Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Inspectors Matters Issues and Questions (MIQs) MATTER 1: PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS (8th April 2021)

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Contents

Issue: Whether all Statutory and Regulatory requirements have been met? ...... 4 Duty to Cooperate ...... 4 Question 1 ...... 4 Question 2 ...... 6 Sustainability Appraisal ...... 9 Question 3 ...... 9 Question 4 ...... 10 Question 5 ...... 10 Question 6 ...... 11 Question 7 ...... 12 Habitats Regulations Assessment ...... 12 Question 8 ...... 12 Question 9 ...... 13 Question 10 ...... 15 Question 11 ...... 18 Local Development Scheme ...... 19 Question 12 ...... 19 Community Involvement ...... 19 Question 13 ...... 19 Climate Change ...... 26 Question 14 ...... 26 Equalities ...... 27 Question 15 ...... 27 Superseded policies ...... 29 Question 16 ...... 29

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

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 though

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Issue: Whether all Statutory and Regulatory requirements have been met?

Duty to Cooperate Question 1 Is there clear evidence that, in the preparation of the Plan, the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies on strategic matters and issues with cross-boundary impacts in accordance with section 33A of the 2004 Act?

1. Section 33(a) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires the Council to actively consult and engage with other local planning authorities, the County Council and other prescribed bodies in the preparation of the local plan.

2. To support its response to the MIQs, the Council has produced an ASELA and Strategic Planning and Duty to Cooperate Topic Paper [DTC-008]. ASELA is the Association of South Essex Local Authorities, which consists of Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend on Sea and Thurrock Councils, plus Essex County Council.

3. ASELA was established in 2018, with a Memorandum of Understanding (DTC-004) and Statement of Common Ground (DTC-005). ASELA was established in part due to the failing under duty to cooperate of the 2016 version of the Castle Point Local Plan.

4. Since then, the Council has been an active partner in ASELA. It acts as the partnerships accountable body, and until the Covid-19 pandemic, hosted most meetings. Council officers lead on strategic projects, such as the South Essex Plan, housing delivery, digital technology, and connectivity, and participates right across the ASELA work programme.

5. ASELA established the Joint Officers Group to collaborate on the South Essex Plan and act as a forum for the discussion and consideration of cross boundary strategic planning issues. In addition, it is the forum through which evidence is jointly commissioned, which has helped inform the preparation of this plan.

6. South Essex has defined itself as a Housing Market Area and a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was completed for the area in 2016 (H-003) and updated in 2017 (H-006). The SHMA excludes Brentwood. Brentwood has its own SHMA, which has been used to inform its Local Plan which is in Examination (Brentwood SHMA Part One and Brentwood SHMA Part Two). The South Essex SHMA is under consideration for review, and as part of that review its relationship with the Brentwood SHMA will be explored.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

7. In the preparation of the plan, pre-submission, the Council held a round table duty to cooperate meeting in November 2018. This followed attendance at similar style meetings held by Chelmsford City Council in the preparation of their, now adopted, local plan1.

8. In addition, the Council held one-to-one meetings with each of the six South Essex Councils and Essex County Council. These meetings were minuted and has led to the agreement of Statements of Common Ground with Southend-on-Sea, Rochford and Brentwood. Meanwhile, Statements of Common Ground have been drafted with Basildon and Thurrock, but are outstanding at the time of writing. The outcomes of those duty to cooperate discussions are set out below in response to Question 2.

9. With regards to Essex County Council, the Council undertook a series of thematic meetings covering strategic planning, education, public health and social care, transport, flooding and minerals and waste. Essex County Council have additionally provided detail comments and suggested edits to the Plan, including the modifications.

10. In respect of the prescribed bodies, the Council has collaborated in the preparation of the plan, and where possible, having regard to resource availability, agreed statements of common ground. The outcome of these is set out below in response to Question 2.

11. Furthermore, as set out on pages 12 and 13 of the Topic Paper [DTC-008] the Council hosts and participates in a wide range of joint meetings with partners including through the Castle Point and Rochford Local Strategic Partnership and the Castle point Regeneration Partnership, the health bodies, police and blue light services, the voluntary sector, Homes England, business community and Environment Agency. All opportunities are taken to present, explain and discuss the Local Plan and consider the implications for partners and their views on the Plan.

12. As a consequence, the Council has a positive relationship with councils and prescribed bodies who have collaborated positively in the preparation of this plan. In addition, the Council consulted widely at Regulation 19 stage prior to the plan being submitted and offered duty to cooperate meetings will all Essex Councils prior to the submission of the Plan.

13. The Council has published three Duty to Cooperate Reports to take account of each stage of the plan reparation process:

CON-001 - New Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Report 2018;

CON-002 - New Local Plan Duty to Cooperate Report 2019

CON-003 - Duty to Cooperate Report 2020

1 https://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/1395887.pdf 5

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

14. None of the Councils nor prescribed bodies objected to the plan as a failing under the duty to cooperate failing.

15. The Council is satisfied that it has fulfilled the requirements of Section 33a of the 2004 act.

Question 2 What are the specific outcomes of the Duty to Cooperate?

16. The Council has used the Duty to Cooperate process positively and constructively to inform the preparation of the Local Plan. Throughout the plan making process from 2012 onwards, but in particular since 2018, the discussions and representations made by prescribed bodies has been vital to define policy and tackle issues of mutual concern.

17. The regulation 22 Consultation Statement sets out in detail the various consultation stages, including who was consulted and how EXM-008 - Regulation 22 Consultation Statement 2020.

18. Table 1 in the Statement includes a summary of the main issues raised and outcomes from consultation (pages 14 to 133). These include where the prescribed bodies have made comments. The table sets out the responses from all stages in the plan dating back to 2012 and clears demonstrates how comments have bene taken into account.

19. Through Duty to Cooperate a number of strategic planning issues have been identified and are set out in Section 7 of the Duty to Cooperate Compliance Report 2020 - CON-003 - Duty to Cooperate Report 2020. These are set out thematically:

Housing (including gypsies and travellers) (pages 10 to 13).

• Joint working has led to a shared SHMA (H-003) and collaboration of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments, including as set methodology to ensure consistency in approach (H-011). • No authorities were able to meet any unmet need from Castle Point, meaning that the Council has sought to meet its own needs. • No concerns were raised by neighbouring authorities with regard to the approach taken by the Council in meeting housing needs and the needs of Gypsies and Travellers. • Where proposals are close to boundaries, authorities have sought to be engaged in site planning, and this Council has agreed to this. • Some concerns were raised about whether there is greater capacity on sites, including in relation to being able to meet any unmet need from elsewhere, but the evidence to the Plan supports the approach being taken.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Economic Growth and Employment / Retail (pages 13 to 14)

• Joint work has been commissioned across South Essex (except Brentwood, who have their own evidence) in respect of Economic Development Needs Assessment (ER-002) and Retail Study ( ER-003) • ASELA has produced and published it Growth and Prosperity Prospectus (DTC-006) • ASELA has produced the South Essex Grow-on Space Study and the South Essex Tourism and Leisure Study (both can be found at What is the evidence base? | South Essex Plan. • No concerns were raised by prescribed bodies to the approach to economic growth and retail in the Local Plan.

Green Belt (pages 14 to 15)

• The green belt has been widely discussed at various forums and one to one meetings with neighbouring authorities • Southend were satisfied that the Plan retains the green belt n the proximity of their boundary • Basildon raised concerns about the impact of development along the western boundary of the Borough with Basildon, but their local plan maintains a strategic gap between Basildon and the Thundersley/Benfleet settlements. As the North Benfleet Neighbourhood Plan is proposing some new development in this area, at this stage the authorities have agreed to keep this matter under review and the need for a landscaping strategy. • There are no significant concerns raised on the Council’s approach to the green belt from prescribed bodies.

Climate Change (pages 15 to 16)

• Several joint South Essex, in whole or part, evidence has been prepared including a South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (CC-009), and Water Cycle Study (CC-003) • In the representations to the Plan by prescribed bodies, technical comments were made to help improve the plan. These have been incorporated into the proposed modifications and set out in statements of common ground.

Green Infrastructure / Green Grid (pages 16 to 17)

• Castle Point is a participating in the Essex Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS). This has been adopted as SPD by the Council (Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy | Castle Point) • Authorities with Sports England have collaborated on Sports and recreation needs assessments and laying pitch strategies.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

• The south Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study has been completed informed by the Local Plan, but setting out a long-term strategy for a south Essex regional Park and a Thames estuary park and pathway (EQ-015) • In addition, the Council and the local plan helped inform the Essex Green Infrastructure Strategy 2020 (EQ-014) • In representations technical points were raised by prescribed bodies which have been incorporated into proposed modifications. • The issue of biodiversity net gain remains to be fully resolved awaiting the introduction of the new Environment Act. The statement of common ground with Natural England will set out how this will be dealt with without impeding the ability to adopt the Plan.

Transport and Access (pages 17 to 18)

• The Council worked, and continues to work, closely with Essex County Council on transport matters. • The Council is active in South Essex on a connectivity strategy and the A127 Task Force. • Essex County Council has raised a number of concerns regarding access arrangement for, in particular, Ho9 – west of Benfleet – and H013 – east of Rayleigh Road. In response to these the Council has commissioned to agreed briefs further technical assessments to address these concerns. • Thurrock Council has raised concerns with regards to the inclusion in the plan to a third access off Canvey Island to link to Manor way in Thurrock. • Natural England as a prescribed body has also raised concerns regarding the third access route on the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. To address these modifications are proposed as set out in response to MIQs [INSERT]

Health and well-being (pages 18 to 20)

• The Council has worked closely with public health officers (at Essex County Council) and the NHS in the preparation of the Plan. This has included one to one meetings and participation on the Castle Point and Rochford Strategic Estates Project, the Local Strategic Partnership, Essex Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2018-2022, and the Castle Point and Rochford CCG Localities Estates Strategy. • These discussions have informed the plan and in particular the preparation of the infrastructure delivery plan. • Representations have been taken into account and incorporated into proposed modifications where appropriate. • Minerals and waste (page 20) • The Council participated in the preparation of the Essex Minerals Local Plan (2014) and the Essex and Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan (2017) • No issues were raised in representations by prescribed bodies to these matters in this Plan. 8

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Communications

• The Council has led the rollout of the Local Full Fibre Network in South Essex and digital infrastructure planning in South Essex and worked closely with Essex County Council on the roll out of superfast broadband as part of the Superfast Britain Programme. • No objections were made to the plan in this regard from prescribed bodies

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

• As with other aspects of the Plan, the IDP has been prepared in conjunction with key bodies some of whom are prescribed bodies – Essex County Council (flooding, education, transport, public health and adult social care); and the Environment Agency.

20. The Council is satisfied that all of the issues raised by prescribed bodies through duty to cooperate and representations to the Plan, have either been addressed in the preparation of the Pre-submission Plan, or in proposed modifications, or where matters have not been resolved are included in Statements of Common Ground.

Sustainability Appraisal Question 3 Did the Council comply with The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations) in the preparation of the Sustainability Appraisal?

21. The Council complied with the SEA Regulations in the preparation of the SA, specifically in compliance with Part 3 of the SEA Regulations regarding Environmental Reports and consultation procedures. Appendix 4 of the SA [SUS-002] & [SUS-007] contains a ‘Quality Assurance Checklist’ which sets out compliance with all requirements of an Environmental Report as set out in the SEA Regulations Part 3 - Provision 12.

22. Provision 13 of the SEA Regulations sets out consultation procedures. An up-to-date SA has been included at / accompanied all stages of consultation of the Local Plan. A Regulation 19 SA [SUS-001; SUS-002; SUS-003; SUS-004; SUS-005] has been consulted upon and all relevant consultation bodies, interested / affected parties and public consultees were notified through the consultation of the Local Plan. The modified (submitted) SA [SUS-006; SUS-007; SUS-008; SUS-009; SUS-010; SUS-011] has not been consulted upon formally, reflecting the proposed modifications to the Plan for examination and updated evidence, however it is considered that the requirement to consult on this iteration can be satisfied through further / future consultation.

23. Provisions 14 and 15 are not considered applicable as a result of the findings of the SA.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Question 4 Is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) adequate?

24. The SA is considered adequate and meets the requirements of both the SEA Directive Part 3 – Provision 12 and additional detail set out within National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) on Strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal. Appendix 4 of the SA [SUS-002] & [SUS-007] contains a ‘Quality Assurance Checklist’ which sets out compliance with all requirements of an Environmental Report. This checklist corresponds to the ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations requirements checklist’ included within NPPG.

Question 5 Has the SA been undertaken on the basis of a consistent methodology and is the assessment robust?

25. The SA Scoping Report [SUS-012] sets out the methodology of the SA and was consulted upon with the statutory consultees in August 2018. Comments received by these consultees were taken onboard for all subsequent iterations of the SA. Where comments were made relevant to the robustness of the assessment through the Regulation 19 SA consultation [SUS-001; SUS- 002; SUS-003; SUS-004; SUS-005], from the statutory consultees or other parties, Plan evidence has been updated or expanded and amendments made to the Modified SA [SUS- 006; SUS-007; SUS-008; SUS-009; SUS-010; SUS-011]. These are outlined in Annex D of the modified SA [SUS-011] and also included within Appendix 3 of the Modified SA Environmental Report [SUS-007].

26. The appraisal of policies has been undertaken against the SA Objectives and ‘key questions’ contained within the SA framework, with a focus on identifying the significance of effects (as per NPPG on SA) using available information / plan evidence. This evidence is contained within the list of ‘plans and programmes’ of the SA [SUS-002 and SUS-007] and Annexes A [SUS-003 and SUS-008] and B [SUS-004 and SUS-009]. Each policy chapter assessment of the SA Environmental Report contains the relevant evidence base document used in the assessment.

27. The assessment of sites within the SA is consistent and utilises the factual evidence of the SHLAA [H-007]. The assessment of sites in Annex C [SUS-005 and SUS-010] is primarily quantitative and represents a ‘policy off’ assessment that has been applied on a consistent basis, allowing a fair comparison of the sustainability of the sites. This is outlined in Section 2.1 of Annex C [SUS-005 and SUS-010]. Sections 4-8 of the SA also evaluate these effects in consideration of the Plan’s policies and site policy criteria, exploring whether identified the ‘policy off’ effects identified can be mitigated or avoided through the parameters of Plan policy. An explanation of the policy on/off methodology is offered in Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 of the Modified SA Environmental Report [SUS-007].

28. This is considered a robust assessment, with and without policy considerations, and also serves as an evaluation of sites and policies together. The effects highlighted at the site level have been addressed within site policies, or thematic policy, indicating that the effects identified are accurate and relevant to the remit of the Plan.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Question 6 Did the Council, through the iterative SA process, take into account reasonable alternatives and has sufficient reasoning been given for the rejection of alternatives?

29. The working relationship of the plan-making and SA processes has been iterative and SA documentation has been provided to CPBC at key decision-making processes, notably full council at all relevant stages. This also included the formulation of an ‘Interim SA’ [SUS-015] to satisfy that requirement. Findings have been shared throughout the process at regular intervals to allow for the full consideration of the SA as it was in development.

30. The consideration of ‘reasonable alternatives’ was undertaken throughout the SA process of the previously withdrawn Local Plan as well as all iterations of the Local Plan since. At the Regulation 19 stage, many strategic alternatives that could be considered notionally reasonable had been discounted due to the findings of the SHLAA and SA of sites, which sieved out various options as either undeliverable, unsuitable, or unavailable. This is consistent with NPPG on SA and the identification of alternatives and is set out in the SA Environmental Reports [SUS-002 and SUS-007] within Section 5.2 regarding applied sieving criteria, and also Section 7 in regard to ‘The Strategy’.

31. It is considered that sufficient reasoning for the rejection of strategy options is outlined in Section 7. Appendix 2 of the Modified SA Environmental Report [SUS-007] explains in more detail the process of omitting sites in the identification of reasonable alternatives for sites. Regarding site options that have not been ‘sieved out’, Section 5.5 of the Modified SA Environmental Report [SUS-007] sets out sufficient reasoning for the rejection of sites, notably in Section 5.5.5.

32. Discussion as to alternatives to thematic policy direction in regard to each chapter of the Local Plan is included within the SA Environmental Reports [SUS-002 and SUS-007] in Section 5. This has followed a process of identifying whether any alternatives are ‘realistic’ and ‘sufficiently distinct’ as per NPPG and in light of the Plan’s evidence.

33. Any new alternatives that are adjudged as reasonable at this stage and as a result of EiP, can be assessed against the sustainability framework in a new iteration. There is a precedent for this to be done at this stage, and consulted upon, (Cogent Land LLP v Rochford (CO/605/2012)). This is also the case should it be decided that further reasoning surrounding the rejection of alternatives be required.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Question 7 Is the SA report sufficiently clear and self-contained in the demonstration of the consideration of reasonable alternatives?

34. Reasonable alternatives are discussed throughout the SA Environmental Reports [SUS-002 and SUS-007] relevant to each chapter or distinct element of the Local Plan. Discussion surrounding the consideration of alternatives and what constitutes ‘reasonable’ alternatives is included within: • Local Plan Policies – Section 4 • Site Allocations – Section 5 (with Appendix 2 offering more detail) • ‘The Strategy’ – Section 7

35. Although all of the alternatives considered throughout the SA are not self-contained within a single section of the SA, Section 7 represents an assessment of Policy HO1, with consideration of the effects that have been identified within the assessment of site allocations and alternatives.

36. Should it be required, the relevant parts of Sections 4-7 and Appendix 2 can be separated and tabulated for reference through the examination.

Habitats Regulations Assessment Question 8 Has the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) been undertaken in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017?

37. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) which accompanied the Publication of the Local Plan for the purposes of the Regulation 19 Consultation was the HRA 2019 [EQ-009]. This was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and included both a screening assessment and an Appropriate Assessment where it was not possible to rule out the potential for likely significant effects on Habitats Sites at the screening stage.

38. The HRA 2019 was prepared cognisant of recent, and relevant European Court judgements relevant to the preparation of an HRA including CJEU People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta C – 323/17, and CJEU Holohan C – 461/17. It is therefore considered that the legal implications of these judgements have also been addressed through the HRA 2019.

39. Three representations were received in respect of the HRA, from Natural England [312], from the RSPB [86] and from Essex Wildlife Trust [426]. The representations from the RSPB and Essex Wildlife Trust are concerned with the scope of the HRA and are addressed in relation to questions 9 and 10 which follow. Natural England’s representation however addressed compliance with the regulations. It states at page 7: 12

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Natural England is pleased to see that a HRA including Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken for the Castle Point Local Plan, its policies and associated development and generally finds this to have been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017). We acknowledge the references to recent judgements made at the Court of Justice for the European Union and the approach that has consequently been taken…

40. Natural England does go on to highlight where improvements could be made to the HRA in respect of matters related to recreational disturbance, water quality/quantity, coastal squeeze & coastal impacts and functionally linked land. The HRA was reviewed in respect of these matters, plus the matters raised by the RSPB and Essex Wildlife Trust in order to ensure that the HRA is as robust and compliant with Regulations as possible. This review resulted in the HRA 2020 [EQ-010]. However, it is clear from representation 312 that it was Natural England’s view that the HRA 2019 of the Castle Point Local Plan had been prepared in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The preparation of the HRA 2020 only strengthens this position by addressing outstanding issues.

41. The Council is therefore of the view the HRA is legally compliant.

Question 9 Has the HRA adequately identified the Habitats sites which may be subject to significant effects arising from the Plan?

42. The HRA 2019 [EQ-009] included the following Habitats Sites within its scope: • Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA and Ramsar • Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar • Outer Thames Estuary SPA (marine) • Essex Estuaries SAC • Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5) SPA and Ramsar • Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4) SPA and Ramsar • Crouch and Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3) SPA and Ramsar • Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1) SPA and Ramsar

43. The scoping assessment is set out in Table 2 at page 21, and details consideration of all Habitats Sites within a 22km zone of influence.

44. The representation from the RSPB [86] implies that the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar was not scoped in, however, it is clear from the list above and Table 2 that it is. It is noted it is not however screened in for all elements of the assessment which is addressed further below.

45. The RSPB also suggest that the Holehaven Creek SSSI should be screened in as a potential Special Protection Area (SPA). The NPPF states at paragraph 176 that potential SPAs should 13

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

be given the same protection as designated Habitats Sites. Holehaven Creek SSSI is not however recognised by Natural England as a potential SPA. The map which follows, extracted from Defra’s MAGIC mapping system, does not show a potential SPA in the Holehaven Creek location.

Figure 1. Map of SPAs and potential SPAs in the Thames Estuary area

46. The Council is therefore satisfied that the HRA correctly determines the scope of the HRA in respect of the Habitats Sites it incorporates.

47. However, whilst Holehaven Creek SSSI is not a potential SPA, it is considered by Natural England to be functionally linked to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA as Holehaven creek is used by qualifying features (birds) of the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA, particularly Black-tailed Godwits. This is set out in the Natural England representation [312]. Essex Wildlife Trust and the RSPB also identifies this area as functionally linked to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar in their representations.

48. It is therefore considered by all three organisations that the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar should be assessed for ‘Impact on features (qualifying species) outside the protected site boundary’. Natural England also highlight the need to assess ‘Air Quality’. It is clear within Table 7 of the HRA 2019 [EQ-009] that these assessments were not included. This meant that the impact of proposals for development and infrastructure at west Canvey were

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

not fully assessed in respect of the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA, as its functionally linked land at Holehaven Creek had not been considered.

49. To overcome this issue, an update to the HRA was prepared prior to the submission of the Local Plan for examination. The HRA 2020 [EQ-010] recognises the role of Holehaven Creek as functionally linked land to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar, and consequently includes assessments of this Habitats Site in relation to the ‘impact on features (qualifying species) outside the protected site boundary’ and ‘Air Quality’.

50. The Council is therefore satisfied that the HRA 2020 [EQ-010] adequately identifies the Habitats sites which may be subject to significant effects arising from the Plan, and properly assesses the potential for significant effects upon them.

Question 10 Has the HRA screened all the proposed allocations and transport schemes and considered potential in-combination effects?

Screening of Proposed Allocations and Transport Schemes

51. As set out in response to Question 9, the HRA was updated in 2020 to include the assessment of functionally linked land associated with the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar. It also includes other updates as follows in order to address the issues raised by Natural England in their representation [312] to the Regulation 19 consultation:

• Consideration of the availability of avoidance measures e.g. green infrastructure on-site or within walking distance (1.3km) • Consideration of potential recreational impacts from the plan alone and measures to divert and deflect visitors in addition to Essex Coast RAMS • Provide confirmation that there is adequate capacity for sewerage and wastewater

52. The response to this question therefore draws upon the HRA 2020 [EQ-010], as it is that document which includes the updated assessment of each allocation and transport scheme.

53. Table 7 at page 35 of the HRA 2020 sets out the initial screening of the policies in the Local Plan. A more detailed assessment of each site can also be found in Appendix 2: HRA Screening of Individual Policies which sets out the justification for each conclusion. It is clear from Table 7 and Appendix 2 that each of the housing allocations HO9 to HO32 have been screened. These policies are clearly listed in Table 7.

54. Policies EC2, EC3 and EC4 are also shown to have been screened in this Table, as justified in Appendix 2. These policies set out the allocations and locations for employment development and therefore it is clear that these employment policies have also been screened.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

55. Transport schemes are meanwhile detailed in tables 14.1 and 14.2 of the Local Plan, which are not listed as being screened. However, policy TP2, which allows for the delivery of these schemes, and includes some specific projects within the policy text has been screened in. It is recognised that from Table 7 alone it is not therefore clear as to the extent of assessment of the transport schemes set out in the plan. However, Appendix 2 states the following for policy TP2: ‘Screened in. Policy promotes various improvements and alterations to carriageway infrastructure, some of which have the potential for LSE [likely significant effects] upon neighbouring Habitats Site without mitigation. Includes various road improvements on Canvey Island. Water and air pollution; non-recreational disturbance; land take and loss of functionally linked land (off-site).’ An element of the Plan that is screened in can move straight to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA and does not need additional consideration at the screening stage.

56. It is also necessary to consider the Appropriate Assessment element of the HRA 2020 itself. Policy TP2 is screened into the assessment of the ‘Loss of Functionally Linked Land/Impact upon Features on Land outside Habitats Sites’. This is section 5.2 of the HRA commencing at page 59. Paragraphs 5.2.21 – 5.2.23 specifically discuss the implications of a new access to Canvey Island, as described within Table 14.1 on the functionally linked land at Holehaven Creek SSSI. It can therefore be concluded from this that Table 14.1 has been considered as part of the HRA process, and where necessary the nee to avoid adverse effects on site integrity has been considered.

57. The HRA 2020 [EQ-010] recognises that the proposals for a new access to Canvey Island are not sufficiently detailed at this time for a full HRA to be carried out. It therefore identifies the need for a project level HRA to be carried out at the time that more detailed proposals are developed. An amendment to the Local Plan is recommended at paragraph 5.2.44 to make this clear.

58. It should be noted that the implications of a new access to Canvey Island are also drawn out regarding its potential to have adverse effects on site integrity in Section 5.4 of the HRA commencing at page 86 of the HRA 2020 in terms of other forms of disturbance, and in section 5.5 commencing at page 100 in relation to Air Quality. In both cases the need for project level HRA is identified. No other schemes listed in Table 14.1 or Table 14.2 of the Local Plan are specifically highlighted within the HRA as having the potential to cause adverse effects on site integrity on Habitats Sites.

59. The Council is satisfied that all proposed allocations and transport schemes have been screened and assessed properly through the HRA. It is recognised that this is perhaps less clear for the transport schemes, although it can be demonstrated that this lack of clarity is not a sign of insufficient assessment. Indeed, the HRA is particularly thorough in drawing out potential effects arising from the transport proposals.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

60. At this time, some of the transport proposals are not sufficiently advanced in detail to fully assess at this stage, and therefore project level HRA is required to ensure significant effects on Habitats Sites are avoided. Paragraph 5.7.6 at page 121 of the HRA 2020 is clear that this is an appropriate approach to take in a planning system which comprises multiple levels of plan-making. This conclusion is based on the Opinion of the Advocate-General Kokott issued in 2005 when the Habitats Directive was being transposed into British law. She stated at that time that ‘It would… hardly be proper to require a greater level of detail in receding plans [rather than lower tier plans or planning applications] or the abolition of multi-stage planning and approval procedures so that the assessment of implications can be concentrated on one point in the procedure. Rather, adverse effects on areas of conservation must be assessed at every relevant stage of the procedure to the extent possible on the basis of the precision of the plan…’.

61. The Council is of the view that the assessment of the transport schemes has gone as far as it can at this time, consistent with this opinion.

Potential In-combination Effects

62. Section 5.6 of the HRA 2020 [EQ-010] commencing at page 109 assesses the potential impact of the Local Plan and its policies in combination with other plans and projects. This assessment was originally set out in the HRA 2019. It was updated in 2020 to reflect the progress that had been made since 2019 in respect of the South East Marine Plan. It was also updated to incorporate the Port of London’s ‘Thames Vision’ which was drawn to the Council’s attention by the representation by the Port of London Authority [444]. Table 11 at page 111 details this assessment.

63. The HRA 2020 [EQ-010] concludes that there are no potential significant in combination effects arising, aside from Recreational Disturbance. This is addressed at paragraphs 5.6.12 to 5.6.15 at page 118 of the HRA 2020. In 2017, Natural England's West Anglia Team identified the Essex coast as a priority for strategic and proactive planning engagement and mitigation. This was due to the high numbers of dwellings that were likely to come forward for each Plan alone and in combination within the relevant Local Plans by 2038 to meet projected housing needs, and the potential recreational impacts that these new residents could have upon the Habitats sites.

64. Natural England proposed a strategic approach to LPAs and recommended identifying the scale of the disturbance and implementing measures to mitigate impacts through the preparation of a joint Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).

65. Based on existing evidence of visitor pressures, Natural England advised that 11 (now 12) Councils across Essex should be partners in the preparation of the strategic solution. To reflect the differing Local Plan adoption dates of these authorities, Natural England advised that a

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

Supplementary Planning Document should be the mechanism to secure developer contributions towards the mitigation measures identified as necessary by the Strategy.

66. Natural England’s advice was that the Local Plans must have a clear policy commitment to producing a Mitigation Strategy, with a clear timeframe for its completion. This should be by the time the Local Plan is adopted to ensure any developments coming forward as part of the plan have certainty that there are mitigation measures which can be implemented as soon as the Local Plan is live.

67. The Essex Coast RAMS [EQ-006] was prepared in 2019, and the associated Supplementary Planning document [SPD-003] was adopted by the Council following consultation in September 2020. This therefore ensures Castle Point will be fully compliant with Natural England’s requirement that any developments coming forward as part of the plan have certainty that there will be mitigation measures which can be implemented as soon as the Local Plan is live. This in combination effect is managed in respect of Castle Point and the proposals in the Local Plan.

68. The Council is satisfied it has considered in combination effects on Habitats Sites and taken appropriate steps to address them.

Question 11 Is the Plan consistent with the findings of the HRA?

69. The recommendations of the HRA 2019 [EQ-009] were not incorporated into the Plan subject to publication and consultation under Regulation 19, and submitted for examination. Consequently, there is the potential for the Plan to cause adverse effects on the integrity of Habitats Sites which would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

70. It is now proposed that the recommendations of the HRA 2019 [EQ-009] along with the recommendations of the HRA 2020 [EQ-010] are incorporated into the Local Plan in order to ensure it is compliant with the Habitats Regulations and does not have the potential to cause adverse effects on the integrity of Habitats Sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

71. The modifications relevant to achieving this are:

M8.2 M9.21 M9.25 M10.102 M10.112 M10.116 M10.122 M10.125 M10.126 M10.127 M10.133 M10.137 M10.141 M10.149 M10.150 M10.152 M10.156 M11.26 M11.28 M11.29 M11.31 M13.30 M13.32 M14.1 M14.14 M17.1 M17.2 M18.5 M19.10 M19.11 M19.13 M19.14 M19.15 M19.16 M19.20 M19.22 M19.26 M21.2

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

72. The Council believes that subject to the incorporation of these modifications into the Local Plan, the Local Plan is consistent with the findings of the HRA and is therefore legally compliant in that respect.

Local Development Scheme Question 12 Is the Plan compliant with the Council’s Local Development Scheme in terms of its form, scope and timing?

73. The Council has maintained an up-to-date Local Development Scheme (LDS) and has ensured that the LDS is updated at each stage of the process, starting in 2012 (BG-005 to BG-009), but the two most recent and relevant to the Regulation 19 and 22 process being:

• EXM-006 Local Development Scheme 2019 • EXM-028 Local Development Scheme November 2020

74. Prior to the start of the Consultation of the Pre-submission plan the Council approved the Local Development Scheme 2019 (EXM-006). This set out the timetable for the Local Plan at that stage and the scope of the statutory and non-statutory assessments that would support the plan namely, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA); Equalities Impact Assessment and Economic Viability Assessment. All of these were prepared and published with the plan.

75. In November 2020, shortly after the submission of the Plan the Local Development Scheme was updated. This was to reflect the revised timetable.

76. The Council is satisfied that the Plan is compliant with the Local Development Scheme.

Community Involvement Question 13 Has the Council complied with the requirements of section 19(3) of the 2004 Act with regard to conducting consultation in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement?

77. Section 19(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the Council must comply with the requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement.

78. Prior to the adoption of a new Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in 2020 (EXM-029), the Council used the 2014 SCI to inform its engagement and consultation (EXM-007). Set out in the table below are the requirements of that SCI and how the Council complied with them.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

79. The Council prepared and submitted a regulation 22 Consultation Statement with appendices. These set out in considerable detail the consultation undertaken:

• EXM-008 - Regulation 22 Consultation Statement 2020 • EXM-009 Regulation 22 Appendix 1 Schedule 1 2020 • EXM-010 regulation 22 Appendix 1 Schedule 2 2020 • EXM-011 Regulation Statement Appendix 2 Schedule 1 2020

80. The Council is satisfied that it has fulfilled its obligations and consulted in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement 2014. Figure 2, which follows details the requirements of the SCI, and how the Council has sought to comply with those requirements.

Figure 2: Compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement 2014 Requirement Compliance 4.2 When will the Council consult on the New The Council has maintained an up-to-date Local Plan? LDS.

4.2.1 The programme for preparing the New Details of the consultation undertaken in Local Plan is set out in a document called the 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 are set out in Local Development Scheme. This details more Appendix 1 (pages 134 to 155) to the specifically when consultation is due to take Regulation 22 Consultation Statement 2020 place on the New Local Plan. As a general (EXM-008 - Regulation 22 Statement 2020). rule, the Council will carry out formal consult on the New Local Plan, and any subsequent That appendix details: review thereof, using a three stage approach: • The stage of the consultation 1) Issues: At the start, to determine the issues • Who was consulted and how? that need to be addressed by the New Local • Main issued raised and how these were Plan, or any subsequent review; used to help inform the plan making. • Links to key documents. 2) Draft Policies: Once policies and proposals have been developed to determine whether In respect of the Pre-submission Plan, the the policies and proposals are responding to Regulation 22 Consultation report sets out the concerns of consultees; and details of the consultation in Appendix Two - (pages 156 to 173) (EXM-008). 3) Submission: Prior to submission of the final document, consistent with the requirements Prior to submission the Council undertook planning regulations. This provides a planning consultation and engagement from 16 inspector with the basis for his examination. December 2019 to 14 February 2020 (Eight weeks and four days). This fulfilled the 4.2.2 There may be occasions where obligations under part 3 of paragraph 4.2.1 of additional consultation is carried out the SCI. between stages 1 and 3 to focus in on specific issues, or to deal with significant revisions to There was no requirement for specific the policies and proposals before submission. consultation between the stages 1 and 3. 20

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

It should be noted that the Council received notice of local plan intervention form the Secretary of State in March 2018. In response to this the Council agreed an ambitious timetable for the preparation of the plan. The approach to the consultation and engagement during 2018 was part of this agreement.

4.3 Who will the Council consult on the New During the 2018 consultation the Council sent Local Plan? letters or emails to all organisations and individuals on the consultation database, as 4.3.1 Planning Policy matters affect everyone well as all households and businesses on the who lives in, works in, or has an interest in Council Tax Register and Business Rates the Borough. The Council will therefore seek Database, in addition. to ensure that all residents and all local businesses are directly consulted on the New Meetings were held with neighbouring Local Plan, at stages 1 and 2, when policies authorities and Essex County Council are being developed and they have the discussing a range of thematic issues. greatest opportunity to influence change. Additionally, a range of public and private Invitations were sent to meet with hard to bodies with a specific interest in Castle Point, reach groups. or a specific set of expertise will also be directly consulted at these stages to ensure An online questionnaire was made available that their interests and expertise are fully for the public to view and comment on the reflected in the plan. Details of those local plan consultation. organisations that the Council must consult are set out in the regulations, but the Council The Council also consulted with Essex intends to consult far wider than this by Councils, the County Council and prescribed contacting all those organisations that have organisations. provided their information to the Council for this purpose 4.3.2 At stage three the plan will be finalised Full details of the Pre-Submission Plan ready for submission to the Planning consultation are set out in EXM-011 Inspector, and the opportunity to affect change limited to the examination process. Rather than just consult with residents who Therefore, the Council will directly consult had previously made representations to the with all those residents, businesses and plan or expressed an interest in being public and private bodies who have consulted on the Plan, the Council wrote to responded to earlier consultations on the all residential properties and businesses, in New Local Plan. Additionally, it will directly addition to those on the consultation consult with those bodies specified in the database. regulations. Wider consultation will be undertaken by non-direct means such as press adverts. 21

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

In addition, a notice was placed in the Evening Echo newspaper and the Plan was promoted on the Council website.

4.4 How will the Council consult on the New The Council prepared a consultation plan Local Plan? which was approved by Council on 6 June 2018 CPBC Council 6 June 2018 (see Appendix 4.4.1 A consultation plan will be prepared for Two). That Plan included the Regulation 19 each stage of consultation setting out how consultation. The plan was implemented the consultation will be undertaken. The during the Pre-submission consultation in consultation plan will address: 2019/2020.

1) How the consultation will be promoted; The letters sent out by the Council set out; 2) How people will be able to access where to find and access the relevant information; documents, including at the Council offices 3) How people will be engaged directly by the and libraries; how to get involved; and how Council; and data will be managed. 4) How data will be managed. Each consultation lasted 6 weeks as a 4.4.2 Each consultation will last a minimum of minimum, being: 6 weeks, and the consultation plan will be agreed by the Council’s Cabinet before • Regulation 18, Issues and draft policies consultation commences. (from 2014 and 2016) 4 July 2018 to 15 August 2018 (Six Weeks) 4.4.3 Methods of consultation that have proved successful in the past and are likely to • Regulation 19, Pre-Submission Plan 16 feature in future consultation plans include, December 2019 to 14 February 2020 but are not limited to, letters, information (eight weeks and four days) leaflets and questionnaires to residents, businesses and stakeholders, community Details on how the consultations took place meetings and electronic access to are set out in Appendix One and Appendix information. Two of the regulation 22 Statement on Consultation (EXM-008). 4.5 How will the Council ensure consultation All information on the Local Plan was on the New Local Plan is inclusive? accessible on the Council’s website, with a dedicated home page and links to the 4.5.1 As part of the consultation planning relevant documents, including the draft plan, process, consideration is given to ensuring associated documents such as the SA and inclusive access to consultation. HRA, and the evidence.

4.5.2 Evidence has indicated that a significant By writing at each stage to all households in proportion of Castle Point’s population favour the Borough (addresses as registered for hard copy forms of communication, and Council Tax), the Council ensured that the therefore it is the Council’s intention to use Plan had the greatest reach and no residents posted letters/leaflets wherever possible. was to be excluded. 4.5.3 However, it is recognised that working aged people and young people need to be 22

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

able to access information electronically due Where possible consultation events were to busy schedules. Therefore, information is held, although during the Regulation 19 also available online as standard, and a consultation, officers and members attended special system is used to enable responses to events organised by local communities at the be made online also. on request (In respect of Glebelands and Daws Heath). The Council invited groups and 4.5.4 In order to access hard to reach groups individuals to make arrangements for such as young people and the very elderly, meetings, which some took up (in respect of additional consultation events will be the Chase and West of Benfleet). Officers also planned to ensure these groups are also able attended meetings on site (Glyders). to participate. Businesses are also engaged in this way via the business forum. Officers met individuals who visited the Council offices. 4.5.5 As with all planning work all consultation materials are produced in serif The Local Plan was raised at the Local free font size 12. Additionally, information Strategic Partnership, which includes relating to consultation can be made voluntary groups. Officers also met the Chief available in alternative formats, such as: Executive of the Castle Points Associations of • Larger print (standard) Voluntary Services. • Braille (on request) • Audio tape (on request) The Plan was produced in serif font size 12 • Different languages (on request) and although available in other formats on request, no requests were made. The Plan 4.5.6 The Council Offices are also provided was available in paper form but only a few with a hearing induction loop at public copies were sold. counters and the Council chamber, and an officer of the Council is qualified in BSL signing and can provide general assistance in certain circumstances. 4.6 How can you respond to consultation on For each stage of consultation, a consultation the New Local Plan? questionnaire or form was produced. This was in paper and electronic form. The 4.6.1 Due to the nature of the matters electronic form used the software Objective, addressed through the New Local Plan, a high to collate, sort and publish the relevant level of response to consultations is normally details. achieved. The Council would therefore ask residents to use the consultation forms The Council also encouraged email provided as part of the consultation to submissions and accepted those made respond. This assists with the data without using the form. management process and ensures everyone’s response can be given equal consideration. All the responses, irrespective of how they The Council will make forms available in hard were submitted, were copied verbatim into copy and to download. These can be returned Objective. by post, by hand or by email. Additionally, an e-form will be available for online The Council was in receipt of five late completion. responses to the Regulation 19 consultation. These were registered and acknowledged, 23

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

4.6.2 Responses should be returned to the and submitted to the Inspector, although Council within the timeframes indicated in they were marked as late submissions. the consultation material. It may not be possible to take responses returned late into account, particularly if data processing is complete. 4.7 How will your response be used when All representations received have been preparing the New Local Plan? stored using the Objective database. Details of who is on the database is set out in EXM- 4.7.1 Responses received at each 009 consultation stage will be stored in the Council’s consultation database. Each representation has been included at each stage in a report on representations 4.7.2 Responses received in respect of stage 1 which also highlights the Council’s response. will be analysed to identify what issues need to be addressed in the New Local Plan, or a For the Regulation 19 consultation each subsequent review. An Issues Consultation response, with some personal information Report will be prepared, and presented to redacted, is set out in a series of reports – Members for consideration via the Council’s EXM-12 to EXM-28. These are set out in Cabinet. This will form the basis for policy representation order, plus policy order. development going forward. The reports show who made the 4.7.3 Responses received in respect of stage 2 representation; what the comments were; will be analysed to identify the level of the Council’s response; and what changes are support or concern in respect of policies and proposed to be made to the plan. proposals set out in a draft New Local Plan, or subsequent review. A Policies Consultation Each respondent and each representation Report will be prepared, and presented to have been given a unique number. Members for consideration via the Council’s Cabinet. This will form the basis for finalising Table 1 in the Regulation 22 Consultation the New Local Plan. Statement EXM-008 summarises how the responses during each stage have informed 4.7.4 Responses received in respect of stage 3 the Plan. will be provided to the Planning Inspector appointed to examine the Council’s New Local Plan. This will provide the basis for identifying the matters to be considered during the Examination in Public. 4.8 How can you find out what progress is The Council has maintained an up to date being made on the New Local Plan? Local Development Scheme publishing versions in 2019 and 2020 (EXM-006 Local 4.8.1 The Council’s Local Development Development Scheme 2019 and Scheme sets out the programme being EXM-028 Local Development Scheme followed for the preparation of the New Local November 2020) Plan. This can be viewed online, or at the Council Offices during normal office hours. Progress against this programme is reported 24

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

periodically to the Council’s Cabinet. Cabinet The Annual Monitoring Report 2020 (AMR Meetings can be viewed online, and Cabinet 2018 - 2020) includes details of the progress Agendas are available to view on the of the local plan (page 3). Council’s website.

4.8.2 Each year, the Council prepares a document called the Annual Monitoring Report. This sets out the Council’s progress against the programme in the Local Development Scheme. Again, this can be viewed online, or at the Council Offices during normal office hours. 4.9 What happens when the New Local Plan The Council is satisfied that it has complied is submitted for examination? with the requirements under Regulation 22 with regards to the submission of the Plan. 4.9.1 Following the stage 3 consultation, the final New Local Plan and associated The Council responded in full to the documentation, and all the consultation Inspectors initial Questions, which clarified responses received will be sent to the aspects of the submission and provided, Planning Inspectorate. where requested, additional information to the Inspector. 4.9.2 The Planning Inspector appointed to examine the New Local Plan, will then use the All of the submission documents, together consultation responses and his or her own with the evidence and archived plans is professional expertise to identify matters to published on the Council’s website at Local be considered through the examination Plan Submission | Castle Point process. It is most likely that the examination will take the form of an Examination in Public, whereby stage 3 consultation respondents may be invited to participate in various public round table sessions of the examination to explain their particular point of view.

4.9.3 The timetable associated with the examination, including any pre-examination meeting, will be made publicly available in accordance with regulations. Additionally, any documentation related to the examination prepared by the Inspector, the Council or by other participants at the examination will be made available in hard copy during the examination, and also online.

4.9.4 The Inspector’s report will be completed sometime after the close of the examination in public. This will be reported to the Council for consideration, and will be 25

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

made available to view online and at the Council Offices during normal office hours. It will be for the Council to decide whether to adopt the New Local Plan having regard to the Inspector’s Report.

81. It should be noted that the Council updated its Statement of Community Involvement in November 2020 [EXM-029]. Whilst it was not used to prepare the Local Plan as submitted, it will be applicable when any modifications to the Local Plan are consulted on.

Climate Change Question 14 Are the policies of the Plan designed to secure that the development and use of land contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in accordance with Section 19(1A) of the Act?

82. The evidence in relation to the Local Plan’s compliance with Section 19(1A) of the Act in respect of climate change can be found within the Sustainability Appraisal.

83. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Modified Environmental Report 2020 [SUS-007] and its annexes review the Local Plan against a series of objectives. These objectives are listed in Table 6 on page 15 of the SA. Two of these objectives relate specifically to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change: • Objective 7) To reduce contributions to climatic change; and • Objective 8) to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience to extreme weather events and flooding which may be caused by climate change.

84. These objectives are supported by a number of ‘key questions’ which are included in the SA Framework at Appendix 1 of the SA Environmental Reports [SUS-002 and SUS-007]. The SA Framework has been subject to consultation with the statutory consultees at the Scoping Report [SUS-012] stage, and the Regulation 19 SA [SUS-002] stage.

85. The SA is evidence-led and acknowledges that effects contributing to climate change are difficult to isolate at the Plan level. The effects evaluated in the SA draw upon relevant themes indicated within the referenced Policies below. The following policies have been assessed as contributing positively towards Objective 7 of the SA: • Policy HO2 – Master Planning • Policy CC1 – Responding to Climate Change • Policy CC4 – Sustainable Buildings • Policy NE7 – Pollution Control

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

86. The following policies have been assessed as contributing positively towards Objective 8 of the SA: • Policy DS2 – Landscaping • Policy GB7 – Positive Uses in the Green Belt • Policy CC1 – Responding to Climate Change • Policy CC2 – Tidal Flood Risk Management • Policy CC3 – Non-Tidal Flood Risk Management • Policy CC4 – Sustainable Buildings • Policy NE1 – Green Infrastructure and the Undeveloped Coast • Policy NE10 – Ensuring Capacity at Water Recycling Centres

87. In light of these policies, and the specific requirements of the allocation policies themselves (the ‘policy-on’ position) all the strategic housing allocations numbered HO9 to HO32 have also been assessed as contributing positively to Objective 8 within the SA – see table 3 on page 32. Allocations were not assessed against Objective 7, as in the absence of detailed plans for each site it is difficult to determine how they will contribute towards climate change mitigation. This explanation is set out in Table 12 on page 187. Section 8.1.7 addresses ‘whole plan’ effects, concluding that negative effects cannot be avoided, however significant negative effects are not identified of the Local Plan due to coverage of relevant themes within the Plan’s policy approaches which will seek to offset potential effects regarding climate change.

88. The Council is satisfied that the Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 19(1A) of the Act, and will contribute to the mitigation of, and adaption to, Climate Change.

Equalities Question 15 In what way does the plan seek to ensure that due regard is had to the three aims expressed in s149 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to those who have a relevant protected characteristic?

89. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places an equality duty on public sector bodies, including local authorities. All of the section is relevant to local planning, but in particular: in the exercise of the Council’s functions the Act requires that regard has to be had to the need to (1) ‘(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.’

90. Part (3) expands part 1 (b) by requiring that the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share protected characteristics and those who do not by ‘(a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.’

91. Part (4) clarifies that the needs of disabled persons are different to those who are not disabled.

92. Part (5) seeks to ensure that good relations are fostered by tackling prejudice and promote understanding between protected characteristics and those who do not share them.

93. Part (6) states that compliance with these duties ‘may involve treating some persons more favourably than others’ within limits as defined by the Act.

94. Part (7) defines the relevant protected characteristics, and more details is provided in Section 4 of the Act: • Age • Disability • Gender reassignment • Marriage and civil partnership • Pregnancy and maternity • Race • Religion or belief • Sex • Sexual orientation

95. None of the exceptions set out in Schedule 18 of the Act apply to a local planning authority. 96. 97. The Council prepared and published an Equalities Impact Assessment (EQUIA) on the Plan in 2019 [HS-015]. The Table on pages 5 and 6 of the EQUIA sets out against which elements of the assessment questions apply to which of the protected characteristics. Not all the Assessment Questions apply to every protected characteristic and indeed of the 24 assessment questions, 7 did not apply to any of the protected characteristics. These questions were defined in the scoping Report produced in 2012, which were reviewed and deemed to still be relevant to the new plan. The Council will publish this Scoping Report on the examination website as document [HS-021].

98. It is not the purpose of this response to repeat the EQUIA, but to highlight how the Council has demonstrated that it has given had regard to the aims of the Equalities Act. The Council has assessed each objective of the plan and each policy chapter against the assessment questions and with regard to the protected characteristics as defined in the Act. In doing so, it has set out what the policy seeks to achieve and whether it will have a positive or negative impact, with where appropriate definition of the protected characteristic or group (such as young people). As each assessment is split into socio-economic and protected characteristics questions, for the latter specific protected characteristics are identified and policy areas assessed against.

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

99. However, as set out in response to MIQs 57 to 59 in respect of Policy HO3 – Housing mix – the Council has acknowledged that the policy as submitted is focussed on establishing a housing mix which delivers affordable smaller units for first time buyers, as evidenced in the SHMA, but does not adequately cater for those of protected characteristic by age and disability.

100. To address this the Council commissioned a focussed review of the SHMA (H-014) and issued in 2021 a Housing Mix Topic Paper (H-023) that explains the background proposed modifications to Policy HO3.

101. The Council will ensure that the EQUIA is updated at the post hearing modifications stage and on the adoption of the Plan.

102. The Council is satisfied that it has had proper regard to Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.

Superseded policies Question 16 Is appendix 7 of the Plan clear in identifying the policies of the existing development plan which would be superseded by the Plan?

103. The Plan states in paragraph 2.2 (page 2) that ‘Policies in this plan will replace the 2007 saved policies from the Castle Point Borough Local Plan adopted in 1998.’

104. The sentence in paragraph 2.2 could be made clear by ‘Policies in this plan will replace in its entirety the 2007 saved policies from the Castle Point Borough Local Plan adopted in 1998.’

105. It is, therefore, the intention that the plan will be the development plan for the borough alongside the Essex Minerals Local Plan and Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan (also explained in paragraph 2.2).

106. The Plan is comprehensive and covers all policy aspects that are relevant to the promotion of sustainable development, growth and the protection of the borough. The plan includes development management policies which guide the decision makers in determining planning applications and guide applicants. The pre-application process and in due course supplementary planning documents will provide additional guidance.

107. Appendix Seven of the plan sets out the Policy changes from the Castle Point Local Plan 1998 (Saved Policies 2007). This is achieved by detailing which of the policies in the new local plan deal with the subject matter of previous policies. For example, the 1998 Plan policy

Matter 1: Procedural and Legal Requirements

GB2 (relating to the Re-use of buildings in the Green belt) is incorporated into policies GB3, GB5 and GB6 of the new plan as submitted.

108. This helps the decision maker and applicants during the transition from using the old plan to the new plan navigate the policies in the new plan.