could be delivered and brought forward for both the 400 homes and the long term Area of Search for 800 homes. The proposal has little regard for viability or deliverability and how the proposal fits with the Local Plan’s overall strategy.

g. ECC acknowledge the reference to the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 (MLP) (para 3.35) however, ECC objects to the non-compliance with Policy S8 (re Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas). There has been no engagement on the requirements of the MLP to incorporate the requirements of Policy S8 within the site selection process.

h. ECC object to the omission of up to date technical evidence including a fundamental review of the Pre-Submission Local Plan, as now proposed, to demonstrate it is sound in respect of strategy, deliverability, viability and supporting evidence.

The CPBC has therefore failed in its Duty requirements with ECC under Section 110 of the Localism Act.

3. LEGAL COMPLIANCE

The New Plan is not legally compliant as it is; a. not supported by an adequate Sustainability Appraisal (SA) justifying the change in housing allocation; b. it is not consistent with national policy; and

3

c. issues which have a significant impact across administrative boundaries and across the county of Essex have not been adequately addressed in line with the Duty.

ECC object and request further work is undertaken to the Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) to ensure compliance with legislative requirements; to address the following objections:

a. Page 8 of the SA states that, ‘to meet the requirements of the European Directive related to strategic environmental assessment, the specific impacts of the New Plan on environmental objectives require separate consideration. Therefore, specific regard has been given to the impact of the draft policies and alternatives on sustainability objectives 1 to 8. This is known as a strategic environmental assessment.’ A requirement of the SEA Regulations is that the assessment considers the ‘likely significant effects on the environment, including: short, medium and long term; permanent and temporary; positive and negative; secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects on issues such as: biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.’

ECC consider that sustainability objectives 1-8 do not cover the extent of the required topics and that topics such as ‘population’ and ‘material assets’ cannot be considered in a wholly environmental context. The SEA does include an important element of looking at social and economic factors alongside environmental topics, in order to assess whether a proposal’s benefits outweigh any likely environmental harm. In addition, the requirements of the SEA Regulations are transposed and covered in those of the SA, but crucially not vice- versa. It is recommended that work is undertaken prior to examination that looks at assessing all elements of the New Plan against the 18 sustainability objectives in order to meet the requirements of the SA, which is a mandatory process for Local Plans and as such a test of soundness.

b. Page 10 of the SA recommends that, ‘4) As the plan does not meet the likely need for housing in Castle Point, the Council should engage in conversations with its neighbours to see whether they are able to accommodate unmet need. This will assist in avoiding issues associated with affordability, and the secondary effects of unmet need and displaced need.’ The SA, in making this recommendation at the Pre-Submission stage, is suggesting that the New Plan is unsound in not meeting the OAN requirements or duty-to-cooperate requirements of the NPPF.

c. Pages 25-28 of the SA indicate a series of reasonable alternatives to the New Plan’s housing strategy in Policy H1. This section should be amended to clearly set out the definitive reasons for the rejection of these alternatives; these should be clearly sign-posted in order to meet the SEA Regulations more directly and transparently. Equally the SA should clearly set out and state the reasons for selecting the preferred Policy H1. It should be noted that the reason need not be linked to the SA, but state the CPBC’s reasoning.

d. The SA does not appear to include an assessment of any alternative sites for the housing allocations set out in policies H4-H9. Paragraph 3.6.12 of the SA states that ‘the identification of sites for inclusion in the New Local Plan 2016 has taken into account a separate sustainability appraisal of sites prepared by Baker Associates in 2010, and updated in 2013. This report identified the sustainability issues that may arise as a consequence of development.’ As the definitive and only statutory SA Report required for the Local Plan, it is recommended that this work (and importantly any assessment of alternatives undertaken) is integrated into the SA Report at this stage and made available

4

for consultation as soon as possible. The Pre-Submission SA Report should act as the definitive report for and representing the whole SA process.

e. In addition to the above, Paragraph 3.6.13 of the SA Report sets out the reasons for rejecting a number of non-allocated sites due to their locations within the Green Belt, however the identification and assessment of these sites should still be included within this SA in order to demonstrate that the alternatives have been assessed to the same level of detail as the allocated sites. This is particularly relevant, given the recommendation within paragraph 3.6.13, which sets out that the draft New Local Plan 2016 has become less sustainable as a result of omitting these Green Belt sites, and that it should be amended to reflect sustainability concerns. It is considered that this recommendation would have more merit were it supported by the assessment of these Green Belt sites as evidence.

These issues are inconsistent with national policy for the preparation of Local Plans, including the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; the national Planning Practice Guidance (as at 2016); National Planning Policy for Waste 2014, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; and the National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2015.

These issues have a significant impact across administrative boundaries and across the county of Essex have not been adequately addressed in line with the duty to co-operate. ECC has not been engaged with the process to review the implications of the changes in housing provision whilst retaining the previously identified infrastructure requirements. This has significant implications on ECC services. The wider implications of the shortfall in housing growth, if met in other areas of south Essex, will lead to further costs and changes for ECC to infrastructure provision.

4. SOUNDNESS

The following are ECC’s comments concerning the “soundness” of the New Plan, with modifications proposed to make the New Plan “sound” as appropriate. ECC’s comments are presented in the format and structure of the New Plan for ease of reference.

Introduction (Chapter 2)

Strategic Approach to Plan – making in Castle Point

Paragraphs 2.2 – 2.7 ECC note the reference to the use of evidence base to inform the preparation of the Local Plan, having regard to the capacity for development and constraints. ECC consider the statements within this Strategic Approach to be unfounded given the omission of evidence to support the fundamental change to housing provision in Policy H1 and site allocations H4-H9; and Policy H11. ECC object to the lack of evidence to substantiate the reduction in housing provision which undermines the delivery of the whole Plan, and jeopardises the future SELEP and other funding bids.

ECC recommend a fundamental review of the whole Plan and a refresh of the evidence base, in order to prepare a “sound” local plan, which has been positively prepared, is justified on evidence, effective (deliverable) and consistent with national policy.

5

Policy Context (Chapter 3)

Paragraph 3.2 ECC objects to the omission of reference to the National Planning Policy Statement for Waste 2014 (NPPW). ECC as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority recommend an amendment to the “Planning Policy” to include a description of the NPPW under the National Policy Context section. The additional text could focus on the district responsibility with regard to waste matters and requirements within a district Local Plan. The NPPW states that there is a need to “work collaboratively in groups with other waste planning authorities and in two-tier areas with district authorities, through the statutory duty to cooperate, to provide a suitable network of facilities to deliver sustainable waste management”. More detail with regard to district responsibility is set out in the Waste section of the Government’s PPG.

Paragraph 3.15 ECC recommend that the reference to the Lower Thames Crossing is updated following Highway ’s Preferred Options consultation in January 2016. For your information ECC’s preference was for the Preferred Option, option 3.

Paragraph 3.16. The reference to a “new airport in the Thames Estuary” should be deleted. This option was dismissed in the Airports Commission’s Final Report, July 2015.

Paragraph 3.17 ECC welcome and support the promotion of sustainable transport choices.

Paragraph 3.20 ECC seeks changes to the terminology within Paragraph 3.20 and throughout the new Plan (paragraphs 3.20, 18.23 3rd bullet; 18.34 2nd bullet, policy NE8 (3d) and Appendix 4) the update is for consistency with the national terminology and the NPPF as follows. - UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)’ should be replaced with “UK post- 2010 Biodiversity Framework”; “species and habitats” should now be referred to as ‘Species of Principal Importance’ and ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’ (from Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006), or ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’. The use of the terms ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’ would be consistent with the NPPF.

Paragraphs 3.20 and ECC recommend the following amendment to paragraphs 3.20 and 18.52 18.52, as an update and for clarification purposes.

Delete the following wording in brackets “Essex is part of the trial for biodiversity off-setting”….

ECC can advise that the trial / pilot project for biodiversity offsetting has now ended and offsetting is continuing nationally, though not currently on a statutory basis.

Paragraph 3.25 ECC welcome the reference to the joint Economic Plan for Essex. ECC, however recommend that the section is expanded to provide the wider “county” context and delivery proposals; as follows:

6

ECC County Policies and Strategies:  Vision for Essex 2013-2017  ECC Outcomes Framework, Sustainable Economic Growth for Essex Communities and Businesses (Commissioning Strategy) (2014)  Economic Plan for Essex (2014)  A127 Corridor for Growth - An Economic Plan 2014  ECC Independent Living Programme (May 2016)  ECC Commissioning School Places in Essex 2015-2020.pdf,  ECC Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions Revised Edition 2015  ECC SuDS Design Guide March 2015  Essex Minerals Local Plan, Adopted 2014  Essex & Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan (Pre-submission draft 2016)

Details of these Strategies and their relevance is set out in paragraphs 3.16-3.25 (Policy Objectives) of the attached Cabinet Member Action Report.

Paragraph 3.27 ECC objects to omission of evidence to substantiate how the four objectives will meet the Vision for the plan, given the reduction in housing provision.

Paragraph 3.35 ECC note the statement that ‘There are no significant minerals deposits in Castle Point that require protection or extraction’. As per the previous representation submitted as part of the 2014 Local Plan consultation, there are Mineral Safeguarding Areas present within the Borough of Castle Point; located in the north of the borough, their location can be seen in the attached mineral safeguarding map. The approach to Mineral Safeguarding Areas, as set out in the adopted Essex Mineral Local Plan 2014, is detailed below:

Mineral Safeguarding Areas Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) apply to all locations where it has been independently assessed that there lies an economically viable mineral resource, and they are designed to ensure that these resources are not needlessly sterilised by non-minerals development. They do not however create the presumption that the defined resource will ever be worked. MSAs are the subject of Policy S8 (Safeguarding mineral resources and mineral reserves) in the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014. Policy S8 states that ECC shall be consulted on all applications that lie in the sand and gravel MSA that are over 5ha, all applications over 3ha in the chalk MSA and all applications greater than one dwelling for brickearth or brick clay. Non-mineral proposals that exceed these thresholds shall be supported by a minerals resource assessment. If, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, surface development should be permitted, consideration shall be given to the prior extraction.

Paragraph 3.35 should be amended to recognise that there are MSA’s within the Borough of Castle Point and reference should be made to the need for mineral resource assessments to be undertaken in these 7

safeguarded areas when non-mineral development is proposed that meets the development thresholds set out in Policy S8. ECC request this modification to ensure conformity with the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 and NPPF paragraph 143.

Paragraph 3.36 The Essex and Southend Replacement Waste Local Plan (RWLP) was submitted to the Secretary of State in June 2016, with a view to reaching Examination in September 2016. ECC consider the explanation around the RWLP should be modified including the removal of reference to the need to provide more ‘recycling capacity’. ECC can also confirm that no new site allocations for waste management have been proposed within the Borough.

ECC propose the following replacement wording for Paragraph 3.36: The Replacement Waste Local Plan (RWLP) plans for the needs of all waste, including that generated by businesses, including restaurants, factories, hospitals and building sites, which together make up around 80% of the total waste material disposed of across Essex annually. The [RWLP] Plan, which was previously agreed by [ECC’s] full Council, aims to deliver at least 18 sites in Essex for a range of waste management facilities including biological treatment and the recycling of inert material.

Spatial Portrait (Chapter 4)

No comment

Key Drivers of Change (Chapter 5)

Paragraph 5.12 ECC notes the list of significant projects in South Essex and recommend that the reference to “Southend Airport” is changed to “ Southend Airport” to reflect the full title of the airport. This modification should be applied throughout the New Plan.

Vision for the future (Chapter 6)

The vision needs to be deliverable. ECC recommends a fundamental review of the whole plan and a refresh of the evidence base, in order to prepare a “sound” local plan, which has been positively prepared, is justified on evidence, effective (deliverable) and consistent with national policy.

Objectives of the New Local Plan (Chapter 7)

The objectives need to be deliverable. ECC recommends a fundamental review of the whole plan and a refresh of the evidence base, in order to prepare a “sound” local plan, which has been positively prepared, is justified on evidence, effective (deliverable) and consistent with national policy.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development (Chapter 8)

New / additional policy Developer Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy

ECC note the specific references to S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding within multiple policies (T5, T6, HC4, HC11, HC12

8

and NE10) however, ECC objects to the lack of a single over-arching policy setting out the principles to secure S106 contributions and/or CIL toward the delivery of relevant infrastructure.

ECC recommend the inclusion of a specific overarching S106 & CIL policy to ensure a consistent approach and framework for the delivery of relevant infrastructure from developers. This approach would bring together the individual policy requirements and support the provision of further supplementary planning documents and/or CIL Regulation 123 Charging Schedule.

The new policy could cover the following: - Specify when developers are required to either make direct provision or to contribute towards development for the provision of local and strategic infrastructure required by the development (including land for new schools) - Requirements for all new development to be supported by, and have good access to all necessary infrastructure - Requirement to demonstrate that there is or will be sufficient infrastructure capacity to support and meet all the necessary requirements arising from the proposed implications of a scheme (ie not just those on the site or its immediate vicinity) and regardless of whether the proposal is a be it a local plan allocation or a windfall site - When conditions of planning obligations will be appropriate - as part of a package or combination of infrastructure delivery measures – likely to be required to ensure new developments meets this principle, - Consideration of likely timing of infrastructure provision – phased spatially or to ensure provision of infrastructure in a timely manner

ECC recommend specific reference is made to ECC’s Developers Guide to Contributions, 2016, which sets ECC’s standards for the receipt of relevant infrastructure funding.

Please also refer to ECC’s comments on Schools - Paragraph 15.38

Building a strong, competitive Economy (Chapter 9)

Policy E1 Economic Strategy

Paragraphs 9.1 – 9.2 ECC recommend that the policy context is updated to reflect the requirement in NPPW and the PPG, to recognise the role of waste developments as employment activities which are “sui generis uses” outside the “Use Class Order”. NPPW also requires the need to safeguard and protect existing waste employment activities. ECC has proposed a number of recommendations to the Employment site allocations. (See comments below for Policies E1 – E8)

Paragraphs 9.3 – 9.10 ECC consider the reduction in housing provision (Chapter 13) will have far reaching implications regarding the deliverability of the New Plan and

9

could undermine ECC’s role as a service provider and deliverer of enabling infrastructure to promote funding bids, due to the relative lack of return on investment in what is a competitive funding environment. In addition, ECC may not be able to maintain, let alone grow, services to meet demand at such a low level of growth. ECC therefore seeks a fundamental review and revision of the New Plan, to provide a sound Local Plan that is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

ECC recognise that the only policy that has changed from the 2014 Plan relates to the housing numbers. However, it must be recognised the implications this has for the Plan as a whole:  Difficult to secure external funding for essential infrastructure because the benefits are reduced – therefore other higher performing projects will get the funding.  Does not help the attractiveness of the district to inward investment.  May only serve to embed the current economic performance rather than realise the ambition of increased skills and therefore prosperity of residents.

Policy E1 Economic ECC supports in principle the approach to deliver at least 2,100 Strategy additional full time equivalent jobs within the borough over the plan period, with the emphasis on the regeneration of existing employment sites/estates within Policy E1. However, ECC question the deliverability of this target, which has not been reviewed / revised commensurate with the reduction in housing provision by half to 2,000 new homes (Policy H1). ECC request a review and update of the evidence base to substantiate the plans proposals in their entirety.

The provision of industrial land in Essex plays an important role in providing appropriate locations for waste management facilities and aggregate recycling plants. The submitted RWLP encourages these types of development to be located on industrial land where they don’t come forward on preferred site allocations. ECC recommend that the policy, which seeks to allocate employment estates for the full range of B uses under the Use Class Order, should be expanded to include compatible ‘sui generis uses’ to ensure consistency with NPPW.

Policies E3 – E7 ECC as the LLFA; seek the following amendment to the Policies and evidence base to include the following statement:

‘In accordance with national planning policy, inappropriate development should be avoided in areas at risk of flooding including areas at risk of surface water flooding.

All Industrial and employment sites have to give priority to sustainable drainage principles in the provision of surface water drainage on site. Where development does occur in flood risk areas, it must be made safe and flood resilient for its lifetime. Runoff from new or redeveloped employment and industrial sites should provide treatment of runoff before discharging offsite to ensure that WFD water quality objectives are met. The treatment of runoff should follow the risk based approach outlined within the

10

CIRIA SUDS Manual C753.’

ECC note the policies and evidence do refer to the need to consider SuDS in managing runoff from new development, however seek the above statement to emphasise both the flood risk and water quality aspect on the Employment Policy sites.

Policies E2, E4 & E6 ECC as Waste Planning Authority object to these policies which do not (Economic Strategy; provide the basis through which compatible sui generis uses could come Existing Employment forward on identified employment areas. This is contrary to the NPPW Estates, Extension to and the PPG, which states (inter-alia) that ‘Opportunities for land to be Charfleets Industrial utilised for waste management should be built into the preparatory work Estate and Locations for Local Plans, to the level appropriate to the local planning authorities for Economic planning responsibilities. For example suitable previously-developed Development) land, including industrial land, provides opportunities for new waste facilities and priority should be given to reuse of these sites. It is important for waste to be considered alongside other land uses when looking at development opportunities. (PPG: ID 28-018-20141016)

ECC recommend that these policies, which seek to allocate employment estates for the full range of B uses under the Use Class Order, should be expanded to include compatible ‘sui generis uses’, to ensure consistency with NPPW.

ECC recognise that where employment areas are to be zoned for a narrower range of B uses, such as Policy E3, the above statement may not constitute a sustainable approach.

Policy E3 & E5 ECC as Waste Planning Authority recommend amendments to polices (Extension to Manor where extensions to existing industrial estates are not intended to Trading Estate and accommodate the full range of B uses, it should be ensured that any Land for Employment future use does not compromise the effective operation of existing uses, South of Northwick including those sui generis uses compatible to B2/B8 uses.

ECC recommend this change to demonstrate conformity with Policy 2 of the submitted RWLP, which states that waste facilities will be subject to a 250m safeguarding zone. This zone does not aim to preclude all development, but ensures that ECC can establish that new development will not compromise the operation of existing facilities.

Policy E7 Protecting ECC as Waste Planning Authority support the recognition of the need to Employment Land safeguard employment land from non-B uses, however this policy should be amended to include compatible sui generis, to ensure consistency with NPPW.

Policy E8 Promoting ECC as Waste Planning Authority understand the evidence based higher skilled jobs conclusions leading to the creation of the policy, ECC is concerned that the operation of Policy E8 – Promoting Higher Skilled Jobs may impact on the delivery of facilities for which there could be an evidenced need.

ECC recommend that more detail is provided to demonstrate how this policy would operate should there be a competing needs argument.

11

Paragraph 9.35 ECC consider the following web link to the evidence base produced by the Essex Employment and Skills Board with updates since 2013 to be relevant. http://essexpartnership.org/content/essex-skills-evidence-base

Policy E11 Supporting ECC notes the Statement: ‘The Employment and Retail Needs the Local Construction Assessment indicates that the construction sector in Castle Point Industry employs 20% more people than the average across the . This is a sector within Castle Point that therefore needs support’. Paragraph 9.51 ECC recommend that the paragraph is re-worded to provide clarity. At present it could be argued that the sector does not need support because of the high number of people working in the sector.

Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres (Chapter 10)

Policy R1 Town ECC recommends an indication of the split in retail floorspace is provided Centre Retail Strategy as part of section 1b. Policy R1 (1b)

Policy R2 Canvey ECC welcomes and supports the regeneration of Canvey Town Centre. Town Centre regeneration

Policy R3 Hadleigh ECC welcomes and supports the regeneration of Hadleigh Town Centre. Town Centre regeneration

R11 Hot Food The ECC Public Health and ECC Active Essex Team, is working with Takeaways Essex Districts / Boroughs to develop the Sport and Physical Activity perspective within Local Plans, to address the socio-economic and Paragraph 10.49 and environmental issues as they apply to the Borough. 10.50 & Policy R11 ECC welcome the references to “Castle Point Health Profile” and comments within paragraph 10.49 – 10.50 and Policy R11 and suggest explicit links could be made to the public health matters referred to within Chapter 15 and policy HC1.

Promoting Sustainable Transport (Chapter 11)

Policy T1 - Transport Where relevant references to the “Planning and Transport Board” need Strategy to be updated to refer to the replacement South Essex Transport Board, formed in 2015.

Paragraph 11.6 ECC is concerned that the reduced level of housing growth undermines the deliverability of the list of identified Transport infrastructure improvements within Policy T2, in respect of their deliverability and viability.

See ECC’s comments and requirements raised under Policies T1 andT2

12

Policy T1 2(a). The A127 forms part of the Strategic Highway Network and is a key strategic inter-urban route from Southend up to the M25 and to the national network. ECC in partnership with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and the Essex district authorities has prepared the “A127 A Corridor for Growth – An Economic Plan (2014)” to safeguard the A127 Corridor as a key route in need of significant improvement and protect the corridor to enable future capacity improvements.

ECC require the A127 “corridor” to be safeguarded to enable the identified future improvements to be undertaken.

Policy T1 2(b) ECC support the principles of Policy T1 and the aspirations within T1(2)b, which seeks to maximise opportunities to secure investment in the transport network. However, ECC object to the lack of an up to date evidence base to demonstrate the viability and deliverability of this policy, given the reduction in housing provision.

ECC needs to be satisfied that the Transport Strategy as proposed is financially viable and meets the Governments test for funding.

Policy T1 (2cii) ECC welcome the inferred reference to “Sustainable Travel” however request more detail and evidence is provided to demonstrate how this principle has been applied throughout the Plan, within the overall strategy and the selection of housing allocations.

Policy T2 ECC supports the proposal for a study to fully evaluate all options for Improvements and improving access to Canvey Island and identify the option that offers the Alterations to best outcomes in terms of limiting environmental impacts and securing Carriageway sustainability and deliverability. Infrastructure

Paragraphs 11.12 – ECC require the transport evidence / model to be updated and ‘re-run’ to 11.23 substantiate the transport requirements commensurate to the change in housing provision. ECC maintains its highway objection to the proposed development site H11 (1, 2, 3 and 4) on highway grounds (see Section D of ECC’s 2014 Consultation response).

Paragraphs 11.15 and ECC requires clarification on the aspirations and expectations of 11.17 neighbouring authorities in respect of these proposals.

Paragraph 11.18 Reference to the “A127 Growth Strategy” needs to be updated to refer to the “A127 A Corridor for Growth – An Economic Plan 2014”, to correctly reflect the title of the document and strategy.

Paragraph 11.20 ECC request the “safeguarding a corridor” for a new “spine road” as part of the “Route Improvements along the A129 between the Rayleigh Weir and Victoria House Corner Junctions, for future transport improvements.

ECC maintains its objection to the loss of the proposal and reference to the need for a “spine road”, in accordance with transport evidence and mitigation measures. Please refer to ECC’s comments and evidence (attached), referred to in response to Policy T2 (1) below and the

13

attached evidence re-affirming the need for this corridor as part of the cumulative mitigation measures.

Paragraph 11.21 ECC can advise that the proposed dualling of the “northern section of the A130” will form part of the “evaluation of options,” for improving access to Canvey Island as referred to in paragraph 11.7.

Policy T2 (1) ECC object to the lack of an up to date evidence base to support the Improvements and need for and the viability and delivery of the list of infrastructure Alterations to improvements, given the reduction in housing provision. Carriageway Infrastructure There is a lack of up to date transport evidence / model to substantiate the transport requirements commensurate to the change in housing provision.

No evaluation has been undertaken on the deliverability and the specific funding streams to support the implementation of the necessary mitigation measures and infrastructure projects on the whole of the Plan. For example i. The loss of a potential ‘spine road’ to the east of Rayleigh Road as part of the mitigation measures for the A129 (previously associated with former site H10 for 430 new homes). ii. Loss of the ability to secure infrastructure funding towards the dualling of the A130, northern section of Canvey Way; in the vicinity of Sadlers Farm (previously associated with the former site H14 on Land West of Benfleet for 800 homes). iii. Unsubstantiated highway improvement to widen Somnes Avenue, Canvey Island; (reasoning exacerbated with the deletion of the Land of the Former Castle View School, former site H8); iv. The loss of the ability to secure infrastructure funding towards access improvements to Canvey Island, as a result of the overall loss of growth within the borough

An initial ECC study (2016), based on the reduced level of housing growth re-affirms the continued need for a spine road as part of the cumulative transport mitigation measures. (see attached)

Overall, ECC object to the lack of up to date evidence to substantiate the deliverability and the viability of the business cases to obtain Government funding for the list of infrastructure projects, given the likely loss of return on investment.

ECC maintains its highway objection to the proposed development site H11 (1, 2, 3 and 4) on highway grounds (see Section D of ECC’s 2014 Consultation response).

Policy T3 ECC supports the proposals within this Policy T3.

Policy T4 ECC request further information, evidence and clarification is provided in Improvements to respect of the proposed “new bus hub created in Hadleigh Town Centre”.

14

Public Transport In particular, where would this hub be located in relation to the highway Infrastructure and network and how would the proposal relate to the Hadleigh Town Centre Services masterplan? Paragraph 11.39

Policy T5 Transport ECC object to the omission of the following list of infrastructure Improvement Areas improvements which require land to be available for transport Paragraph 11.41. improvements to take place in the future. The following projects should be added to the list for completeness:  A129 Spine Road – safeguarded corridor  A127 Corridor for Growth improvements,  Dualling of the A130 Canvey Way from the Sadlers Farm junction for a distance of 900m – subject to the outcome of the wider Access to Canvey study outlined in paragraph 11.17.

The safeguarding of land for the provision of an A129 Spine Road, would be consistent with CPBC’s transport evidence and ECC own initial study in 2016.

Policy T7 Safe and ECC welcome and supports this section, however request a specific Sustainable Access reference to School Travel Plans is provided in the evidence base and supporting text. Paragraphs 11.52 – 11.55 Schools should also have Travel Plans put in place and particular regard should be given as to how pupils will access the school by foot/sustainable modes. Effective school travel plans, updated as necessary, can put forward a package of measures to improve safety and reduce car use, backed by a partnership involving the school, education, health and transport officers from ECC, and . These seek to secure benefits for both the school and the pupils, by improving their health through active travel and reducing congestion caused by school runs, which in turn helps improve local air quality.

ECC has a statutory duty to make arrangements to provide free home to school transport for some children of compulsory school age and discretion whether to provide transport for others. ECC’s Home to School Transport Policy describes how ECC fulfils its duties and exercises its discretionary powers as required under the Education Act 1996 and subsequent legislation.

The Policy for applications, for the provision of school transport, has changed from September 2015 onwards (children in Year Groups 7 and Reception in the 2015-16 Academic Year), as it will refer to the ‘nearest available’ school rather than the ‘designated (catchment) school’. The new policy is outlined below:

ECC in accordance with its statutory duty currently provides free home to school transport for children of compulsory school age to the nearest available* school for their home address who meet the 'qualifying distance' criteria which are:  2 miles or more for children below the age of eight,  3 miles or more for children aged eight and above.

15

For children aged eight the change in entitlement to free transport will be implemented from the start Year 4 i.e. junior school age.

*An available school is determined to be a maintained school or academy within the administrative area of ECC.

Supporting High Quality Communication Infrastructure (Chapter 12)

ECC support CPBC’s commitment to providing telecommunications for new homes and businesses. Broadband provision will have a wider impact on growth and productivity as increased broadband coverage will support businesses and attract investment to Essex.

Delivering a wide Choice of High Quality Homes (Chapter 13)

Policy H1 Housing ECC objects to the proposed Housing Strategy and supporting text within Strategy paragraphs 13.1 – 13.26 and maintain its objections to Policy H1 from Paragraphs 13.1 – 2014 in the absence of supporting evidence and a fundamental review of 13.26 & Policy H1 the whole Local Plan. ECC seeks clarification on how the revised housing strategy would be implemented based upon a consistent interpretation of the evidence base. ECC request evidence in support of the site selection process, including the application of Policy S8 in the adopted Minerals Local Plan regarding MSA’s (see ECC response to paragraph 3.35 above).

Paragraph 13.10 ECC objects to the inconsistent approach and use of evidence resulting in a mismatch between the planned economic growth/employment when compared to the planned housing growth. ECC seeks clarification on the proposed level of growth over the plan period with up to date evidence addressing the compatibility of the respective growth proposals.

Paragraph 13.17. ECC support the provision of specialist accommodation, however clarification and evidence is required to demonstrate how the provision of specialist accommodation in the region of 1,220 homes (as set out in Policy H13) will be provided during the plan period, given the reduction in planned housing provision to a total of 2,000 new homes, and the relationship with the selected housing allocations.

ECC support the inclusion of extra care housing for older people, which ECC is promoting through an “Independent Living Programme”. ECC seeks an amendment to paragraph 13.17, to insert “(including Independent Living)” after “extra care”. To read as follows:

“….when applied to the likely population of castle Point when delivering growth set out in this plan there is significant need for specialist accommodation for older people including extra care (including Independent Living) (750 homes) and …”

This is for clarification purposes, by explicitly including Independent Living within the definition of “extra care” for older people.

Paragraph 13.22 ECC seek clarification and an up to date evidence base demonstrating how the proposals “reflect the capacity of the Borough to accommodate

16

growth”, when no up to date evidence has been supplied in support of the de-selection of sites.

Paragraphs 13.27 - In order for ECC to meet the statutory obligations as the provider of adult 13.32 and insert new social care, control the costs of adult social care and improve the lives of paragraph after 13.18 residents, ECC is committed to influencing the provision of a range of housing options for the older population. Consequently, ECC is keen to support and enable older people to live independently.

ECC has reviewed its provision and delivery of Extra Care and is now promoting the Independent Living Programme, throughout the county in liaison with Essex district authorities, which commenced in 2015. ECC recommend that the reference to specialist housing within Policy H1 and the preceding text and evidence within paragraphs 13.27 - 13.32, should be updated to reflect ECC’s Independent Living Programme, and the latest evidence base.

ECC seeks the inclusion of the following additional paragraph to be inserted after paragraph 13.18.

“ECC’s Independent Living Position Statement May 2016 for the age group 55+ by 2020 (as attached). Within Castle Point it is estimated that there are 460 eligible social care clients amongst the 37,063 persons aged 55 or over. By 2020, 230 units are required; none have been provided, hence 230 are still to be provided by 2020, of which 64 are social/affordable rented units and 166 are shared ownership units (this is a 28/72 split between social rented/shared ownership).”

In addition to the above, the ECC Housing Board identified that greater awareness and better, more consistent information and intelligence regarding Independent Living units be provided to Local Planning Authorities, to enable them to produce planning policy frameworks and to make development control decisions that enable the increased supply of Independent Living units. An Independent Living Working Group, made up of ECC officers, Registered Providers, and officers from a number of Districts has been established to move this forward. An Independent Living Planning Briefing Note is being prepared by ECC to identify how the Independent Living programme is to be delivered, and to identify the land use and planning aspects that need to be considered (i.e. design, layout, locations etc.). A copy will be circulated to CPBC when finalised.

Policy H1 Housing ECC object to Policy H1. The housing numbers planned for the borough, Strategy as identified in Policy H1 at 2,000 new homes, are significantly lower than the 4,915 new homes identified in the 2014 Plan, to meet the then target of at least 4,000 new homes. ECC object to the lack of evidence to support a reduction in housing provision and the site selection process. ECC seek clarification and evidence to support the Housing Strategy and Policy H1, the proposal for 2,000 new homes (Policy H1 (1)); and the proposed phasing of housing delivery (Policy H1 (2)).

The housing numbers now represent around half the previous proposals (or a quarter of the objectively assessed need for housing). The commentary surrounding the policies provide no evidence of working with

17

neighbouring districts and ECC on strategic matters, or as part of the wider South Essex duty to co-operate framework to seek to accommodate requirements elsewhere.

There is little commentary on the actual capacity for housebuilding within the borough compared to the need. The process for removing sites from previous draft iterations on the plan does not appear to follow a structured (and therefore transparent) approach for the deselection of sites. In addition, the allocation of site H11 (NW Thundersley) does appear to have significant issues that would question the ability to bring it forward. Access issues, fragmented land ownerships and relative isolation make it difficult to consider should a first phase of development in this location be deemed appropriate. There appears to be little regard for viability or deliverability in this instance.

ECC note that whilst some additional dwellings may result if the appeal at land south of Jotman’s Lane is successful there will still be significantly fewer homes built than was anticipated in the 2014 Plan.

ECC object to the lack of up to date evidence to substantiate the statements within Policy H1 (2) regarding the deliverability of the new developments, phasing and infrastructure requirements. ECC seeks clarification and evidence on the revised infrastructure requirements and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan to support the New Plan to demonstrate the viability and deliverability of Policy H1 and paragraph 2, and the new developments (Policies H4 – H9 and H11).

In respect of Education infrastructure, this very significant reduction in housing numbers may make it more difficult to sustain the current pattern of secondary school provision that exists on the mainland where there are currently over 800 unfilled secondary school places. Strategic housing sites representing a total of over 1,900 homes, over 1,600 on mainland sites, have been removed from the 2014 Plan. 1,600 additional homes would have been expected to produce up to 300 additional secondary aged pupils, the equivalent of up to two additional forms of entry per year. The majority of these additional pupils would have been expected to attend one of the three secondary schools on the mainland. On the basis of the number of homes contained within the New Plan this anticipated growth in secondary pupil numbers would not happen. This is likely to have a detrimental impact on the revenue funding available to these schools, which is largely based on pupil numbers. This could have a disproportionate impact on the smallest school if it cannot attract sufficient pupil numbers to enable it to maintain a broad and balanced curriculum for its pupils.

Policy H1 Housing ECC seek an amendment to the policy to explicitly refer to ECC’s Strategy - insert a Independent Living programme, within the broad definition of “specialist new paragraph 5 accommodation for older people”; and ECC recommends a new H1 (Policy H1 (5)) paragraph 5 to outline the locational requirements.

Insert H1 (new paragraph 5) – to refer to older people accommodation to cover the following points:

18

“5. Specialist Housing – The Council will support provision of schemes providing high levels of care for specialist groups including the disabled, those with care needs and other vulnerable people. New development proposals for these groups will be supported where there is a proven need; they are located within settlements and; and are accessible by public transport.”

Policy H3 - Education Established ECC notes the statement “The SHLAA Update 2015 indicates that there Residential Areas is the opportunity to deliver around 794 homes on smaller sites within the existing urban area of Castle Point between 2015 and 2031”. Paragraph 13.38 ECC notes that whilst it has not proved possible to map all of these sites, CPBC has indicated that the overall split of these 794 homes is 309 on Canvey Island and 485 on the mainland (the Thundersley, Hadleigh and Benfleet areas). While it is difficult for ECC to assess the impact that individual small housing developments have on the requirement for school places, it is clear that there will be a cumulative impact when these small sites are aggregated.

In pupil place planning terms it is clear that Canvey Island and the mainland are two distinct and separate areas and ECC plans school places for these two areas separately.

ECC anticipate that the 309 homes on small sites on Canvey Island would generate a need for up to 93 primary school places (almost a ½ form of entry) and up to 62 secondary school places.

ECC anticipate that the 485 homes on small sites on the mainland would generate a need for up to 146 primary school places and up to 97 secondary school places.

ECC will need to monitor the location of housing sites within / adjacent to established residential areas and the strategic housing sites to ascertain the numbers of additional pupils that will be generated by such developments. Where these developments will increase demand for school places beyond those available within the area contributions will be sought via S106 agreements or CIL funding, as appropriate.

Early Years and Childcare (EYCC) ECC seeks clarification on the overall growth locations within the established residential areas (by ward), in order to determine the cumulative implications, taking into account proposals H4 to H9. This is required to enable ECC to quantify the future EYCC provision.

Policies H4 - H9 New ECC seeks clarification and evidence demonstrating how Policy S8, in Housing Sites the adopted Minerals Local Plan regarding MSA’s, has been applied and (Paragraphs 13.39 – taken into account within the site selection process, in accordance with 13.49) ECC’s earlier wording change (see paragraph 3.35). ECC request this modification to ensure conformity with the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 and NPPF paragraph 143.

19

Paragraph 13.40 ECC as LLFA, seek a consistent approach to the presentation of the Flood and Suds requirements within the housing allocations, located within Critical Drainage Areas.

Education ECC object to the use of out of date evidence for education provision and request amendments to reflect the latest position and provide the following web link ECC Commissioning School Places in Essex 2015- 2020.pdf, published in 2016. This evidence replaces findings of the Commissioning School Places in Essex 2013- 18 for education provision. ECC has provided commentary on the latest requirements within the New Plan in association with the new Housing sites (H4 – H9) and H11, and Policy HC4.

ECC can provide the following explanation and information in respect of the approach to Education provision within the borough and the terminology used.

Comments are provided against the two distinct education areas of Canvey Island and the mainland (Benfleet, Hadleigh and Thundersley) in general and specific comments against relevant proposals as set out in Policies H4 – H9. The information is presented in respect of Primary and Secondary School provision; and the following is a brief explanation of the Education Terminology used:

Primary schools: 1 form of entry (fe) = 210-places with 30 pupils per year group. 1½ forms of entry = 315-places with 45 pupils per year group. 2 forms of entry = 420-places with 60 pupils per year group. 2½ forms of entry = 525-places with 75 pupils per year group. 3 forms of entry = 630-places with 90 pupils per year group.

Secondary schools A form of entry at secondary level is usually based on a class of 30 pupils but can be slightly lower.

Status: Whilst faith schools, foundation schools and academies may have sufficient site area to expand this would need the agreement of the Anglican Diocese of / Roman Catholic Diocese of Brentwood, the foundation/ academy trusts responsible for these schools.

Early Years and Childcare (EYCC) ECC seeks clarification on the overall growth locations, having regard to the growth allocations H4-H9 and within established residential areas (see comments under Policy H3).

Paragraph 13.47 – Please be advised that ECC is reviewing the Essex Design Guide. 13.48

20

Policy H4 New In 2014 the Local Plan proposed 450 new homes to be delivered up to Housing Site: Land off 2031 on 39ha of land with an additional 8ha to be safeguarded to meet Kiln Road, housing needs post 2031, providing an overall site capacity of around Thundersley (up to 600 homes. The ECC consultation response in 2014 raised concerns 235 new homes) that the Local Plan evidence (including the Green Belt Review and the SA/SEA), concluded that the site did not contribute towards the strategic function of the Green Belt; and the SA/SEA proposed that the whole of the site should be brought forward to enable a comprehensive development to be undertaken. ECC raised concerns that the proposals did not implement the findings of the evidence base, and hence placed additional pressure on more sensitive landscapes; whilst development of the whole site would make full advantage of the existing sustainable modes of travel serving the area.

ECC now seeks clarification and evidence on how the above comments have been addressed, as well as details of the supporting evidence for a further reduction in the size and scale of development to 235 homes on 11.3ha of land.

Highways ECC support the transport requirements as set out within the Policy H4, namely at H4 (2e) and H4 (4).

Education Primary School Provision This site is located in primary forecast planning group 2 – Thundersley. The overall development would generate a need for up to 66 primary school places. However, a significant proportion of the development has already been completed and occupied. There should be sufficient surplus capacity within the primary schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from the final phase of this development.

Education Secondary School Provision At secondary level the site is located in secondary forecast planning group 1. (This group of schools included The , School and .) The overall development would generate a need for up to 44 secondary school places. However, a significant proportion of the development has already been completed and occupied. There should be sufficient surplus capacity within the secondary schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from the final phase of this development. (See also comments on HC4.)

Paragraph 13.53 & Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Policy H4 (2. c) ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.53 and Policy H4 (2c) (see below) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements in this Critical Drainage Area (CDA) as set out in the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (SE SWMP).

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the Environment Agency (EA) and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance

21

with NPPF paragraph 100. NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA) and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC recommends the following amendment to paragraph 15.53 to address the above requirements.

“13.53 Development should integrate sustainable urban drainage techniques given that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan identifies the site to be within Critical Drainage Area (CAS 3), and there to be the potential for a small area of surface water flooding towards the north of the site. There are currently 209 residential properties at risk of internal flooding to a depth of 0.1m in a 1 in 100 year event in the Critical Drainage Area. Appropriate improvements to the foul drainage network should also be incorporated into the development to ensure capacity and prevent storm dis surcharge, whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA.”

ECC recommend the following amendment to Policy H4 2c to read as follows: “c. i. Surface water management on or adjacent to the site with no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and c. ii. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure providers such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 235 homes.”

Policy H5 New Highways Housing Site: Land at ECC support the transport requirements set out within the Policy H5; to Thorney Bay Caravan ensure that public transport provision is adequate to support growth in Park, Canvey Island. this location and to encourage sustainable travel patterns (Policy H5 (5)); (up to 600 new and to safeguard the land for future extension to Roscommon Way homes) (Policy H5 (2h)).

Education Primary School Provision This site is located in primary forecast planning group 1 – Canvey. The primary schools on Canvey Island have seen a 6% increase (+168) in pupil numbers during the 5 year period Jan. 2011 – Jan. 2016. This has put pressure on primary school places on the Island and this resulted in the need to admit a “bulge” class to William Read Primary School in the school year 2014-15 and plan for an expansion of 1 form of entry at Northwick Park Primary School from the school year 2017-18 onward to accommodate future growth. There are currently 3 relocatable classbases in use that will also need to be replaced with permanent accommodation over time to manage the higher pupil numbers on the Island.

It is anticipated this development will result in a net increase in 570 homes. This would generate a need for up to 171 primary school places

22

and up to 114 secondary school places. This site, together with Policy Area H6 – land at Point Road, Canvey Island, will generate a requirement for around 1 form of entry at both primary level.

ECC seeks clarification and an amendment to Policy H5 2.i, to explicitly refer to the infrastructure requirements, including primary school provision.

Education Secondary School Provision At secondary level there should be sufficient capacity at the two secondary schools serving Canvey Island, Castle View School and Cornelius Vermuyden School, to accommodate the growth in pupil numbers generated by this development and the development at land at Point Road, Canvey Island.

EYCC ECC anticipate a development of approximately 600 homes would generate a maximum need of 54 additional Early Years and Childcare places. Based on the current sufficiency data and the need to accommodate the 30 hour Free Entitlement offer from September 2017, additional Early Years and Childcare provision would be required.

ECC seeks clarification and an amendment to Policy H5 2.i (and paragraph 13.60) to explicitly refer to the infrastructure requirements, including Early Years and Childcare.

Paragraphs 13.57 – LLFA 13.59) and ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.57 Policy H5 (2c) and Policy H5 (2c) (see below) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements in this Critical Drainage Area (CDA) as set out in the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (SE SWMP).

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the Environment Agency (EA) and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100. NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA) and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC recommends amendments to paragraph 15.58 and Policy H5(2c) to address the above requirements.

Amend Paragraph 13.58 to read as follows: “13.58 It will be necessary to demonstrate ion site surface water management when considering applications; given that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan identifies the site to be within Critical Drainage Area (CAS 6) and in the event of a 1 in 100 year event in the CDA. Appropriate improvement measures are required and improvements to the foul drainage network should also be incorporated into the development to ensure sufficient capacity

23

and to prevent storm surcharge, whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA. This is to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately in order to prevent flooding of properties on or nearby the site. This may be achieved through the provision of open space and Green Infrastructure that will also provide benefits in terms of recreation, nature conservation and active travel.”

Amend Policy H5 2c to read as follows: “c. i. Surface water management on or adjacent to the site with no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and c. ii. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure providers such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 600 homes.”

Policy H 6 New ECC seek clarification as to the status of site H6 given the criteria in Housing Site: – Land Policy H6 (2), suggesting that this is a reserve site which should be at Point Road, Canvey excluded from the housing provision calculations. However, site H6 Island (Up to 160 forms part of the Local Plan housing allocations. Therefore, what is the homes) status of the site and how has it been taken into account within the Local Plan overall housing provision for 2,140 new homes during the plan period.

Paragraph 13.67 and Education Primary School Provision Policy H6 (6) This site is located in primary forecast planning group 1 – Canvey. This development would generate a need for up to 48 primary school places and up to 32 secondary school places. (See also comments above on Policy H5.)

ECC seeks clarification and an amendment to Policy H6 (6) to explicitly refer to the infrastructure requirements, including primary school provision and that this is specified in paragraph 13.67 as follows:

“13.67 The Transport Evidence for the New Local Plan shows that the strategic road network on Canvey Island will become more congested over time. This site is on a bus route, and therefore improvements to nearby bus waiting facilities and the improved provision of services on this route are important to encourage sustainable transport choices. Evidence from NHS England also indicates that there will be a need for additional provision of GP services and primary school places in the local area to support housing growth in this location.”

Paragraphs 13.63 – LLFA 13.65 and Policy H6 ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.63 – (3d) 13.65 and Policy H6 (3d) (see below) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements of the CDA, as defined in the SE SWMP.

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the EA and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100.

24

NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by a SFRA and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC seeks the following amendments to paragraph 13.64 and Policy H6(3d) to address the above requirements.

Amend Paragraphs 13.64 to read as follows:

“13.64 It will be necessary to demonstrate on site surface water management when considering applications.; given that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan identifies the site to be within Critical Drainage Area (CAS 6) and in the event of a 1 in 100 year event in the CDA. Appropriate improvement measures are required and improvements to the foul drainage network should also be incorporated into the development to ensure sufficient capacity and to prevent storm surcharge, whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA. This is to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately in order to prevent flooding of properties on or nearby the site. This may be achieved through the provision of open space and Green Infrastructure that will also provide benefits in terms of recreation, nature conservation and active travel.”

Amend Policy H6 3d to read as follows:

“d. i. Manage surface water management on and adjacent to the site so there is no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and d. ii. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure providers such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 160 homes.”

Policy H7 New Education Housing Site: land off ECC can provide the following update on the education requirements Scrub Lane, Hadleigh associated with this proposal (please also see ECC’s comments on (64 new homes) Policy H9).

Education Primary School Provision This site is located in primary forecast planning group 3 – Hadleigh. It is anticipated that this development would generate a need for up to 19 primary school places and up to 13 secondary school places. There should be sufficient surplus capacity at the primary schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from this development. Please also see Policy H9 for ECC’s comments regarding the cumulative effect of growth in the Hadleigh primary forecast group area.

Education Secondary School Provision At secondary level the site is located in secondary forecast planning group 1. There should be sufficient surplus capacity within the secondary

25

schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from this development. (See also comments on HC4.)

ECC seeks clarification and an amendment to Policy H7(4b) to explicitly refer to the infrastructure requirements, including primary school provision.

Paragraphs 13.71 and LLFA Policy H7(2c) ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.71 and Policy H7 (2c) (see below) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements in the CDA as set out in the SE SWMP.

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the EA and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100. NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by a SFRA and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC recommends the following amendments to paragraph 13.71 and Policy H7(2c) to address the above requirements.

Amend Paragraph 13.71 to read as follows:

“13.71 This site is identified as being within a Critical Drainage Area (CAS 4), and it is as defined in the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan. There are currently 46 residential properties at risk of internal flooding to a depth of 0.1m in a 1 in 100 year event in the Critical Drainage Area. Appropriate improvement measures are necessary to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately in order to prevent flooding of properties on or nearby the site whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA.”.

Amend Policy H7 2c. to read as follows: “c i. Surface water management on and adjacent to the site so that there is no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and c ii. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure provides such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 64 homes.”

Policy H8 New Education Primary School Provision Housing Site: Land This site is located in primary forecast planning group 4 – Benfleet. It is between 396 and 408 anticipated that this development would generate a need for up to 24 London Road, primary school places and up to 16 secondary school places. There is no Benfleet (81 new spare capacity at primary schools in this forecast planning group and homes) pupils from this development might, therefore, need to be accommodated via an expansion of an existing primary school in Benfleet forecast planning group or an existing primary school in the

26

Thundersley forecast planning group.

Education Secondary School Provision At secondary level the site is located in secondary forecast planning group 1. There should be sufficient surplus capacity within the secondary schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from this development. (See also comments on HC4.)

ECC seek clarification and an amendment to Policy H8, to explicitly refer to the infrastructure requirements.

Paragraph 13.73 and LLFA policy H8 (2a) ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.73 and Policy H8 (2 a) (see below) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements in the CDA as set out in the SE SWMP.

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the EA and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100. NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by a SFRA and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC recommends the following amendments to paragraph 13.73 and policy H8(2a) to address the above requirements

Amend Paragraph 13.73 to read as follows: “13.73 It will be necessary to demonstrate integration of sustainable urban drainage techniques, as the site is identified as being in a given that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan identifies the site to be within Critical Drainage Area (CAS 1). There are currently 542 residential properties at risk of internal flooding to a depth of 0.1m in a 1 in 100 year event in the Critical Drainage Area. Appropriate improvement measures are required. in order. This is to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately in order to prevent flooding of properties on or nearby the site whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA”.

Amend Policy H8 (2a) to read as follows: “a. Surface water management on and adjacent to the site ensuring no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and b. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure provides such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 81 homes.”

Policy H9 New Education Primary School Provision Housing Site: Land This site is located in primary forecast planning group 3 – Hadleigh. It is south of anticipated that this development would generate a need for up to 54 (up to 180 new primary school places and up to 36 secondary school places. There will

27 homes) not be sufficient surplus capacity within the primary schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from this development and from the development at Policy Area H7. An expansion of one of the schools in the area is likely to be required.

Education Secondary School Provision At secondary level the site is located in secondary forecast planning group 1. There should be sufficient surplus capacity within the secondary schools within the forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from this development. (See also comments on HC4.)

ECC seeks clarification and an amendment to Policy H9 (4), to explicitly refer to the infrastructure requirements, including primary school provision.

Paragraph 13.78 and LLFA Policy H9 (2d) ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.78 and Policy H9 (2d) (see below) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements in the CDA as set out in the SE SWMP.

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the EA and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100. NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by a SFRA and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC recommends the following amendments to paragraph 13.78 and Policy H9(2d) to address the above requirements

Amend Paragraph 13.78 to read as follows: “13.78. The overall design of the site should ensure linkages to neighbouring public open spaces, and greenways. It will also be necessary to demonstrate integration of sustainable urban drainage techniques, as the site is identified as being in a given that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan identifies the site to be within a CDA (CAS 3). There are currently 209 residential properties at risk of internal flooding to a depth of 0.1m in a 1 in 100 year event in the Critical Drainage Area. Appropriate improvement measures are required. in order This is to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately in order to prevent flooding of properties on or nearby the site whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA.”.

Amend Policy H9(2d) to read as follows: “di. Manage Surface water management on and adjacent to the site ensuring no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and dii. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure provides such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the

28

drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 81 homes.”

Policy H11 Area of ECC objects to Policy H11 and supporting text within paragraphs 13.87 – Search and 13.97 and maintain its previous objections to Policy H11 (formerly site Safeguarded Land- H18) from 2014, in the absence of supporting evidence, to justify the North-West allocation. Thundersley (approximately 400 ECC seeks clarification and up to date evidence base to demonstrate homes) how ECC’s earlier objections in 2014 have been addressed.

ECC objects to the proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to CPBC own Local Plan evidence, SA/SEA evidence, and Strategic Green Belt evidence; and in the absence of evidence to substantiate the allocation, including highway evidence and provision of infrastructure, deliverability and viability. (See also ECC earlier objections in respect of the Duty to Co-operate, conflicts with the SA/SEA evidence and Castle Points Transport Phase 2 Report (November 2015)).

Highways The Local Plan proposes 400 new homes to be delivered up to 2031 with the remainder of the site to be safeguarded to meet housing needs post 2031.

The SA/SEA recommends that the entire site is safeguarded until 2031 in order to allow for a more comprehensive development proposal to be put together which may be able to deliver the infrastructure necessary to achieve sustainable development. The SA/SEA report also indicates that access to the site is difficult, both from the strategic network (A127 and A130) and from the un made road network to the existing urban area. Any access would need to be resolved in order for development to occur.

However, only the north east part of the site has been allocated for development in the New Plan (some 400 dwellings) contrary to the SA/SEA. The north east location is remote from the existing urban area and consequently primary schools and other services. The level of development is significantly insufficient to provide the financing needed for a new strategic access from the A127 / A130, approximately £60m. ECC has previously objected to the inclusion of this site and the concerns do not appear to have been considered in the allocation of this site. ECC considers that it is unclear how the selection of this site would be considered as ’`justified’, as part of the tests of soundness (NPPF, paragraph 182) as it does not appear to be based on proportionate evidence.

Furthermore, this area of NW Thundersley is relatively unconstrained and functions as a large swathe of Green Belt which forms part of the separation between Thundersley and the nearby towns of Wickford, Rayleigh and . Development in this location has the potential to impact on the strategic function of the Green Belt from a South Essex perspective and any development would need to be appropriately located and designed to maintain the sense of separation that currently exists. (Green Belt Boundary Review, November 2013)

29

On the 20 August 2015 CPBC formally requested the comments of ECC as Highway Authority in respect of site H11, as part of a request for officers to investigate more thoroughly the site as a possible development site. ECC under took the review and formally responded on 30 October 2015, in which ECC maintained its original objection which is in line with CPBC’s own evidence regarding access to North West Thundersley (as set out in Castle Points Transport Phase 2 Report, November 2015).

ECC maintains its objection to the inclusion of this site on the basis of:  No direct access should be taken from the A127, A1245 and A130 as this would significantly impact on the free flow of traffic on the strategic route. This position will be reviewed by ECC after the implementation of the long term major scheme for the A127 / A130 Fairglen Interchange.  An appropriate strategic access is required into the site, which is presently comprised of un-made roads.  Lack of evidence to substantiate the viability and deliverability of the site proposals.  Access from the existing urban area will exacerbate congestion at Tarpots (A13) and Woodman’s Arms junctions (A129).  Any reconfiguring of the Rayleigh Spur junction is economically unviable at present, and especially at the proposed level of development.  Site is distant from the existing primary and secondary school provision with no available safe walking routes between home and school. ECC would not support any development in advance of such routes being provided.  ECC considers the current proposal for 400 dwellings is insufficient to warrant the provision of a new primary school to serve the development.

Education ECC seeks clarification and an up-to-date evidence in support of this allocation. In addition to the Highway Authority’s objections the proposal appears contrary to the Local Plan’s own evidence base and there is considerable uncertainty concerning whether or not the area of search as proposed would be able to deliver significant numbers of new homes within the Plan period.

Education Primary School Provision This site is located in primary forecast planning group 2 – Thundersley. A development of some 400 homes would generate a need for up to 120 primary school places and up to 80 secondary school places. As previously, indicated (see H4) whilst there should be sufficient surplus capacity within the primary schools within this forecast planning group to accommodate the pupils from the final phase of the site “Land off Kiln Road” there will be little surplus capacity remaining to accommodate pupils from the cumulative pupil growth that will be generated from a number of small developments in the area and/ or this development. In addition, there do not appear to be any safe walking/ cycling routes connecting the area of search to the nearest primary and secondary schools. 30

The primary pupils that would be produced from the 400 homes would need to be accommodated by the expansion of an existing primary school located nearest to the area of search.

Education Secondary School Provision The secondary pupils would need to be accommodated by one of the 3 secondary schools in the secondary forecast group 1. (See also comments on HC4.)

ECC seek clarification and supporting evidence on the deliverability of the proposal, including the provision of infrastructure, such as primary school provision.

Paragraph 13.93 and LLFA Policy H11 (1d) and ECC as the LLFA seeks clarification and changes to paragraph 13.93 (3d). and policy H11 (1d) and (3d) to reflect the flood alleviation requirements in the CDA as set out in the SE SWMP.

Further information is required on the extent/severity of the flood risk as defined in the SE SWMP and the stated requirements to address the impacts of flooding within CDAs, taking into account the EA and LLFA’s own flood alleviation schemes, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 100. NPPF Paragraph 100 requires Local Plans to be supported by a SFRA and develop policies to manage flood risk from all sources taking account of advice from the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as LLFAs.

ECC recommends the following amendment to paragraph 13.93 to refer to the sites allocation within a CDA as defined in the SE SWMP to address the above requirements.

“13.93 Compared to elsewhere in the borough however, this land is relatively unconstrained. There are two local wildlife sites located to the south of the area. However, development in these locations could be avoided. Elsewhere, within this area, there is limited biodiversity interest, although ecological investigation is advised by the Local Wildlife Site Review 2012 prior to development. It will be necessary to demonstrate integration of sustainable urban drainage techniques, given that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan identifies the site to be within Critical Drainage Area. The area is within Flood Risk Zone 1, although there is a surface and groundwater flow across the land, identified through the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan, which would need to be avoided. Appropriate improvement measures are necessary to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately in order to prevent flooding of properties on or nearby the site whilst having regard to other flood alleviation schemes being developed by the EA and other relevant flood risk management bodies such as the LLFA. The landscape is not of significant historic value, although investigation is again advised by the Thames Gateway Historic Characterisation. Furthermore, the landscape is not of a high value in aesthetic terms, although its nature would be fundamentally changed by development

31

as noted in the Green Belt Landscape Assessment.

ECC as LLFA recommend the following amendment to Policy H11 (1 d) and (3d) to both read as follows:

“di. Proposals avoid surface water flow paths and area of high groundwater vulnerability, and incorporate surface water management as required by policy CC6, on and adjacent to the site so that there is no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties; and

dii. The council will work in partnership with drainage infrastructure provides such as the EA and the LLFA to accommodate the drainage infrastructure needs of an additional 81 homes.”

Policy H13 Size and ECC welcomes and supports Policy H13, and the inclusion of specialist Types of Homes housing including ECC’s Independent Living Programme for extra care accommodation, in accordance with Policy H1. Policy H13 and Paragraph 13.106 ECC welcomes the inclusion and reference to specialist housing and reference to Extra Care accommodation, which includes ECC Independent Living Programme, which can also form part of the affordable housing provision.

ECC note the figures in Paragraph 13.106, outlining the demand for specialist housing for older people (75+) as 1,150 new homes comprising a mix of sheltered /retirement housing and extra care accommodation. ECC recommend further cross referencing within the New Plan to ECC’s revised Extra Care requirements and number of specialist housing units, for ages 55+, and the requirements of the Independent Living Programme. Please refer to ECC’s earlier comments, amendments and proposed additional text regarding Independent Living and Policy H1and paragraphs 13.17, , 13.27-13.32 & an additional paragraph after 13.18)

Requiring Good Design (Chapter 14)

Policy Context ECC recommends the evidence base within the “policy context” is updated to specifically refer to new national guidance Active Design Paragraphs 14.1 – Planning for health and wellbeing through sport and physical activity 14.8 published in October 2015 by Sport England and Public Health England.

ECC recommend an additional paragraph after 14.8 is inserted to outline this new Guidance and the “Ten Principles of Active Design” which seeks opportunities to encourage and promote sport and physical activity through the design and layout of the built environment.

Promoting Healthy Communities (Chapter 15)

Policy HC1 Active and ECC as Public Health and ECC Active Essex Team, seek clarification Healthy Communities and updates to the evidence base to reflect the national health and wellbeing guidance and evidence published, since the 2014 Plan; such paragraphs 15.1-15.16 as:

32

 Active Design principles; Planning for health and wellbeing through sport and physical activity”; published in October 2015, joint national Guidance published jointly by Sport England and Public Health England.  Public Health England (2015) Health Profiles Castle Point, published June 2015 Published by Public Health England (June 2015)  Healthy Places- wellbeing in the Environment (2016) Published by The UK Health Forum  Essex Insights (2014) Local Authority Portrait Published October 2014  Dementia friendly communities Guidance for Councils Revised Edition, published by the Local Government Association (circa 2014/5)  HUDU Planning for Health, Using the planning system to control hot food takeaways, A good practice Guide by NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit 2013  Healthy New Towns by NHS England 2016  Working Together to Promote Active Travel by Public Health England May 2016 A briefing for local authorities

ECC’s Active Essex Team is working with Essex Districts / Boroughs to develop the Sport and Physical Activity perspective within Local Plans, to address the socio-economic and environmental issues as they apply to the Borough.

ECC seeks clarification on how the findings from the evidence base has informed the preparation of the New Plan; for example

Public Health England (2015) Health Profiles Castle Point, published June 2015; suggests the need to limit A5 uses in areas surrounding schools; areas with a high concentration of these businesses and limiting over-the-counter sales from these commercial retailers if they are in close proximity of areas where children are (i.e. parks, schools etc) at the end of the school day. This has been previously supported in new local plans as per Waltham Forest and Barking and Dagenham (see also – Healthy Places – wellbeing in the Environment 2015). However paragraphs 10.49-50, acknowledge the health issue but no reference is made to the A5 uses and their proximity to schools. Please also refer to ECC’s comments above in response to paragraphs 10.49-50 and policy R1. Paragraphs 15.1 – ECC request that specific reference is made to the policy context and 15.4. evidence contained in the ECC Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (published March 2016) (Developers Guide), which would assist the formation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which is required to accompany a Local Plan.

ECC consider the Developers Guide to be a reliable basis on which ECC may plan future service provision for the required community and physical infrastructure for which it is responsible to support growth.

33

Paragraphs 15.5 – ECC object to the evidence base as listed, which has not been updated 15.16. since the 2014 Local Plan consultation, and does not reflect the significant reduction in housing provision as now proposed within the New Plan. For example the Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment 2013 should be updated to clearly state the requirements commensurate to the proposals.

ECC also seeks amendment to include new national guidance and evidence requirements, such as the new national guidance Active Design Planning for health and wellbeing through sport and physical activity published in October 2015 by Sport England and Public Health England. (see ECC earlier comments to Chapter 14)

Policy HC2 ECC recommends the evidence base within the “policy context” is Opportunities for updated to specifically refer to new national guidance Active Design Indoor Leisure and Planning for health and wellbeing through sport and physical activity Sports published in October 2015 by Sport England and Public Health England.

ECC recommend an additional paragraph after 14.8, is inserted, to outline this new Guidance and the “Ten Principles of Active Design” which seeks opportunities to encourage and promote sport and physical activity through the design and layout of the built environment

HC4 Education Skills and Learning Paragraph 15.35 ECC recommend the reference to the ”Integrated County Strategy” is updated to refer to the “Economic Plan for Essex (2014)”

Paragraph 15.37 ECC object to an out of date evidence base, which should be updated to reflect the proposed growth within the New Plan. ECC seeks to provide the most up to date information around capacity and need for those areas of infrastructure it is responsible for, particularly education and transport; EYCC and Independent Living and wider services including Country Parks. Issues around phasing of development and funding of infrastructure will be crucial for effective delivery and this will need to be reflected in the evidence base as the New Plan preparation progresses.

ECC object to the omission of reference to the revised edition of the ECC Guide to Developer Contributions (Published March 2016) and seek amendments to include reference to this Guide, which provides essential evidence to ECC’s infrastructure requirements for developers.

Schools The paragraph correctly notes that ECC has the statutory responsibility Paragraph 15.38 for ensuring that there are sufficient school places across the County. However, the findings based upon the Commissioning School Places in Essex 2013-18 are now out of date and should be replaced by the most up to date evidence as set out in ECCs “Commissioning School Places in Essex 2015-20” published in 2016 (see ECC comments in to paragraph 13.40).

ECC seeks amendments to paragraph 15.38 and Policy HC4 to reflect the most up to date evidence and have provided the following

34 commentary based on the 2016 publication.

ECC is concerned that the Plan provides no clear indication as to when sites are likely to be developed (ie phasing of sites in five year blocks throughout the plan period 0 – 5; 5-10 & 10-15 years). The commissioning assessments are dependent on when specific sites for new housing are brought forward for development or if there is a significant change in the birth rate or inward/ outward migration. (See also ECC earlier comment under Policy H1 (2))

Education Primary School Provision The primary schools located in Castle Point Borough Council’s area have seen overall growth of 5% in pupil numbers (an additional 308 pupils) during the period January 2011 to January 2016. The highest levels of growth have been experienced on Canvey Island (6% - an additional 168 pupils) and Thundersley (8% - an additional 96 pupils).

The Commissioning School Places in Essex 2015-20 document indicates that, based on current primary school capacities, there will only be a surplus of 137 primary school places across the borough by the end of the school year 2019-20. In order to accommodate the growth in pupil numbers that will be produced from new housing plans are in place to increase the capacity of Northwick Park Primary School on Canvey Island from 2 forms of entry (60 pupils per year) to 3 forms of entry (90 pupils per year) from the school year 2017-18. There are currently three relocatable classbases in use that will also need to be replaced with permanent accommodation to manage the higher pupil numbers on the Island. On the mainland pupils generated by new housing is likely to result in a small deficit of places that will need to be addressed by the expansion of an existing school (½ form of entry – 105 places). If 400 homes are delivered within the Plan period for Policy H11, then a further ½ form of entry (105 places) expansion of an existing school on the mainland will be required.

Education Secondary School Provision At secondary level the schools located in CPBC’s area have seen an overall decline in secondary pupil numbers of 7% during the period January 2011 to January 2016. The largest decline has been experienced on Canvey Island (a fall of 306 pupils – 14%) whilst the schools on the mainland saw a relatively small drop in numbers (130 pupils – 3%).

The housing numbers planned for the borough, as identified in the Pre- Submission Draft Plan, are significantly lower than those included within the previous consulted 2014 Plan. (Strategic housing sites representing a total of over 1,900 homes, over 1,600 on mainland sites, have been removed from the 2014 Plan.)

Whilst some additional dwellings may result if the appeal at land south of Jotman’s Lane is successful and the area of search in north-west Thundersley provides land for up to 400 homes during the period covered by the current New Plan there will still be significantly fewer homes built than was anticipated in the 2014 consultation Draft Plan.

35

This very significant reduction in housing numbers may make it more difficult to sustain the current pattern of secondary school provision that exists on the mainland where there are currently over 800 unfilled secondary school places. 1,600 additional homes would have been expected to produce some 300 additional secondary aged pupils, the equivalent to two additional forms of entry per year. The majority of these additional pupils would have been expected to attend one of the three secondary schools on the mainland. On the basis of the number of homes contained within the current draft Plan this anticipated growth in secondary pupil numbers would not happen. This is likely to have a detrimental impact on the revenue funding available to these schools, which is largely based on pupil numbers. This could have a disproportionate impact on the smallest school if it cannot attract sufficient pupil numbers to enable it to maintain a broad and balanced curriculum for its pupils.

The existing capacity at the two secondary schools located on Canvey Island should be sufficient to accommodate the growth in pupil numbers generated by new housing, although a minor expansion may be required to accommodate growth from any “windfall” sites.

The assessment of the number of primary and secondary school pupils that it is anticipated might be produced by each strategic housing site and smaller housing sites has been produced using the maximum pupil yield from each dwelling i.e. a factor of 0.3 pupil per home at primary level and 0.2 pupil per home at secondary level. One bedroom flats, sheltered accommodation for the elderly and student accommodation would not be expected to produce any school age children. Flats, other than those with 1 bedroom, would be expected to produce a lower pupil yield of 0.15 pupils per dwelling at primary level and 0.1 at secondary level. By using the higher factor the assessment provides for a worst case scenario. The numbers of pupils produced by individual developments will reflect the mix of dwellings finally agreed when planning applications are approved.

ECC Schools Service is in principle supportive of Policy HC4 that proposes that the borough council will support, in principle, proposals which seek to improve the quality and choice of education and learning opportunities in Castle Point which provide parental choice. It is also supportive of Policy HC4 that will provide funding via Section 106 contributions and CIL to fund increases in the capacity of education facilities in the borough. Since all impacts can be viewed as cumulative it is, however, important that paragraph 3 of this policy is clarified. CIL regulation 123 allows up to five s106 obligations to be considered and where an area has a number of larger developments and, for example, a new school is required, it may be more appropriate for these sites to make s106 contributions. Land for new facilities cannot, in any case, be secured through CIL. The policy must, therefore, require appropriate development proposals to identify education sites and facilitate land transfer to the appropriate Authority (for nominal consideration) via s106 even where the justification for such facilities is based on a degree of cumulative impact.

36

Early Years and ECC recommends changes for clarification to reflect the latest ECC Childcare evidence base for the provision of EYCC services (2016 Sufficiency Paragraph 15.50 and data); as follows: 15.51. Change Paragraphs 15.50 and 15.51 to read as follows:

“15.50 The Essex Early Years and Childcare service report a likely increase in the demand for the provision of spaces in nurseries and pre- schools as entitlement changes take effect which extend free provision to the 40% most deprived 2 year olds over the period 2013 to 2015.from 15 hours to 30 hours from September 2017. In Castle Point it is important to consider that the impact of this change will be most significant on Canvey Island due to current insufficient childcare places. Additionally, they report the need for flexibility within the supply of different types of early years and childcare services and facilities in order to respond to the different needs of families as their economic and working arrangements change.”

“15.51 In addition to nurseries and pre-schools, childrens centres play an important role within the early years and childcare service. They provide the opportunity for families to access services and support that assist in ensuring the well-being of children and young people within the community.”

Libraries ECC welcome the approach to library provision as outlined in paragraph Paragraph 15.53. 15.53, and the recognition of the existing libraries as part of the “education facilities” within policy HC4 (4), as part of community infrastructure.

Policy HC4 Education, Whilst ECC welcomes the principles within Policy HC4, especially in Skills and Learning respect of Education within points 1, 2 and 3, which seek to improve the quality and choice of education and learning opportunities whilst providing parental choice; ECC maintains an overall objection to the Policy and supporting evidence.

ECC seeks the following amendments:

 The preparation of up to date evidence base to demonstrate the viability and deliverability of the Local Plan; including (but not limited to) - A Viability Assessment of the whole Pre-Submission Plan (as proposed); - An Infrastructure Delivery Plan to clearly demonstrate what is required, by when, who by and how much the projects would cost; having regard to ECC’s Developers Guide (see comment to paragraph 15.37 above)  Policy HC4 inclusion of and reference to “Employment Development”, to provide contributions, which is relevant to the provision of Early Years and Childcare.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with CPBC to develop the evidence base, and would need to be satisfied the evidence is in place to

37

optimise the appropriate community infrastructure funding, in accordance with ECC’s Developer Guide.

Policy HC5 Health and ECC support the principles of Policy HC5 and Strategic Objective 3 “To Social Care Provision protect and enhance the range of services that support healthy and active communities within Castle Point”.

ECC seek clarification and updates to the evidence base; please refer to ECC’s earlier comments under Policy HC1.

Policy HC11 Whilst ECC supports the principles of this section and Policy HC11, ECC Development of objects to the out of date evidence base, which has not been updated Community Facilities since the 2014 Plan and does not reflect the significant reduction in housing provision within the New Plan. Paragraph 15.75 For example the Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment 2013, should be updated, to clearly state the requirements commensurate to the proposals. (See ECC comments to Policy HC1 and sections 5.1 – 5.16 and Policy HC2)

Protecting Green Belt Land (Chapter 16)

Policy GB1 Green Belt ECC object to lack of clarification and an inconsistent use of the Strategy; Policy GB2 evidence base for the selection of development sites contrary to the Green Belt Extent and Green Belt Review was published in 2013. No new evidence has been Paragraphs 16.13 – provided to support the retention of 99% of the Green Belt as defined in 16.14. the adopted 1998 Local Plan; or to justify the change since 2014, which proposed the retention of 92% of the Green Belt.

Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change and Flooding (Chapter 17)

Chapter 17 Overall ECC welcomes the policies within this Chapter. However ECC notes comments from 2014, in respect of policies CC1, CC7 and CC8 have not been taking into account. ECC seek clarification on how these comments were addressed and consider the comments to be relevant.

Policy CC1 ECC welcome and support the policy, however recommend a minor Responding to Climate modification, to include reference to the mitigation of the increased risk of Change flooding due to climate change as a policy goal. ECC recommend the amendment to for clarification purposes

Paragraph 17.7. ECC recommends the following minor amendment to the end of paragraph 17.7 for consistency with paragraph 13.7.

The requirements of policies contained in Chapter 17: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, need to be considered in the identification of development locations and their design to ensure the integration of sustainable design and construction principles. This will seek to ensure new developments minimise the pressure on the natural environment, and the vulnerability posed to communities by climate change.

38

Policy CC1. ECC welcome and support the policy, however recommend the following additional minor addition, to include recognition of the role of planning (as set out in paragraphs 17.2 & 17.5).

Policy CC6 Fluvial and ECC support the principle and welcome the reference to the SE SWMP, Surface Water Flood however, this section should be updated and expanded to clarify the Management position in light of the recent change to the EA’s policy position in 2016, relating to the effect of climate change on rainfall. ECC’s interpretation Paragraph 17.40. of this guidance requires all new development to allow for a 40% increase in rainfall events for most developments. ECC recommend that this is referenced within this paragraph to clarify the most up to date position.

Policy CC6 Non Tidal ECC welcome and support the principle, however while water re-use is Flood Risk considered important to manage water excess and scarcity, it should be Management noted that small scale measures such as water butts (ie for irrigation) should not be counted towards to overall storage requirement of a Paragraph 17.53 development, due the lack of certainty regarding the use and availability of space within such features. ECC recommended further clarification is provided.

Policy CC6 (4) ECC welcome the policy and recommend the following addition to the end of point 4 “…and should include sufficient measures to mitigate water pollution from the development.” This is suggested for clarification purposes.

Policy CC6 Please note there is an inconsistency between the headings for CC6 section and policy. Section CC6: Fluvial and surface Water Flood Management; Policy CC6 Non-Tidal Flood Risk Management

Policy CC7 ECC notes the following 2014 consultation comment does not appear to Sustainable Buildings have been taken into account and this is repeated below for (New Builds) consideration. 5. Promoting adaptation (and mitigation) approaches in design for developments and the public realm, such as the use of Green infrastructure in line with Policy NE1.

Policy CC7 and CC8 ECC as MWPA welcome the references within Policies CC7 & CC8 to Sustainable Buildings decentralised energy space being made available within the site to (Existing Buildings) enable segregated waste storage for that waste arising from the proposed use of the development and the sustainable use of aggregate including the recycling of material on-site.

Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment (Chapter 18)

Policy NE1 Green ECC recommend the following update and clarification within paragraphs Infrastructure and the 18.7, 18.53 and policy NE1 (1) to explicitly refer to the role and status of undeveloped Coast the Greater Thames Marshes Local Nature Partnership (LNP), which has the same boundary as the Nature Improvement Area. Policy NE1 (1) and Paragraphs 18.7 and ECC seek the inclusion of reference to the “Greater Thames Local

39

18.53 Nature Partnership”, in order to seek opportunities for the LPA to work collaboratively with the LNP to deliver a strategic approach to encouraging biodiversity. This is to ensure consistency with the PPG Paragraph: 006 (Reference ID: 9-006-20160519

Policies NE1 & NE8; ECC note and recommend the following 2 Local Nature Reserves and and Paragraphs 18.10 the Special Roadside Verge designations, are explicitly listed within and 18.54 paragraphs 18.10 and 18.54; and Policies NE1 and NE8 for completeness:  Two Local Nature Reserves (Belfairs and Canvey Lake); and  One Special Roadside Verge (SE2: Poors Lane North).

Policies NE1 ECC note and recommend the following 2 Local Nature Reserves and the Special Roadside Verge designations, are explicitly listed within paragraphs 18.10 and 18.54; and Policies NE1 and NE8 for completeness:  Two Local Nature Reserves (Belfairs and Canvey Lake); and  One Special Roadside Verge (SE2: Poors Lane North).

ECC suggest the following additional text to Policy NE1, for clarification Policy NE1 (2) purposes, to read include the following text at the end of point 2, to read as follows:

“Management and enhancement of existing habitats and the creation of new ones to assist with species migration and to provide ways to adapt and mitigate from climate change, such as shading during higher temperatures.”

ECC recommend the change to highlight the multifunctional role of the green spaces for biodiversity, recreation, amenities connection and for surface water management and climate change adaption. ECC consider the protection of important green spaces and recreational facilities has the potential to greatly enhance the attractiveness of the community; encourage compatible growth in the future and contribute to community resilience.

NE2 – NE4: Historic ECC seeks changes to the terminology within Paragraph 18.23 3rd bullet; Natural Landscapes 18.34 2nd bullet and throughout the Plan (paragraphs 3.20, policy NE8 Paragraphs 18.23 and (3d) and Appendix 4) the update is for consistency with the national 18.34 terminology and the NPPF, as follows: - UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)’ should be replaced with “UK post- 2010 Biodiversity Framework”; - “species and habitats” should now be referred to as ‘Species of Principal Importance’ and ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’ (from Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006), or ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’.

The use of the terms ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’ would be consistent with the NPPF.

Policy NE8 ECC recommend the following amendment to replace the reference Determining “Habitats Regulation Assessment Regulations’ with ‘The Conservation of Applications affecting Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’. 40

Ecologically Sensitive and Designated Sites ECC request the change to reflect the transposition of the HRAs as Paragraph 18.51 required by Habitats Directive 1992 (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) which has been transposed into UK law through ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’.

Paragraph 18.52 (and ECC recommend the following amendment to paragraphs 3.20 and 3.20) 18.52, as an update and for clarification purposes.

The following wording in brackets “Essex is part of the trial for biodiversity off-setting”….should be deleted.

ECC can advise that the trial / pilot project for biodiversity offsetting has now ended and offsetting is continuing nationally, though not currently on a statutory basis.

Paragraph 18.10 ECC note and recommend the following 2 Local Nature Reserves and the Special Roadside Verge designations, are explicitly listed within paragraphs 18.10 and 18.54; and Policies NE1 and NE8 for completeness:  Two Local Nature Reserves (Belfairs and Canvey Lake); and  One Special Roadside Verge (SE2: Poors Lane North).

Policy NE8 (2) ECC seeks the following changes to point 2 of the Policy, to  reflect the importance of European and International sites, which should be afforded the highest level of protection, as stated in paragraph 18.51; and  that “‘the benefits of the development must clearly outweigh the harm to the nature conservation value of the site”.

ECC consider proposals likely to have an adverse effect on Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites (as shown on the Constraints Map) would require a full assessment in line with European legislation.

Policy NE8 (3d) ECC seeks changes to the terminology within Paragraph 18.23 3rd bullet; 18.34 2nd bullet and throughout the New Plan (paragraphs 3.20, policy NE8 (3d) and Appendix 4) the update is for consistency with the national terminology and the NPPF. Please refer to ECC’s earlier comments under paragraphs 3.20 & 18.52.

Policy NE8 ECC note and recommend the following 2 Local Nature Reserves and the Special Roadside Verge designations, are explicitly listed within paragraphs 18.10 and 18.54; and Policies NE1 and NE8 for completeness:  Two Local Nature Reserves (Belfairs and Canvey Lake); and  One Special Roadside Verge (SE2: Poors Lane North).

Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment (Chapter 19)

ECC note and welcomes the incorporation of the majority of the ECC’s comments on the historic environment in 2014. 41

Traveller Sites (Chapter 20)

Paragraph 20.1 ECC seek clarification and change to the date of the publication of National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites to August 2015.

Policy TS1 Gypsy and ECC Schools Service is supportive of the policy that would require Gypsy Traveller and Traveller accommodation to be “located in order to ensure good Accommodation access to healthcare and schools”.

Monitoring and Review (Chapter 21)

No comment

Appendices

Appendix 4 Local ECC seeks changes to the terminology within Paragraph 18.23 3rd bullet; Wildlife Sites 18.34 2nd bullet and throughout the New Plan (paragraphs 3.20, policy Table 3.1 NE8 (3d) and Appendix 4) the update is for consistency with the national terminology and the NPPF, as follows:

- UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)’ should be replaced with “UK post- 2010 Biodiversity Framework”; - “species and habitats” should now be referred to as ‘Species of Principal Importance’ and ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’ (from Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006), or ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’.

The use of the terms ‘Priority Species’ and ‘Priority Habitats’ would be consistent with the NPPF.

Appendix 4 Local ECC recommend the following designation is added to the list of “Local Wildlife Sites wildlife Sites” within Appendix 4: Table 3.1  Special Roadside Verge “SE2: Poors Lane North”,

This is for clarification and completeness

Maps

Constraints Map ECC recommends the following designations should be included within the Constraints Map, for completeness  Local Nature Reserves  Living Landscapes  Special Roadside Verge  Greater Thames Marshes NIA  Local Wildlife Sites  Other areas of priority habitat.

42