Are the Proposed Housing Allocations Justified, Effective and Consistent with National Policy?

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan

Inspectors Matters Issues and Questions (MIQs) MATTER 5: HOUSING ALLOCATIONS (8th April 2021) Hadleigh and Daws Heath Area – HO13, HO14, HO15, HO16, HO17, HO32

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Contents

Issue: Are the proposed housing allocations justified, effective and consistent with national policy? .. 4 Section A: Local Policy HO13 Land east of Rayleigh Road, Hadleigh ...... 4 Question 111 ...... 4 Question 112 ...... 5 Question 113 ...... 5 Question 114 ...... 7 Question 115 ...... 10 Question 116 ...... 18 Question 117 ...... 18 Question 118 ...... 19 Section B: Local Policy HO14 Land at Brook Farm, Hadleigh ...... 22 Question 119 ...... 22 Question 120 ...... 23 Question 121 ...... 23 Question 122 ...... 25 Question 123 ...... 25 Question 124 ...... 27 Question 125 ...... 34 Question 126 ...... 35 Question 127 ...... 36 Section C: Local Policy HO15 Land south of Scrub Lane, Hadleigh ...... 38 Question 128 ...... 38 Question 129 ...... 39 Question 130 ...... 40 Question 131 ...... 40 Section D: Local Policy HO16 Land at Oak Tree Farm, Hadleigh ...... 42 Question 132 ...... 42 Question 133 ...... 42 Question 134 ...... 43 Question 135 ...... 45 Question 136 ...... 46 Question 137 ...... 53 Question 138 ...... 54

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Question 139 ...... 54 Section E: Local Policy HO17 Hadleigh Island, Hadleigh ...... 57 Question 140 ...... 57 Question 141 ...... 57 Question 142 ...... 58 Section F: Local Policy HO32 Land at 244-258 London Road, Hadleigh ...... 60 Question 238 ...... 60 Question 239 ...... 61 Question 240 ...... 61 Question 241 ...... 62 Question 242 ...... 63

Please note: Where the Council is proposing modifications to policies or reasoned justifications in the submitted plan these are detailed in the responses as follows:

• Additional and new text in Red and underlined • Deleted text is shown by strike through

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Issue: Are the proposed housing allocations justified, effective and consistent with national policy?

Section A: Local Policy HO13 Land east of Rayleigh Road, Hadleigh

Question 111 Would the Policy be effective in minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity consistent with paragraph 170 of the Framework?

1. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that:

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:… d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

2. Policy HO13 in the Pre-submission Local Plan 2019 [EXM-001] requires ‘an approach to wildlife that results in a net gain in biodiversity’, this ensures that biodiversity is considered and enhanced through the policy, in accordance with paragraph 170 in the NPPF. In addition to this under modification M10.40 in the Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030], this modification proposes:

d. An approach to wildlife that results in a measurable net gain in biodiversity, including the provision of a buffer to the Little Haven Complex nature reserve;

3. The inclusion of ‘measurable’ further enhances the effectiveness of policy HO13 by giving a clear direction that can be measured. In addition to this, the insertion of a buffer to the Little Haven Complex nature reserve minimises impacts of development to existing biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 170 in the Framework.

4. Criteria 2e in policy HO13 requires new greenways through the site linking, further to this modification M10.41 is proposed as below:

e. The provision of greenways through the site, linking to the existing network of green infrastructure which provide opportunity for active travel and recreation but which avoid or otherwise manage additional recreational disturbance to sensitive wildlife assets nearby;

5. The additional text which is proposed as a result of representations from Essex Bridleways Association [274] and Essex Wildlife Trust [430] ensures potential for recreational disturbance within the nature reserve is reduced, by providing on-site alternative green spaces. This adds resilience to existing ecological networks, which is consistent with the NPPF.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

6. Criteria 2c of the policy requires development to respect and retain as far as possible established hedge and tree-lined boundaries. This will maintain existing ecological networks as far as possible, which further ensures that biodiversity networks will be more resilient, making biodiversity net gain opportunities more effective.

7. For the reasons set out above the Council is satisfied that policy HO13 with proposed modifications will be effective in minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity and is consistent with paragraph 170 of the Framework.

Question 112 Does the Policy set out a clear design vision and expectations for the proposed site as per paragraph 125 of the Framework and would it be effective?

8. Paragraph 125 of the Framework requires plans at the most appropriate level to ‘set out a clear design vision and expectations’. The Council believe that policy HO13 is the most appropriate level to set out these design expectations, specific to this site and this is set out in criteria 2b of policy HO13.

9. The different design approaches within policy HO13 are sympathetic to the different landscapes and reflects the differences across the site. The general design principles are set out in Appendix Two of the Plan.

10. The Council note objections from the landowners of HO13 [638] in relation to the design approach of policy HO13, stating that:

‘Point 2b of Policy HO13 encourages the use of a mix of design approaches built around the Arcadia, Boulevard and Major Entry Point approaches. Although these approaches may emerge as entirely appropriate on various parts of the site, the Promotor believes that it is premature to include these overly prescriptive approaches within the policy unless and until further adequate progress has been made in justifying the approach through the preparation of a master plan. The master plan should be developed in collaboration with the council, Promoters, stakeholders and the community based on careful site-specific analysis of the site and its surrounding context.’

11. The Council does agree with this representation that a collaborative master plan should be developed, and this will inform the final design and layout of the site. However, based on the design principles in Appendix Two the Council is of the view that it allows flexibility in the design and therefore allows for the master plan approach to inform the final design of the site.

12. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO13, in addition to appendix two of the Plan would be effective in demonstrating clear urban design vision and expectations for allocation HO13, which is consistent with paragraph 125 of the NPPF.

Question 113

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Would the Policy be effective in providing for necessary community facilities?

13. Policy HO13, as submitted, requires a multi-use community hall, and a stand-alone early years and childcare nursery (0.13ha). These requirements were derived from engagement with infrastructure providers and set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2019 [DV- 004].

14. Infrastructure providers have been consulted on through the Regulation 19 consultation and have confirmed their requirements and the associated costs for such facilities, and remain committed to implementing the facilities. Costs associated with the community facilities can be found under references 5, 108 and 149 in Appendix four, page 145 in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2020 [DV-006].

15. The NHS had not indicated a need for a healthcare facility at site HO13 until February 2019. In their representations, the NHS [671] noted the need for a healthcare facility on this site to support the growth arising from this site and from other sites in the Daws Heath area. As a result of this representation modifications M10.39 and M10.42 are proposed in the Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] to clarify the need for the healthcare and community hall and embed that within the policy making it more effective.

16. Discussions with the NHS have taken place since their representations and the NHS confirmed that a 750sqm – 1000sqm healthcare facility would be appropriate for this site. This need and cost has been accounted for within the 2020 update to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2020 [DV-006]. In order to ensure effectiveness of implementing such facilities, the Council agree that an additional modification could be made to policy HO13, ensuring that the size of the facility is included. As a result, the following amendments to modifications M10.39 and M10.42 are as follows:

Amendment to M10.39 – Paragraph 10.40 10.40 10.43 Community facilities should be provided in the form of local shops, an early years and childcare nursery, a multi-purpose community hall (equivalent to being able to accommodate a minimum of 2 badminton courts in terms of size and height), the need for which is identified through the Castle Point Built Facilities Strategy 2018, and a healthcare facility to serve the Daws Heath area comprising 750 - 1000sqm of floorspace, as required by the NHS Mid and South Essex STP.

Amendment to M10.42 – Part 2h of policy HO13 h. The provision of a multi-use community hall, and the provision of land or a suitable building to provide up to 1000sqm of space for healthcare services building on site;

17. Essex County Council (ECC) [360] highlighted that the effectiveness of policy HO13 could be enhanced by stating that an area of land of 1.3ha in size is specifically required for a stand alone early years and childcare nursery. In discussion with ECC it was agreed that there was a typo in representation 360, and that the requirement to be stated was 0.13ha of land. This is consistent with the requirements of the ECC’s Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions 2020 [DV-008] which sets out the land requirement for a 56 place early years and childcare nursery. It is also is consistent with other policies within the Plan. Therefore, modification M10.43 is proposed to enhance the effectiveness of policy HO13 in delivering a stand-alone early years and childcare nursery.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

18. The costs from the IDP 2020 have been fed into the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005]. This assessment tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO13 falls within row 43 of table 6.1 (pg. 66). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO13 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. In addition to this table 6.3 (pg. 68) tests different market conditions under the policy conditions and policy HO13 is deemed to be maintained as viable. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms, ensuring the effective delivery of the community facilities.

19. The Council is satisfied, with the proposed modifications and amendments as shown above, policy HO13 will be effective in providing the necessary community facilities.

Question 114 Would the Policy be effective in achieving safe and suitable access to the site for all users, and would any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree?

20. As a result of representations from Essex County Council (ECC) [361] during the Regulation 19 consultations, further transport work in the form of the Castle Point Transport Evidence Refresh Proposed Allocations 2020 [TPC-014] was completed in relation to site HO13. Policy HO13 requires main vehicular access from the north from Stadium Way and access to the South from Daws Heath Road, with access arrangements for the development addressing peak time congestion at nearby junctions.

21. The report (TPC-014) assessed four different scenarios on the surrounding highway network, these are as follows:

• Option 1: Reference Case – in this scenario, it is assumed that no development would be delivered at HO13 and as such, neither access junction (19 or 20) or any form of link road through the site would be available; • Option 2: Link Road – in this scenario, there would still be no development at HO13, but it is assumed that a link road between Junctions 19 and 20 would be available for existing traffic to use. In this scenario, the assumptions from the ‘Mitigation & Sensitivity Analysis’ report have therefore been employed again; • Option 3: Link Road & Development – in this scenario, both the link road between Junctions 19 and 20 would be available as well as development coming forward at HO13 and as above, assumptions regarding the link road have been carried over from the ‘Mitigation & Sensitivity Analysis’ report; and, • Option 4: HO13 – in this scenario, it is assumed that the HO13 development would be delivered and that accesses at both Junctions 19 and 20 would be created, but that no link road would be formed through the development for either development or background traffic to use. This scenario best reflects the requirements of policy HO13.

22. The following junctions were assessed:

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

• Junction 3 - Rayleigh Weir • Junction 18 – Stadium Way • Junction 4 – Woodmans Arms • Junction 5 – Vic House Corner • Junctions 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d – which form the Hadleigh gyratory • Junction 19 – New access to HO13 from Stadium Way • Junction 20 – New access to HO13 from Daws Heath

23. Following engagement with ECC as the Highways Authority and their transport consultants Jacobs, the Council was asked to update particular junctions within the previous report, relative to site HO13, these were junctions 4, 5 and 6d. The alterations included amendments to the operational performance models for each of the junctions, as shown in chapter three of that report.

24. Following this, the Castle Point Proposed Allocations Addendum 2021 [TPC-017] was completed. The addendum report found no change to the outcomes of junctions 5 and 6d but the amendments concluded that the capacity of junction 4 was exceeded in all scenarios, including in the reference case where no development at HO13 is included. This shows that this junction is already operating over capacity.

25. The transport evidence takes into account a ‘worst case scenario’ in regard to traffic, no assumptions to modal shift were incorporated within the transport modelling. However, it is recognised by ECC, the Council and within national policy that sustainable forms of travel and modal shift is key for future transport planning. This has been acknowledged within proposed modification M10.45, which requires improvements to active and sustainable travel modes. This modification has been agreed between the Council and ECC through a Statement of Common Ground [SCG-003]. The requirements for sustainable and active travel modes have been fully costed within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2020 [DV-006] (pages 145-146) proving the deliverability of this policy requirement. As such, sensitivity testing which accounts for a degree of modal shift is helpful in understanding how a shift towards sustainable travel modes could assist at these junctions, particularly as this is the direction of policy at ECC and nationally.

26. In addition to this, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a significant change in movement and behaviour. It is acknowledged that the full impacts of the pandemic will not be known until restrictions have been lifted. However, it is clear that the way in which people and businesses operate is likely to change in the longer term with more people working at home, at least for part of the week, and therefore reducing the amount of traffic. Initial thoughts are that peak time traffic may return to around 85% of pre-COVID levels, although this is just a working assumption at this time. However, as a result of this, sensitivity testing at 5% increments has been undertaken to test what the impact will be of a longer term reduction in traffic, in addition to sensitivity testing of a modal shift for site HO13.

27. A further addendum [TPC-019] has therefore been prepared testing the following scenarios on the Woodman Arms (Junction 4) and Stadium Way (Junction 18) junctions in relation to the reference case (no development at site HO13) and the policy position (option 4):

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

• Travel planning and associated sustainable travel measures which could reduce the vehicular trip generation of development at HO13, by 5% and 10% • Reductions in background traffic volumes arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential medium to long-term effect this may have on travel and working patterns, including greater amounts of home working for example, by 5%, 10% and 15%

28. Junctions 4 and 18 have been tested within the latest report, as the previous assessments (TPC-014 and TPC-017) found that these junctions will be most impacted by development at site HO13. This is not unexpected as any development in this area will have some impact on junction capacity. This does not mean that no development can take place or that the alternative proposal put forward by Essex County Council of the creation of a link or relief road through the site is the most sustainable option or will help reduce congestion and improve public safety. Alternative measures can be effective.

29. The sensitivity analysis presented for Junction 18 (Stadium Way), indicates that reductions in background flows (5%, 10% and 15%) as well as the effects of travel planning and sustainable travel measures (5% and 10%) would all be expected to contribute toward improving the performance of the junction within the capacity threshold for the policy position presented in HO13.

30. The sensitivity analysis presented for Junction 4 (Woodmans Arms), indicates that reductions in background flows (5%, 10% and 15%) as well as the effects of travel planning and sustainable travel measures (5% and 10%) would all be expected to contribute toward improving the performance of the junction. None of these scenarios, even in combination however, would be expected to result in the junction performing below the theoretical threshold and as such, the performance is expected to remain ‘Red’ in all cases.

31. Notwithstanding this, a 10% reduction in HO13 development traffic flows through travel planning and sustainable travel measures is expected to result in a slight improvement in the worst-performing peak (PM) when compared to the Reference Case. Performance in the AM peak would however, still be worse than in the Reference Case. Should other reductions in background traffic flow occur, for example, as a result of the pandemic and subsequent changes to travel and working practices, then the improvements in performance would be expected to be greater.

32. Given the performance constraint of junction 4, it will still be important for any Transport Assessment for the HO13 development to comprehensively consider the trip generation characteristics of the development, trip distribution (including potential dynamic routing), a travel mitigation strategy in the form of travel planning and associated measures as well as off-site improvements which may include modifications to enhance the performance of this junction.

33. The Council has had discussions with the developers of this site, who have confirmed that they are committed to implementing appropriate transport mitigation measures and working with the Council and the Highways Authority to ensure that the arrangements for this site are safe and suitable and will not significantly impact on the transport network. However, where a junction, such as the Woodmans’ Arms junction already exceeds its designed capacity it is not reasonable in planning terms to expect the development to

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

resolve pre-existing issues. The evidence does however show that there is scope for investment in sustainable travel measures in this area, travel planning, and other measures to significantly reduce the impact of travel movements from this site to the extent that the traffic situation in the area is not worsened.

34. In relation to the existing capacity issue meanwhile, the Council is committed to working with ECC to help improve such existing traffic issues within and across the borough. There is an increased emphasis in this regard in securing improvements which improve opportunities for active and sustainable travel, either independently, or alongside highway schemes.

35. It is worth noting that the transport evidence has been completed to the support the local plan and site HO13, further capacity, design, road safety and costing analysis is expected to be required at the planning application stages. However, a cost for transport mitigation in the area of this site is included within the IDP 2020 [DV-006]. This was based on earlier work which assumed the provision of a link road through the site. As a link road does not align with the drive towards sustainable and active travel, and is an unreasonable requirement for the development given the scale of transport impact arising, it is not included within the Local Plan as a requirement. However, the cost provides an upper limit of what may be required in terms of transport mitigation. This was tested through the Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005] and found to leave sufficient headroom within the development to ensure viability.

36. The Council is therefore satisfied that the policy will be effective in achieving safe and suitable access to the site for all users, whilst mitigating the impact on capacity and congestion on the highway network as a result of the allocation. The costs associated with this has been justified within the evidence and are found to be viable.

Question 115 What are the exceptional circumstances for the release of the site and nearby land from the Green Belt?

37. The Green Belt Topic Paper 2018 [GB-003] concludes that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt land for housing. In 2015 a Judicial Review was sought by Calverton Parish Council v Greater Nottingham Councils [[2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)] in relation to Green Belt release in the approved Local Plan. The Hon. Mr Justice Jay set out five matters that should be identified and dealt with in order to ascertain whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to justify the releasing of land from the Green Belt, these matters have been tested below in order to justify the exceptional circumstances that exist for the release of Green Belt land for site HO13.

Test 1: The acuteness/intensity of the objectively assessed need

38. The government’s standard methodology (using a base date of 2018) for calculating housing need assesses Castle Point’s objectively assessed needs (OAN) is 353 net new homes per annum. This figure is broadly consistent to the outcomes of the earlier South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2016 [H-003] together with the SHMA Addendum 2017 [H-006].

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

39. The Castle Point Borough Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2018 [H- 007; H-008; H-009; H-010] was reviewed in light of this need, to determine whether additional capacity could be identified from sites within the urban area, or whether higher densities could be achieved on sites to limit the loss of Green Belt land. It remained the case however, that a significant proportion of housing needs would remain unmet, unless Green Belt was considered to determine whether the full extent of this housing need could be accommodated sustainably.

40. As highlighted in the SHMA 2016, figure 2.8 (pg. 23) shows a considerable worsening of market conditions within Castle Point Borough over time, justifying this uplift in need. In particular, average house prices have increased by almost 50% in the period from 2002 to 2012. This trend has increased beyond this with a 35% increase in mean house prices from 2014 to 2019, as highlighted in table 2.2 (pg. 10) in the Addendum to the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Castle Point 2020 [H-014]. On page 11 within the SHMA 2020, table 2.3 also highlights how mean monthly rents have increased by 20% over the same period. This means it has become much harder for first time buyers to access the housing market. This has resulted in an increase in the number of people still living with their parents into adulthood, including those with their own children. These are known as concealed households, and there is a risk that the number of these will continue to grow unless affordability and supply issues are not addressed.

41. The scale of need, especially which cannot be met within the urban area, combined with the worsening of market conditions indicate that there is an acuteness of need for housing in Castle Point Borough. Therefore, it is considered that this first test in respect of demonstrating the acuteness of needs in relation to housing is passed.

Test 2: The inherent constraints on supply/availability of land prima facie suitable for sustainable development

42. There is an inherent constraint on land supply within the Castle Point borough as well as the surrounding authorities and wider area. The existing Green Belt boundaries were amended in the early 1990’s to meet housing needs up to 2001. As per paragraph 137 of the Framework, the Council sought to make as much use of urban and brownfield sites and increased densities within town centre and urban sites that are well serviced by public transport.

43. A Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory at October 2020 [H-015] updated the housing trajectory within the Plan with up to date housing figures. The amount of projected homes from completions from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2020, extant permissions as of 31st March 2020, sites for the Brownfield Register, policy compliant SHLAA sites, windfall sites and strategic allocations on urban and brownfield sites are set out in the table below. This compares the amount of supply from these sources in comparison to the objectively assessed housing need (OAN).

Source Total Percentage of total OAN OAN 5,295 100% Completions 2018/2020 271 5.1%

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Extant permissions 602 11.4% (31.3.2020) Brownfield Register 184 3.5% Policy Compliant SHLAA 279 5.3% Windfall 660 12.5% Strategic allocations on 1,152 21.8% Urban or Brownfield sites Total 3,148 59.5% Shortfall from OAN 2,147 40.5%

44. It is clear from the table above that there is an inherent lack of urban land available, with all suitable brownfield, extant permissioned sites, windfall or policy compliant SHLAA sites making up 59.5% of the total OAN of the borough. This highlights exceptional circumstances and a need to release Green Belt sites in order to meet OAN.

45. A call for sites was undertaken in 2018 to inform the SHLAA 2018 [H-007; H-008; H-009; H- 010] all suitable sites were included within the housing trajectory. The amount of homes projected from windfall increased from the level set out in the Pre-submission Local Plan 2019 [EXM-001] in the table above and further to 702 dwellings within the Castle Point Windfall Allowance 2021 [H-018].

46. Consistent with paragraph 137 of the Framework, the Council has made as much use of suitable brownfield sites as evidenced in the table above and increased densities within town centre and urban sites that are well serviced by public transport. Due to the level of shortfall from sites identified above to the OAN the Council had discussions with neighbouring authorities in regard to them accommodating unmet housing needs within their authorities, and formally wrote to authorities within the Housing Market Area (HMA) in November 2018. This is evidenced within the Duty to Co-operate Report 2020 [DTC-003] in appendices 5, 6 and 7. Additionally Chelmsford City Council and Maldon District Council which sit outside of the HMA were engaged on this matter, their responses are evidenced in appendix 6 of that report. In all instances all authorities were unable to accommodate the housing need from Castle Point. Therefore, the Council had to seek to meet need within the Borough.

Test 3: The consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;

47. As outlined above, there is insufficient capacity within the urban area to meet all of the borough’s housing need. However, alternatives were appraised through the sustainability appraisal process.

48. In accordance with criteria a in paragraph 139 of the Framework, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] considers the housing strategy presented in the Pre-submission Local Plan as a sustainable approach to meeting housing need. The sustainability appraisal (SA) is an iterative process and has evolved through the plan making process. In 2018 an SA Interim Report [SUS-015] was produced, on page 19, the

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

SA considers reasonable alternatives to the strategy set out within the draft Plan at that time for meeting housing needs. The report considers two alternatives as set out below: • Alternative SD2a – Ensuring that there is no development identified within the Green Belt within the Plan • Alternative SD2b – Releasing more Green Belt land for development to fully meet OAN

49. Table 3 on page 21 of the SA Interim Report 2018 compared the preferred approach with the alternatives SD2a and SD2b against sustainability themes. It found that although alternative SD2a is comparably more favourable for environmental themes it does have negative implications for housing delivery within the Plan. Adversely, alternative SD2b exacerbates the negative impacts of the preferred approach at that time by releasing more Green Belt land.

50. With regards to reasonable alternative SD2a, the SA identified negative consequences for economic growth, regeneration and meeting housing needs. This is because there would be insufficient housing to support the labour demands of local businesses, and a supply and demand ratio for housing which would prevent access to the housing market for lower income households and first time buyers.

51. Therefore, the SA process concludes that a strategy which involves encroachment into the Green Belt represents a more sustainable option, than the option which would see no encroachment into the Green Belt. However, there are negative consequences arising from the strategy put forward in the Pre-submission Local Plan. Therefore, sustainability must also be considered at the site level to ensure that where it is necessary to impinge on the Green Belt, that the resulting development will still be capable of being considered as sustainable, compared to reasonable alternatives.

52. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] for the Pre- submission Local Plan indicates that those sites identified for housing purposes are generally sustainable development options. In such cases where potential negative impact may arise, the overall conclusions of the SA was that with mitigation measures included in the allocation policies these harmful impacts could be overcome.

53. It should be noted that since the SA Interim Report 2018 the Plan has boosted the urban housing supply through extant consents and windfall sites, as demonstrated in the Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory at October 2020 [H-015] and updates to housing figures up to April 2020 from policy compliant sites [H-020], brownfield sites [H-021], extant consents [H-022] and windfall [H-018]. Therefore, the amount of Green Belt sites proposed to be released within the Plan is largely the same as that identified in 2018, whilst meeting housing need in full. As noted within the SA Interim Report 2018, Castle Point has a lack of land supply beyond identified sites within the urban area and within the Green Belt, this is highlighted through the SHLAA 2018 [H-007; H-008; H-009; H-010].

Test 4: The nature and extent of the harm to this Green Belt (or those parts of it which would be lost if the boundaries were reviewed); and

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Test 5: The extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent.

54. Tests 4 and 5 relate to the Green Belt assessments undertaken, as the assessments assessed harm and provided potential mitigation to harm, these tests are linked together in this section.

55. The Green Belt assessments were undertaken in two parts, these included:

• Green Belt Review Part One 2018 [GB-001] - assesses the contribution different parcels of Green Belt land across the borough contribute to the fundamental aim, characteristics and purposes of the Green Belt; • Green Belt Review Part Two – this has been updated as plan making has progressed, this assessment focuses on the harm each site allocation has on the Green Belt, this assessment also considers mitigations measures and longer-term considerations for each site. The following reviews have been completed: • Green Belt Review Part Two 2018 [GB-002] • Green Belt Review Part Two update 2019 [GB-004] • Green Belt Review Part Two Addendum 2021 [GB-007]

56. Allocation HO13 falls mainly within parcel 4 of the review with a small part in parcel 5. The Review found four strategic areas that are locally important, parcels 4 and 5 along with parcels 7, 8 and 9 make up the ‘Strategic Green Belt Area 1 – Daws Heath “Ring”’, which serves an important purpose in preventing the settlement from merging with surrounding settlements of Hadleigh, Thundersley, Rayleigh and Eastwood, as well as preventing urban coalescence more generally.

57. Both Part one and two of the review assessed the following three purposes of the Green Belt in line with the NPPF: 1 – To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas 2 – To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another 3 – To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

58. As set out on page 33 of GB-001, the reasons purpose four and five of the Green Belt were not assessed within the review is set out below: • Green Belt Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic town • There are no towns in the borough which are considered to be historic in nature for the purposes of the application of this Green Belt Purpose. It is held that this purpose applies to a limited number of areas such as Oxford where the Green Belt specifically contributes to its historic significance. As such, this Purpose did not form part of this Review. • Green Belt Purpose 5 - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land • As stated in the PAS Guidance, ‘If Green Belt achieves this purpose, then all Green Belt does so to the same extent and hence the value of various land parcels is unlikely to be distinguished by the application of this purpose.’ As such this purpose is excluded from the review as each parcel would receive

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

the same assessment.

59. Table 1 below sets out the assessment within part one of the review for parcel 4.

Table 1: Assessment of parcel 4

Assessed Purpose Comments Contribution 1 - To check The Green Belt parcel is adjacent to New Thundersley, unrestricted Daws Heath and Hadleigh. There is limited sprawl across sprawl of large the northern border where commercial development acts built up areas to continue the trading estate across Stadium Way into the parcel. There is also ribbon development along the short stretch of Daws Heath Road which is in the Green Belt. Very Strong However, outside of these examples, and despite the absence of permanent robust boundaries along much of the extent of the parcel, the parcel itself is free of built up development. As such the Green Belt is considered to make a very strong contribution to this purpose. 2 – To prevent The parcel represents the full extent of the strategic gap neighbouring between Thundersley to the west and Daws Heath to the towns from east, as well as Daws Heath and Hadleigh, located to the merging into one south. These strategic gaps at their shortest extent are Very Strong another approximately 350m and 300m respectively, meaning that significant development would act to notably decrease the remaining gap between these urban areas. 3 – To assist in The topography is rolling with small valleys. It contains safeguarding the areas of pasture, woodland and hedgerows with field countryside from boundary trees. The main land use in the parcel is encroachment agriculture with farms being present in the north and south of the parcel. There are also stables and a timber yard which are not considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The industrial estate on the northern edge is reasonably well screened and set below the high ground in views from the south. Whilst there is a small Very Strong amount of localised ribbon development, the overall perception of this parcel is of agricultural land and woods.

The parcel has residential development at its north western, eastern and southern boundaries but is considered large enough that it is not specifically influenced by these boundary features. The parcel also links to wider countryside to the north and south west.

60. Table 2 below sets out the assessment within part one of the review for parcel 5, to cover the small part of HO13 which falls within that parcel.

Table 2: Assessment of parcel 5

Assessed Purpose Comments Contribution

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

1 - To check The parcel is adjacent to a trading estate to the north east unrestricted and Daws Heath to the south. It is also adjacent to sprawl of large development within Rayleigh across the A127, which forms built up areas a robust permanent boundary although to the north of the Very Strong A127 is further Green Belt land within Rochford District. There has been no development in the parcel itself which could be said to be sprawl from an existing large built up area as defined in the methodology. 2 – To prevent The topography is gently rolling with a substantial area of neighbouring woodland cover. There are views into the area from towns from adjacent residential properties and farmsteads. A network merging into one of minor roads, tracks, footpaths and public rights of way another cross the site. Views into the area from the A127 in the north are screened by mature trees.

Parcel 5 forms the entirety of the strategic gap between Thundersley and Daws Heath, and Rayleigh and Daws Heath. It also forms approximately 600m of the total 750m gap between Daws Heath and the urban settlement of Very Strong Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea. At its closest point, Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea falls within the district of Castle Point although the settlement is largely located in Southend-on- Sea.

The fact that this parcel represents the sole strategic gap between two settlements, the majority of another strategic gap and there are no features which would block inter- visibility outside of the parcel, its contribution to this purpose is assessed as very strong. 3 – To assist in There is extremely minimal built development within this safeguarding the parcel. Other than for a children’s hospice in the south countryside from west of the parcel and a place of worship, all other built encroachment development in the parcel is associated with the farms that are located in the north and south. The topography is gently rolling with a substantial area of woodland cover Very Strong and more open fields. The parcel is bound by the A127 to the north and contains residential development along a portion of its southern boundary. However, the parcel is of such a size as to not be influenced by these periphery developments.

61. The Green Belt Review Part Two Addendum 2021 [GB-007] assessed the harm arising from the removal of site HO13 from the Green Belt as a result of the development. This is set out in table 3 below.

Table 3: Assessment of site HO13

Purpose 1 – Check Purpose 2 – Prevent Towns Purpose 3 – Safeguard Unrestricted Sprawl from Merging Countryside

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

The proposed development The proposed site currently The proposed development site is free from existing urban forms a significant part of the site is currently free of built development. Future urban existing gap between development considered development would display a Thundersley and Daws Heath. inappropriate in the Green relationship with the general Development would act to Belt. Although there is build settlement pattern as the site reduce the gap between the development around much of is directly adjacent to built two settlements, bringing a the periphery of the site, this is development to the north, greater extent of Thundersley not assessed as being south and west. It would act to in closer proximity to Daws sufficient to compromise the propagate the ribbon Heath whilst also narrowing rural integrity of the site as a development along Daws the gap which exists between whole due to its size. Heath Road further eastwards the two settlements along but also infill all land in Daws Heath Road which is between this lateral extension currently its narrowest point. and the industrial estate to the In this area, the strategic gap north. Development would not would be reduced by however result in the approximately two thirds. The realignment of Green Belt with perception of merge would an existing boundary feature. therefore be significantly increased.

Degree of Harm: Degree of Harm: Degree of Harm:

Moderate Very Strong Strong

62. For the three purposes highlighted above, the development of site HO13 was found to have a ‘Moderate’ to ‘Very Strong’ degree of harm. The Green Belt Review Part Two update 2019 [GB-004] had updated the site boundary to more logically clearly follow tree-lined field boundaries and create a more robust Green Belt boundary. It was found that future development would relate to the general settlement pattern, and although realignment of the Green Belt would not follow an existing boundary feature it would create a new curtilage which would form the boundary.

63. There are buildings around three sides of the site edge including an industrial estate/retail park to the north, ribbon development on Daws Heath Road to the South, and some development within the Green Belt in the form of a fire station and car show room to the west. This ribbon development fronts the gap between Thundersley and Daws Heath.

64. It is recognised that loss of Green Belt development in this location is likely to cause some harm to the Green Belt, and so development would need to be well screened, retain existing hedge/tree lined boundaries, provide a network of green infrastructure to mitigate the harm, and use an arcadia design approach in areas of Historic Natural Landscape to the eastern part of the site to integrate with the edge of the Green Belt, as set out in Strategic Policy HO13.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Question 116 Is the proposed Green Belt boundary justified and consistent with national policy as set out in paragraph 139 of the Framework?

65. The proposed Green Belt boundary for site HO13 has a trading estate, car showroom and fire station to the north. The eastern boundary follows a path and a drain to the north, the boundary follows tree-lined fields, with countryside beyond, and dwellings adjacent to the boundary along Daws Heath Road to the south-east. The western boundary primarily follows residential curtilages and a small section of Rayleigh Road, across from which are dwellings. Parts of the southern boundary are also lined by trees whilst the western boundary is more open in nature.

66. In accordance with criterion f of paragraph 139 in the Framework, this provides physical recognisable features to the Green Belt boundary. In addition to this the Green Belt Review Part 2 Addendum 2021 [GB-007] considers that alternative approaches would weaken the integrity of the Daws Heath Ring and encroach on a Local Wildlife Site to the east. As such, the Council considers this to be a robust boundary in the long term, meeting criterion e of paragraph 139 of the Framework. Therefore, criteria c and d in paragraph 139 of the Framework do not apply in this instance and there is no suitable land to safeguard for future housing need as a result of this allocation.

67. The proposed Green Belt boundary is set out on the Policies Map [EXM-002], this is drawn around policy HO13. The Green Belt Review Part 2 Addendum 2021 [GB-007] assessed the harm to the Green Belt as a result of removing this site from the Green Belt, in addition to this, the assessment defines potential alternative boundaries and if any changes could be made to the boundary to provide for longer term needs.

68. In accordance with criterion a in paragraph 139 of the Framework, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] considers the housing strategy presented in the Pre-submission Local Plan as a sustainable approach to meeting housing need. Policy HO13 addresses sustainability themes highlighted in table 4 (pg. 33) in the SA and meets the approach set out in the Plan.

69. Within policy HO13, although screening, retention of existing hedge/tree lined boundaries, and provision of a network of green infrastructure are proposed in the policy, there is no land which is required to remain permanently open, therefore criterion b in paragraph 139 does not apply for policy HO13.

70. The Council is satisfied that the proposed Green Belt boundary in relation to allocation HO13 is justified and consistent with national policy as set out in paragraph 139 of the Framework.

Question 117 Are there any matters which would mean that the site is not deliverable or developable as per Framework definitions?

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

71. Allocation HO13 is promoted by one organisation who are proactively working with the Council in order to produce a master plan for this site. They met with the Local Plan Delivery Board in November 2020 to discuss how to bring a master plan forward on the site and in March 2021 undertook an initial public consultation for the site, highlighting eagerness to progress a master plan.

72. The Council has undertaken the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV- 005], this tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO13 falls within row 43 of tables 6.1 (pg. 66). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO13 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. In addition to this table 6.3 (pg. 68) tests different market conditions under the policy conditions and policy HO13 is deemed to be maintained as viable. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms as justified in the evidence.

73. The Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] demonstrates that policy HO13 is in a sustainable location, the suitability of the site is reiterated within the SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA references S0066).

74. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO13 meets the definition of deliverable and developable as per the Framework definitions, due to the fact that it is suitable, available and achievable for the reasons set out above.

Question 118 Are the proposed Modifications necessary for soundness?

75. Table 4 below highlights the modifications proposed to policy HO13 and the reasoned justification supporting this policy.

Table 4: Proposed modifications to policy HO13 and the justification

Mod Reference Main modification proposed Reason Justification for modification M10. Paragraph 10.33 10.36 This site is approximately 28 ha Representatio This modification 36 10.33 in size. In the eastern part of the site, 3.5ha is n 36 Mrs L highlights the designated as part of a Historic Natural Woodgate relationship this site has Landscape. This eastern edge also coincides to the adjacent nature with the extent of the Little Havens Complex Representatio reserve improving the nature reserve managed by Essex Wildlife n 66 Mr M effectiveness of policy trust. The Cottage plantation woodland Cronin HO13 in respecting the reserve sits nearby to the south-east of the adjacent uses and site. The site itself is mainly open farmland Representatio protecting and which is compartmentalised by established n 430 Essex enhancing biodiversity. hedge and tree lined field boundaries. There Wildlife Trust is a cluster of existing farm buildings occupied by several small commercial uses, as well as some stables located to the southern part of

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

the site. An existing community use fishing lake is also contained within the site.

M10. Paragraph 10.35 10.38 Given the mainly undeveloped Representatio This modification 37 10.35 nature of the site, and the ancient landscape n 36 Mrs L highlights how the site area a master plan would need to consider Woodgate should respect the how biodiversity, the topography, the adjacent uses, by compartmentalised landscape and semi-rural Representatio protecting nearby nature of the site could be effectively n 430 Essex wildlife. This improves integrated into the development, and how an Wildlife Trust the effectiveness of overall net gain in biodiversity could be policy HO13. achieved. Buffering should be provided to the Little Haven Complex, and consideration should be given as to how additional recreational disturbance of nearby wildlife assets should be avoided.

M10. Paragraph 10.37 10.39 It will also be necessary to Representatio This modification 38 10.37 demonstrate integration of sustainable n 125 Anglian improves the drainage techniques, to ensure that surface Water Services effectiveness of policy water is managed appropriately in order to HO13 as it ensures that prevent flooding of properties on or nearby Anglian Water will the site. This can be achieved through the maintain access to all provision of open space and Green relevant assets and Infrastructure that will also provide benefits prevent development in in terms of recreation, nature conservation locations that are not and active travel. Additionally, there are suitable. existing foul and surface water sewers in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout will need to be designed to take these into account. The existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance or repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.

M10. Paragraph 10.40 10.43 Community facilities should be Representatio This modification 39 10.40 provided in the form of local shops, an early n 671 NHS improves the (Ame years and childcare nursery, a multi-purpose effectiveness of policy nded community hall (equivalent to being able to Representatio HO13 by highlighting ) accommodate a minimum of 2 badminton n 640 CODE on the scale of facilities courts in terms of size and height), the need behalf of required. An for which is identified through the Castle landowners of amendment has been Point Built Facilities Strategy 2018, and a HO13 incorporated into healthcare facility to serve the Daws Heath M10.39 as justified in area comprising 750 - 1000sqm of the response to

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

floorspace, as required by the NHS Mid and question 113, by South Essex STP. including the space required for a healthcare centre. M10. Policy d. An approach to wildlife that results Representatio This modification 40 HO13 Part in a measurable net gain in n 36 Mrs L improves the 2d biodiversity, including the provision Woodgate effectiveness of policy HO23 in protecting and of a buffer to the Little Haven Representatio enhancing the natural Complex nature reserve; n 66 Mr M environment and is Cronin better aligned to national policy. Representatio n 430 Essex Wildlife Trust M10. Policy e. The provision of greenways through Representatio This modification aligns 41 HO13 Part the site, linking to the existing n 274 Essex with national policy in 2e network of green infrastructure Bridleways encouraging and Association providing an which provide opportunity for opportunity for modal active travel and recreation but Representatio shift, as well as which avoid or otherwise manage n 430 Essex improving the additional recreational disturbance Wildlife Trust effectiveness of policy to sensitive wildlife assets nearby; HO13 in implementing such measures. This

modification also improves the effectiveness of policy HO13 by minimising the impact of development and future recreational disturbance to nearby habitats. M10. Policy h. The provision of a multi-use community Representatio This modification 42 HO13 Part hall, and the provision of land or a suitable n 671 NHS improves the (Ame 2h building to provide up to 1000sqm of space effectiveness of policy nded for healthcare services building on site; HO13 by highlighting ) the scale of facilities required. M10. Policy i.Provision of 0.13ha of land Land (circa 0.13 Representatio This modification 43 HO13 Part hectares) for a stand-alone early years and n 360 ECC improves the 2i childcare nursery; effectiveness of policy HO13 by highlighting the scale of facilities required. M10. Policy INSERT A NEW CRITERIA UNDER PART 2J OF Representatio This modification 44 HO13 Part POLICY HO13 n 125 Anglian improves the 2j Water Services effectiveness of policy K. Safeguarding of suitable access for HO13 as it ensures that the maintenance of foul and surface Anglian Water will water drainage infrastructure, and maintain access to all

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

any other utilities infrastructure relevant assets and identified on site. prevent development in locations that are not suitable. M10. Policy 4. Public transport waiting Representatio This modification aligns 45 HO13 Part facilities and services must be improved on n 362 ECC with national policy in 4 Rayleigh Road and Daws Heath Road. encouraging and providing an Improvements to active and sustainable opportunity for modal infrastructure, facilities and services should shift, as well as be secured within and as part of this improving the development to promote modal shift and effectiveness of policy improve connectivity. This should include a HO13 in implementing such measures. public transport only route through the site, bringing all new homes on the site within 400m of public transport provision.

76. For the reasons set out above the Council believe that with the proposed modifications will enhance the effectiveness of the policy, and consequently improve its overall soundness.

Section B: Local Policy HO14 Land at Brook Farm, Hadleigh

Question 119 What is the justification for the site capacity being ‘up to 173 new homes’?

77. A Large Site Capacity Assessment 2019 update [H-013] was undertaken for allocations which have the potential to deliver a significant amount of the new homes required, including allocation HO14.

78. The methodology for this assessment was based on applying urban design principles within the overarching context of the development constraints for each site. This means that the capacity of each of these sites was determined by its specific circumstances rather through the application of a standard density, and considered landscape character, setting and context, access and movement, layout and density.

79. The assessment concluded that a suitable density on site HO14 was around 25 dwellings per hectare, which could reasonably deliver approximately 173 dwellings, this figure is supported through previous iterations of master plans completed by the developer for this site. The Council is satisfied that 173 new homes on site HO14 is fully justified.

80. By taking a design led approach, the Council is confident that they are realistic by striking an appropriate balance between promoting the effective use of land whilst ensuring that the environment will be safeguarded and improved, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 117 of the NPPF. The Council is however aware that good design, as it evolves, can optimise site capacities, and that changes in the market and the demand for different

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

sized homes over a period of time can also affect the density of homes secured on any one site. The Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] proposes modification M10.49 to policy HO14 to remove a maximum housing figure and replace it with an ‘around’.

81. The Council is satisfied that the broad assumptions made to the capacity of allocation HO14 is justified and that proposed modification M10.49 will further improve the effectiveness of policy HO14 making it more consistent with national policy.

Question 120 Would the Policy be effective in minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity consistent with paragraph 170 of the Framework?

82. Policy HO14 requires a master plan approach for this site. This will ensure that all policy requirements, including contribution to environmental quality are considered and integrated within the development at the earliest stage. The policy requires strategic greenways and green infrastructure, this adds resilience to future pressures.

83. Policy HO14 in the Pre-submission Local Plan 2019 [EXM-001] requires ‘an approach to wildlife that results in a net gain in biodiversity’, this ensures that biodiversity is considered and enhanced through the policy, in accordance with paragraph 170 in the NPPF. In addition to this under modification M10.51 in the Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030], this modification is shown below:

M10.51 – Policy HO14 part 3f f. Adopt an approach to wildlife that results in a measurable net gain in biodiversity. This may include habitat enhancement on land adjoining the allocation, provided such measures are compatible with the Green Belt;

84. The inclusion of ‘measurable’ further enhances the effectiveness and clarity of policy HO14, as it introduces a methodology for delivering net gain through an approved biodiversity metric tool. The adjoining land also provides suitable land for habitat enhancements making the policy more effective in minimising impacts on biodiversity as well as to provide a net gain in biodiversity.

85. There are no local wildlife sites or protective environmental designations within or adjacent to this site. However, any development on this site would be liable to policy NE5 within the Plan that ensures that impacts to biodiversity are minimised.

86. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO14 is effective in minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 170 of the Framework. Policy NE5 adds further protection and enhances the soundness of the Plan in relation to biodiversity, when read as a whole.

Question 121 Is the Policy clear in regard to the provision of ‘greenways’ and would it be effective in this regard?

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

87. Policy HO14 requires greenways as part of the development, as justified in paragraph 10.44 and is embedded within the policy under criteria 3e. The Council believes that this is clear and will be effective in delivering greenways.

88. The promoters of site HO14 have prepared a master plan for this site whereby the layout incorporated greenways, this is found in figure 1. This included greenways linking the development site to the adjacent land, which is proposed for flood mitigation and habitat enhancement, provided that such measures are compatible with the Green Belt.

Figure 1: Draft Indicative Master Plan, prepared by Countryside Homes

89. The Council note that provision of greenways linking to the site and adjacent land could be enhanced and therefore the following modification is proposed to paragraph 10.44:

New modification – Paragraph 10.44 10.44 47 The overall design for the site should ensure linkages to nearby public open spaces, and greenways through the site and linking to adjacent land. It will also be necessary to demonstrate integration of sustainable drainage techniques, as the site is identified as being in a Critical Drainage Area. This can be achieved through the provision of open space, greenways and Green Infrastructure. Having regard to these design approaches, it is considered that approximately 173 homes could be accommodated across the whole site.

90. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO14 is clear and is effective in regard to the provision of greenways and the proposed modification above will further enhance its effectiveness.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Question 122 The boundary of the proposed allocation site as shown on the Policies Map and that of the Green Belt appear to differ from that considered in the Castle Point Borough Green Belt Review - Part 2 update 2019 (GB-004). Has a specific Green Belt assessment been undertaken for the proposed allocation site?

91. Allocation HO14 was assessed in the Green Belt Review Part Two update 2019 [GB-004]. This Review assessed a larger parcel of land, that extended further south than the allocated boundary of HO14. It was recommended in the 2019 review that an alternative boundary to the site along the unsurfaced road dissecting the northern part of the site from the southern part of the site would reduce the harm to the Green Belt arising from the potential for merging of Hadleigh and Daws Heath. As a result of this assessment the boundary was amended to increase the gap between Hadleigh and Daws Heath. However, in order to provide suitable access to the site was drawn slightly more south than that proposed in the Review.

92. The site boundary as defined on the Policies Map [EXM-002] has been fully assessed in the Green Belt Review Part Two Addendum 2021 [GB-007] (pg. 18).

93. The Council believes that the harm of releasing this site from the Green Belt has been fully justified in the evidence.

Question 123 (As amended on 22.03.2021 in the Inspectors clarification on MIQs)

Is the Policy clear in regards to the provision of off-site sustainable drainage measures in the context of paragraph 165 of the Framework?

94. Proposed modification M10.52 in the Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] proposes the text below to point 3g. This amendment was made in response to representation 108 from Countryside Properties who are the developers for this site.

M10.52 – Policy HO14 part 3g g. Sustainable drainage measures will be implemented to ensure no increase in the risk of surface water flooding to the site or nearby properties. This may include the provision of attenuation and conveyance of water on land adjoining the allocation, provided such measures are compatible with the Green Belt;

95. This proposed amendment clearly demonstrates that flood mitigation measures may be provided in adjacent land, ensuring that uses are compatible with the Green Belt.

96. In relation to paragraph 165 of the Framework, the following points highlight how policy HO14 will be in accordance with this paragraph as follows: a) take account of advice from the lead local flood authority

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

97. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) were partners to the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan 2012 [CC-016], this sets out options for flood mitigation measures for different Critical Drainage Areas (CDA’s). This study provides initial suitable options to the developer for this site that are acceptable to the LLFA.

98. Further to this, the South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Level One [CC-009] to which the LLFA were on the steering group to the study, has a chapter (10) on ‘Guidance for the Application of Sustainable Drainage Systems’ . This provides further guidance to the developer that was produced with the LLFA.

99. Lastly, policy HO14 requires a master plan, as per the reasoned justification for policy HO2 within the Plan a master plan will take account of the following:

‘9.22 The Council will work with those promoting development, the local communities and infrastructure providers to ensure that master plans accurately reflect the policy requirements in this Plan’

100. At this stage the LLFA will be consulted on a master plan in relation to any sustainable drainage systems associated with this site.

101. Policy HO14, therefore clearly has multiple opportunities for the developer of this site to take advice from the LLFA for sustainable drainage systems, whether it be on-site or off-site. b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards;

102. The Essex County Council Sustainable Drainage Systems Guidance 2020 [CC-012] sets out the design standards and design guidance used by the Lead Local Flood Authority to determine the appropriateness of development proposals in Castle Point. This has and will continue to aid developers in determining the types of systems to use, their operational standards, how they should be maintained and how they can be integrated into wider green infrastructure provision. Delivery of Sustainable Drainage Systems in Castle Point therefore has the potential to effectively meet the technical specifics set out in sub paragraphs a to d of paragraph 165. c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development; and d) where possible, provide multifunctional benefits.

103. The adjacent parcel of land as defined on the Proposed Modifications to the Policies Map at the date of Submission 2020 [EXM-005] on Map 3, highlights the area to the east and south of the site that can provide additionality to the site, including flood mitigation, habitat enhancement, recreational benefits and public open space.

104. The Council recognises that the use of this land in relation to site HO14 could be made clearer and proposes an amendment to modification M10.46 as below:

Amendment to M10.46 – Paragraph 10.42

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

10.42 10.45 Given the mainly undeveloped nature of the site, any development of this site would need to consider how biodiversity could be effectively integrated into the development and an overall net gain in biodiversity could be achieved. Furthermore, the compartmentalised landscape and semi-rural nature of the site are important features and should be used to aid the integration of development into this important landscape. The development must provide access to the open areas to the south and west east of the site whilst ensuring they are protected and enhanced. This area of land, as identified in the Policies Map as ‘proposed new open space’ can be utilised for recreation, open space, habitat enhancement, sustainable drainage systems and green infrastructure in relation to this site, so long as the use is compatible with the functions of the Green Belt.

105. In relation to maintenance of this land, part 3 of policy SD2 requires: ‘• financial contributions to the future maintenance and management of new infrastructure; and/or • Local Management Organisations to maintain and manage public open space and public realm within developments.’

106. Due to the off-site uses proposed on this parcel of land, including sustainable drainage systems. It would be appropriate and in accordance with policy SD2 to require a Local Management Organisation to manage this land, or for the development to make financial contributions to maintain the uses on this land, making it effective for the lifetime of the development.

107. With the proposed modifications the Council is satisfied that policy HO14 is clear and consistent with national policy in regard to sustainable drainage systems on and off-site.

Question 124 What are the exceptional circumstances for the release of the site from the Green Belt?

108. The Green Belt Topic Paper 2018 [GB-003] concludes that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt land for housing. In 2015 a Judicial Review was sought by Calverton Parish Council v Greater Nottingham Councils [[2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)] in relation to Green Belt release in the approved Local Plan. The Hon. Mr Justice Jay set out five matters that should be identified and dealt with in order to ascertain whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to justify the releasing of land from the Green Belt, these matters have been tested below in order to justify the exceptional circumstances that exist for the release of Green Belt land for site HO14.

Test 1: The acuteness/intensity of the objectively assessed need

109. The government’s standard methodology (using a base date of 2018) for calculating housing need assesses Castle Point’s objectively assessed needs (OAN) is 353 net new homes per annum. This figure is broadly consistent to the outcomes of the earlier South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2016 [H-003] together with the SHMA Addendum 2017 [H-006].

110. The Castle Point Borough Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2018 [H-007; H-008; H-009; H-010] was reviewed in light of this need, to determine whether

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

additional capacity could be identified from sites within the urban area, or whether higher densities could be achieved on sites to limit the loss of Green Belt land. It remained the case however, that a significant proportion of housing needs would remain unmet, unless Green Belt was considered to determine whether the full extent of this housing need could be accommodated sustainably.

111. As highlighted in the SHMA 2016, figure 2.8 (pg. 23) shows a considerable worsening of market conditions within Castle Point Borough over time, justifying this uplift in need. In particular, average house prices have increased by almost 50% in the period from 2002 to 2012. This trend has increased beyond this with a 35% increase in mean house prices from 2014 to 2019, as highlighted in table 2.2 (pg. 10) in the Addendum to the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Castle Point 2020 [H-014]. On page 11 within the SHMA 2020, table 2.3 also highlights how mean monthly rents have increased by 20% over the same period. This means it has become much harder for first time buyers to access the housing market. This has resulted in an increase in the number of people still living with their parents into adulthood, including those with their own children. These are known as concealed households, and there is a risk that the number of these will continue to grow unless affordability and supply issues are not addressed.

112. The scale of need, especially which cannot be met within the urban area, combined with the worsening of market conditions indicate that there is an acuteness of need for housing in Castle Point Borough. Therefore, it is considered that this first test in respect of demonstrating the acuteness of needs in relation to housing is passed.

Test 2: The inherent constraints on supply/availability of land prima facie suitable for sustainable development

113. There is an inherent constraint on land supply within the Castle Point borough as well as the surrounding authorities and wider area. The existing Green Belt boundaries were amended in the early 1990’s to meet housing needs up to 2001. As per paragraph 137 of the Framework, the Council sought to make as much use of urban and brownfield sites and increased densities within town centre and urban sites that are well serviced by public transport.

114. A Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory at October 2020 [H-015] updated the housing trajectory within the Plan with up to date housing figures. The amount of projected homes from completions from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2020, extant permissions as of 31st March 2020, sites for the Brownfield Register, policy compliant SHLAA sites, windfall sites and strategic allocations on urban and brownfield sites are set out in the table below. This compares the amount of supply from these sources in comparison to the objectively assessed housing need (OAN).

Source Total Percentage of total OAN OAN 5,295 100% Completions 2018/2020 271 5.1% Extant permissions 602 11.4% (31.3.2020) Brownfield Register 184 3.5%

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Policy Compliant SHLAA 279 5.3% Windfall 660 12.5% Strategic allocations on 1,152 21.8% Urban or Brownfield sites Total 3,148 59.5% Shortfall from OAN 2,147 40.5%

115. It is clear from the table above that there is an inherent lack of urban land available, with all suitable brownfield, extant permissioned sites, windfall or policy compliant SHLAA sites making up 59.5% of the total OAN of the borough. This highlights exceptional circumstances and a need to release Green Belt sites in order to meet OAN.

116. A call for sites was undertaken in 2018 to inform the SHLAA 2018 [H-007; H-008; H- 009; H-010] all suitable sites were included within the housing trajectory. The amount of homes projected from windfall increased from the level set out in the Pre-submission Local Plan 2019 [EXM-001] in the table above and further to 702 dwellings within the Castle Point Windfall Allowance 2021 [H-018].

117. Consistent with paragraph 137 of the Framework, the Council has made as much use of suitable brownfield sites as evidenced in the table above and increased densities within town centre and urban sites that are well serviced by public transport. Due to the level of shortfall from sites identified above to the OAN the Council had discussions with neighbouring authorities in regard to them accommodating unmet housing needs within their authorities, and formally wrote to authorities within the Housing Market Area (HMA) in November 2018. This is evidenced within the Duty to Co-operate Report 2020 [DTC-003] in appendices 5, 6 and 7. Additionally Chelmsford City Council and Maldon District Council which sit outside of the HMA were engaged on this matter, their responses are evidenced in appendix 6 of that report. In all instances all authorities were unable to accommodate the housing need from Castle Point. Therefore, the Council had to seek to meet need within the Borough.

Test 3: The consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;

118. As outlined above, there is insufficient capacity within the urban area to meet all of the borough’s housing need. However, alternatives were appraised through the sustainability appraisal process.

119. In accordance with criteria a in paragraph 139 of the Framework, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] considers the housing strategy presented in the Pre-submission Local Plan as a sustainable approach to meeting housing need. The sustainability appraisal (SA) is an iterative process and has evolved through the plan making process. In 2018 an SA Interim Report [SUS-015] was produced, on page 19, the SA considers reasonable alternatives to the strategy set out within the draft Plan at that time for meeting housing needs. The report considers two alternatives as set out below: • Alternative SD2a – Ensuring that there is no development identified within the Green Belt within the Plan

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

• Alternative SD2b – Releasing more Green Belt land for development to fully meet OAN

120. Table 3 on page 21 of the SA Interim Report 2018 compared the preferred approach with the alternatives SD2a and SD2b against sustainability themes. It found that although alternative SD2a is comparably more favourable for environmental themes it does have negative implications for housing delivery within the Plan. Adversely, alternative SD2b exacerbates the negative impacts of the preferred approach at that time by releasing more Green Belt land.

121. With regards to reasonable alternative SD2a, the SA identified negative consequences for economic growth, regeneration and meeting housing needs. This is because there would be insufficient housing to support the labour demands of local businesses, and a supply and demand ratio for housing which would prevent access to the housing market for lower income households and first time buyers.

122. Therefore, the SA process concludes that a strategy which involves encroachment into the Green Belt represents a more sustainable option, than the option which would see no encroachment into the Green Belt. However, there are negative consequences arising from the strategy put forward in the Pre-submission Local Plan. Therefore, sustainability must also be considered at the site level to ensure that where it is necessary to impinge on the Green Belt, that the resulting development will still be capable of being considered as sustainable, compared to reasonable alternatives.

123. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] for the Pre-submission Local Plan indicates that those sites identified for housing purposes are generally sustainable development options. In such cases where potential negative impact may arise, the overall conclusions of the SA was that with mitigation measures included in the allocation policies these harmful impacts could be overcome.

124. It should be noted that since the SA Interim Report 2018 the Plan has boosted the urban housing supply through extant consents and windfall sites, as demonstrated in the Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory at October 2020 [H-015] and updates to housing figures up to April 2020 from policy compliant sites [H-020], brownfield sites [H- 021], extant consents [H-022] and windfall [H-018]. Therefore, the amount of Green Belt sites proposed to be released within the Plan is largely the same as that identified in 2018, whilst meeting housing need in full. As noted within the SA Interim Report 2018, Castle Point has a lack of land supply beyond identified sites within the urban area and within the Green Belt, this is highlighted through the SHLAA 2018 [H-007; H-008; H-009; H-010].

Test 4: The nature and extent of the harm to this Green Belt (or those parts of it which would be lost if the boundaries were reviewed); and

Test 5: The extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

125. Tests 4 and 5 relate to the Green Belt assessments undertaken, as the assessments assessed harm and provided potential mitigation to harm, these tests are linked together in this section.

126. The Green Belt assessments were undertaken in two parts, these included:

127. Allocation HO14 falls within parcel 8 of the review. The Review found four strategic areas that are locally important, parcels 8 along with parcels 4, 5, 7, and 9 make up the ‘Strategic Green Belt Area 1 – Daws Heath “Ring”’, which serves an important purpose in preventing the settlement from merging with surrounding settlements of Hadleigh, Thundersley, Rayleigh and Eastwood, as well as preventing urban coalescence more generally.

128. Both Part one and two of the review assessed the following three purposes of the Green Belt in line with the NPPF: 1 – To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas 2 – To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another 3 – To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

129. As set out on page 33 of GB-001, the reasons purpose four and five of the Green Belt were not assessed within the review is set out below: • Green Belt Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • There are no towns in the borough which are considered to be historic in nature for the purposes of the application of this Green Belt Purpose. It is held that this purpose applies to a limited number of areas such as Oxford where the Green Belt specifically contributes to its historic significance. As such, this Purpose did not form part of this Review. • Green Belt Purpose 5 - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land • As stated in the PAS Guidance, ‘If Green Belt achieves this purpose, then all Green Belt does so to the same extent and hence the value of various land parcels is unlikely to be distinguished by the application of this purpose.’ As such this purpose is excluded from the review as each parcel would receive the same assessment. 130. Table 5 below sets out the assessment within part one of the review for parcel 8.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Table 5: Assessment of parcel 8

Assessed Purpose Comments Contribution 1 - To check The parcel is adjacent to Daws Heath at the northern unrestricted boundary, Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea to the east and Hadleigh sprawl of large to the south west. Other than for a small proportion of the built up areas western boundary, these boundaries take the form of the curtilages of residential properties and are therefore not considered to be strongly robust. However, along the extent of most of these boundaries there has not been sprawl meaning that these boundaries are well defined. Nonetheless, there is evidence of sprawl into the parcel taking the form of ribbon development originating from Daws Heath and following the route of Bramble Road in the eastern portion of the parcel. Daws Heath Road, located in Strong close proximity to the western boundary and which runs between Hadleigh and Daws Heath also contains a small amount of ribbon development. There are further, localised examples of sprawl in the north east whilst in general, the western portion is open field.

Although sprawl has therefore occurred within the parcel, the degree of sprawl compared to the size of the parcel, and its proximity to three separate urban settlements means that it is assessed as strongly contributing to this purpose. 2 – To prevent The parcel is adjacent to Daws Heath, Eastwood, Leigh-on- neighbouring Sea, which is primarily in Southend-on-Sea, and Hadleigh towns from and as such its development would lead to the physical merging into one merging of these three settlements. Leigh-on-Sea is some another distance from the other two settlements, being approximately 1.2km away, and is already merged with Very Strong Hadleigh further south across Bellfairs Park. However, the strategic gap between Daws Heath and Hadleigh is approximately 250m and comprised solely of this parcel, meaning that this parcel make a very strong contribution to this purpose. 3 – To assist in Other than the ribbon developments already highlighted, safeguarding the the remainder of the parcel comprises of a number of countryside from farms and associated dwellings along with agricultural encroachment fields. The landscape is compartmentalised with hedges and fences separating areas, and it is also well screened by trees and hedges. Roads are few and narrow. The parcel adjoins significant expanses of countryside to the north and Moderate south but there is however residential development located along much of the boundaries in the eastern and western portion of the site which influence the perception of the parcel being in open countryside at these locations, which is further compounded by the ribbon developments in the centre.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

131. The Green Belt Review Part Two Addendum 2021 [GB-007] assessed the harm arising from the removal of site HO14 and the consequential loss of surrounding land from the Green Belt as a result of the development. This is set out in table 6 below.

Table 6: Assessment of site HO14

Purpose 1 – Check Purpose 2 – Prevent Towns Purpose 3 – Safeguard Unrestricted Sprawl from Merging Countryside

Releasing this site would Given the existing The proposed development realign a Green Belt boundary development within the Green site is currently free of built that currently takes the form Belt along Daws Heath Road, development considered of residential curtilages with development of the proposed inappropriate in the Green an unsurfaced road in the site would reduce the current Belt and its development most part, but which also strategic gap between would therefore constitute a brings the boundary across the Hadleigh and Daws Heath. loss of countryside. However unsurfaced road meaning the immediate surrounds are In the wider context of the much of the south western predominantly urban to semi- boundary would be aligned proposed development site, urban in appearance and this against residential curtilage. development would act to has a significant impact on the reduce the existing strategic The proposed site is free of perception of the site being in development considered gap between Hadleigh and countryside. inappropriate in the Green Daws Heath, with boundaries or features which prevent Belt and would act as a inter-visibility between the southerly extension of Daws Heath. Land to the west of two urban settlements being Daws Heath Road – known as weak or non-existent in the land which would form the the Solby Wood farm site – has been developed, which has remainder of the strategic gap. extended southward the settlement boundary and the southernmost boundary of the proposed site, Daws Heath Stables, broadly aligns with the southernmost development of that site. The field to the immediate south of the Stables is to remain within the Green Belt.

Degree of Harm: Degree of Harm: Degree of Harm:

Strong Strong Minor

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

132. For the purposes highlighted above the development of site HO14 was found to have a ‘Minor’ to ‘Strong’ degree of harm. It was found that development has already taken place to the west, aligning with the southern edge of proposed development on HO14. In addition, areas surrounding the site are predominantly urban to semi-urban in appearance reducing the perception of the site being in countryside.

133. The development of site HO14 would not have a significant negative impact on the robustness of Green Belt boundaries as it would primarily act to realign the majority of a boundary that is currently formed of residential curtilages with new residential curtilage and an unsurfaced road.

134. It is recognised that loss of Green Belt development in this location is likely to cause some harm to the Green Belt, and so development would need to deliver a landscape strategy along the southern boundary of the site, retain existing hedge/tree lined field boundaries, provide a network of green infrastructure to mitigate the harm, and adopt the Arcadia design approach to the southern part of the site to integrate with the semi-rural environment, as set out in Strategic Policy HO14.

135. The Green Belt Topic Paper 2018 [GB-003] assessed the matters above in the context of Castle Point, in all instances the Council believe that exceptional circumstances exist for the release of Green Belt land for this site to deliver the housing requirement of the borough.

Question 125 Is the proposed Green Belt boundary justified and consistent with national policy as set out in paragraph 139 of the Framework?

136. The proposed Green Belt boundary for site HO14 would primarily act to realign the majority of a boundary that is currently formed of residential curtilages with new residential curtilage and an unsurfaced road. In accordance with criterion f of paragraph 139 in the Framework, this provides physical recognisable features to the Green Belt boundary. In addition to this the Green Belt Review Part 2 Addendum 2021 [GB-007] considers this to be a robust boundary in the long term, compared to the existing boundary, which is aligned along residential curtilages, meeting criterion e of paragraph 139 of the Framework.

137. The Review [GB-007] highlights that policy HO14 notes the potential to align the boundary along the unsurfaced road, however it concludes that this would not represent a more robust boundary. Therefore, criteria c and d in paragraph 139 of the Framework do not apply in this instance and there is no suitable land to safeguard for future housing need as a result of this allocation.

138. The proposed Green Belt boundary is set out on the Policies Map [EXM-002], this is drawn around policy HO14. The Green Belt Review Part 2 Addendum 2021 [GB-007] assessed the harm to the Green Belt as a result of removing this site from the Green Belt, in addition to this, the assessment defines potential alternative boundaries and if any changes could be made to the boundary to provide for longer term needs.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

139. In accordance with criterion a in paragraph 139 of the Framework, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] considers the housing strategy presented in the Pre-submission Local Plan as a sustainable approach to meeting housing need. Policy HO14 addresses sustainability themes highlighted in table 4 (pg. 33) in the SA and meets the approach set out in the Plan.

140. Within policy HO14, although landscaping, retention of existing hedge/tree lined field boundaries and provision of a network of green infrastructure are proposed in the policy, there is no land which is required to remain permanently open, therefore criterion b in paragraph 139 does not apply for policy HO14.

141. The Council is satisfied that the proposed Green Belt boundary in relation to allocation HO14 is justified and consistent with national policy as set out in paragraph 139 of the Framework.

Question 126 Are there any matters which would mean that the site is not deliverable or developable as per Framework definitions?

142. Allocation HO14 is promoted by one developer who are proactively working with the Council in order to produce a master plan for this site. They have met with the Local Plan Delivery Board to discuss how to bring a master plan forward on the site. The developers have previously prepared a detailed master plan for this site which underwent some public consultation. This draft master plan highlights the deliverability of this site. Notwithstanding this, the developers are keen to progress further public consultation and update their master plan with up to date evidence.

143. The Council has undertaken the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005], this tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO14 falls within row 19 of tables 6.1 (pg. 65). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO14 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. In addition to this table 6.3 (pg. 68) tests different market conditions under the policy conditions and policy HO14 is deemed to be maintained as viable. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms as justified in the evidence.

144. The Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] demonstrates that policy HO14 is in a sustainable location, the suitability of the site is reiterated within the SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA reference S0068).

145. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO14 meets the definition of deliverable and developable as per the Framework definitions, due to the fact that it is suitable, available and achievable for the reasons set out above.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Question 127 Are the proposed Modifications necessary for soundness?

146. Table 7 below highlights the modifications proposed to policy HO14 and the reasoned justification supporting this policy.

Table 7: Proposed modifications to policy HO14 and the justification

Mod Reference Main modification proposed Reason Justification for modification M10. Paragraph 10.42 10.45 Given the mainly undeveloped Question 123 The amendment to 46 10.42 nature of the site, any development of this modification M10.42 is (Ame site would need to consider how biodiversity a result of question 123, ndm could be effectively integrated into the this amendment clearly ent) development and an overall net gain in highlights the location biodiversity could be achieved. Furthermore, of uses on the adjacent the compartmentalised landscape and semi- land, improving the rural nature of the site are important effectiveness of policy features and should be used to aid the HO14. integration of development into this important landscape. The development must provide access to the open areas to the south and west east of the site whilst ensuring they are protected and enhanced. This area of land, as identified in the Policies Map as ‘proposed new open space’ can be utilised for recreation, open space, habitat enhancement, sustainable drainage systems and green infrastructure in relation to this site, so long as the use is compatible with the functions of the Green Belt.

New Paragraph 10.44 47 The overall design for the site Question 121 This modification is 10.44 should ensure linkages to nearby public justified within the open spaces, and greenways through the response to question site and linking to adjacent land. It will also 121, the amendment be necessary to demonstrate integration of clarifies how greenways sustainable drainage techniques, as the site will be incorporated is identified as being in a Critical Drainage within the Area. This can be achieved through the development. provision of open space, greenways and Green Infrastructure. Having regard to these design approaches, it is considered that approximately 173 homes could be accommodated across the whole site.

M10. Paragraph 10.45 10.48 There are plenty of Representatio This modification aligns 47 10.45 opportunities within the vicinity of this site n 363 ECC with national policy in for walking, cycling and horse riding for encouraging and leisure purposes, and new or improved links providing an to this network should be provided. opportunity for modal

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

However, tThis site is not within easy shift, as well as walking distance of local services and improving the facilities and it is therefore important that effectiveness of policy cycling infrastructure, and public transport HO14 in implementing services are improved, in terms of routing such measures. and frequency, in this part of the borough. M10. Paragraph INSERT A NEW PARAGRAPH AFTER Representatio This modification 48 10.46 PARAGRAPH 10.46 AND RENUMBER n 126 Anglian improves the REMAINING PARAGRAPHS THEREAFTER Water Services effectiveness of policy ACCORDINGLY. HO14 as it ensures that Anglian Water will 10.50 Anglian Water has identified existing maintain access to all foul and surface water sewers within the relevant assets and boundary of this site which they own, and prevent development in which need to be taken into account in the locations that are not suitable. site layout. This existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in the highway or in public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.

M10. Policy 1. Land at Brook Farm, Hadleigh, as NPPF This modification 49 HO14 Part identified on the Policies Map, is Compliance – responds to potential 1 allocated for residential purposes, to flexibility to changes in market deliver up to around 173 new homes by respond to conditions, this will add 2033. market greater flexibility to the conditions policy, making it more

consistent with national policy. M10. Policy e. Make provision of greenways Representatio This modification aligns 50 HO14 Part through the site, linking to the n 275 Essex with national policy in 3e existing network of green Bridleways encouraging and infrastructure and providing Association providing an opportunities for active travel and opportunity for modal recreation; shift, as well as improving the effectiveness of policy HO14 in implementing such measures. M10. Policy f. Adopt an approach to wildlife that Representatio This modification 51 HO14 Part results in a measurable net gain in n 431 Essex improves the 3f biodiversity. This may include Wildlife Trust effectiveness of policy habitat enhancement on land HO14 in protecting and adjoining the allocation, provided Representatio enhancing the natural n 108 environment and is better aligned to

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

such measures are compatible with Countryside national policy. The the Green Belt; Properties inclusion of adjacent land also enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the policy as measures can be provided on site or off- site. M10. Policy Sustainable drainage measures will be Representatio This modification 52 HO14 Part implemented to ensure no increase in the n 108 enhances the clarity and 3g risk of surface water flooding to the site or Countryside effectiveness of the nearby properties. This may include the Properties policy as it is clear that provision of attenuation and conveyance of sustainable drainage water on land adjoining the allocation, measures can be provided such measures are compatible provided on site or off- with the Green Belt; site. M10. Policy INSERT A NEW POLICY CRITERIA AFTER PART Representatio This modification 54 HO14 Part 3H OF POLICY HO14 n 126 Anglian improves the 3h Water Services effectiveness of policy I. Safeguard suitable access for the HO14 as it ensures that maintenance of foul and surface Anglian Water will water drainage infrastructure, and maintain access to all relevant assets and any other utility infrastructure prevent development in identified to be on site. locations that are not suitable. M10. Policy 5. A contribution should be made to Representatio This modification aligns 55 HO14 Part the improvement of active and sustainable n 363 ECC with national policy in 5 travel infrastructure, facilities and services encouraging and for this site, including improvements to providing an cycling infrastructure and public transport opportunity for modal services along Daws Heath Road to improve shift, as well as accessibility to the site and reduce the need improving the for travel by car. effectiveness of policy HO14 in implementing specified measures.

147. For the reasons set out above the Council believe that with the proposed modifications will enhance the effectiveness of the policy, and consequently improve its overall soundness.

Section C: Local Policy HO15 Land south of Scrub Lane, Hadleigh

Question 128 What is the justification for the site capacity being ‘up to 55 new homes’?

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

148. A Large Site Capacity Assessment 2019 update [H-013] was undertaken for allocations which have the potential to deliver a significant amount of the new homes required, including allocation HO15.

149. The methodology for this assessment was based on applying urban design principles within the overarching context of the development constraints for each site. This means that the capacity of each of these sites was determined by its specific circumstances rather through the application of a standard density, and considered landscape character, setting and context, access and movement, layout and density.

150. The assessment concluded that a suitable density on site HO15 was around 30-35 dwellings per hectare, which could reasonably deliver up to 48 dwellings, As per paragraph 123 of the NPPF, up to 55 new homes is considered an uplift of 48 dwellings to optimise the use of land in a sustainable urban area. The Council believe that this approach is fully justified.

151. By taking a design led approach, the Council is confident that they are realistic by striking an appropriate balance between promoting the effective use of land whilst ensuring that the environment will be safeguarded and improved, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 117 of the NPPF. The Council is however aware that good design, as it evolves, can optimise site capacities, and that changes in the market and the demand for different sized homes over a period of time can also affect the density of homes secured on any one site. The Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] proposes modification M10.58 to policy HO15 to remove a maximum housing figure and replace it with an ‘around’.

152. The Council is satisfied that the broad assumptions made to the capacity of allocation HO15 is justified and that proposed modification M10.58 will further improve the effectiveness of policy HO15 making it more consistent with national policy.

Question 129 Is the Policy consistent with national policy in respect of open space and recreation as set out in paragraphs 96 – 97 of the Framework and is it justified?

153. This question relates to the loss of playing pitch provision in this location in order to accommodate housing growth. The Council has been working with Sport England to understand their concerns and ensure that allocation HO15 secures sufficient compensatory provisions to offset any loss of pitches occurring at this site. The result of this work is a Statement of Common Ground [SCG- 007] between Sports England and Castle Point Borough Council which agrees proposed modifications to policy HO15 on this matter and concludes that there are no areas of uncommon ground.

154. Where re-provision cannot be secured in its entirety within the allocation site or on the adjoining junior school through re-configuration, Sports England is satisfied that additional compensatory provision can be secured nearby. The Castle Point Local Football Facility Plan [HS-020] was developed by the Football Association (FA) alongside the work on the Playing Pitch Strategy 2018 [HS-011]. This football facility plan identifies the nearby

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Deanes School as a hub for investment in improved football facilities including the provision of a full size 3G pitch. The Deanes School is accessible to any existing users of site HO15, and also to any new residents arising from allocation HO15 who may wish to participate in football.

155. The Council considers the re-provision of playing pitches from site HO15 to the Deanes School as justified for the reasons set out above and consistent with paragraphs 96 and 97 in the Framework.

Question 130 Are there any matters which would mean that the site is not deliverable or developable as per Framework definitions?

156. Allocation HO15 is made up of two landowners Essex County Council and the Challenge Multi Academy Trust who operate the Hadleigh Infant School which is to be retained to the south of the allocation site. The Council has met with both landowners who are keen to bring forward a development brief for this site. It is the intention of the Challenge Multi Academy Trust to utilise the receipt from their land which is a strip of field 0.345 hectares in size to facilitate improvements to the Hadleigh Infant and Junior Schools.

157. The Council has undertaken the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005], this tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO15 falls within row 13 of tables 6.1 (pg. 65). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO15 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. In addition to this table 6.3 (pg. 68) tests different market conditions under the policy conditions and policy HO15 is deemed to be maintained as viable. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms as justified in the evidence.

158. The Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] demonstrates that policy HO15 is in a sustainable location, the suitability of the site is reiterated within the SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA references S0049).

159. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO15 meets the definition of deliverable and developable as per the Framework definitions, due to the fact that it is suitable, available and achievable for the reasons set out above.

Question 131 Are the proposed Modifications necessary for soundness?

160. Table 8 below highlights the modifications proposed to policy HO15 and the reasoned justification supporting this policy.

Table 8: Proposed modifications to policy HO15 and the justification

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Mod Reference Main modification proposed Reason Justification for modification M10. Paragraph 10.47 10.51 This site is approximately 1.5 ha Representatio This modification aligns 56 10.47 in size. The site is adjacent to the Hadleigh n 364 ECC with national policy in Infant School and is an undeveloped, unused encouraging and piece of land fenced off from the school providing an playing fields, which are shared with Hadleigh opportunity for modal Junior School. The site is within reasonable shift, as well as walking distance of Hadleigh Town Centre, improving the and opportunities to promote active and effectiveness of policy sustainable travel to this centre should be HO15 in implementing secured alongside development. such measures.

M10. Policy 1. Land south of Scrub Lane, Hadleigh, as NPPF This modification 58 HO15 Part identified on the Policies Map, is Compliance – responds to potential 1 allocated for residential purposes, to flexibility to changes in market deliver up to around 55 new homes by respond to conditions, this will add 2033. market greater flexibility to the conditions policy, making it more

consistent with national Representatio policy. n 442 Essex County Council (Property and Facilities) M10. Policy d. Main vehicular access will be taken Representatio This modification aligns 59 HO15 Part from Scrub Lane with improvements n 364 ECC with national policy in 2d also made to active and sustainable encouraging and travel infrastructure, facilities and providing an services nearby the site to promote opportunity for modal modal shift and improve shift, as well as connectivity to services and jobs in improving the effectiveness of policy Hadleigh Town Centre. HO15 in implementing

such measures. M10. Policy INSERT A NEW POLICY REQUIREMENT AFTER Representatio This modification 62 HO15 part PART 3. n 55 and justifies the loss of 3 Statement of playing fields within this 4. The loss of playing field land and Common site and ensures that land last used as playing fields Ground (SCG- the allocation is should be mitigated by an 007) Sport effective in ensuring appropriate financial contribution England that playing field land is being secured towards new or provided elsewhere or enhanced playing field projects financial contributions within the Borough. are provided.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

161. For the reasons set out above the Council believe that with the proposed modifications will enhance the effectiveness of the policy, and consequently improve its overall soundness.

Section D: Local Policy HO16 Land at Oak Tree Farm, Hadleigh

Question 132 What is the justification for the site capacity being ‘up to 65 new homes’?

162. A Large Site Capacity Assessment 2019 update [H-013] was undertaken for allocations which have the potential to deliver a significant amount of the new homes required, including allocation HO16.

163. The methodology for this assessment was based on applying urban design principles within the overarching context of the development constraints for each site. This means that the capacity of each of these sites was determined by its specific circumstances rather through the application of a standard density, and considered landscape character, setting and context, access and movement, layout and density.

164. The assessment concluded that a suitable density on site HO16 was around 25-30 dwellings per hectare, which could reasonably deliver approximately 55-65 dwellings. The Council is satisfied that 65 new homes on site HO16 is fully justified.

165. By taking a design led approach, the Council is confident that they are realistic by striking an appropriate balance between promoting the effective use of land whilst ensuring that the environment will be safeguarded and improved, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 117 of the NPPF. The Council is however aware that good design, as it evolves, can optimise site capacities, and that changes in the market and the demand for different sized homes over a period of time can also affect the density of homes secured on any one site. The Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] proposes modification M10.63 to policy HO16 to remove a maximum housing figure and replace it with an ‘around’.

166. The Council is satisfied that the broad assumptions made to the capacity of allocation HO16 is justified and that proposed modification M10.63 will further improve the effectiveness of policy HO16 making it more consistent with national policy.

Question 133 With particular regard to the Great Wood and Dodd’s Wood SSSI, would the Policy be effective in protecting and enhancing biodiversity?

167. In response to representations made by Natural England [310], the Council has proposed modifications M10.61 and M10.66 as demonstrated below:

M10.61 – Paragraph 10.52

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

10.52 10.56 Given the mainly undeveloped nature of this site and the proximity to a Local Wildlife Site and SSSI, any development of this site would need to consider how biodiversity could be effectively integrated into the development, impacts on the SSSI can be avoided, managed or mitigated, and an overall net gain in biodiversity could be achieved. The use of landscaping to mitigate the impacts of the development on the semi-rural landscape in this location could for example provide the opportunity to create wildlife corridors that link the network of woodlands and support this areas role as a Historic Natural Landscape.

M10.66 – Policy HO16 Part 3d INSERT A NEW CRITERION AFTER PART 3B, AND RENUMBER LATTER CRITERIA ACCORDINGLY c. Adopt an approach to wildlife that protects and enhances the adjacent SSSI, and results in a measurable net gain in biodiversity. Where greenways are provided as part of the design for this site, they should avoid or otherwise manage recreational disturbance in the adjacent SSSI including access from Poors Lane to the SSSI;

168. These amendments will ensure that the adjacent SSSI is protected and enhanced. In addition to this policy NE5 will apply which will seek to avoid adverse impact to the SSSI through layout and design, where this cannot be achieved mitigation measures and management techniques will be applied. As policy HO16 is required to complete a master plan, there will be further opportunities for engagement with Natural England and other conservation groups in the design process to aid in this process.

169. For the reasons set out modifications M10.61 and M10.66 are necessary to improve the soundness of policy HO16 in respect of its proximity to the Great Wood and Dodd’s Grove SSSI. With these modifications the Council believe that policy HO16 is sound as it is consistent with the NPPF and would be effective in protecting and enhancing the Great Wood and Dodd’s Grove SSSI.

Question 134 Is the allocation of land for housing within an area of Flood Zones 2 and 3 justified in terms of the sequential test? Would the Policy be effective in applying the results of the Exception Test?

170. In accordance with paragraph 156 of the Framework a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was undertaken. This was undertaken at the South Essex level (SFRA Level One 2018 [CC-009]) which provided guidance on the application of the Sequential Test when allocating future development sites. At the local level an SFRA Level Two 2018 [CC- 010] was completed to assist in the consideration of site options.

171. The northern boundary of site HO16 falls within Flood Zones 2 and 3, as demonstrated on figure 1 below extracted from page 15 of the SFRA Level Two 2018. Most of the site falls within Flood Zone 1.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Figure 1: Flood zones 2 and 3 within HO16 (from page 15 of CC-010)

172. The Sequential and Exceptions Test for Housing Site Options Review 2020 [CC-014] updated an earlier 2018 review taking into account the most up to date housing supply and updated Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs).

173. As per tables 3 and 4 on pages 11-13 in the Sequential and Exceptions Test for Housing Site Options Review 2020 [CC-014] there is limited supply of land for housing to meet needs in lower flood risk areas and as a result, to meet the agreed housing target, there is a need to identify sites at a higher risk of flooding. This includes site HO16.

174. As set out in paragraph 160 of the Framework, the first part of the Exceptions Test and as demonstrated in the Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] this site has significant positive impacts related to the sustainability objective concerning the provision of housing, including affordable housing. This site has minor positive impacts related to the sustainability objectives concerning landscape character, flooding, air quality, social exclusion and use of resources and infrastructure to support sustainable development.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

175. In relation to the second part of the Exceptions Test set out in paragraph 160 in the Framework, flood risk can be mitigated within the site as around 90% of the site is within Flood Zone 1. Therefore, through design and layout, the higher areas at risk of flooding can be avoided.

176. As demonstrated through the Sequential and Exceptions Test for Housing Site Options Review 2020 [CC-014] and the SFRA Level Two 2018 [CC-010], site HO16 is clearly justified in relation to the Sequential and Exceptions Test.

177. Due to the majority of the site being in areas of lower flood risk, it is important to place development in areas outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3. Therefore, modifications M10.60 and M10.64 are proposed, as highlighted below:

M10.60 – Paragraph 10.51 10.51 10.55 The northern edge of the site coincides with a watercourse which puts the northern boundary into flood risk zones 2 and 3. The overall design for the site should follow the sequential approach and avoid development within flood risk zones 2 and 3. Elsewhere within the site development proposals should integrate ensure integration of sustainable drainage techniques, in order to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately. This can 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. Having regard to these design approaches it is considered that 65 homes could be accommodated on this site.

M10.64 – Policy HO16 Part 3a INSERT A NEW CRITERION AFTER PART 3A, AND RENUMBER LATTER CRITERIA ACCORDINGLY b. Adopt the sequential approach and ensure that no housing development is proposed within flood risk zones 2 and 3 on the site as defined by the most up to date modelling, and taking climate change into account;

178. These modifications are deemed appropriate by the Environment Agency and resolve concerns raised in representation 244. This is evidenced within table 2 of a signed Statement of Common [SCG-001] between the two organisations.

179. With the proposed modifications and as justified through the evidence highlighted above, the Council is satisfied that this site is justified in terms of the sequential test and that the policy would be effective in applying the results of the Exception Test.

Question 135 Would the Policy be effective in minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity consistent with paragraph 170 of the Framework?

180. Policy HO16 requires a master plan approach for this site. This will ensure that all policy requirements, including contributions to environmental quality are considered and integrated within the development at the earliest stage. Part 3d of the policy seeking for the

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

development to respect and retain as far as possible the established hedge and tree-lined field boundaries adds resilience to future pressures.

181. Modification M10.66 in the Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030], proposes the following:

182. This modification enhances the effectiveness and clarity of policy HO16, as it introduces a methodology for delivering net gain through an approved biodiversity metric tool, acknowledges the nearby SSSI and ensures greenways are provided. Each of these aspects will add resilience to future pressures on biodiversity.

183. It should be noted that any development on this site would be liable to policy NE5 within the Plan that ensures that impacts to biodiversity are minimised.

184. With the proposed modification the Council is satisfied that policy HO16 will be effective in minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 170 of the Framework. Policy NE5 adds further protection and enhances the soundness of the Plan in relation to biodiversity, when read as a whole.

Question 136 What are the exceptional circumstances for the release of the site from the Green Belt?

185. The Green Belt Topic Paper 2018 [GB-003] concludes that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt land for housing. In 2015 a Judicial Review was sought by Calverton Parish Council v Greater Nottingham Councils [[2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)] in relation to Green Belt release in the approved Local Plan. The Hon. Mr Justice Jay set out five matters that should be identified and dealt with in order to ascertain whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist to justify the releasing of land from the Green Belt, these matters have been tested below in order to justify the exceptional circumstances that exist for the release of Green Belt land for site HO16.

Test 1: The acuteness/intensity of the objectively assessed need

186. The government’s standard methodology (using a base date of 2018) for calculating housing need assesses Castle Point’s objectively assessed needs (OAN) is 353 net new homes per annum. This figure is broadly consistent to the outcomes of the earlier South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2016 [H-003] together with the SHMA Addendum 2017 [H-006].

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

187. The Castle Point Borough Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2018 [H-007; H-008; H-009; H-010] was reviewed in light of this need, to determine whether additional capacity could be identified from sites within the urban area, or whether higher densities could be achieved on sites to limit the loss of Green Belt land. It remained the case however, that a significant proportion of housing needs would remain unmet, unless Green Belt was considered to determine whether the full extent of this housing need could be accommodated sustainably.

188. As highlighted in the SHMA 2016, figure 2.8 (pg. 23) shows a considerable worsening of market conditions within Castle Point Borough over time, justifying this uplift in need. In particular, average house prices have increased by almost 50% in the period from 2002 to 2012. This trend has increased beyond this with a 35% increase in mean house prices from 2014 to 2019, as highlighted in table 2.2 (pg. 10) in the Addendum to the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Castle Point 2020 [H-014]. On page 11 within the SHMA 2020, table 2.3 also highlights how mean monthly rents have increased by 20% over the same period. This means it has become much harder for first time buyers to access the housing market. This has resulted in an increase in the number of people still living with their parents into adulthood, including those with their own children. These are known as concealed households, and there is a risk that the number of these will continue to grow unless affordability and supply issues are not addressed.

189. The scale of need, especially which cannot be met within the urban area, combined with the worsening of market conditions indicate that there is an acuteness of need for housing in Castle Point Borough. Therefore, it is considered that this first test in respect of demonstrating the acuteness of needs in relation to housing is passed.

Test 2: The inherent constraints on supply/availability of land prima facie suitable for sustainable development

190. There is an inherent constraint on land supply within the Castle Point borough as well as the surrounding authorities and wider area. The existing Green Belt boundaries were amended in the early 1990’s to meet housing needs up to 2001. As per paragraph 137 of the Framework, the Council sought to make as much use of urban and brownfield sites and increased densities within town centre and urban sites that are well serviced by public transport.

191. A Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory at October 2020 [H-015] updated the housing trajectory within the Plan with up to date housing figures. The amount of projected homes from completions from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2020, extant permissions as of 31st March 2020, sites for the Brownfield Register, policy compliant SHLAA sites, windfall sites and strategic allocations on urban and brownfield sites are set out in the table below. This compares the amount of supply from these sources in comparison to the objectively assessed housing need (OAN).

Source Total Percentage of total OAN OAN 5,295 100% Completions 2018/2020 271 5.1%

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

192. It is clear from the table above that there is an inherent lack of urban land available, with all suitable brownfield, extant permissioned sites, windfall or policy compliant SHLAA sites making up 59.5% of the total OAN of the borough. This highlights exceptional circumstances and a need to release Green Belt sites in order to meet OAN.

193. A call for sites was undertaken in 2018 to inform the SHLAA 2018 [H-007; H-008; H- 009; H-010] all suitable sites were included within the housing trajectory. The amount of homes projected from windfall increased from the level set out in the Pre-submission Local Plan 2019 [EXM-001] in the table above and further to 702 dwellings within the Castle Point Windfall Allowance 2021 [H-018].

194. Consistent with paragraph 137 of the Framework, the Council has made as much use of suitable brownfield sites as evidenced in the table above and increased densities within town centre and urban sites that are well serviced by public transport. Due to the level of shortfall from sites identified above to the OAN the Council had discussions with neighbouring authorities in regard to them accommodating unmet housing needs within their authorities, and formally wrote to authorities within the Housing Market Area (HMA) in November 2018. This is evidenced within the Duty to Co-operate Report 2020 [DTC-003] in appendices 5, 6 and 7. Additionally Chelmsford City Council and Maldon District Council which sit outside of the HMA were engaged on this matter, their responses are evidenced in appendix 6 of that report. In all instances all authorities were unable to accommodate the housing need from Castle Point. Therefore, the Council had to seek to meet need within the Borough.

Test 3: The consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;

195. As outlined above, there is insufficient capacity within the urban area to meet all of the borough’s housing need. However, alternatives were appraised through the sustainability appraisal process.

196. In accordance with criteria a in paragraph 139 of the Framework, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] considers the housing strategy presented in the Pre-submission Local Plan as a sustainable approach to meeting housing need. The sustainability appraisal (SA) is an iterative process and has evolved through the plan making process. In 2018 an SA Interim Report [SUS-015] was produced, on page 19, the SA considers reasonable alternatives to the strategy set out within the draft

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Plan at that time for meeting housing needs. The report considers two alternatives as set out below: • Alternative SD2a – Ensuring that there is no development identified within the Green Belt within the Plan • Alternative SD2b – Releasing more Green Belt land for development to fully meet OAN

197. Table 3 on page 21 of the SA Interim Report 2018 compared the preferred approach with the alternatives SD2a and SD2b against sustainability themes. It found that although alternative SD2a is comparably more favourable for environmental themes it does have negative implications for housing delivery within the Plan. Adversely, alternative SD2b exacerbates the negative impacts of the preferred approach at that time by releasing more Green Belt land.

198. With regards to reasonable alternative SD2a, the SA identified negative consequences for economic growth, regeneration and meeting housing needs. This is because there would be insufficient housing to support the labour demands of local businesses, and a supply and demand ratio for housing which would prevent access to the housing market for lower income households and first time buyers.

199. Therefore, the SA process concludes that a strategy which involves encroachment into the Green Belt represents a more sustainable option, than the option which would see no encroachment into the Green Belt. However, there are negative consequences arising from the strategy put forward in the Pre-submission Local Plan. Therefore, sustainability must also be considered at the site level to ensure that where it is necessary to impinge on the Green Belt, that the resulting development will still be capable of being considered as sustainable, compared to reasonable alternatives.

200. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] for the Pre-submission Local Plan indicates that those sites identified for housing purposes are generally sustainable development options. In such cases where potential negative impact may arise, the overall conclusions of the SA was that with mitigation measures included in the allocation policies these harmful impacts could be overcome.

201. It should be noted that since the SA Interim Report 2018 the Plan has boosted the urban housing supply through extant consents and windfall sites, as demonstrated in the Housing Supply Position and Housing Trajectory at October 2020 [H-015] and updates to housing figures up to April 2020 from policy compliant sites [H-020], brownfield sites [H- 021], extant consents [H-022] and windfall [H-018]. Therefore, the amount of Green Belt sites proposed to be released within the Plan is largely the same as that identified in 2018, whilst meeting housing need in full. As noted within the SA Interim Report 2018, Castle Point has a lack of land supply beyond identified sites within the urban area and within the Green Belt, this is highlighted through the SHLAA 2018 [H-007; H-008; H-009; H-010].

Test 4: The nature and extent of the harm to this Green Belt (or those parts of it which would be lost if the boundaries were reviewed); and

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Test 5: The extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent.

202. Tests 4 and 5 relate to the Green Belt assessments undertaken, as the assessments assessed harm and provided potential mitigation to harm, these tests are linked together in this section.

203. The Green Belt assessments were undertaken in two parts, these included:

204. Allocation HO16 falls within parcel 8 of the review. The Review found four strategic areas that are locally important, parcels 8 along with parcels 4, 5, 7, and 9 make up the ‘Strategic Green Belt Area 1 – Daws Heath “Ring”’, which serves an important purpose in preventing the settlement from merging with surrounding settlements of Hadleigh, Thundersley, Rayleigh and Eastwood, as well as preventing urban coalescence more generally.

205. Both Part one and two of the review assessed the following three purposes of the Green Belt in line with the NPPF: 1 – To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas 2 – To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another 3 – To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

206. As set out on page 33 of GB-001, the reasons purpose four and five of the Green Belt were not assessed within the review is set out below: • Green Belt Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns • There are no towns in the borough which are considered to be historic in nature for the purposes of the application of this Green Belt Purpose. It is held that this purpose applies to a limited number of areas such as Oxford where the Green Belt specifically contributes to its historic significance. As such, this Purpose did not form part of this Review. • Green Belt Purpose 5 - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land • As stated in the PAS Guidance, ‘If Green Belt achieves this purpose, then all Green Belt does so to the same extent and hence the value of various land parcels is unlikely to be distinguished by the application of this

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

purpose.’ As such this purpose is excluded from the review as each parcel would receive the same assessment. 207. Table 9 below sets out the assessment within part one of the review for parcel 8.

Table 9: Assessment of parcel 8

Although sprawl has therefore occurred within the parcel, the degree of sprawl compared to the size of the parcel, and its proximity to three separate urban settlements means that it is assessed as strongly contributing to this purpose. 2 – To prevent The parcel is adjacent to Daws Heath, Eastwood, Leigh-on- neighbouring Sea, which is primarily in Southend-on-Sea, and Hadleigh towns from and as such its development would lead to the physical merging into one merging of these three settlements. Leigh-on-Sea is some another distance from the other two settlements, being approximately 1.2km away, and is already merged with Very Strong Hadleigh further south across Bellfairs Park. However, the strategic gap between Daws Heath and Hadleigh is approximately 250m and comprised solely of this parcel, meaning that this parcel make a very strong contribution to this purpose. 3 – To assist in Other than the ribbon developments already highlighted, safeguarding the the remainder of the parcel comprises of a number of countryside from farms and associated dwellings along with agricultural encroachment fields. The landscape is compartmentalised with hedges and fences separating areas, and it is also well screened by Moderate trees and hedges. Roads are few and narrow. The parcel adjoins significant expanses of countryside to the north and south but there is however residential development located along much of the boundaries in the eastern and

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

western portion of the site which influence the perception of the parcel being in open countryside at these locations, which is further compounded by the ribbon developments in the centre.

208. The Green Belt Review Part Two update 2019 [GB-004] assessed the harm arising from the removal of site HO16 from the Green Belt as a result of the development. This is set out in table 10 below.

Table 10: Assessment of site HO16

Purpose 1 – Check Purpose 2 – Prevent Towns Purpose 3 – Safeguard Unrestricted Sprawl from Merging Countryside

The proposed development The direction of the extension The proposed development site is adjacent to Hadleigh would not be towards Daws site is currently free of built and currently contains no Heath which is the closest development considered development considered settlement to Hadleigh at the inappropriate in the Green inappropriate in the Green point where this proposed Belt, and development would be extended out into rural Belt. Its release for development site lies. countryside where no development would constitute boundary feature exists to an easterly extension of the Development would reduce contain such development. urban area out into the the gap between Hadleigh and the ribbon development in countryside, rather than a more general rounding off of between Daws Heath and the urban edge, and will not Leigh-on-Sea but this ribbon development is not considered result in the Green Belt to be a ‘town’ with regard to boundary being aligned to an existing robust feature. Any this purpose. Nonetheless, the realignment would be from proposed site forms a small part of the existing gap existing curtilage to new curtilage. between Hadleigh and Leigh- on-Sea although there is no inter-visibility which would lead to the perception of merge.

Degree of Harm: Degree of Harm: Degree of Harm:

Strong Strong Minor

209. For the purposes highlighted above the development of site HO16 was found to have a ‘Minor’ to ‘Strong’ degree of harm. It would not extend towards Daws Heath which is the closest settlement, and forms part of a small gap between Hadleigh and Leigh-on-Sea.

210. The development of Site HO16 would not have a significant negative impact on

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

the robustness of Green Belt boundaries as it would act to realign a Green Belt boundary that currently takes the form of residential curtilage with new curtilage that would be developed as part of the release of this site. Other boundaries will continue to follow the field boundary and lane which they currently follow before taking the form of the new residential curtilage.

211. It is recognised that loss of Green Belt development in this location is likely to cause some harm to the Green Belt, and so development would need to deliver urban design which integrates with surrounding built form and is sensitive to the openness or farmland and ancient woodland, and retain existing hedge/tree lined field boundaries, as set out in Strategic Policy HO16.

212. The Green Belt Topic Paper 2018 [GB-003] assessed the matters above in the context of Castle Point, in all instances the Council believe that exceptional circumstances exist for the release of Green Belt land for this site to deliver the housing requirement of the borough.

Question 137 Is the proposed Green Belt boundary justified and consistent with national policy as set out in paragraph 139 of the Framework?

213. The proposed Green Belt boundary for site HO16 follows residential curtilages, a field boundary and a lane. In accordance with criterion f of paragraph 139 in the Framework, this provides physical recognisable features to the Green Belt boundary. In addition to this the Green Belt Review Part Two update 2019 [GB-004] considers this to be a robust boundary in the long term, meeting criterion e of paragraph 139 of the Framework.

214. The Review [GB-004] highlights that site HO16 presents no opportunity to create an alternative boundary. Therefore, criteria c and d in paragraph 139 of the Framework do not apply in this instance and there is no suitable land to safeguard for future housing need as a result of this allocation.

215. The proposed Green Belt boundary is set out on the Policies Map [EXM-002], this is drawn around policy HO16. The Green Belt Review Part Two update 2019 [GB-004] assessed the harm to the Green Belt as a result of removing this site from the Green Belt, in addition to this, the assessment defines potential alternative boundaries and if any changes could be made to the boundary to provide for longer term needs.

216. In accordance with criteria a in paragraph 139 of the Framework, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA): Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] considers the housing strategy presented in the Pre-submission Local Plan as a sustainable approach to meeting housing need. Policy HO16 addresses sustainability themes highlighted in table 4 (pg. 33) in the SA and meets the approach set out in the Plan.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

217. Within policy HO16, although the retention of wooded areas is proposed in the policy, there is no land which is required to remain permanently open, therefore criterion b in paragraph 139 does not apply for policy HO16.

218. The Council is satisfied that the proposed Green Belt boundary in relation to allocation HO16 is justified and consistent with national policy as set out in paragraph 139 of the Framework.

Question 138 Are there any matters which would mean that the site is not deliverable or developable as per Framework definitions?

219. Allocation HO16 is promoted by one developer who is proactively working with the Council in order to produce a master plan for this site. They have met with the Local Plan Delivery Board in March 2021 to discuss how to bring a master plan forward on the site. The developers have begun collecting evidence to inform a master plan and are keen to progress public consultation on a master plan, whilst continuing to work with the Council at each stage.

220. The Council has undertaken the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005], this tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO16 falls within row 13 of tables 6.1 (pg. 65). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO16 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. In addition to this table 6.3 (pg. 68) tests different market conditions under the policy conditions and policy HO16 is deemed to be maintained as viable. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms as justified in the evidence.

221. The Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] demonstrates that policy HO16 is in a sustainable location, the suitability of the site is reiterated within the SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA references S0138).

222. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO16 meets the definition of deliverable and developable as per the Framework definitions, due to the fact that it is suitable, available and achievable for the reasons set out above.

Question 139 Are the proposed Modifications necessary for soundness?

223. Table 11 below highlights the modifications proposed to policy HO16 and the reasoned justification supporting this policy.

Table 11: Proposed modifications to policy HO16 and the justification

Mod Reference Main modification proposed Reason Justification for modification

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

M10. Paragraph 10.51 10.55 The northern edge of the site Representatio This modification aligns 60 10.51 coincides with a watercourse which puts the n 244 the policy with national northern boundary into a flood risk zone 2 Environment policy and ensures that and 3. The overall design for the site should Agency the sequential test is follow the sequential approach and avoid followed. development within flood risk zones 2 and 3. Elsewhere within the site development proposals should integrate ensure integration of sustainable drainage techniques, in order to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately. This can 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. Having regard to these design approaches it is considered that 65 homes could be accommodated on this site.

M10. Paragraph 10.52 10.56 Given the mainly undeveloped Representatio This modification better 61 10.52 nature of this site and the proximity to a Local n 310 Natural aligns the policy with Wildlife Site and SSSI, any development of England national policy in this site would need to consider how relation to the adjacent biodiversity could be effectively integrated SSSI, it also improves into the development, impacts on the SSSI the effectiveness of the can be avoided, managed or mitigated, and policy in relation to the an overall net gain in biodiversity could be natural environment. achieved. The use of landscaping to mitigate the impacts of the development on the semi- rural landscape in this location could for example provide the opportunity to create wildlife corridors that link the network of woodlands and support this areas role as a Historic Natural Landscape.

M10. Paragraph 10.53 10.57 The SHLAA 2018 estimates an Deleted text This modification aligns 62 10.53 additional 61 dwellings and this is repeats earlier with national policy in corroborated by the Castle Point Large Site part of the RJ encouraging and Capacity Study which estimates that the site for policy providing an has a capacity for 65 additional dwellings HO16. opportunity for modal made up of semi-detached and detached shift, as well as homes as well as open space. The northern Representatio improving the part of the ste with within Flood Zone 3 and n 365 ECC effectiveness of policy appropriate mitigation should be put in place HO16 in implementing including on-site SUDS and / or attenuation. such measures. Vehicular access to the site should be taken from Central Avenue, with improvements The deleted text also made to active and sustainable travel removes repetition in within and around the site to promote active the reasoned travel and access to the countryside in this justification. part of the borough. There is scope for non-

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

vehicular access to be secured from Poors Lane.

M10. Policy 1. Land at Oak Tree Farm, Hadleigh, as NPPF This modification 63 HO16 Part identified on the Policies Map, is Compliance – responds to potential 1 allocated for residential purposes, to flexibility to changes in market deliver up to around 65 new homes by respond to conditions, this will add 2033. market greater flexibility to the conditions policy, making it more

consistent with national Representatio policy. n 720 CALA Homes M10. Policy INSERT A NEW CRITERION AFTER PART 3A, Representatio This modification aligns 64 HO16 Part AND RENUMBER LATTER CRITERIA n 244 the policy with national 3a ACCORDINGLY Environment policy and ensures that Agency the sequential test is b. Adopt the sequential approach followed. This also and ensure that no housing improves the development is proposed within effectiveness of the flood risk zones 2 and 3 on the site policy in relation to as defined by the most up to date flood risk. modelling, and taking climate change into account;

M10. Policy INSERT A NEW CRITERION AFTER PART 3B, Representatio This modification 66 HO16 Part AND RENUMBER LATTER CRITERIA n 276 Essex improves the 3b ACCORDINGLY Bridleways effectiveness of policy Association HO23 in protecting and c. Adopt an approach to wildlife that enhancing the natural protects and enhances the Representatio environment and is adjacent SSSI, and results in a n 310 Natural better aligned to measurable net gain in England national policy. It also biodiversity. Where greenways are improves the provided as part of the design for Representatio effectiveness of policy this site, they should avoid or n 432 Essex HO16 by minimising the Wildlife Trust impact of development otherwise manage recreational and future recreational disturbance in the adjacent SSSI disturbance to the including access from Poors Lane nearby SSSI. to the SSSI;

M10. Policy f. Take Mmain vehicular access will Representatio This modification aligns 67 HO16 Part be taken from Central Avenue with n 365 ECC with national policy in 3d improvements also made to active encouraging and providing an and sustainable travel opportunity for modal infrastructure, facilities and shift, as well as services nearby the site to improving the promote modal shift and improve effectiveness of policy

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

connectivity to services, jobs and HO16 in implementing to the natural environment. such measures.

224. For the reasons set out above the Council believe that with the proposed modifications will enhance the effectiveness of the policy, and consequently improve its overall soundness.

Section E: Local Policy HO17 Hadleigh Island, Hadleigh

Question 140 What is the justification for the site capacity being ‘up to 52 new homes’?

225. With regard to the capacity of policy HO17 this was initially assessed through the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Update (SHLAA) 2018 [H-007]. The methodology for estimating the housing potential for each site is set out on pages 12 – 13 of that report. In the first instance the methodology seeks to take advantage of designed proposals where these are available. Where these are not available, the SHLAA 2018 applies densities derived from an earlier piece of work carried out by URS in 2011 [H-025] to establish standard densities for different site typographies based on design case studies.

226. The SHLAA provided a baseline position with regard to the capacity of each allocation for each parcel of land considered. For policy HO17 this was made up of SHLAA reference number S0050 totalling a capacity of 52 dwellings (SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008]).

227. By taking a design led approach, the Council is confident that they are realistic by striking an appropriate balance between promoting the effective use of land whilst ensuring that the environment will be safeguarded and improved, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 117 of the NPPF. The Council is however aware that good design, as it evolves, can optimise site capacities, and that changes in the market and the demand for different sized homes over a period of time can also affect the density of homes secured on any one site. The Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] proposes modification M10.70 to policy HO17 to remove a maximum housing figure and replace it with an ‘around’.

228. The Council is satisfied that the broad assumptions made to the capacity of allocation HO17 is justified and that proposed modification M10.70 will further improve the effectiveness of policy HO17 making it more consistent with national policy.

Question 141 Are there any matters which would mean that the site is not deliverable or developable as per Framework definitions?

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

229. Allocation HO17 is owned in part by Essex County Council and Castle Point Borough Council on the remaining land. The Council is working with Essex County Council, Essex Housing and Homes England to deliver plans for the site. The site is currently used for a library, community arts centre and following the demolition of the former Crown Public House in 2020, vacant land. The eastern most portion of the site is currently used for commercial purposes, but the council has been approached by the landowner for inclusion in the scheme.

230. The site has been subject to funding under the One Public Estate project to support the preparation of plans by Essex housing. In addition, the acquisition of parts of the site received Homes England funding in 2021. The involvement of Homes England continues and the site is being considered as a ‘Shovel ready’ site in the accelerated housing delivery programme between ASELA and Homes England.

231. The site will deliver more than just housing numbers. A new library and retention in the town centre of the community arts groups are essential and need to be integral to the proposals. In addition, its prominent location, wedged between the two carriageways of the A13 and at the eastern end of the town centre, mean that the current poor visual state of the site is not conducive to the town centre, for which the Council has regeneration plans.

232. The retention of the former Fire Station building, including the old tender hall, is an option being explored. This is a prominent landmark in the town centre.

233. The Council has undertaken the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005], this tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO17 falls within row 16 of tables 6.1 (pg. 65). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO17 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms as justified in the evidence.

234. The Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] demonstrates that policy HO17 is in a sustainable location in Hadleigh town centre, the suitability of the site is reiterated within the SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA references S0050).

235. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO17 meets the definition of deliverable and developable as per the Framework definitions, due to the fact that it is suitable, available and achievable for the reasons set out above.

Question 142 Are the proposed Modifications necessary for soundness?

236. Table 12 below highlights the modifications proposed to policy HO17 and the reasoned justification supporting this policy.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

Table 12: Proposed modifications to policy HO17 and the justification

Mod Reference Main modification proposed Reason Justification for modification M10. Paragraph 10.55 10.59 Control of the land is vested in Representatio This modification aligns 68 10.55 the County Council and Borough Council, n 366 ECC with national policy in both of whom aspire to bring forward mixed encouraging and use redevelopment in order to support the providing an town centre. The site will be subject to a opportunity for modal master plan which sets out how the new shift, as well as development can be integrated into the improving the existing fabric of the town centre; seek to effectiveness of policy retain if viable the old fire station; retain and HO17 in implementing provide facilities for the community uses on such measures. the site; provide commercial ground floor opportunities; and residential development. The proposals for this site will seek to support and contribute towards opportunities to promote active and sustainable travel in this already accessible location.

M10. Paragraph 10.56 10.60 This site is identified as being Representatio This modification 69 10.56 within a Critical Drainage Area and within the n 127 Anglian improves the Southend Water Recycling Centre catchment Water Services effectiveness of policy area, and it is necessary to ensure that HO17 as it ensures that surface water is managed appropriately in Anglian Water will order to prevent flooding of properties on or maintain access to all nearby the site. Anglian Water has also relevant assets and identified the presence of existing surface prevent development in water sewers on this site, and these will need locations that are not to be considered in the layout of the suitable. development. This existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private areas where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing sewers should be located in the highway or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required.

M10. Policy 1. Land at Hadleigh Island, Hadleigh, as NPPF This modification 70 HO17 Part identified on the Policies Map, is Compliance – responds to potential 1 allocated for mixed use residential flexibility to changes in market respond to conditions, this will add purposes, to deliver up to around 52 market greater flexibility to the new homes by 2033. conditions policy, making it more consistent with national policy. M10. Policy Enhancements to the public realm within Representatio This modification aligns 71 HO17 Part the site and along the A13 frontage, n 366 ECC with national policy in 3c including contributions towards active and encouraging and

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

public transport provision within the providing an vicinity of the site to promote modal shift in opportunity for modal a town centre location; shift, as well as improving the effectiveness of policy HO17 in implementing such measures. M10. Policy INSERT A NEW CRITERION AFTER PART 3d OF Representatio This modification 72 HO17 Part POLICY HO17 n 127 Anglian improves the 3d Water Services effectiveness of policy e. Safeguarding of suitable access for HO17 as it ensures that the maintenance of surface water Anglian Water will drainage infrastructure, and any maintain access to all relevant assets and other utility infrastructure prevent development in identified within this site. locations that are not suitable.

237. For the reasons set out above the Council believe that with the proposed modifications will enhance the effectiveness of the policy, and consequently improve its overall soundness.

Section F: Local Policy HO32 Land at 244-258 London Road, Hadleigh

Question 238 What is the justification for the site capacity being ‘up to 50 new homes’?

238. With regard to the capacity of policy HO32 this was initially assessed through the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Update (SHLAA) 2018 [H-007]. The methodology for estimating the housing potential for each site is set out on pages 12 – 13 of that report. In the first instance the methodology seeks to take advantage of designed proposals where these are available. Where these are not available, the SHLAA 2018 applies densities derived from an earlier piece of work carried out by URS in 2011 [H-025] to establish standard densities for different site typographies based on design case studies.

239. The SHLAA provided a baseline position with regard to the capacity of each allocation for each parcel of land considered. For policy HO32 this was made up of SHLAA reference number S0131 totalling a capacity of 49 dwellings (SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008]). The Council is therefore satisfied that up to 50 new homes is justified.

240. By taking a design led approach, the Council is confident that they are realistic by striking an appropriate balance between promoting the effective use of land whilst ensuring that the environment will be safeguarded and improved, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 117 of the NPPF. The Council is however aware that good design, as it evolves, can optimise site capacities, and that changes in the market and the demand for different sized homes over a period of time can also affect the density of homes secured on any one

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

site. The Schedules of Proposed Modifications January 2021 [EXM-030] proposes modification M10.158 to policy HO32 to remove a maximum housing figure and replace it with an ‘around’.

241. The Council is satisfied that the broad assumptions made to the capacity of allocation HO32 is justified and that proposed modification M10.158 will further improve the effectiveness of policy HO32 making it more consistent with national policy.

Question 239 Does criterion 2. which appears to phase the proposed development serve a clear purpose and is it justified?

Question removed as per Inspectors Clarification on Initial Matters Issues and Questions

Question 240 Given the proximity of a designated heritage asset and having regard to the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment, would the Policy be effective in conserving and enhancing the historic environment?

242. As a result of representations received from Historic England [267] a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) 2020 [DSH-013] was completed for site HO32 to identify if this development has the potential to impact the Grade I Listed Church of St James the Lesser which sits to the north west of the site allocation.

243. The HIA completed for this site assessed potential impacts to heritage assets in the area. A summary of the main outcomes is shown below:

• The assessment revealed the potential for archaeological features of medieval and post medieval date within site HO32. Should these exist within the development footprint it is likely that they will be directly impacted and potentially completely destroyed.

• The Grade I Listed Church of St James the Less, the locally listed The Castle Public House and the non-designated heritage assets of 136 High Street and 269 London Road would likely be impacted by development on site HO32 due to their location and close proximity. There is the opportunity for enhancement of the site’s contribution to the significance of these assets through its development, however proposals would need to be carefully considered as there is the potential for new development to cause harm to the significance of the identified heritage assets.

• There would be no impact on the significance of the Scheduled Roman Fort as a result of development on site HO32. This is based on the assumption that any development on this site would be low level and therefore not visible from the scheduled monument.

244. As a result of the HIA it is agreed between Castle Point Borough Council and Historic England in a Statement of Common Ground [SCG-006] that the impacts of development on this site on Heritage Assets can be managed to ensure that harm is less than substantial

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

through master planning which takes the opportunity to enhance the setting of the listed building. It is also agreed that archaeological investigations between demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building on the site should be sought as this provides the opportunity to explore any remains in this location. The following proposed modifications to the Local Plan are agreed by the Council and Historic England:

M10.157 - paragraph 10.115 10.115 10.131 This site falls within Hadleigh town centre and as such the development should be fully integrated into the fabric of the town centre, providing an appropriate mix of ground floor commercial opportunities with residential development above. This site is located opposite the Grade I Listed St James the Less Church and there is therefore the opportunity for the redevelopment of this site to enhance both the quality of Hadleigh town centre, and also the setting of this significant heritage asset. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared for this site and highlights this opportunity. It is also the case that the development site itself is located on the site of former medieval and post medieval buildings. Archaeological investigation of this site is therefore recommended in between demolition of the existing building and construction of any new development. that create high quality redevelopment in Hadleigh town centre.

M10.159 - Policy HO32 Part 3a a. A high-quality design and layout which complements the existing urban environment and seeks to enhances the setting of the Grade I Listed St James the Less Church and contributes overall to an enhancement of the character of the town centre.

M10.161 – Policy HO32 INSERT A NEW POLICY REQUIREMENT AFTER PART 4 OF POLICY HO32. 5. In the period between demolition of the existing building and construction of any new development on this site, archaeological investigation of the site must be undertaken, and any findings recorded in accordance with best practice. The scope of these investigations must be agreed with the Council.

245. Based on the findings of the HIA and with the proposed modifications above the Council is of the opinion that policy HO32 is sound and will be effective in conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Question 241 Are there any matters which would mean that the site is not deliverable or developable as per Framework definitions?

246. Allocation HO32 is considered to be developable as per the Framework definition. The SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA reference S0131) previously noted that this site was unavailable. However, after investigation the Council considers this site will be fully available by the latter part of the plan period as the majority of the site is now available, and the Council has the capacity through ASELA’s partnership with Homes England to support the delivery of this site. The housing trajectory reflects this by phasing this site later in the plan period.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

247. The Council has undertaken the Castle Point Local Plan and CIL Viability Study 2020 [DV-005], this tests the viability of multiple typologies based on the location, size, type of housing and land type. Site HO32 falls within row 16 of tables 6.1 (pg. 65). Based on this typology and the inclusion of additional planning contributions from policies SD2, NE1 and HO4, policy HO32 is found to be viable with headroom for further monetary planning contributions in addition to those policies. The Council is therefore satisfied that the scheme is deliverable in viability terms as justified in the evidence.

248. The Sustainability Appraisal: Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] demonstrates that policy HO32 is in a sustainable location, the suitability of the site in the town centre location is reiterated within the SHLAA Schedule of Sites 2018 [H-008] (SHLAA reference S0131).

249. The Council is therefore satisfied that policy HO32 meets the definition of developable as per the Framework definitions, due to the fact that it is suitable, within a town centre location, has a reasonable prospect of being available within the plan period and is achievable for the reasons set out above.

Question 242 Are the proposed Modifications necessary for soundness?

250. Table 13 below highlights the modifications proposed to policy HO32 and the reasoned justification supporting this policy.

Table 13: Proposed modifications to policy HO32 and the justification

Mod Reference Main modification proposed Reason Justification for modification M10. Paragraph 10.115 10.131 This site falls within Hadleigh Site HO32 This modification 157 10.115 town centre and as such the development Heritage improves the soundness should be fully integrated into the fabric of Impact of policy HO32 by the town centre, providing an appropriate Assessment highlighting the mix of ground floor commercial relationship to the opportunities with residential development Representatio historic environment in above. This site is located opposite the n 267 Historic this location. This also Grade I Listed St James the Less Church and England adds justification to the there is therefore the opportunity for the amendment within the redevelopment of this site to enhance both policy, making the the quality of Hadleigh town centre, and also policy more effective in the setting of this significant heritage asset. regard to the historic A Heritage Impact Assessment has been environment. prepared for this site and highlights this opportunity. It is also the case that the development site itself is located on the site of former medieval and post medieval buildings. Archaeological investigation of this site is therefore recommended in between demolition of the existing building and construction of any new development. that

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

create high quality redevelopment in Hadleigh town centre. M10. Policy Land at 244 – 258 London Road, Hadleigh, as NPPF This modification 158 HO32 identified on the Policies Map, is allocated Compliance – responds to potential Part 1 for mixed use residential purposes, to flexibility to changes in market deliver up to around 50 new homes by 2033. respond to conditions, this will add market greater flexibility to the conditions policy, making it more consistent with national policy. M10. Policy A high-quality design and layout which Site HO32 Inclusion of this policy 159 HO32 Part complements the existing urban Heritage requirement highlights 3a environment and seeks to enhances the Impact the importance of the setting of the Grade I Listed St James the Less Assessment historic environment Church and contributes overall to an and ensures that the enhancement of the character of the town Representatio policy is effective in centre. n 267 Historic protecting and England enhancing the historic environment. M10. Policy d. Enhancements to the public realm Consistent This modification aligns 160 HO32 Part within the site and along the A13 with the with national policy in 3d frontage; including a contribution change sought encouraging and towards active and public transport to nearby site providing an provision within the vicinity of the HO17. opportunity for modal site to promote modal shift; and shift, as well as improving the effectiveness of policy HO32 in implementing such measures. M10. Policy INSERT A NEW POLICY REQUIREMENT AFTER Site HO32 Inclusion of this policy 161 HO32 Part PART 4 Heritage requirement highlights 4 Impact the importance of the In the period between demolition of the Assessment historic environment existing building and construction of and ensures that the any new development on this site, Representatio policy is effective in archaeological investigation of the site n 267 Historic protecting and must be undertaken, and any findings England enhancing the historic environment. recorded in accordance with best practice. The scope of these investigations must be agreed with the Council.

251. In addition to the proposed modifications above, whilst reviewing this policy, and in order to improve the effectiveness of the policy and better align the wording with national policy, the below modification is proposed, to remove unnecessary duplication of work:

New Modification – Policy HO32 part 2 It is expected that a planning and development brief approach will be taken to this site, using a contextual urban design approach.

Matter 5: Housing Allocations

252. For the reasons set out above the Council believe that with the proposed modifications will enhance the effectiveness of the policy, and consequently improve its overall soundness.