Draft Local Plan - Regulation 18

Section B: Building a Sustainable Future

4. Managing Growth

4.1. Delivering the Spatial Strategy

Strategic Policy MG1 - Spatial Strategy

Context and Background

4.1.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Plans to set out a clear spatial strategy for meeting identified development needs in a sustainable manner (including NPPF paragraphs 11, 20 and 73). Rochford’s spatial strategy is evidence‑led, balancing national requirements with local opportunities and constraints, notably the extent of the Green Belt, areas at risk of flooding, sensitive landscapes and habitats, and the capacity of physical and social infrastructure.

4.1.2. National policy requires Local Plans to use the standard method to identify local housing need. The method applies a baseline increase of 0.8% of housing stock plus an affordability adjustment. For Rochford, this results in an annual need of 689 homes per year (13,780 over 2023–2043). A buffer of at least 5% should then be applied to improve supply resilience, increasing the figure to 723 homes per year (14,469 over the period). Where the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) is not met, a 20% buffer may be required. The Council has considered a scenario that applies 20% (827 homes/year) for the first 9 years, reverting to 5% (723 homes/year) thereafter, totalling 15,296 homes across the plan period.

4.1.3. Between 2023 and 2025, 700 new homes were completed in the District, approximately half of what would have been required over that period against the standard method with buffer. This emphasises the importance of a spatial strategy that is flexible, infrastructure‑led, and focused on sustainable locations, while recognising the challenge of accommodating growth within environmental and infrastructure limits.

4.1.4. ONS projections indicate population growth from 87,194 (2022) to 97,131 (2043), an increase of just under 10,000 residents. Assuming an average household size of 2.35, this equates to around 4,250 homes over the plan period, significantly below the range indicated by the standard method (13,780–15,296 depending on buffer). Rochford’s older‑than‑average population also affects household formation rates and the nature of housing required.

4.1.5. Consistent with the NPPF, the Council is aware of requests from neighbouring authorities to reallocate unmet housing need into Rochford. The Council does not propose to accommodate unmet need from other authorities, though this may be discussed at examination. If Rochford were to plan for less than the full local housing need, it would engage with neighbours, through the Duty to Cooperate and Statements of Common Ground, on whether capacity exists to accommodate need elsewhere.

4.1.6. As of November 2025, approximately 350 households with a local connection are on the Council’s housing waiting list. This need can be met within modest overall growth when combined with strong affordable housing delivery on allocated sites; it does not, on its own, justify increasing the headline growth figure beyond what is environmentally and infrastructurally deliverable.

4.1.7. The spatial strategy is informed by the settlement hierarchy and will direct growth to the most sustainable locations. This means prioritising urban sites and urban extensions to higher‑order settlements where services, infrastructure and transport connections can support development. Smaller settlements and rural areas will accommodate limited growth consistent with their role and character, ensuring development patterns remain sustainable and infrastructure‑led.

Table 1: Settlement Hierarchy

Table 2: Housing Requirement Scenarios

Summary of Consultation Feedback

4.1.8. The Spatial Options consultation in 2021 explored four potential approaches to distributing growth across Rochford District:

• Urban Focus: Concentrating development within existing settlements and on brownfield land.
• Urban Extensions: Expanding settlements higher in the hierarchy through edge-of-town development.
• Dispersed Growth: Spreading development more evenly across the district, including smaller villages.
• Strategic Growth: Delivering large-scale new communities in a limited number of locations.

4.1.9. Key Themes from Feedback:

• Strong support for brownfield development: Respondents consistently favoured making best use of previously developed land within existing settlements to minimise impact on the Green Belt and countryside.
• Recognition of limited brownfield capacity: Many acknowledged that brownfield opportunities alone cannot meet the district’s housing need.
• Urban extensions seen as a practical solution: There was broad support for focusing growth on settlements higher in the hierarchy (Rayleigh, Rochford, Hockley, Hullbridge) where infrastructure and services are more accessible.
• Mixed views on strategic sites: Some respondents supported large-scale development for its ability to deliver infrastructure and community facilities, while others raised concerns about environmental impact, traffic congestion, and loss of open land.
• Limited support for dispersed growth: Many felt this option would increase car dependency, strain rural infrastructure, and conflict with sustainability objectives.
• Infrastructure concerns across all options: Respondents stressed the need for transport improvements, school places, healthcare facilities, and utilities to accompany growth.
• Environmental and Green Belt protection: There was strong emphasis on safeguarding sensitive landscapes, biodiversity, and heritage assets.
• Climate and sustainability priorities: Feedback highlighted the importance of energy efficiency, active travel, and low-carbon development in shaping the spatial strategy.

4.1.10. Overall, the consultation indicated that no single option was universally supported, but there was a clear preference for a balanced approach combining brownfield development, urban extensions, and selective strategic sites where infrastructure can be delivered.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow
• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure
• SO12: Sustainable Patterns of Growth

Reasoned Justification

4.1.11. The Consultation feedback supports a hybrid approach combining brownfield development, urban extensions to higher‑order settlements and selective strategic sites capable of delivering infrastructure. The evidence base indicates that no single option can meet identified needs without significant adverse impacts, particularly given Green Belt coverage, flood risk and infrastructure constraints.

4.1.12. The nationally derived housing requirement significantly exceeds historic delivery rates in the District. The 700 homes delivered in 2023–2025 illustrate the uplift required to achieve standard method figures, reinforcing the need for a phased, infrastructure‑led approach aligned to realistic delivery trajectories and market capacity.

4.1.13. The Council acknowledges the government’s desire to significantly increase housing numbers and recognises that more homes need to be built. However, the nationally derived housing target for Rochford is significantly beyond that which has historically been delivered and which the ONS population projections suggest will be necessary for the population increases in Rochford. The nationally derived figures do not take into account the special and unique qualities of Rochford and the constraints on infrastructure which exist. As such, it is necessary for the Council to first test scenarios which meet this housing number to determine if there is one which is deliverable and viable, before it will commit to delivering the requirement, plus any buffers.

4.1.14. ONS projections (2022–2043) imply ~4,250 homes at an average household size of 2.35, well below the 13,780–15,296 implied by the standard method (depending on buffer). This disparity underscores the need to test deliverability, environmental capacity and infrastructure dependencies before confirming a final housing requirement. The District’s older age profile also has implications for dwelling types, accessibility, tenure mix, and health and social care infrastructure.

4.1.15. The affordable housing waiting list (~350 households) can be met within modest overall growth if strong affordable housing delivery is secured on allocated sites and through appropriate tenure and dwelling‑mix policies. This need does not, by itself, justify a higher overall housing figure.

4.1.16. Applying a 5% buffer provides resilience against non‑delivery. If HDT outcomes require a 20% buffer, the Council will implement an early‑years uplift, returning to 5% when performance improves, to maintain a five‑year housing land supply and protect against speculative applications. This approach will be reviewed in light of monitoring data and delivery trajectories.

4.1.17. The Council is not proposing to take unmet need from neighbouring authorities. Nonetheless, it will address Duty to Cooperate requirements and prepare Statements of Common Ground to document positions on unmet need, infrastructure dependencies and strategic environmental matters. If Rochford cannot meet the full local housing need, it will engage constructively with neighbours on potential redistribution.

4.1.18. Given uncertainties around infrastructure funding, market conditions and any national policy changes, the spatial strategy must remain flexible. The final housing requirement will be confirmed prior to Regulation 19, following completion of technical studies (including capacity, infrastructure, viability, Green Belt, flood risk and transport assessments) and engagement with stakeholders.

Have Your Say…

4.2. Green Belt

Strategic Policy - MG2 Green Belt

Context and Background

4.2.1. The Rochford Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB) forms part of the wider MGB surrounding Greater London, preventing the sprawl of the city. The Rochford is tightly drawn around existing settlements, the vast majority of which is undeveloped, and serves a local purpose in restricting development in areas around villages to prevent urban sprawl and the merging of neighbouring towns into one another. The extent of the Rochford MGB is shown on the Policies Map.

4.2.2. With approximately 74% of Rochford’s land area designated as MGB and made up of the district’s countryside, there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain, without adversely affecting their district character.

4.2.3. Rochford District is characterised by low-density developments, which are much valued by residents and make a major contribution to the character and identity of our settlements. However, replicating such low-density development across the district, would mean the release of significant amounts of greenbelt land. The challenge therein lies in preserving the district's positive qualities, whilst making the best use of urban land in the most sustainable locations.

4.2.4. With that in mind, Rochford District Council is required by Government to plan for future population growth and the demand for homes and jobs. In doing so, we must comply with the national planning guidance which sets out the governments objectives and places local plans at the heart of the planning system. As such, we will need to look at the green belt as a potential option to help meet our development needs over the plan period.

4.2.5. Whilst no detailed changes to our Green Belt boundary are being proposed in this consultation, it is recognised that we are unlikely to have sufficient urban and brownfield sites to meet our need for housing, employment or community facilities, and neighbouring authorities have advised they are unlikely to be able to accommodate any of Rochford's development needs themselves.

4.2.6. We have therefore commissioned a Green Belt study to consider the contribution that different parts of our District make to the Green Belt policy designation to inform an assessment of whether exceptional circumstances are likely to exist.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

4.2.7. Responses to the 2017/18 Issues and Options and 2021 Spatial Options consultations consistently highlighted the importance of the Green Belt. Key points included:

• Strong Support for Protection: Many respondents emphasised that the Green Belt should remain protected to prevent urban sprawl and maintain the openness and rural character of the district.
• Separation Between Settlements: A recurring theme was the need to preserve clear gaps between towns and villages, ensuring they retain their distinct identities and do not merge into one another.
• Concerns About Development in the Green Belt: While some support existed for rural exception sites to meet local housing needs, there was notable unease about any development within the Green Belt. Respondents feared this could erode the character and tranquillity of rural communities.
• Agricultural Land Within the Green Belt: Feedback stressed the value of farmland within the Green Belt for food production and biodiversity, with calls for policies to protect these functions.

4.2.8. Overall, consultation responses demonstrated a strong preference for maintaining the Green Belt’s integrity and openness, with development only considered in exceptional circumstances.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO11: Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment
• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth

Reasoned Justification

4.2.9. Rochford’s Green Belt Policy sets out a strategic approach to managing the District’s Green Belt land. Policy MG2 aims to balance housing and employment needs with the preservation of the Green Belt's natural, cultural and heritage assets. The policy includes the following key points:

4.2.10. The policy retains the presumption against building in the Green Belt and protecting and enhancing Rochford’s Green Belt to maintain its function, quality and openness. Any release of Green Belt land will only occur in exceptional circumstances and will come forward as part of the Local Plan process or where an applicant can demonstrate “special circumstances” for Green Belt release.

Exceptions to inappropriate development:

4.2.11. In accordance with national policy, other forms of development, identified through national policy as exceptions to the definition of inappropriate development, include facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings, engineering operations and the need for utilities companies to be able to carry out their statutory functions.

Alterations and extensions

4.2.12. In assessing whether an extension or alteration to an existing dwelling or other building is disproportionate to the original building, a qualitative assessment will be made of the design, bulk and mass of the proposed alterations and their impact on the scale of the building, in addition to its impact on openness.

4.2.13. It will also be a requirement that detached outbuildings are, for purposes of this policy, genuinely ancillary to the existing building. In some cases, the erection of detached outbuildings within the curtilage of a dwelling will be permitted development and therefore not require planning permission. Where planning permission is required, proposals for detached outbuildings will be treated as extensions to the original building. The scale of such additions will therefore be limited. Where it appears that this is not the case, or a building appears to be designed with a view to subsequent conversion to self-contained residential accommodation in a location where this would not normally be permitted, the development may be regarded as inappropriate.

4.2.14. An ancillary residential outbuilding may be considered an extension for the purposes of Green Belt policy, when located within 5 metres of the main dwellinghouse on the site. In such cases, the outbuilding must also:

• Be of a scale and design which is clearly subordinate to the dwelling and of a height and bulk that the building would not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt;
• Be sited in an appropriate location that would have regard to the landscape character with the aim of protecting and enhancing the diversity and local distinctiveness of the countryside.

Appropriate Development

4.2.15. Where a development proposal involves the redevelopment of land or buildings, the Council will consider the impact of associated uses and activity, such as associated parking/turning areas or modifications to access or landscaping and the detrimental effect on the locality by virtue of noise, smell, bringing heavy traffic into narrow lanes or involving uses not appropriate to the Green Belt.

4.2.16. Material changes in the use of land will only be supported where this would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The re-use of existing rural buildings for small-scale employment uses in the interests of encouraging rural economic sustainability and the diversification of the rural economy. These activities have enabled existing businesses in the Green Belt to continue to function and contribute to the local economy, as appropriate, having regard to the impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt.

Non-residential developments

4.2.17. The policy recognises that there may be cases where inappropriate development could be acceptable within the Green Belt and would not have an undue detrimental impact on the objectives of the Green Belt. Development proposals will be assessed against the criteria set out at part 4 of the policy and will be required to demonstrate that a rural location is necessary and the factors in favour of the development clearly outweigh any harm to the rural character and landscape character of the countryside, taking into all other relevant policies in this Local Plan, including those relating to the protection of the landscape, biodiversity and heritage.

Green Infrastructure

4.2.18. We also recognise the role of the Rochford's green infrastructure network, in providing an attractive environment for local businesses and future investment, as well as a recreation resource, as such measures to improve and enhance landscape quality, biodiversity and accessibility will be encouraged in accordance with the other policies in this Plan.

4.2.19. The Council also favours green tourism as a sustainable form of tourism which encompasses small-scale activities, on open areas of land such as bird watching, small-scale fishing lakes, cycling, walking and rambling.

Have Your Say…

4.3. Health

Policy MG3 - Health Impact Assessments

Context and Background

4.3.1. The health and wellbeing of residents is closely linked to the quality of the built and natural environment. Access to parks, green spaces, natural areas, walking and cycling routes, and indoor and outdoor sports facilities plays a vital role in supporting active lifestyles, improving mental health, and strengthening community cohesion. National and local planning policy recognises the importance of creating healthy environments that enable all people to live active, safe and fulfilling lives.

National Policy Context

4.3.2. The NPPF (2024) and the accompanying NPPG sets out a number of expectations relating to planning for health. National policy emphasises that planning should play an active role in promoting health, wellbeing, and inclusive communities. It champions using place-making as a proactive tool to support and encourage healthy living, to safeguard wellbeing and, to provide accessible green spaces and recreational opportunities for all members of society. Key expectations regarding planning for health are outlined in paragraphs 96, 97, 103-105 of the NPPF.

Local Policy Context

4.3.3. At the county level, Essex County Council provides strategic direction on planning for health through its health-related assessments and guidance.

4.3.4. The Essex Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) offers a comprehensive evidence base identifying key health priorities and inequalities across the county. It sets out how different sectors, including planning, can help improve population health and reduce disparities.

4.3.5. Complementing this, the Essex Design Guide (2019) promotes walkable neighbourhoods and well-integrated green infrastructure as essential components of healthy, sustainable communities. The Essex Healthy Places guidance, updated in 2023, places emphasis on creating environments that encourage physical activity, social interaction, and access to nature.

4.3.6. Additional strategies such as the Essex Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and the Essex Healthy Weight Strategy reinforce the role of the physical environment in tackling complex health challenges.

4.3.7. The Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) has also produced Essex Healthy Places Guidance and a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Checklist, which provide structured tools for assessing the health implications of development proposals.

Evidence Base Summary

4.3.8. Further supporting documents that underpin Policy MG3 are available on the Council’s New Local Plan Evidence Base webpage, particular under the heading ‘Transport and Infrastructure’.

Local Context

4.3.9. In the 2021 Census, 96% of the residents in Rochford considered their general health condition to be very good, good, or fair. This is a self-assessment of a person’s general state of health. This is broadly in line with national averages.

Table 1: General Health Rating of Rochford Residents (Self-Assessment), UK Census (ONS, 2021)

Source: Rochford District Council (2025)

4.3.10. The Castle Point and Rochford Health and Well-Being Strategy 2022-25 sets out a three-year plan to improve the health and wellbeing of residents in Castle Point and the Rochford District.

4.3.11. It has three pillars:

• People – to improve the health and wellbeing of our residents across all ages and target resource proportionately based on need;
• Place – working at a local level to build healthy, active, and thriving communities that people feel connected to;
• Purpose – for residents to feel empowered to improve their health and wellbeing, and to build resilience, to enable them to live well.

4.3.12. The Strategy contains a snapshot of health indicators for Rochford District which are summarised in the table below. This shows Rochford’s general health to be slightly better than national averages according to most indicators.

Table 2: Snapshot of Health Indicators (Castle Point and Rochford Health and Well-Being Strategy 2022-25)

Source: Rochford District Council (2025)

Summary of Consultation Feedback

Issues and Options Consultation (2015) and Spatial Options Consultation (2021)

4.3.13. Consultation responses highlighted widespread issues accessing GP and dental appointments, with concerns raised about healthcare capacity amid population growth, particularly in rural areas. Feedback concluded that some medical surgeries lack the space to expand, and doubts were expressed about the availability of trained staff to support new facilities.

Draft Policy

4.3.14. The purpose of Policy MG3 is to ensure that health and wellbeing of all Rochford residents is central to the design and delivery of all new developments.

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO9: Community Facilities
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

4.3.15. Policy MG3 is designed to ensure that the health and wellbeing of all Rochford residents are central considerations in the design and delivery of new developments. This approach aligns with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which requires planning policies to promote healthy, inclusive, and safe communities, and reflects the Essex-wide strategic direction on integrating health into planning.

Supporting Evidence Overview

4.3.16. Robust evidence from the JSNA, the Castle Point and Rochford Health and Wellbeing Strategy, and local health data underpins the approach of Policy MG3. The Rochford HIA process is expected be guided by the priorities and evidence set out in the Essex JSNA and EPOA guidance to ensure development supports improved health outcomes. Developers and site promoters are expected to refer to relevant strategic documents when preparing proposals, including:

• The Essex Design Guide,
• Essex Healthy Places Guidance,
• Essex Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy,
• Essex Healthy Weight Strategy and,
• Castle Point and Rochford Wellbeing Strategy

4.3.17. A proportionate approach is taken within Policy MG3 which targets only developments most likely to have significant health impacts, including large residential schemes, care facilities, major non-residential projects, and hot food takeaways. This ensures a balanced response that avoids unnecessary burdens on small-scale development.

4.3.18. Early engagement with planning and public health officers is required to agree the scope of HIAs, ensuring assessments are meaningful, locally relevant, and capable of shaping development proposals in a positive way.

4.3.19. Policy MG4 directly addresses localised health inequalities by requiring HIAs to consider how proposals will:

• Deliver high-quality, healthy housing and inclusive design
• Improve access to green spaces and opportunities for physical activity
• Promote safe, active travel and reduce exposure to pollution and noise
• Enhance access to health services and healthy food options
• Foster social cohesion and inclusive public spaces

4.3.20. Future iterations of this policy will be shaped by ongoing evidence base work and further consultation feedback. As new data emerges and stakeholder engagement continues, updates will ensure Policy MG3 is responsive to local health priorities, development trends, and best practice guidance.

Implementation and Monitoring

4.3.21. The effectiveness of Policy MG3 will be monitored through:

• The number and quality of HIAs submitted,
• Evidence of how HIAs have influenced development proposals,
• Relevant health indicators from the Essex JSNA and local health profiles.

4.3.22. This approach ensures that the policy remains responsive to changing needs and continues to drive improvements in health outcomes over time.

Have Your Say…

4.4. Infrastructure Delivery

Policy MG4 - Developer Contributions

Policy Context

4.4.1. National planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, December 2024), requires Local Plans to plan positively for the infrastructure needed to support sustainable development. The NPPF expects plans to identify how essential services, such as transport, education, health, utilities, flood risk management, and green and blue infrastructure, will be delivered alongside growth. It also requires that developer contributions are secured in accordance with the statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations: obligations must be necessary to make development acceptable, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

4.4.2. At this stage of plan preparation, Rochford District Council is developing its Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Whole Plan Viability Assessment (WPVA), which have been published in draft form alongside the Regulation 18 Local Plan. These documents represent emerging evidence and will be refined for Regulation 19. The IDP sets out indicative infrastructure priorities, costs, and delivery mechanisms, including transport improvements, education provision, healthcare capacity, flood risk mitigation, utilities, and green and blue infrastructure. It highlights that many projects will require a combination of developer contributions, public funding, and partnership working. The WPVA tests the cumulative impact of policy requirements, including affordable housing and infrastructure contributions, on development viability, confirming that the overall strategy is broadly achievable while recognising the need for flexibility and phased delivery.

4.4.3. Although these documents are at an early stage, they provide a strategic framework for planning infrastructure comprehensively rather than on a site-by-site basis. This policy reflects those emerging principles to ensure that development proposals contribute proportionately to infrastructure and that negotiations are grounded in transparent, evidence-based processes.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

4.4.4. Feedback from the Spatial Options consultation in 2021 highlighted strong concerns about the ability of local infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Respondents consistently raised issues around the capacity of roads, public transport, schools, healthcare facilities, and utilities, as well as the need for flood risk mitigation and investment in green spaces. There was a clear expectation that new development should not proceed without adequate infrastructure and that the Local Plan should provide a robust and transparent approach to securing contributions.

4.4.5. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of planning for cumulative impacts, rather than assessing sites in isolation, and called for infrastructure delivery to be phased so that essential services are available when new homes and jobs are occupied. Many respondents supported the principle of developer contributions but stressed the need for clarity on what will be required and how viability will be managed. Concerns were expressed about the risk of obligations being reduced on viability grounds, and consultees asked for transparent processes, including open-book assessments and review mechanisms. Overall, the consultation demonstrated strong support for a policy that ensures development mitigates its impacts and contributes fairly to the infrastructure needed to create sustainable communities.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure
• SO6: Sustainable Transport Provision
• SO7: Road Infrastructure
• SO9: Community Facilities
• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth
• SO14: Managing Water

Reasoned Justification

4.4.6. Policy MG4 is necessary to provide certainty that development will not proceed without appropriate mitigation of its impacts on infrastructure. The consultation on Spatial Options revealed strong concerns about the cumulative effect of growth on roads, schools, healthcare, utilities, and flood risk, as well as the need for investment in green spaces and biodiversity. Respondents emphasised that infrastructure should be delivered in step with development, not retrospectively, and that the Local Plan should set out clear expectations for how contributions will be secured and managed. This policy responds to those concerns by requiring developers to demonstrate that adequate infrastructure will be available when needed and by establishing mechanisms for securing contributions through planning obligations and, where applicable, the Community Infrastructure Levy.

4.4.7. While the detailed infrastructure requirements will be confirmed through the Regulation 19 IDP, the emerging Regulation 18 version provides an early indication of priority projects and delivery mechanisms, including transport capacity improvements, new school places, and active travel networks. Similarly, the WPVA demonstrates that the overall strategy is viable in principle, subject to site-specific factors and phased delivery. Referencing these documents ensures that developer contributions are guided by the best available evidence, even as details evolve. This approach gives clarity to applicants and stakeholders, supports infrastructure-led growth, and helps maintain flexibility to respond to updated evidence at Regulation 19.

4.4.8. By embedding these principles now, the Local Plan provides a clear framework for negotiations, supports transparency, and helps secure contributions for critical infrastructure such as transport capacity, education, and flood risk management. The policy also addresses viability considerations, recognising that while flexibility may be necessary in exceptional cases, any reduction in contributions must be justified through a transparent, open-book viability assessment. Review mechanisms will be used to capture improvements in viability over time, ensuring that developments contribute as fully as possible to the infrastructure they depend on.

4.4.9. Finally, the policy promotes accountability and transparency. By requiring clear delivery plans and monitoring through the Infrastructure Funding Statement, the Council can demonstrate how contributions are collected and spent and ensure that funds are directed to priority projects. This will help maintain public confidence in the planning system and support the creation of sustainable, well-served communities across Rochford.

Have Your Say…

5. Creating Sustainable Communities

5.1. Climate Change and the Local Environment

Strategic Policy SC1: Addressing the Climate and Ecological Emergency

Context and Background

5.1.1. The UK has a statutory target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, with milestones along that journey including a target of a 78% reduction in emissions by 2035 and 68% by 2030, both of which are measured from the 1990 baseline.

5.1.2. Rochford has gone further than this and declared a climate and ecological emergency in June 2023. Our adopted strategy has a target of being net zero in our own operations by 2030, and for the whole District to be net zero by 2040.

5.1.3. The NPPF paragraph 162 states that;

“Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating and drought from rising temperatures. Policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future health and resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure.”

5.1.4. The Local Plan has a key role to play in meeting these targets. For example, the location of new homes and employment with sustainable connections that reduce the need to travel, will reduce emissions from transport which currently accounts for 29% of carbon emissions in the UK. This, together with the continued expansion of infrastructure for electric vehicles, will help to reduce air pollution, particularly around major roads, which can have an impact on human health, for both chronic and long-term conditions.

5.1.5. We must also ensure that the new buildings, built as part of this plan achieve an operational energy balance on site, where renewable energy generated on site matches average annual energy demand at the outset (also described as net zero energy and carbon in operation). Emissions from heating our homes and other buildings, currently accounts for 17% of total UK emissions.

5.1.6. The government's Clean Power 2030 Action Plan aims to ensure at least 95% of Great Britain's annual electricity generation comes from low-carbon sources, primarily renewables and nuclear, by that time. Essex’s drier-than-average climate has meant that a large number of solar farms have been built or given permission over recent years. Offshore wind farms have been and continue to develop off the Essex coast. Policies in the Plan will be supportive of the switch to renewable energy but need to balance this with the implications on our natural landscapes and communities.

5.1.7. Whilst the use of brownfield or previously developed land should be prioritised, some of these sites may be contaminated. We must protect our residents and natural environment by minimising the risks and ensuring compliance with the relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.1.8. The 2021 consultation saw a clear recognition of the impacts of climate change. To mitigate these issues, feedback generally advocated high energy efficiency standards on buildings, although concerns were raised as to the viability of this. In addition, the widespread adoption of zero and low-carbon energy sources across the District was supported, as were proposals to increase the amount of trees and natural habitats in the District through biodiversity net gain.

5.1.9. Transport was also central within feedback received on sustainability, with many responses stating that new housing developments were likely to generate significant additional car journeys, generating carbon emissions and air pollution. The adverse impact of increased air pollution was a major concern for communities near major roads or frequently congested routes.

5.1.10. To counter these issues, comments supported brownfield development (reducing the need to travel by car), widespread inclusion of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new developments, along with the widespread retention and planting of trees alongside new schemes. There was also a strong desire for improved coverage and greater frequency of public transport.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO8: Responding to Climate Change
• SO11: Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment
• SO12: Sustainable Patterns of Growth
• SO14: Managing Water

Reasoned Justification

5.1.11. A strategic policy on climate change is critical to deliver the Council’s ambition to achieve net zero and ensure that developments that we build now are fit for the future, including how they respond to a changing climate.

5.1.12. This strategic policy includes broad principles which lay the foundation of sustainable development by locating development appropriately with a range of facilities nearby, making the most efficient use of natural resources and designed appropriately. It also includes broad principles around renewable energy, greenspaces and transport infrastructure which are included in more detail within specific topic related policies in other parts of this Plan.

Have Your Say…

Policy SC2: Operational Energy and Carbon (Net Zero) In Homes And Buildings

Context and Background

5.1.13. NPPF Paragraphs 161 – 169

5.1.14. Evidence Summary - Evidence commissioned by ECC on behalf of all the Greater Essex Local Authorities demonstrates that building to meet the requirements set out in the policy below is:

• Technically feasible (Report 1: Essex Net Zero Policy – Technical Evidence Base by Introba, Etude, Currie and Brown, July 2023 (Updated September 2025));
• Financially feasible (Net Zero Carbon Viability Study for Essex by Three Dragons, August 2022; and
• Legally justified (Essex Open Legal Advice – Energy policy and Building Regulations by Estelle Dehon KC, Cornerstone Barristers, 6th May 2025 plus Addendum September 2025).

5.1.15. This evidence (and any subsequent updates) can be found in the Essex Design Guide, alongside practical design advice which focuses on how to design developments (of all scales and types) to meet the operational energy and carbon (net zero) standards, mitigate potential overheating risk and to address other inter-related sustainability issues. The aim is to ensure new development mitigates, adapts and is resilient to a changing climate.

Consultation Summary

5.1.16. In the previous consultation, respondents felt that the current building regulations were not good enough in responding to climate concerns. Many felt a clear message needed to be given to the development industry that technologies to reduce energy use should be adopted as much as possible, and that standards should not be negotiable. The reuse and retrofitting of existing buildings, rather than their demolition and rebuilding, was also widely supported.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO8: Responding to Climate Change
• SO11: Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

5.1.17. Local planning authorities, through their Local Plans, must address operational energy to ensure new development addresses operational energy efficiency and the associated carbon emissions, in a way that aligns with local and national climate targets, mitigates and adapts to climate change and delivers the best outcomes for people (e.g. lower energy bills, and healthier homes). This is supported through primary legislation, including the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and national policy (including the NPPF) which require local plans to include policies to secure development that mitigates and adapts to climate change.

5.1.18. This policy has been developed as an Essex-wide approach to these issues enabling LPAs to take a proactive approach to climate change which is in line with the objectives and provisions, and hence legally binding targets, of the Climate Change Act 2008. Substantive and detailed information on the operation of this policy can be found Essex Energy & Carbon (Net Zero) Policy | Essex Design Guide

Have Your Say…

Policy SC3: Embodied Carbon and Circular Economy In Homes And Buildings

Context and Background

5.1.19. NPPF Paragraphs 161-169

5.1.20. Local Issues - Evidence commissioned by ECC, on behalf of the Greater Essex Local Authorities, demonstrates that designing new buildings to reduce embodied carbon and move towards a more circular economy is technically feasible at minimal or no cost uplift when compared to a home of typical construction built to meet the operational energy (‘net zero’) requirements.

5.1.21. Evidence Base - The “Essex Embodied Carbon Policy Study – Technical Evidence Base (Levitt Bernstein et al, 2025)” underpins the policy below and is available on the Essex Design Guide (EDG) website. The Study also contains information and guidance on how embodied carbon can be minimised, particularly through choice of materials and the construction techniques. To complement this evidence, further practical design advice is provided (and being added to) on the EDG which focuses on how to design developments (of all scales and types) to minimise embodied carbon emissions and move towards a more circular economy (where materials are used efficiently and waste is minimised). The advice also covers designing to meet operational energy and carbon (net zero) standards and addressing other inter-related sustainability issues, including the mitigation of potential overheating risk.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO8: Responding to Climate Change
• SO11: Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

5.1.22. Currently, embodied carbon is not covered by Building Regulations and there is no specific or emerging Government policy to date requiring the assessment or control of embodied carbon emissions from buildings. Local planning authorities are beginning to fill this gap in national policy and regulation, and Rochford intends to do the same, by using our powers through the planning system to tackle embodied carbon emissions arising from new developments.

5.1.23. Essex County Council, on behalf of the Greater Essex Local Authorities, commissioned an evidence study to support the development of an embodied carbon planning policy approach for Greater Essex that can be embedded into district Local Plans.

5.1.24. The Essex Embodied Carbon Policy Study (EECPS) was completed in June 2024 and re-issued in September 2025, and it underpins the policy above. The Study is available on the Essex Design Guide website and provides the technical feasibility, cost analysis and practical design guidance, to support the policy requirements.

5.1.25. This policy and supporting evidence has been prepared to align carefully with policy on operational energy and carbon. Both policies work together, and to be clear, Policy SC2 requirements should be met first, and then measures to minimise embodied carbon should be taken in accordance with this policy. This is to prevent operational energy and carbon being ‘played off’ against embodied carbon and provides a clear steer on what is expected from new development proposals.

5.1.26. Further guidance on how to minimise embodied carbon and that it can be reduced without adding costs to the project by good decision making at the design stage and materials choice can be found Essex Embodied Carbon & Circular Economy Policy | Essex Design Guide

Have Your Say…

Policy SC4: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation

Context & Background

5.1.27. NPPF Paragraphs 161 - 169

5.1.28. Local Issues – Parts of Essex, especially the coastal areas, are amongst the sunniest places in the UK. We are also close to London, which is a major user of energy. As such, there have been several solar farm developments proposed or approved, both in Essex and in Rochford itself. Large-scale solar farms are often built on Green Belt land, which may have been used for food production in the past. Whilst therefore there is widespread support for generating renewable and low carbon energy, residents fear that this comes at the expense of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

5.1.29. Evidence Summary – There is no specific evidence base for the consideration of renewable and low carbon energy generation in Rochford. However, it will be important to consider the Rochford and Southend Landscape Character and Sensitivity Study, Green Belt Study and evidence documents relating to assessments of the historic environment, natural habitats and character areas when considering where might be appropriate to locate new renewable energy generation and storage, as well as national mapping in relation to agricultural land quality.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.1.30. There was some support for renewable energy production in the responses to the 2021 consultation, but that this should avoid sensitive areas. There was a feeling that there was no room for large scale solar or wind farms which would take place on food producing farmland. However, other sources suggested locations like Foulness Island could be used for energy generation.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO8: Responding to Climate Change
• SO10: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
• SO11: Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

5.1.31. The NPPF paragraph 165 sets out that;

To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat, plans should:

1. provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development, and their future re-powering and life extension, while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts);
    
2. consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development; and
    
3. identify opportunities for development to draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for collocating potential heat customers and suppliers.

5.1.32. This policy sets out how the Council will consider applications for renewable energy solutions in all their forms within the District. It differentiates between those small scale schemes which will be supported in most cases, and commercial level schemes which can have impacts over a large area, due to their size, visibility or supporting infrastructure that may be required.

5.1.33. It should be noted that very large scale commercial renewable energy projects may fall within the National Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) regime. This means that they are determined by the Planning Inspectorate rather than by Rochford District Council.

Have Your Say…

Policy SC5 – Local Environmental Impacts

Context & Background

5.1.34. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that planning decisions should ensure development does not result in unacceptable risks to health, amenity, or the environment. Paragraphs 110, 187, and 196–199 specifically require consideration of pollution, land stability, and compatibility of land uses. Policy SC5 responds to these requirements by providing a comprehensive framework for managing local environmental impacts arising from development.

5.1.35. Across the District, environmental quality is a key determinant of health and well-being. While Rochford currently has no designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), previous AQMAs in Rayleigh and Rawreth were revoked following improvements, and the Essex Air Quality Strategy 2025 sets out a county-wide approach to maintaining and improving air quality. Development proposals must therefore continue to minimise emissions and exposure to poor air quality, particularly near sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, and healthcare facilities.

5.1.36. Historic patterns of industrial land use have left a legacy of potentially contaminated sites. The Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy (2013) provides a risk-based framework for identifying and remediating such land, ensuring it is safe and suitable for reuse. This is essential for delivering sustainable development and supporting the reuse of brownfield land, which remains a priority.

5.1.37. Other environmental considerations, such as noise, vibration, odour, and light pollution, can significantly affect residential amenity, biodiversity, and the character of places. These impacts often arise from the design, location, and operation of development and require careful management to avoid harm. Policy SC12 therefore consolidates previous standalone policies on air quality and contaminated land into a single, integrated approach, ensuring clarity and consistency for applicants while safeguarding the quality of life for existing and future occupiers.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

5.1.38. Policy SC5 provides a clear framework for managing the environmental impacts of development in a way that balances growth with the protection of health, amenity, and the natural environment. Its purpose is to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into the design and delivery of development from the outset, rather than addressed reactively.

5.1.39. The policy applies the Agent of Change principle, placing responsibility on applicants to mitigate impacts arising from their proposals. This approach ensures that new development does not compromise existing uses and that sensitive receptors are adequately protected. It also promotes proactive design solutions, such as acoustic treatments, odour control systems, and lighting strategies, rather than relying solely on post-development enforcement.

5.1.40. By consolidating requirements for air quality, noise, vibration, odour, light pollution, and land contamination into a single policy, SC12 simplifies the planning process and provides clarity for applicants. This integrated approach reduces duplication, ensures consistency in decision-making, and supports sustainable development objectives.

5.1.41. The policy also encourages innovation and best practice. For example, incorporating green infrastructure can help mitigate air quality and noise impacts, while careful site layout can reduce exposure to pollutants. These measures not only protect health and amenity but also contribute to creating attractive, resilient places.

5.1.42. Ultimately, SC5 ensures that environmental impacts are managed holistically, safeguarding the quality of life for existing and future occupiers while enabling development to proceed in a safe and sustainable manner.

Have Your Say…

5.2. Place-Making and Design

Policy SC6 – Achieving high quality Design

Policy Context and Background

5.2.1. Rochford District consists of many distinctive and vibrant places, with the built environment making a major contribution to the character of the place and how it functions and impacts on the wider environment.

5.2.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the approach to design aimed at ‘Achieving well-designed places”. It emphasises the importance of achieving high quality design in recognition that this is a key aspect of sustainable development (paragraphs 8b and 124). It also sets out overarching principles for good design, in line with the six considerations listed in the NPPF Paragraph 135 a-f) and the ten characteristics of good design as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG paragraph 001).

5.2.3. The Council is committed to achieving high quality design and aims to follow these principles as set out in national policies and local design guidance to ensure the design of all new and existing development is consistent with the local character of the district.

5.2.4. Policy SC6 sets out key principles for achieving high-quality design by maintaining and enhancing the district’s character and distinctiveness, whilst ensuring that new development coming forward is designed and built to exemplary standards, to secure a high-quality environment for everyone to enjoy both now and in the future.

5.2.5. When designing development proposals, developers will be expected to have regard to the policies in this Plan, the Essex Design Guide (or future reiterations), in addition to design guidance prepared by the Council, the government and Historic England including, but not limited to:

• National Design Guide and National Model Design Codes
• Conservation Area Appraisal’s and Management Plans;
• Supplementary planning guidance: SPD6 –Design Guidance for Conservation areas and SPD7 – Design, Landscaping and Access Statements

5.2.6. The Council will work with stakeholders including Essex County Council Historic Building Advisors and Historic England to seek guidance to further develop and inform policies for new development as the Local Plan process progresses, including to undertake a comprehensive heritage assessment of any future development allocations.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.2.7. A range of questions were posed in the 2017/18 Issues and Options, and 2021 Spatial Options, Regulation 18 consultations. Comments in relation to design and placemaking were as follows:

• Essex Design Guide principles are supported and can be applied in Rochford District.
• Support for a place-making charter. These policies will be further developed taking into consideration the objectives of the National Design Guide (MHCLG, 2019) as the Local Plan process progresses.
• Most comments agreed that design guides, codes or masterplans inclusive of infrastructure and affordable housing should be created alongside the new Plan giving certainty and setting out rates of delivery and should involve community engagement.
• Comments advocated that it should be considered as to how they provide additionality to existing design guidance e.g., Essex Design Guide.
• Undertaking Heritage Impact Assessments was supported for sites considered for allocation, where heritage issues have been identified. Consideration of Spatial Strategy Options (SSOs) with no / limited heritage constraints was also supported.

5.2.8. In terms of Heritage and local character comments presented a broad range of heritage protection strategies, as well as identifying specific heritage / historical spaces, structures, sites and locations as follows:

• Updating the evidence base was supported, inclusive of a refreshed Local List to consider and assess impacts of proposed growth on heritage assets.
• Updating Conservation Area Appraisals was advocated as part of the Local Plan process due to settlement and area changes over time, with a need for these to be regularly reviewed.
• Undertaking Heritage Impact Assessments was supported for sites considered for allocation, where heritage issues have been identified.
• Consideration of SSOs with no / limited heritage constraints was also supported.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO10: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

5.2.9. Achieving high quality design is an objective of this Plan. Development proposals should be able to demonstrate that they have considered the wider setting of the proposed development to ensure that the design, siting and layout is sensitive to the existing character and identity of the area, taking account of the opportunities to make improvements to the quality of the landscape and townscape.

Heritage and Local Character

5.2.10. Rochford District is home to more than 350 sites of archaeological interest as recorded on the Heritage Conservation Record (HCR) in the District, five of which are Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM), 400 Listed Buildings and 10 Conservation Areas as well as several heritage assets which are not listed nationally but are of local historic importance.

5.2.11. Rochford Council places great importance on the protection of the environment and the identification of local character areas to ensure the design and form of development respects that environment. Heritage assets play a significant role in this by highlighting the historical context of a place and adding diversity.

5.2.12. Good design is crucial when considering proposals that may affect historic buildings, especially those that are listed due to their architectural interest, protected due to their archaeological or historical status, or their contribution towards the character and appearance of a Conservation Areas.

5.2.13. Particular attention should be given to design of development when considering proposals that may affect historic buildings, especially those that are listed due to their architectural interest, protected due to their archaeological or historical status, or their contribution towards the character and appearance of a Conservation Area to ensure that any changes continue to preserve and enhance the unique character of such areas, whilst allowing them to adapt to change.

5.2.14. In Conservation Areas, where character assessments have been formally adopted by the Council, these will guide the formulation and assessment of development proposals.

5.2.15. Local views are valued for their contribution to the distinction character of local areas. New development should make a positive contribution to the characteristics and composition of both strategic and local, and improvement to significant views will be encouraged. We will work with adjoining boroughs to ensure the impact of development on protected views in other boroughs is understood and managed carefully and sensitively.

5.2.16. Large residential developments will be required to produce and adhere to design briefs, which reflect the local characteristics and distinctiveness of the development area. Where the existing area lacks any identifiable or cohesive character, the Council will adopt a more flexible approach to new design innovations that make a positive contribution to the vitality of the area. However, this does not provide justification for a design to detract from its setting.

Inclusive Design

5.2.17. Inclusive environments are designed to be flexible and are designed to be accessible to all, including wheelchair users, elderly people with reduced mobility and families with young children. Buildings and spaces should be designed to be adaptable and flexible from the outset, enabling them to respond to the changing needs and lifestyles of the occupiers and allow for a variety of uses over time.

5.2.18. The layout and design of new development can play a significant part in crime prevention; good design can encourage community cohesion by designing out crime and anti-social behaviour and reducing inequalities. These measures should be integral to the design from the outset or when added to existing buildings, must be sensitively designed and sited.

5.2.19. In all cases, applicants will be required to demonstrate that access provision has been considered effectively, Design and Access Statements will be required to accompany all planning, conservation and listed building applications.

Sustainable Design

5.2.20. Sustainable design highlights the importance of integrated sustainable solutions to managing climate change and maximising opportunities to make more efficient and prudent use of resources. New development should demonstrate that they have considered principles of sustainable design and that all measures to improve environmental performance, mitigate and adapt to climate change, have been integrated into the design.

5.2.21. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) is the most used methodology for assessing, rating and certifying the sustainable design and construction of buildings. Applicants will demonstrate how they will meet BREEAM excellent or equivalent standards.

Shopfront Signage

5.2.22. The design of shopfronts can make a positive contribution to the surrounding streets, spaces and public realm and thereby enhance the viability and overall character of the local area. Shopfronts which form part of a group of original shopfronts and/ or are designated heritage assets should be of a traditional design and incorporate traditional features, character and use traditional materials.

Advertisements

5.2.23. The council recognises that well-designed features in the streetscape can make a positive contribution to the public realm and play an important role in providing local information and supporting local businesses. Advertisements, hoardings and signage should be in keeping with the character of the area and should not negatively affect the amenity of surrounding properties or highway/public safety. There is a particular need to avoid physical and visual clutter in the streetscape as well as problems arising from distraction among road and pedestrian users.

5.2.24. Provision of public artwork or other visual concepts on hoardings will be supported and encouraged, where it can enhance the local streetscape and improve the appearance of construction sites.

Have Your Say…

Policy SC7 – Building Heights

Context & Background

5.2.25. The height of buildings plays a significant role in shaping the character and identity of places. In Rochford District, much of the built environment is characterised by low-rise development, which is highly valued by residents and contributes to the area’s distinctiveness. However, national policy encourages making the best use of land, particularly in sustainable locations, which may require higher densities and, in some cases, taller buildings.

5.2.26. The introduction of taller buildings must be carefully managed to ensure they complement their surroundings, respect heritage assets, and maintain the quality of the skyline. A context-led approach is therefore essential, considering factors such as prevailing building heights, local character, and the role of the location within the settlement hierarchy. This approach aligns with Historic England guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework, which advocate a plan-led strategy for tall buildings to balance growth with heritage and environmental considerations.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.2.27. Feedback from the 2021 Spatial Options consultation highlighted strong community concerns about the potential impact of taller buildings on local character and heritage. Respondents generally supported maintaining the District’s predominantly low-rise character, particularly in rural and historic areas. There was recognition that higher densities may be appropriate in town centres and sustainable locations, provided that design quality is high and developments respect their context.

5.2.28. Key themes included:

• Preservation of character: Many respondents emphasised the importance of protecting the distinctive identity of villages and historic areas from inappropriate building heights.
• Support for context-led design: There was broad agreement that any taller buildings should be justified by their location and function, and should enhance rather than detract from the surrounding environment.
• Concerns about infrastructure and amenity: Some feedback raised issues about the potential strain on infrastructure and the impact on views, microclimate, and amenity.
• Conditional support for higher densities: While there was resistance to widespread tall buildings, some respondents acknowledged the need for higher densities in town centres to meet housing needs sustainably.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO1: Housing to meet local needs
• SO10: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

5.2.29. Increasing densities does not always mean building high. The impact of a building’s height is dependent on its context, and this sets a baseline against which the impacts of any proposals for tall buildings will be considered. The council will adopt a context-based approach to tall buildings, which considers the prevailing height of the surrounding areas impacted by the development.

5.2.30. In this context, tall buildings are defined as buildings of twice the prevailing context height or higher and, those that will result in a significant change to the skyline.

5.2.31. Tall buildings should fulfil a clear function. They can mark an important location, improve legibility and enhance the character of an area. While tall buildings offer the opportunity for intensive use, their siting and design should be carefully considered in order not to detract from the local character of surrounding places. The potential benefits of tall buildings will be balanced with the need to mitigate their potential adverse impacts. However, increasing densities must be treated sensitively in order that the character of the local area is not threatened through the introduction of inappropriate building heights.

5.2.32. Much of the District is characterised by low-density developments, which are much valued by residents and make a major contribution to the character and identity of many residential areas. However, replicating such development as new across the District, would mean that housing targets could not be met within the main settlements, and would result in people having to travel further distances to access facilities and services, contributing to climate change as well as to traffic congestion and pollution. In line with national policy, to promote the best use of land, the Council will support well designed, high quality and sustainable developments which will contribute to the achievement of an overall housing density target of 35 dwellings per hectare (dph) in residential areas. In exceptional circumstances, where overriding harm to the valued character of area would occur as a result of the application of the minimum density threshold, development at a lower density, which maximises the efficient use of land, may be acceptable.

5.2.33. Developments within town centres should exceed 35 dph. Specific criteria to promote higher densities within main settlements and town centres can be found in the Essex Design Guide. Mixed-use developments may also be suitable in other locations across the District. The challenge is to preserve the distinctive positive qualities of local character whilst making the best use of urban land in the most sustainable locations. This policy sets out key principles to guide the density of new development in the District.

5.2.34. In new communities, it is important to balance the mix of densities to benefit from the services and facilities that development can bring. The council supports and promotes co-locating the right mix of residential development with community facilities which have access to sustainable travel alternatives and green infrastructure/open space.

5.2.35. The Historic England Advice Note 4 provides further guidance on tall buildings and supports a plan-led approach to tall buildings and their potential impact on heritage assets in accordance with the NPPF, paragraph 15 stating “ the plan –led approach can be used to direct the location and development parameters of tall building developments and help deliver sustainable development”.

Have Your Say…

Policy SC8 - Foulness Island and MOD Shoeburyness

Context & Background

5.2.36. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) Shoeburyness has significant land interests within the district and whilst owned by the MOD it is operated by QinetiQ Ltd. MOD Shoeburyness is the largest Environmental Test Centre in the UK and a centre of excellence for environmental testing of Ordnance, Munitions and Explosives (OME) of Live stores as well as some unique demilitarisation facilities.

5.2.37. The site consists of a range covering 7,500 acres (3,000ha) of land area, including eight farms and 74 residential properties in two hamlets. Despite these hamlets being home to local residents not related to the military use, the site is only accessible through secured access.

5.2.38. Several buildings and structures on the site are listed, including the cart and wagon shed, which is used as a heritage and community centre. As of 2016 many of these have been refurbished for sale as private houses, with additional housing being built in the vicinity.

5.2.39. MOD Shoeburyness is located at Foulness Island, which is also recognised as a SSSI, Special Protection Area’s (SPA) and Ramsar site. Proposals will be required to undertake a project level habitat regulations assessment (HRA) to address the impact of development proposals and adhere to relevant safeguarding zones as designated by the MOD concerning the distance between development and its activities on site.

5.2.40. The NPPF, in paragraph 102, sets out the following requirements:

“102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by........... recognising and supporting development required for operational defence and security purposes and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of other development proposed in the area.”

5.2.41. The purpose of the policy is to recognise the presence of existing operational crown land uses in the district and will be protected and afforded the opportunity to expand to meet operational needs due to the special circumstance under which it operates.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.2.42. A range of questions were posed in the 2017/18 Issues and Options, and 2021 Spatial Options, Regulation 18 consultations. Specific comments in relation to this policy were made by the MOD as follows:

Site allocations:

• In accordance with Circular 01/2003, safeguarding zones have been designated at MOD Shoeburyness to safeguard its capacity as a military technical site/explosive storage area.
• Objections to site allocations that fall within the safeguarding zones, and therefore development within this area could be at risk of harm from MOD activities and MOD Shoeburyness will be adversely impacted by development proposed in the area.

Other comments:

• Expand on Strategic Priority 4 to specifically recognise and support development required for operational defence and security purposes, by ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of other development proposed in the area.
• Proposed new policy specific to MOD Shoeburyness
• Regional Parkland-Large parts of the proposed Regional Park include land within MOD ownership. Recommend that the proposed boundary is amended to avoid any of the land in MOD ownership.
• Supports and recognises it responsibilities where they pertain to the Foulness SSSI, SPA and Ramsar designations.
• Flood Zones- site lies within Flood Zone 3 but does have the benefit of a flood defence, which would need to be considered within any planning applications within the area as mitigation.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO11: Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment

Reasoned Justification

5.2.43. As the Ministry of Defence has extensive buildings on the island, and the island is an internationally important site for its wetland and bird habitats, as well as an area where people live, it is deemed appropriate that a policy position which sets out the principles for how development on the island will be supported, balancing the requirements for operational defence and security alongside new development proposed in or near the site.

Have Your Say…

5.3. Community Infrastructure

Policy Code: CL1 – Community Facilities

Policy Context and Background

5.3.1. NPPF Paragraphs 88-89, 96 and 98.

5.3.2. As a rural District it is important that we preserve and enhance community facilities as much as possible, both within the towns and within a smaller settlements and villages to ensure that everyone has access to the community facilities that they need.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.3.3. Consultation responses in 2021 highlighted that residents felt that existing community facilities of all types were at capacity, whether that was in towns or more rural areas. There were some comments that co-location of community facilities would be better.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure
• SO9: Community Facilities

Reasoned Justification

5.3.4. Community facilities and services can include any provision that provides social, recreational and cultural facilities to meet the needs of the community. This could include community or village halls, village or local shops, pubs, libraries, sports facilities including playing fields and playgrounds, allotments, health facilities and places of worship, although this list is not exhaustive. It does include local shops and pubs which are located in neighbourhood shopping areas or villages, but this policy does not apply to those facilities located in identified Town Centres, which are subject to separate policies in TC3.

5.3.5. Assets of Community Value (ACV) were introduced by the Localism Act 2011 and the procedures for dealing with them as set out in the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012. The legislation gives community groups and parish councils the right to nominate land or buildings for listing as ACV if the main use furthers the social well-being or social interests of the local community. Many assets are the same as those listed above, but there may be examples of other buildings and land which have met this definition.

5.3.6. Community facilities are an important part of social infrastructure, playing a key role in creating community cohesion and inclusive communities. Local facilities also reduce the need to travel and encourage walking and cycling, thus providing additional benefits such as reducing emissions from transport and healthy lifestyles. As such these facilities should be protected, and the loss of community facilities will be resisted unless it can be shown that the community facilities is not economically viable and fit for purpose, or that alternative equal or better provision is located close by.

5.3.7. Expansion of existing community facilities will usually be supported, if it can be shown that the impacts of the proposal do not outweigh the benefits. These impacts could include noise, traffic generation, lighting or other amenity concerns. This should be taken account in the design and planning of expanded facilities.

5.3.8. Isolated new or expanded facilities which are not accessible by sustainable means from their local community will be carefully considered, and those which generate significant traffic movements may not be considered appropriate for a rural location.

5.3.9. If additional community facilities are required as part of new residential or employment sites, these will be identified through site-specific policies in the Plan, once the sites are known. The provision of these facilities should be timely to ensure community development.

Have Your Say…

Policy Code: CL2 - Education Facilities

Policy Context & Background:

5.3.10. NPPF paragraphs 100 - 101

5.3.11. Evidence Base - The 10-Year Plan for Essex School Places is produced by Essex County Council as the education authority and estimates the need for school places across Essex over the next 10-year period. It is updated each year. The current plan 2025 – 2035 includes an assessment of Rochford’s needs at primary and secondary levels in section 3.3.4. The Essex County Council Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions sets out how funding for new educational facilities will be sort from developers.

5.3.12. The Rochford Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for Regulation 18 is part of the Council’s evidence base. Chapter 4 of this document discusses education requirements. It largely reports the findings of the 10year School Places Plan as listed above but notes that further primary and secondary school places are likely to be needed depending on the growth in the Local Plan. The IDP provides a red/amber/green assessment of provision in each part of the District. Early years is assessed as primarily green with a few areas scoring amber; primary provision is green with some red at Hullbridge and Rayleigh; secondary provision is green with the exception of Rawreth which is red and SEND provision is red across the District. There is no post-16 (apart from school 6^th forms) or adult learning centres in the District, but contributions will be sought to increase access to those facilities which are located in other neighbouring areas or are online.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

5.3.13. The 2021 consultation found people felt that existing community facilities were over capacity. In relation to education, there was particular concern from residents in Hullbridge, Great Wakering and Canewdon, where there are lengthy journeys for many children to get to secondary school

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure
• SO9: Community Facilities

Reasoned Justification

5.3.14. Access to the right education facilities is a critical part of community infrastructure, supporting economic growth, developing strong sustainable communities and sustaining quality of life. As such the protection and growth of existing facilities and the provision of new facilities should be supported as far as possible.

5.3.15. Education in this policy relates to early years, primary, secondary and further education facilities, for both young people but also adults, to ensure lifelong learning opportunities existing for all our residents. There are no current university facilities in the district, but this policy would also be the starting point for consideration of new university facilities.

5.3.16. Essex County Council are currently the education authority for Rochford and has the responsibility for early years and school place planning. They will assess the need for new school places associated with the growth in this Plan. Where new school or early years facilities need to be provided, these will be identified through site specific policies within the Plan, once sites are known. Otherwise, contributions towards new or enhanced facilities will be secured through policy XX on infrastructure contributions. Essex County Council publishes guidance on how it will assess the need for new school places in its Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions.

5.3.17. Developers will need to agree to the appropriate timing of new schools opening with the education authority to ensure provision is available for the new community. In some cases, due to the position of the school on a development, this may require the early provision of appropriate and safe road and pedestrian access to the site. Before new schools are open, contributions may be sought to provide transport to other nearby schools.

5.3.18. It is acknowledged that schools and education facilities are a major source of movement. As such new facilities should be developed where sustainable travel is the number one choice. Walking and cycling routes to schools should be planned in from the start and the layout of the school and its surroundings should recognise that there will be significant pedestrian movements in the vicinity. Car parking and drop-off points will need to be planned appropriately for those who cannot travel sustainably, to avoid unacceptable impacts on the local community. These may vary by type of school.

5.3.19. When considering the redevelopment or expansion of existing education facilities, careful consideration will need to be given to the loss of well used car parking spaces or open space, with the loss of school playing fields not being supported in most circumstances.

5.3.20. Schools and education facilities, including their sports and playing fields, make a strong contribution to the community, particularly if their facilities can be used by the community, providing high quality facilities close to where people live. Where feasible therefore, providers will be expected to share their assets, such as sports halls, with the wider community to help improve health and social well-being and access to sports and leisure facilities. This will need to be taken into account when designing the building, for example through separate access arrangements.

Have Your Say…

6. Movement

6.1. Transport Infrastructure

Strategic Policy MO1 Delivering Strategic Transport Infrastructure

Context and Background

6.1.1. The NPPF (December 2024) sets a clear expectation that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making (paras 109–118). It promotes a vision-led approach—plans should actively manage patterns of growth by focusing development in locations that are or can be made sustainable, reducing the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This approach aligns with the “Decide and Provide” principle, which means planning for the desired future—where active and sustainable modes dominate—rather than simply accommodating predicted car traffic.

6.1.2. Key NPPF requirements include:

• Prioritising sustainable transport modes, taking account of the vision for the site, type of development, and location.
• Ensuring safe and suitable access for all users.
• Designing streets and transport elements in line with national guidance (National Design Guide, LTN 1/20 for cycling).
• Mitigating significant impacts on the transport network through a vision-led strategy, not piecemeal junction upgrades.
• Supporting well-designed walking and cycling networks and integrated public transport.

6.1.3. The NPPF also links transport planning to wider objectives for air quality, public health, and climate resilience, reinforcing the need for Local Plans to embed sustainable mobility at their core.

6.1.4. Rochford District’s geography creates unique transport challenges:

• Constrained corridors: The A127 (east–west) and A130/A1245 (north–south) are the main strategic routes, with limited alternatives. These corridors already experience congestion, particularly at Fairglen Interchange and Rayleigh Weir.
• Rail connectivity: The London Liverpool Street–Southend Victoria line runs through the district, with stations at Rayleigh, Hockley, Rochford, and Southend Airport. These are key nodes for sustainable travel, but station access and interchange facilities need improvement.
• High car dependency: Census data shows that 87% of households own at least one car, and over 75% of work trips were by car in 2021. This pattern persists despite some growth in home working.
• Public transport limitations: Bus services are frequent along some corridors (e.g., Rayleigh–Southend) but coverage in rural areas is poor, and reliability is affected by congestion.
• Active travel gaps: Walking and cycling networks are fragmented, with few continuous routes linking homes to schools, stations, and employment areas. The recently produced Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) identifies priority corridors, but detail on design, funding and delivery is at an early stage.
• Environmental constraints: Large parts of the district are covered by environmental designations, concentrating development in the west and south, which increases pressure on already congested routes.

6.1.5. The Regulation 18 Transport Assessment confirms that without intervention, cumulative development impacts will lead to severe congestion at key junctions (e.g. Ashingdon Road, Hullbridge Road, Fairglen Interchange). It recommends a shift from “predict and provide” to “Decide and Provide”, focusing on mode shift and integrated strategies for active travel, public transport, and targeted highway improvements

6.1.6. Regional and county strategies reinforce these priorities:

• The Essex Local Transport Plan (LTP3) and emerging LTP4 set a long-term vision for decarbonisation, improved accessibility, and integrated transport planning. LTP4’s “Better Connected Essex” strategy emphasises creating sustainable places, supporting active travel, and aligning transport investment with growth.
• The Essex Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) seeks to make bus travel more frequent, reliable, and affordable, with enhanced priority measures and better integration with rail stations—critical for Rochford’s rural and urban corridors.
• The Transport East Strategy (2022) provides a regional framework for zero-carbon growth, focusing on reducing demand for car trips, shifting to active and public transport, and improving connectivity across South Essex.

6.1.7. Together, these strategies provide the foundation for Policy M01, ensuring that Rochford’s growth is supported by a transport network that is sustainable, resilient, and inclusive.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

6.1.8. Feedback from the 2021 Spatial Options consultation and subsequent engagement highlighted several key themes:

• Infrastructure-led growth: Strong support for ensuring new development is accompanied by timely transport improvements, with clear phasing and delivery mechanisms.
   
• Active travel priorities: Respondents emphasised the need for safe, continuous walking and cycling routes, particularly linking new development to town centres, schools, rail stations, and employment areas. Many supported the preparation of an LCWIP and investment in high-quality crossings and segregated cycle paths.
   
• Public transport improvements: Calls for more reliable and frequent bus services, better integration with rail stations, and improved interchange facilities. Concerns were raised about limited bus coverage in rural areas and the need for enhanced connectivity to Southend Airport and neighbouring districts.
   
• Congestion and highway capacity: Significant concern about existing congestion at key junctions (e.g. Ashingdon Road, Hullbridge Road, Fairglen Interchange) and the cumulative impact of growth. Respondents stressed that mitigation should not rely solely on junction upgrades but include measures to reduce car dependency.
   
• Climate and air quality: Many respondents linked transport planning to climate objectives, supporting policies that reduce emissions through mode shift and promote electric vehicle infrastructure.
   
• Delivery and funding certainty: Stakeholders requested clarity on how strategic transport schemes will be funded and delivered, and assurance that improvements will occur early in the development process rather than retrospectively.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure
• SO6: Sustainable Transport Provision
• SO7: Road Infrastructure
• SO12: Sustainable Patterns of Growth

Reasoned Justification

6.1.9. Delivering strategic transport infrastructure is essential to achieving sustainable growth in Rochford. The District’s geography, bounded by the coast and reliant on a limited number of road corridors, creates significant constraints on movement. Evidence from the Regulation 18 Transport Assessment shows that without intervention, cumulative development impacts will lead to severe congestion at key junctions such as Ashingdon Road, Hullbridge Road, and Fairglen Interchange. This reinforces the need for a proactive, infrastructure-led approach.

6.1.10. The Transport Assessment also highlights that car dependency remains high (over 75% of work trips by car in 2021), and that the existing highway network cannot absorb forecast traffic growth without substantial mitigation. However, the assessment advocates moving away from a “predict and provide” model towards a “Decide and Provide” approach, which is consistent with the NPPF’s vision-led principle. Both approaches share the same objective: to plan for the desired future, where active and sustainable modes dominate, rather than simply accommodating predicted car traffic. This means shaping development and infrastructure around a clear vision for sustainable transport, reducing car reliance, and enabling mode shift through investment in active and public transport.

6.1.11. The Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) provides a framework for improving active travel connectivity, identifying priority corridors such as connecting Rayleigh, Hockley, Rochford, the Airport and Southend, along with east–west links to schools and employment areas. These routes will help deliver safe, continuous walking and cycling networks, supporting healthier travel choices and reducing short car trips.

6.1.12. The Essex Local Transport Plan (LTP3) and emerging LTP4 reinforce these priorities, setting out a long-term vision for decarbonisation, improved accessibility, and integrated transport planning. LTP4’s “Better Connected Essex” strategy emphasises creating sustainable places, supporting active travel, and aligning transport investment with growth.

6.1.13. This policy ensures that strategic transport infrastructure is planned and delivered in step with development, safeguarding land for future improvements and promoting investment in sustainable modes. It provides flexibility at this stage (Regulation 18) by identifying indicative priorities, such as station access, active travel corridors, bus reliability, and digital mobility, while recognising that detailed packages and phasing will be confirmed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Regulation 19 evidence.

Have Your Say…

Policy MO2 Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development

Context & Background

6.1.14. National planning policy requires development proposals to ensure that transport impacts are acceptable or can be made acceptable through proportionate mitigation. This includes:

• Preparing Transport Assessments (TAs) or Transport Statements (TS) and Travel Plans for developments that meet defined thresholds.
• Prioritising active travel and public transport measures before considering highway capacity improvements.
• Ensuring that highway safety is maintained and that residual cumulative impacts on the network are not severe.
• Aligning mitigation with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to secure timely and coordinated delivery of improvements.

6.1.15. Local evidence and consultation feedback highlight the need for:

• Infrastructure-first planning, with clear phasing and funding mechanisms.
• Cumulative impact assessment, not just site-specific mitigation.
• Robust Travel Plans that deliver real mode shift, rather than simply adding parking.
• Safety-led highway interventions, where justified, to complement sustainable transport priorities.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

6.1.16. Key themes from previous engagement include:

• Strong support for active and sustainable travel measures—safe walking and cycling routes, improved bus reliability, and better station access.
• Concerns about congestion and safety at key junctions and corridors, with calls for mitigation that addresses cumulative impacts.
• Requests for clear delivery mechanisms, linked to the IDP, and monitoring to ensure commitments are met.
• Emphasis on phased infrastructure delivery so that transport improvements keep pace with development.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure
• SO6: Sustainable Transport Provision
• SO7: Road Infrastructure

Reasoned Justification

6.1.17. Development can have significant impacts on the transport network, both individually and cumulatively. Without appropriate mitigation, these impacts can lead to congestion, safety risks, and reduced accessibility for all users. National planning policy requires that development proposals ensure safe and suitable access and avoid severe residual impacts on the transport network. This policy provides a clear framework for achieving those outcomes in Rochford.

6.1.18. Transport Assessments and Travel Plans are essential to understand the scale and nature of transport impacts and to identify proportionate mitigation. They provide the evidence base for decision-making and ensure that developments contribute to sustainable travel objectives.

6.1.19. Prioritising active and sustainable travel reflects national and local priorities to reduce car dependency, improve air quality, and support healthier lifestyles. Designing developments to enable walking, cycling, and public transport access from the outset is more effective than retrofitting solutions later.

6.1.20. Off-site improvements may be necessary where development creates demand beyond its immediate boundary. Linking these improvements to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan ensures that mitigation is coordinated, timely, and aligned with wider network priorities.

6.1.21. Highway safety and network resilience remain critical considerations. While the focus is on sustainable modes, targeted highway interventions may be required to address safety concerns or maintain essential connectivity. These should be proportionate and avoid undermining sustainable transport objectives.

6.1.22. Residual cumulative impacts must be assessed and managed. Development proposals should not result in severe impacts on the transport network, either individually or in combination with other schemes. This aligns with national policy tests for refusal where impacts cannot be mitigated.

6.1.23. Phased delivery ensures that transport improvements are provided at the right time, avoiding situations where development is occupied before necessary infrastructure is in place.

6.1.24. Developer contributions are necessary to fund both site-specific and wider network improvements. These contributions should be reasonable, proportionate, and directly related to the impacts of the development.

6.1.25. Travel Plans with monitoring and enforcement are vital to securing long-term mode shift. Without clear targets and remedial actions, Travel Plans risk becoming ineffective. Monitoring ensures accountability and supports continuous improvement.

6.1.26. By setting out these requirements, the policy provides clarity for developers and decision-makers, ensures compliance with national policy, and responds to local concerns about congestion, safety, and sustainable travel. It also supports the delivery of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and wider objectives for climate action, health, and accessibility.

Have Your Say…

6.2. Sustainable Transport

Policy MO3 Active Travel Improvements

Policy Context

6.2.1. National planning policy (NPPF) requires local plans to promote sustainable transport and prioritise walking and cycling as part of creating healthy, inclusive communities. Active travel is central to reducing reliance on private cars, improving air quality, and supporting climate change objectives.

6.2.2. Locally, Rochford District Council has endorsed the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) prepared by Essex County Council in October 2025. The LCWIP identifies priority routes and interventions to improve connectivity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. It provides the evidence base for targeted investment and sets out a framework for integrating active travel into new development.

6.2.3. This policy ensures that development proposals contribute to this strategic approach by delivering safe, direct, and attractive walking and cycling routes, safeguarding existing and proposed connections, and supporting public realm improvements that make active travel the natural choice for short journeys.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

6.2.4. Responses to previous consultations highlighted strong support for improving walking and cycling infrastructure, both within new developments and to key destinations such as schools, town centres, and transport hubs. Stakeholders emphasised the need for safe, well-lit routes, better integration with public transport, and high-quality public realm to encourage active travel. There was also support for safeguarding future routes and delivering contributions towards strategic networks identified in the LCWIP.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO6: Sustainable Transport Provision
• SO8: Responding to Climate Change
• SO12: Sustainable Patterns of Growth

Reasoned Justification

6.2.5. This policy reflects national priorities and local evidence by embedding active travel as the default mode of movement in new developments. It aligns with the Rochford LCWIP, which identifies priority corridors and interventions to improve walking and cycling infrastructure. By requiring on-site provision and contributions to strategic routes, the policy supports modal shift, reduces car dependency, and delivers health and environmental benefits.

6.2.6. Designing for active travel also improves place quality, creating streets and spaces that are safe, inclusive, and vibrant. Secure cycle parking and integration with public transport are essential to making active travel practical for everyday journeys. Safeguarding future routes ensures long-term connectivity and resilience of the network.

Have Your Say…

Policy MO4: Passenger Transport

Context and Background

Background

6.2.7. National planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), places strong emphasis on promoting sustainable transport and reducing reliance on private vehicles. Paragraph 104 highlights the need to create opportunities for sustainable travel and to manage patterns of growth so that developments make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking, and cycling. Paragraph 105 requires planning policies to actively support these objectives, while paragraph 106 encourages the provision of high-quality public transport networks and facilities.

6.2.8. At the county level, the Essex Local Transport Plan (LTP) provides the strategic framework for transport planning. The adopted LTP3 sets out priorities for improving accessibility, reducing congestion, and supporting sustainable growth. The emerging LTP4, currently under consultation, builds on these principles and introduces a stronger focus on decarbonisation, active travel, and integrated transport solutions. These plans reinforce the need for development to contribute to sustainable transport infrastructure and services.

6.2.9. The Essex Bus Strategy further underlines the importance of passenger transport in achieving these objectives. It seeks to improve the quality, reliability, and coverage of bus services across Essex, including rural areas, and aims to make buses a more attractive and viable alternative to private car use. This strategy is particularly relevant to Rochford District, where bus services play a critical role in connecting communities to employment, education, and essential services.

6.2.10. Locally, Rochford District faces challenges in ensuring that new development is well connected to passenger transport services. Consultation feedback and evidence indicate that rural areas often lack adequate public transport coverage, leading to car dependency. Existing bus and rail services are under pressure from growth, and there is a need to improve accessibility for vulnerable groups, including older people and those without access to private vehicles. These issues underline the importance of requiring development to contribute to sustainable transport solutions.

6.2.11. The evidence base supporting this policy includes the Spatial Options consultation, which identified transport connectivity as a key priority, and the 2021 consultation feedback report, which highlighted concerns about insufficient public transport and the need for developer contributions. Local Transport Plan objectives and Essex County Council strategies also reinforce the need for integrated transport solutions that support sustainable growth.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

6.2.12. Feedback from previous consultations demonstrates strong public support for improving passenger transport links and reducing reliance on private cars. Respondents consistently raised concerns about the lack of bus services in rural areas and the poor frequency of existing routes. Many highlighted the need for better integration between new developments and transport hubs to ensure accessibility for all residents.

6.2.13. Suggestions from respondents included requiring developers to contribute to passenger transport infrastructure, providing safe and accessible pick-up and drop-off points for community facilities, and ensuring that new developments incorporate measures to support sustainable transport connectivity. While there was broad agreement on these principles, some respondents expressed reservations about the feasibility of providing new services in remote areas and raised concerns about the potential cost implications for smaller developments.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO5: Delivery of infrastructure
• SO6: Sustainable Transport Provision
• SO8: Responding to Climate Change
• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth

Reasoned Justification

6.2.14. Policy M04 is proposed to ensure that new development in Rochford District actively supports and enhances passenger transport services, reducing reliance on private vehicles and promoting sustainable travel choices. This approach aligns with national policy objectives set out in the NPPF (paragraphs 104–106), which require planning authorities to facilitate sustainable transport and manage growth patterns to maximize accessibility by public transport, walking, and cycling.

6.2.15. The policy responds directly to local evidence and consultation feedback, which identified limited public transport coverage—particularly in rural areas—as a key barrier to sustainable travel. Respondents expressed strong support for measures that improve connectivity and require developers to contribute to passenger transport infrastructure. These concerns are reinforced by the Spatial Options consultation and the 2021 feedback report, which highlighted the need for integrated transport solutions to accompany new development.

6.2.16. County-level strategies provide further justification. The Essex Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) sets out priorities for improving accessibility and reducing congestion, while the emerging LTP4 introduces a stronger focus on decarbonisation, active travel, and integrated transport networks. The Essex Bus Strategy complements these objectives by aiming to improve the quality, reliability, and coverage of bus services, making them a viable alternative to private car use. Together, these strategies establish a clear expectation that development should contribute to sustainable transport outcomes.

Have Your Say…

6.3. Parking Provision

Policy MO5 Parking and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Context and Background

6.3.1. National planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), requires local plans to promote sustainable transport and set appropriate parking standards that reflect local circumstances. It also expects plans to support the transition to low-emission vehicles by providing for electric vehicle charging in safe and convenient locations. These requirements are complemented by the Essex Parking Guidance (2024), which provides a county-wide approach to minimum parking standards, electric vehicle charging provision, and design principles for parking layouts.

6.3.2. Locally, Rochford District faces challenges related to parking pressures, overspill onto surrounding streets, and the need to balance adequate provision with sustainable transport objectives. The Essex Parking Guidance introduces a connectivity-led approach, allowing flexibility where developments are well-served by public transport and active travel options. This ensures that parking provision is proportionate, while supporting modal shift and reducing reliance on private cars.

6.3.3. By referring to the EPOA Parking Guidance (2024) the policy also addresses design considerations to ensure that parking areas do not dominate the street scene or harm the character of towns and villages. Landscaping, tree planting, and integration with sustainable drainage should be used to soften the visual impact of parking areas. Cycle parking should be secure, covered, and conveniently located to encourage active travel.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

6.3.4. Feedback from the 2021 Spatial Options consultation highlighted strong concerns about parking provision and its impact on local communities. Respondents stressed the need for adequate parking to prevent overspill and anti-social parking, while also calling for better provision for electric vehicle charging and cycle storage, for both new and existing communities. Many responses supported an approach that considers local accessibility and promotes sustainable transport, including walking and cycling. There was also a clear emphasis on high-quality design, with stakeholders seeking to avoid large expanses of hardstanding and protect the character of existing settlements.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO7: Road Infrastructure
• SO13: Ensuring High-Quality Design

Reasoned Justification

6.3.5. This policy ensures that new development provides appropriate parking and electric vehicle charging infrastructure in line with the EPOA Parking Guidance (2024), which is endorsed by Rochford District Council. The guidance sets minimum standards for vehicle, cycle, and accessible parking and includes requirements for electric vehicle charging provision. Referring to this document provides a consistent approach across Essex and ensures that parking provision reflects local circumstances, connectivity and sustainable transport objectives.

6.3.6. The policy responds to national requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to promote sustainable transport and support the transition to low-emission vehicles. It also aligns with local priorities identified through consultation, where concerns were raised about parking pressures, overspill onto surrounding streets, and the need for better provision for electric vehicles and cycle storage. By requiring compliance with the Essex Parking Guidance, the policy provides clarity for developers and decision-makers while allowing flexibility where robust evidence demonstrates that reduced parking will not cause harm.

6.3.7. Overall, this approach balances the need for adequate parking with the Council’s objectives for sustainable transport, climate change mitigation, and high-quality design.

Have Your Say…

7. Strong Economy

7.1 Supporting Business and Employment

Strategic Policy EC1 – Employment Growth

Context and Background

7.1.1. The NPPF’s Chapter 6, states that planning policies should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt, and that such policies should be tailored to each local area’s economic strengths and opportunities. To support this, it states that planning policies should set criteria, and  identify strategic sites, for both local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period, and be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, including new and flexible working practices and spaces to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.

7.1.2. The NPPF requires policies to recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes supporting clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations; and other industries of local, regional or national importance. Importance is placed both on the national industrial strategy, as well as local economic and regeneration policies, such as Rochford District’s Economic Growth Strategy. This in turn considers the 2023 Essex Sector Development Strategy, which emphasis improving infrastructure, such as transport and digital connectivity, while promoting sustainability and environmental responsibility across industries. The priority sectors identified by this strategy (green energy, advanced manufacturing, digital technology, life sciences and creative industries) are ones which Rochford District has the potential to contribute towards.

7.1.3. Rochford District’s economy is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) of fewer than 50 employees, with these accounting for 99.9% of businesses. Key sectors include construction, professional services, administration, retail and manufacturing, with niche specialisms in industries such as aviation and environmental services. Economic forecasts indicate growth sectors over the Plan period, in terms of jobs, are likely to include construction, health and social care, and real estate, whilst traditional manufacturing industries are projected to see the largest reductions in headcount. Wages are typically lower than the Essex and England averages, whilst a high proportion of residents commute out of the district for work. To help address this imbalance, the previous Local Plan, alongside the London Southend Airport Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) allocated substantial new employment sites close to the Airport to reflect the economic opportunities associated with the significant expansion of the airport and the associated economic benefits to Rochford District and the City of Southend-on-Sea. The Airport Business Park has since seen significant infrastructure and employment space development, with further growth in the pipeline.

7.1.4. To assist planning for strategic economic growth, national Planning Practice Guidance requires the council to develop a robust evidence base to help plan for economic need over the plan period, translating this into a requirement for different types of employment land/floorspace to ensure the District provides sufficient sites to provide employment growth and economic opportunities for residents and businesses.  Our evidence base includes the 2023 and 2025 Rochford Economic Development Needs Assessments (EDNAs); 2024 Rochford Employment Land Study (ELS); 2024 Commercial Property Market Review⁴; and the 2020 South Essex Grow-on Space Study⁵. These provide the following high-level recommendations:

7.1.5. The Plan should allocate new employment sites to address the identified shortfall of at least 9.3 ha by 2043, based on the most likely scenario. This would support an increase of 4,430 additional jobs over the Plan period.

7.1.6. If an option to pursue more ambitious economic growth and inward investment objectives is pursued (the ‘Growth Scenario’, recommended by the EDNA), the modelled scenario suggests the Plan should identify at least 15.7 ha, to support employment growth over the Plan period of an additional 5,835 jobs over the Plan period. This could involve a combination of new site allocations and exploring opportunities for mixed-use developments (i.e. providing employment space alongside housing and other uses on allocated sites).

7.1.7. Existing employment sites should generally be protected, and opportunities to enhance and intensify their potential for productive employment uses pursued. Employment sites allocated for residential under the previous Plan, which continue to remain in active employment use, should be retained. In addition, the existing new allocation (as-yet unbuilt) at Star Lane, Great Wakering, should be maintained.

7.1.8. Major residential site allocations should actively consider opportunities for new employment allocations, as well as mixed-use commercial/community hubs that incorporate employment uses to support both entrepreneurship and hybrid/remote working. This provides the opportunity for residents to live and work in their communities, reducing the need for lengthy commutes.

7.1.9. Employment use class allocations on new sites should be flexible to allow future supply to be adapted to specific requirements and changes in demand. Policies should ensure new employment sites provide a mix of unit sizes, including high quality, flexible space for start-up and ‘grow-on’ stage businesses, to support SME growth and productivity.

7.1.10. The 2023 EDNA concluded that the authorities making up South Essex (Rochford, Southend, Castle Point, Basildon, Thurrock and Brentwood) are the most closely related in terms of commuting, housing and commercial property markets, and therefore constitute a Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA). Employment land within the FEMA can reasonably be expected to provide on behalf of the wider South Essex economy, helping to justify a larger quantum to drive growth and investment.

7.1.11. The emerging Local Plan will provide updated policies to enable the district, its residents and its businesses to prosper, supporting a greater number of skilled, local jobs, reducing the need to commute elsewhere. To support this, new technologies and working practices will be enabled, whilst major residential and infrastructure development will provide employment and training opportunities. The further growth potential of London Southend Airport will be supported in a way that considers sustainable practices and mitigates impact on local communities, whilst the district’s natural assets in the form of countryside, habitats, rivers and coastlines, will support a responsible rural and green economy.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

7.1.12. A range of questions were posed in the 2017/18 Issues and Options, and 2021 Spatial Options, Regulation 18 consultations. These covered topics such as existing and new employment sites; jobs and skills; London Southend Airport; and ways that planning policies could support long-term economic growth in the district.

7.1.13. Responses emphasised the need for the Council to protect existing employment sites and designate new ones based on local demand and updated forecasts. There was strong support for collaboration with local businesses to identify required types of accommodation, such as start-up and grow-on spaces, and for flagship sites like the Airport Business Park to attract ambitious businesses. Many felt that creating more skilled job opportunities within the District is essential, with business space provision and skills strategies integrated to encourage inward investment and support start-ups. Concerns were raised about outdated, poor-quality business accommodation, highlighting the need for modern, flexible spaces that can adapt to changing trends, include co-working options, and allow businesses to scale easily.

7.1.14. Respondents also favoured requiring large-scale residential developments to include employment space, reducing commuting needs, with the strategic growth option at Land North of Southend seen as a key opportunity. Comments noted that villages such as Hullbridge and Great Wakering lack employment opportunities, causing out-commuting. Post-Covid changes in technology and work practices were widely acknowledged, with calls for ultra-fast digital connectivity and flexibility for home-based businesses, provided they do not harm neighbours. While flexibility was welcomed, there was opposition to converting employment space to residential use and mixed views on formalising informal employment sites in the Green Belt. Improving access to training and apprenticeships was also raised, as was ensuring any new developments were served with the right transport infrastructure, including alternatives to cars.

7.1.15. Most responses supported protecting the Airport as a key economic asset that attracts jobs and investment. Future development should be agreed with Southend-on-Sea City and other partners, given its importance to South Essex. Whilst there was broad support for growth, concerns about noise, air pollution, and road impacts led to calls for careful management and infrastructure improvements. A new public transport interchange at the railway station to enhance sustainable travel and local connectivity was suggested as a key element of any future masterplan.

7.1.16. In terms of statutory responses, Southend-on-Sea City Council indicated that land being promoted immediately adjacent to the boundary, as part of the strategic option known as Land North of Southend, could be suitable for a significant employment allocation to act as a natural extension to the existing major employment site at Temple Farm Industrial Estate, Southend.

7.1.17. In preparing the emerging Local Plan and draft policies, RDC engages regularly with Essex County Council (ECC) as a statutory consultee through the Duty to Cooperate process. Feedback from ECC on proposed employment allocation strategies is as follows:

7.1.18. Ensure any large-scale residential allocations provide an appropriate level of local employment space to help meet local employment needs.

7.1.19. Consider the merits of supporting higher levels of employment growth at a scale which will reduce out-commuting, deliver infrastructure and provide choice.

7.1.20. Any proposed allocations should be mindful of the requirements of ECC’s Mineral and Waste Local Plan (i.e. in respect of safeguarding mineral resources and minerals/waste infrastructure).

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow 
• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth  

Reasoned Justification

Economic Growth Strategy

7.1.21. The approach in Policy EC1 takes into account the need to deliver the right types of new employment space, in the right places, to help Rochford District’s economy grow and thrive, creating more skilled local jobs. Given the significant housing growth expected in both the district and the wider South Essex area, it is critical to provide sufficient local opportunities for existing and new residents, reducing the need for people to commute long distances and relieving pressure on the transport network. The drive to deliver modern, fit-for-purpose accommodation at a range of sizes accords with the Essex Sector Development Strategy’s ‘Strategic Goal 1 – a thriving economy’, as well as the aims of the Rochford Economic Growth Strategy. The Action Plan⁶ attached to the strategy lists ensuring attractive, modern commercial space is available in the District as one of its main objectives, working with the Council’s Strategic planning Team.

New Employment Land

7.1.22. The evidence base and feedback indicates the importance of providing employment space at a range of size bands (supporting start-up and growing SME businesses), and also flexible enough to accommodate a range of different uses, e.g. office, light industrial, warehouse or a combination of these (e.g. a creative workshop with storage space for its online orders). Evidence relating to provision of ‘grow-on’ space and the commercial property market in general indicates that there is a longstanding shortage of good quality, modern workspace at the <150 sq. m end of the market, both for offices and industrial accommodation, meaning businesses are frequently operating from sub-optimal, poor quality and inefficient spaces, or leaving the area entirely. Policy will need to allocate specific provision for start-up and grow-on stage accommodation within

7.1.23. The Plan is setting the policy direction for the next 15 years or more and is therefore likely to span significant changes in economic, societal and technological trends which will influence the ways people work and businesses operate, as well as the types of spaces required. It is important that our new sites take this into consideration, learning the lessons of past long-term policy, such as the Southend Airport Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP). Whilst this has undoubtedly been successful in supporting the expansion of the airport and surrounding employment sites, including the Airport Business Park, some of the sectors envisaged when the policy was adopted in 2014 (such as medical technologies) are yet to materialise, whilst a pivot to developing a number of high-quality smaller industrial/warehouse units on one plot (known as ‘The Quad’) has proven a success. The successful employment sites of the future will need to be adaptable from the outset, whilst also maintaining a focus on uses which are more likely to lead to greater numbers of productive, skilled employment uses, rather than those which are typically less intensive in terms of job creation, or which may only have a handful of roles (e.g. open storage or retail-focused trade counters). This is particularly important, given new employment land is likely to require Green Belt release and should be meeting a genuine unmet need (i.e. high-quality business accommodation supporting skilled, local jobs).

7.1.24. The text is liable to change at Regulation 19 draft Plan stage, as strategic growth locations are identified and site-specific policies that govern employment provision (amongst other factors) are drawn up. Small-scale employment provision will be considered on all sites with a capacity of 500 homes or more, whilst any strategic scale sites (c.1,400 homes or more⁷) will be required to include a more significant employment allocation, akin to a business park or industrial estate. Co-locating uses serves to provide employment alongside residential areas, reducing the need to commute and contributing to sustainability, avoiding such locations merely serving as ‘dormitories’ for employment elsewhere. It also ensures employment areas have better access to open spaces and useful amenities, such as shops, cafes or childcare facilities, whilst these uses benefit from increased footfall. Co-located sites can also better deliver dedicated infrastructure and placemaking enhancements.

7.1.25. A topic paper will further explore potential for employment site allocations prior to the Regulation 19 consultation, evaluating the potential of respective draft site allocations being considered to provide employment/commercial elements. This will also consider the potential of stand-alone new employment sites (through the Call for Sites process) as well as the formal allocation of existing rural/previously-developed land. These will be considered on their merit, through a robust, evidence-based methodology.

New Allocations on Previously Developed and Rural Sites

7.1.26. In terms of point G (allocation of previously developed land and rural sites), the 2024 ELS concluded that the existing employment-led sites at Lubards Lodge Farm and Dollymans Farm/Rawreth Barns, were well-established, longstanding sites, hosting a diverse range of commercial activities, with relatively good accesses. These sites were suggested as potential formalised site allocations as employment/mixed-use sites. Doing so would have the benefit of protecting sites which support a diverse range of small and medium-sized enterprises, which have evolved over time to serve their respective communities and nearby rural areas. Lubards Farm is the closest significant employment location to the large village of Hullbridge, which does not presently have any allocated employment site. Giving these sites the certainty of an allocation would enable landowners and occupiers to invest in their further improvement and development, providing additional business growth and employment opportunities.

7.1.27. Collectively, they total c.11.55ha, however if allocated it is proposed that the contribution to new employment land need is estimated at an additional 1.4ha (accounting for 0.41 ha of open yard space at Dollymans Farm and c.1 ha of open storage compounds at Lubards Farm that could theoretically be redeveloped for more intensive employment uses over time. Given the existing makeup of these sites is diverse, including leisure, retail and community-focused uses alongside employment uses, the relevant site allocations policies would need to be sufficiently flexible.

7.1.28. It is noted that both the Lubards and Dollymans sites sit at the heart of wider Green Belt sites which are being promoted for residential development. At time of publication, there has been speculative pre-application activity on both these sites, in advance of any Local Plan position. The proposed allocation of the employment/commercial complexes in this document is without prejudice to the question of whether these sites are suitable for residential allocation. However, it would serve to protect the existing occupiers from being displaced by potential residential redevelopment of previously developed land. It would also provide a ready source of employment and services for emerging residential communities from the outset, something which is typically difficult to achieve in new residential areas, where developers prefer to deliver commercial uses at a much later stage. Such sites could form the focus of community amenities provided by developer contributions, such as healthcare or community facilities. In the event of any surrounding Green Belt site receiving a residential site allocation, it could ensure that mutually beneficial infrastructure could be delivered (e.g. transport and public realm improvements) to further enhance the potential of these employment sites as commercial hubs. Such measures would need to be secured through site-specific allocations policies and masterplans.

Existing Allocated Site Extensions

7.1.29. The 2024 ELS identified some instances where the boundaries of existing employment sites do not adequately cover the extend of employment activities taking place on the estate. Land was identified at Riverside Industrial Estate, Swaines Industrial Estate and Brook Road Industrial Estate which, de facto, forms part of the respective employment site, but which does not fall within the boundary of its existing allocation. These areas do not form part of the Green Belt and would likely be uncontentious to allocate for employment uses, which would afford them greater protection, as well as giving neighbours greater certainty over the use of such sites. However, landowners may have other intentions on some sites – e.g. the depots at Riverside Industrial Estate, which area promoted site in the new Local Plan, and which could possibly be redeveloped for other purposes. This consultation will explore the appropriateness of these extensions of allocated sites by inviting feedback from interested parties.

7.1.30. It is important that any employment site allocations are robustly tested to ensure they are deliverable, and that they are accompanied by the appropriate infrastructure improvements to mitigate their impacts, including on transport and utility networks. Further detail will be provided in the Whole Plan Viability Assessment to support the Regulation 19 draft Local Plan, once draft site allocations and locations for employment sites are known.

Have Your Say…

Policy EC2 – Protecting Employment Land

Context and Background

7.1.31. It is important that any policy approach to planning for a prosperous local economy considers existing employment sites alongside new site allocations, acknowledging their existing roles in supporting thousands of businesses and jobs and accounting for the vast majority of employment land within the District. The District’s existing employment land comprises a mix of long-established industrial estates, new and emerging business parks and unallocated but established employment sites which have evolved organically from activities such as rural diversification. Together, these sites together provide for a diverse network of employment and commercial stock. They provide variety in terms of size, standard of accommodation, on-site amenities and the types of industry present.

7.1.32. The primary objective of this policy is to protect existing employment sites where necessary to safeguard the important role they play in providing jobs and thus achieving sustainable communities locally, while allowing for their enhancement and diversification where appropriate to support local economic ambitions.

7.1.33. The 2024 Employment Land Study identifies that c.143 ha of land in the District is presently allocated for employment purposes, accounting for 79% of land surveyed in employment use. The remaining 21% included previously-developed land in lawful employment use in the Green Belt; unallocated land adjoining allocated employment sites; and former employment allocations which were allocated for residential purpose in the previous Core Strategy, but which are yet to come forward. The Council recognises the wide variety of different sites and types of business accommodation at different scales and in different locations across Rochford District, and is committed, through the Economic Growth Strategy and its Action Plan, to creating the right conditions to ensure these remain vibrant, flexible, competitive, well-occupied places to work and do business.

7.1.34. This policy covers land designated for new employment use in the previous Local Development Framework, except where there are site-specific policies which remain relevant (e.g. the Southend Airport Joint Area Action Plan).

Summary of Consultation Feedback

7.1.35. The 2021 Spatial Options consultation recorded support for protecting existing employment sites, although there was also backing for the redevelopment of brownfield land for residential use, where employment uses might be redundant. Although there was a general preference for developing brownfield sites for employment, there was some support for regularisation of existing informal sites in the Green Belt, with one comment highlighting how previously-developed sites were more likely to be developed for housing than employment. Some comments felt regularisation of informal/farm employment sites would help provide employment in rural areas

7.1.36. Engagement with ECC on this policy was generally positive. However, whilst the intention to promote more intensive redevelopment of existing employment sites (as identified in the 2024 ELS) was welcomed, ECC advised caution over the potential for such actions to lead to the loss of safeguarded minerals and waste sites, and recommended reference to the Essex Minerals and Waste Local Plan. A tighter set of criteria was also suggested to justify any losses of employment space, under Criteria C.ii.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objectives does this policy relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow 
• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth  

Reasoned Justification

7.1.37. Rochford District has a range of existing designated employment sites, including both established estates and new areas of land allocated in the previous Core Strategy which are still in the process of coming forward for development. The existing allocated employment sites within the scope of this policy are:

• Aviation Way Industrial Estate, Aviation Way, Southend

• Baltic Wharf, Creeksea Ferry Road, Wallasea Island

• Essex Marina, Creeksea Ferry Road, Wallasea Island

• Brook Road Industrial Estate, Brook Road, Rayleigh

• Imperial Park Industrial Estate, Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh

• Riverside Industrial Estate, South Street, Rochford

• Locks Hill, Rochford

• Rochford Business Park, Cherry Orchard Way, Southend

• Swaines Industrial Estate, Ashingdon Road, Rochford

• Purdeys Industrial Estate, Sutton Road, Rochford

• Arterial Park (formerly Michelins Farm), Chelmsford Road, Rayleigh

• Land South of Sandy Crescent, Star Lane, Great Wakering

• Land North of London Southend Airport (comprising Airport Business Park and Eastern portion of former Cherry Orchard Brickworks site).

Maximising Employment Land Potential

7.1.38. The 2025 EDNA, along with the 2024 ELS, identifies that demand for employment land up to 2043 is likely to outstrip supply, when the gradual loss of existing sites is factored in. The ELS identifies that at least 2.28 ha of employment land is likely to be lost in the first 5 years of the Plan period to other uses, whilst 9.54 ha of other sites could potentially be lost wholly or in part. Given the EDNA recommendations for a minimum of 9.3ha, but more realistic/ambitions 15.1ha, of employment land to be allocated to account for projected demand as the population grows and the need for greater provision of quality jobs in the local area, it is imperative that existing sites are protected and used as effectively as possible to provide opportunities for businesses to grow, invest and provide employment.

7.1.39. It is also vital that opportunities to repurpose, redevelop or intensify existing sites are explored and supported, to maximise the employment potential of these sites and provide additional economic and employment opportunities. The ELS has shown there has been a trend on some of the District’s employment sites for plots previously in use for low-job density uses (such as open storage) to be subject to proposals for more intensive uses of the site (e.g. small workshop units). Such proposals represent a positive in terms of greater concentrations of employment activity and business space within the District, along with potential to improve employment site environments, and should be supported.

7.1.40. Office, Light Industrial and General Industrial uses are identified as having greater potential to deliver a denser quantum of jobs, and Policy ED2 seeks to prioritise these uses. However, it is recognised that demand for B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses has been growing, both locally and nationally, with much of this fuelled by the growth in e-commerce and online retail. The EDNA findings corroborate a strong projected demand for such space, whilst market engagement indicates there is a growing trend for occupiers to require hybrid employment units which incorporate an element of warehousing alongside offices and/or manufacturing space. Proposals for B8 on allocated employment sites will generally be supported, although they should demonstrate schemes will generate a level of employment that is broadly in line with the levels for B8 use set out in the Homes and Communities Agency Employment Densities Guide (3rd Edition) 2015. This is to ensure the District’s finite supply of employment land provides the maximum possible amount of local employment opportunities, rather than uses which generate little or no employment (for example, lock-up storage units, retail-focused trade counters, self-storage or open storage land).

7.1.41. Where an application is made under ED2 (criterion C.ii.), the applicant should provide information regarding:

1. length of time the property has been unused for employment purposes;

2. period during which it has been actively marketed for such purposes, which includes the possibility of redevelopment and provides evidence (not less than 24 months). Evidence should show where the property has been publicly marketed including publications and property journals as well as clear advertisement on site;

3. prices at which the land and buildings have been marketed during this period, which should reflect similar property in the locality;

4. a list of all expressions of interest during this period; and

5. an evaluation of why it is considered that the property has failed to attract interest from potential occupiers or for redevelopment for B-class use. The applicant should provide an independently commissioned viability assessment to demonstrate that the use is unlikely to be economically viable in the foreseeable future. The assessment should be undertaken by a reputable and suitably experienced company to be determined by the Council in agreement with the applicant, to be funded by the applicant.

7.1.42. The above principles are considered a comprehensive and robust assessment, setting a relatively high bar in order to justify the loss of employment use on the site. They are broadly consistent with policies in a number of other recently-adopted Local Plans and it is considered that the importance of protecting existing employment land is justified, given a number of established sites in the District have significant proportions of non-employment uses in occupation, e.g. Purdeys and Brook Road Industrial Estates.

7.1.43. For clarity, the Essex Minerals and Waste Local Plans (M/WLPs) are adopted policy and, in supporting intensification of existing sites, regard should be had to ECC’s Waste Local Plan 2017, particularly WLP Policy 2 (Safeguarding Waste Management Sites and Infrastructure) and Policy 4 (Areas of Search). Consideration of impact on safeguarded waste sites through development within Waste Consultation Areas, along with regard for the Areas of Search affecting District sites at Rochford Business Park and Michelins Farm, should be factored in. It is acknowledged that appropriate Sui Generis uses for employment sites would, by necessity, include waste uses where there is a defined need, reflecting that waste management is both an employer and a requirement for sustainably managing the outputs of growth. Any anticipated successor policies to the M/WLPs would be similarly referenced.

Protection for Regularised Employment Sites

7.1.44. In addition to allocated employment sites, the District’s supply of employment land is supplemented by a range of unallocated, but lawful, employment sites that collectively contribute significantly to the local economy. Within the Metropolitan Green Belt, there are a number of previously developed sites in employment use, many of which are former agricultural or plant nursery sites. Whilst these are still subject to Green Belt policies for purposes of development and redevelopment, such sites, where lawful, play an important role in providing flexible and affordable workspace to support the District’s SME ecosystem and rural economy. Recognising the role of such sites acknowledges the important role they play in providing diversity and choice in employment stock within the District. This policy supports proportionate improvements to stock, balancing the need for employment space with the importance of protecting openness in the Green Belt.

7.1.45. Employment uses on these unallocated, regularised sites will be proportionately protected, similar to existing allocated employment sites, as set out in Section A-C of Policy EC2. Although such sites are not allocated, the loss of employment uses (and resultant socio-economic impacts on local communities and the District’s economy) should be a material consideration in planning applications. The ELS highlights the importance these sites play for a range of small workshop and storage operations, also supporting rural diversification and local employment opportunities. As a result, the policy does not seek to restrict B8 use on these sites for proposals under 150 sq. m, supporting small-scale (start-up and grow-on phase) storage and distribution. Sites identified as such through the ELS and assigned a ‘protect and maintain’ categorisation are as follows:

• Crouchmans Courts and Crouchmans Yard, Great Wakering

• Units at Little Stambridge Hall Farm, Stambridge

• Clovelly Works, Rawreth

• Dollymans Farm Rawreth

• Lubards Farm, Rayleigh

7.1.46. There may be compelling cases where other sites within the District are deemed to have the same qualities. This consultation invites comments on this.

Safeguarding against Residential Permitted Development

7.1.47. Changes to the General Permitted Development Order in 2021 introduced a new Class MA, allowing for change of use from Class E (commercial) uses to C3 (residential) without the need for planning permission. This legislation has potentially significant implications for the stock of employment sites within the District, as office and light industrial premises in town centres and employment sites could see changes of use through this process, with consideration of economic impacts no longer able to be considered a factor by the local planning authority. The prior approval process does, however, allow for consideration of the impacts on intended residential occupiers in areas considered important for general or heavy industry, waste management, storage and distribution, or a mix of such uses. Such locations are likely to have a range of factors which could impact negatively on residential amenity due to the uses present on these sites. These includes noise; fumes; dust and particulates; odours; heavy goods vehicles; contaminated land; 24-hour operations; and streetscapes which do not consider the greater road safety requirements of a residential area (e.g., pavements, crossings and good visibility of pedestrians). Consequently, the Council has sought to identify employment sites within the District which, in their present guise, would be unsuitable for residential uses due to the activities taking place on site.

7.1.48. The Council has reviewed its existing employment sites to determine which are deemed important for heavy/general industry, logistics or waste management (i.e. B2, B8 and Sui Generis), with these criteria for this process set out in the ELS (para. 6.44-6.49), based on site assessments and the Waste Local Plan. These sites will be considered areas where residential changes of use (or prior approvals) are not appropriate. This is both to protect and support the continuing economic vitality of key employment sites, and to protect the amenity of potential residents from inhabiting dwellings adjoining operations which may produce excessive noise, odours or emissions. The designated sites are as follows:

• Aviation Way Industrial Estate, Aviation Way, Southend

• Baltic Wharf, Creeksea Ferry Road, Wallasea Island

• Brook Road Industrial Estate, Brook Road, Rayleigh

• Imperial Park Industrial Estate, Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh

• Riverside Industrial Estate, South Street, Rochford

• Rochford Business Park, Cherry Orchard Way, Southend

• Swaines Industrial Estate, Ashingdon Road, Rochford

• Purdeys Industrial Estate, Sutton Road, Rochford

• Arterial Park (formerly Michelins Farm), Chelmsford Road, Rayleigh

• JAAP Sites 2 & 3 (Airport Business Park), Cherry Orchard Way, Rochford

Have Your Say…

Policy EC3 – Home Businesses and New Ways of Working

Context and Background

7.1.49. The NPPF (para. 86e) states that planning policies should allow for new and flexible working practices and spaces to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances. This is echoed in local economic priorities, with the Council’s Economic Growth Strategy 2025-2028 prioritising support to the District’s small and medium-size enterprise (SME) business base forming the backbone of the local economy, along with supporting delivery of high-quality, flexible business space in town centres and employment sites.

7.1.50. SMEs and micro-businesses form a considerable proportion of the District’s business base, with 91.3% having fewer than 9 employees. The District is an entrepreneurial place, with a high 5-year survival rate for start-up businesses (51.2%, compared with 41.2% for England), whilst 11.4% of the resident population are self-employed, again higher than the national average of 9.6%. Many small businesses operate from domestic addresses, due to a combination of the District’s semi-rural nature; a historic lack of supply of suitable start-up business accommodation (in terms of size, flexibility and affordability); advances in digital communications; and socio-economic changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

7.1.51. There has been an acceleration of a move towards more flexible working practices in recent years. This includes a rise in home working for those who can do so, alongside an increase in demand for different types of accommodation which offer more flexible work opportunities. Home working and business activities can enable people to become economically active who may otherwise be denied the opportunity. However, whilst there are economic and social benefits to working from home it is important to ensure that proposals do not have a detrimental impact upon the character or amenity of the surrounding residential area.

7.1.52. In recent years, South Essex has also experienced an increase in business accommodation offering flexible workspace, including incubator space for start-up businesses and ‘hot-desking’ opportunities for remote workers and freelancers. However, recent evidence, such as the South Essex Grow-On Space Feasibility Study 2020, suggests there is a gap in supply and demand in terms of smaller office and industrial premises.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

7.1.53. The 2021 Spatial Options consultation included some feedback on the topic. Some felt the District required flexible and affordable workspace and meeting rooms for small businesses to start up and grow. Libraries or Council-owned sites were cited as possible locations. Improved digital infrastructure was a key theme uniting many comments, as this will enable home working, flexible business hubs and increased automation in manufacturing industries. A comment felt the growth of homeworking would see less of a need for office space, but additional requirements for homes in rural areas equipped with live/work purposes in mind. One example suggested of providing flexible ‘hub’ workspace in the District to enable workers usually commuting elsewhere to work within a professional environment in the local area, supporting local town centres.

7.1.54. Feedback from ECC highlighted the socio-economic benefits of enabling more homeworking, including access to more employment opportunities aligned to skills, and therefore better earning potential, improved health and wellbeing and increased local spending. They recommended that residential designs should provide flexible and adaptable spaces to support this, e.g. dedicated studies or flexible niches/partitions, dependent on dwelling size.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objective does this relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow 

• SO3:  Supporting Rural Diversification 

• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth  

Reasoned Justification

7.1.55. The Local Plan will support entrepreneurial activity and the District’s continuing prosperity by backing proposals for appropriate business activity based at residential properties, subject to the requirements set out in Policy EC3. This could include new build residential properties accommodating bespoke facilities for the business activities of their intended occupants, as well as conversion of existing dwellings and their domestic outbuildings. Such proposals will be supported, provided the business use is ancillary to the primary residential use, and there is demonstrated to be no significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring land uses.

7.1.56. As set out above, this policy is justified due to the potential it gives to allow people to access a wider range of employment and business opportunities from their local communities, without the need for lengthy commutes. This is especially important, given much of the district is rural and a significant drive from major employment centres. Providing new opportunities in this way delivers socio-economic benefits to local communities, whilst also having the potential to reduce congestion from commuting.

7.1.57. It is recognised that flexible working practices and new technology have widened the possibilities for integrating residential and commercial uses within the same unit, and that many properties where the use is predominantly business may contain residential accommodation. This is particularly the case for rural and town centre uses, many of which are prevalent in Rochford District, and for which live/work accommodation could help to stimulate the local economy. It can also be the case for a range of industry sectors, including creative and cultural industries and a range of professional and personal services. Such activities may combine business premises with residential accommodation as live/work units.

7.1.58. As they can comprise a wide range of business activities, any live/work proposal will need to be considered on its own merits, rather than as a residential or employment proposal. Proposals will need to consider their impacts on neighbouring uses and the environment, such as noise, smell, and frequency of visitors. The workspace element should be the primary function, rather than ancillary to the dwelling. As such, live/work units may be appropriate in residential, town centre or employment areas, subject to consideration of impacts on neighbouring uses to the business activity, as well as from neighbouring uses on the residential amenity of the live/work unit. Any proposals in a town centre or employment area should have consideration of the wider economic impact of a live/work unit in this area, and its appropriateness alongside the existing or intended mix of commercial uses.

7.1.59. It is recognised that, in the past, some proposals for live/work units have been used as a means of securing residential planning permission. Any proposals for this use will be conditioned to ensure the residential occupancy is restricted to those involved in the business, whilst business space is phased to be delivered first, as set out in Policy EC3.

7.1.60. In supporting reasonable proposals for operating businesses from residential dwellings, along with those for live/work units, it should be noted that considerations relating to operating businesses in the Green Belt still apply, as set out in policies in Chapter 4. It is also expected that all new proposals comply with Policy EC4, ensuring the local digital infrastructure serving the property is sufficient to meet the existing and future needs of the business activity.

7.1.61. Reflecting the need for flexible and start-up workspace, proposals for such accommodation will be supported within existing and allocated employment sites, along with town centres, village centres and neighbourhood shopping parades. Proposals for flexible business accommodation will be considered in other areas (e.g., existing residential areas or new residential allocations), depending on the compatibility of the neighbouring uses.

Have Your Say…

7.2. Connectivity and Innovation

Policy EC4 – Communications & Digital Infrastructure

Context and Background

7.2.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states the importance of advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure in supporting economic growth and social well-being. It requires planning policies to set out how high-quality digital infrastructure is expected to be delivered and upgraded over time, including to both existing and new developments. This includes full-fibre broadband, the next generation of mobile technology (5G and beyond) and advancements in wireless internet technology, along with more established technologies (e.g., radio masts). The NPPF states local planning authorities should take a positive approach to provision of telecommunications equipment and not impose strict bans based on location or minimum distances. Decisions on applications should be made as quickly as possible, and within statutory timescales unless a longer period has been agreed by the applicant in writing. In relation to electronic communications development, it also states that local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only.

7.2.2. The NPPF also recognises the need to balance operating effective communications networks with minimising the visual and environmental impact of the required infrastructure, encouraging the reuse of existing communications sites and structures for new installations, along with sympathetic design.

7.2.3. The Government has made improving mobile coverage and broadband access priorities in recent years, and has invested heavily in the UK’s digital future through its Digital Strategy , and through schemes such as the Project Gigabit Delivery Plan , delivered by Building Digital UK, an arm of the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT). This set a goal of delivering gigabit-capable connectivity to 99% of the UK by 2030.

7.2.4. At a local level, Essex County Council’s (ECC) Digital Connectivity programme, Superfast Essex, is now expanding its partnership with key telecommunications suppliers to enable digital infrastructure rollout and enhancements across Essex. ECC’s work includes subsidised intervention as well as active market engagement to help remove barriers to a faster or wider commercial deployment of gigabit infrastructure, as well as working with mobile operators to improve 4G and 5G network coverage. This approach is defined in ECC’s Digital Strategy for Essex. The South Essex Councils (SEC), which includes Rochford, is implementing a programme to transform digital infrastructure in South Essex through private sector engagement, a proactive planning policy and use of council owned assets and infrastructure with the objective of accelerating economic growth and making a positive contribution to levelling up across South Essex. By the end of 2022, it secured funding for and laid over 200km of fibre across more than 210 public and community sites.

7.2.5. ‘Digital communications infrastructure’ refers to modern telecommunications technology such as high-speed broadband, 4/5G and other similar systems, including those currently in development which are likely to be deployed over the course of the Plan period. Telecommunications play a vital role in supporting economic development, allowing businesses to reach a wider market for their products and services, and residents to access more choice and opportunities. Good telecommunications provision can also enable flexible working practices which limit the need to travel. It is critical that infrastructure improvements are delivered as new technologies emerge and present local communities with new opportunities which require high-quality connectivity, such as Internet of Things (IoT) – networks of internet-connected sensors embedded in physical objects, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR). This requires a flexible approach from the planning system.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

7.2.6. Extensive feedback has been provided by ECC’s Digital Essex team, in addition to representatives from the digital connectivity programme at South Essex Councils (SEC), helping to shape the policy in line with the latest standards, accounting for future technological advancements.

7.2.7. During the 2021 Spatial Options consultation, improved digital infrastructure was a priority uniting many comments, due to its potential to enable home working, flexible business hubs and increased productivity in manufacturing industries.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objective does this relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow 
• SO3: Supporting Rural Diversification 
• SO5: Delivery of Infrastructure 
• SO9: Community Facilities 

Reasoned Justification

7.2.8. The implementation and maintenance of effective telecommunications and digital networks such as fibre-optic cables, telephone and radio masts within the District are essential to the development of the local economy and for the benefit of the local community. As a largely rural and semi-rural district, achieving full digital connectivity is particularly important, with many smaller communities having few local amenities, services and employment opportunities and the District’s main centres having lost a large proportion of bank branches in recent years as many users turn to internet and mobile banking. Poor connectivity represents a significant barrier, particularly for those with mobility issues, or without access to a car. Improved digital connectivity provides new opportunities for residents to access services and work or trade remotely.

7.2.9. Whilst much of the District receives sufficient 4G and 5G mobile phone signal and broadband access, analysis has shown that mobile ‘not spots’ still exist in some areas, whilst coverage of super-fast and gigabit broadband, lags behind other parts of South Essex. With the emergence of new innovations such as fourth and fifth generation networks and the expansion of internet-capable devices, there is likely to be a very large increase in demand for bandwidth over the Plan period. Whilst the Plan cannot predict the precise nature of fast-changing technology, it is important that the planning process proactively supports digital communication networks to maximise their economic and social benefits whilst minimising any adverse effects. With this in mind, telecommunications infrastructure should be sensitively sited and designed having regard to the criteria in Policy EC4. The policy also requires the installation of digital telecommunications infrastructure, equipment and facilities to serve new development sites and ensure residents and occupiers have access to expected levels of digital access, in accordance with the NPPF.

7.2.10. The Council will encourage the delivery of high-quality communications infrastructure, including gigabit broadband and latest mobile communication technology, by working collaboratively with partners including the Government Essex County Council, SEC, the Government, developers and communications operators and providers, ensuring initiatives and proposals which support greater provision and uptake of communications technology are supported.

7.2.11. Many telecommunications developments do not require planning permission. Part 16 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) (England) 2015 allows telecommunications operators to install and replace certain types of telecommunications equipment, provided certain criteria are met. Policy ED5.

7.2.12. The Essex Planning Officers’ Association (EPOA) has developed sets of planning guidance for developers and network/infrastructure providers relating to both 5G networks and digital infrastructure, considering the latest national policy requirements and setting out a process for proposals led by evidence. This is set out in the Essex Design Guide and should be referred to alongside Policy EC4.

Have Your Say…

Policy EC5 – Tourism

Context and Background

7.2.13. The NPPF notes the role tourism can have in supporting a prosperous rural economy, with paragraph 88c stating planning policies and decisions should enable sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside. There are no specific policies in the NPPF with regard to the role of tourism in the non-rural local economy, although it is listed in Annex 2 as an acceptable ‘main town centre use’. The Government's Tourism Recovery Plan 2021 highlights the importance of tourism to the economy and is clear that good planning policies can support growth in the tourism sector, particularly as it recovers from the impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. This document identified easing of planning regulations as a key short-term objective in helping the sector recover, whilst, for the medium to long-term, the role of the tourism industry in enhancing and conserving the UK’s cultural, natural and historic heritage and minimising damage to the environment is stressed. Accessibility is also highlighted as an important objective in developing tourism facilities.

7.2.14. Rochford District has a strong tourism offer, focused on its green and blue spaces and leisure and recreational opportunities, including ancient woodlands, coastal and estuarine landscapes, network of footpaths and bridleways, and wildlife sites. Key assets include Cherry Orchard Country Park and the RSPB Wallasea Wild Island Coast Project – a major habitat for migrating birds. The 2022 completion of local sections of the England Coast Path, connecting London to Wallasea Island (via Southend-on-Sea) further enhanced the appeal of the area to walkers. The District also has a strong heritage offer, with historic market towns, picturesque villages and a large number of listed buildings and ancient monuments, including Norman era Rayleigh Mount and Ashingdon Minster, and Rochford Hall, associated with Anne Boleyn. The historic role of Paglesham as the last resting place of HMS Beagle, the ship on which Charles Darwin made his voyages of discovery and formulated the Theory of Evolution, is also a unique feature. The presence of London Southend Airport, a growing international gateway, brings further opportunities to promote the visitor economy of the district, both in its own right and as a place to stay or visit when travelling to/from London.

7.2.15. The Council’s Economic Growth Strategy 2025-2028 identifies the growth of the visitor economy, alongside encouraging rural diversification and town centre regeneration, as key objectives. In 2024, the Council published a Culture and Visitor Economy Strategy, which set out a 5-year ambition to strengthen and grow a modest but distinctive cultural and visitor economy through coordinated action with partners and community. It notes that the district currently hosts around 19,000 annual overnight trips, likely to be closer to 100,000 when considering visits to friends and relatives. It is estimated that the district attracts approximately 2 million tourism day trips annually. This is considered to be a relatively modest level in comparison to other areas, with the strategy focusing the district’s offer around the strengths of landscapes and nature; heritage and culture; walking and active; and family fun.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

7.2.16. Feedback to date on tourism-specific matters has been fairly limited, although the 2021 Spatial Options consultation did include feedback around the potential for Rochford to attract tourism, given its proximity to Southend and the asset of Wallasea Island, if its amenities were improved. Specific feedback will be sought through this consultation on the draft policy below.

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objective does this relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow 
• SO3: Supporting Rural Diversification 
• SO9: Community Facilities 
• SO12: Sustainable patterns of growth  

Reasoned Justification

7.2.17. This policy supports the Council’s economic growth and tourism ambitions, seeking to provide a framework that is supportive but also mindful of the need to manage impacts on sensitive environments and local communities.

7.2.18. The Council’s economic strategies have identified delivery of green tourism initiatives as a key way of building on the economic potential of London Southend Airport, helping raise the district’s economic profile and attracting investment. Cherry Orchard Country Park is identified as an asset which will be invested in both to attract more visitors to the district, as well as to support the improved recreational opportunities and wellbeing for residents. Proposals for visitor accommodation or attractions situated in the district’s town centres or neighbourhood/village parades have the potential to support additional footfall and employment in such areas and reduce vacancy rates, and this beneficial effect should be considered favourably

7.2.19. The District’s diverse natural and coastal landscapes are attractive destinations for recreation and leisure. Whilst this can help support local economies and provide recreation for residents, there is a need to protect sensitive habitats and biodiversity. It is important that any proposals for visitor attractions in, or adjoining, green and blue infrastructure, consider how the impact of increased footfall and visitor numbers are mitigated. The Council’s membership of the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) partnership and adopted RAMS Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will continue to offset some of the impacts of increased recreation in sensitive coastal habitats which residents and visitors may bring, funded by contributions from residential development. See Policy NE2.

7.2.20. The Council will support proposals which respect the District’s rural and semi-rural character and do not unduly impact on the openness of the Green Belt (see Policies in Chapter 4) or disturb sensitive landscapes including habitats sites of local, national and international importance. This includes conversion of existing buildings for tourism/leisure facilities, along with new structures. It also covers the use of sites for temporary or permanent tourism purposes, e.g. campsites or festival/event sites.

7.2.21. There is often significant overlap between visitor/tourist attractions and general commercial leisure facilities, with both having the ability to attract visitors from both the local area and further afield. The Rochford Retail Study 2025 identifies local leisure expenditure growth up to 2043 which could theoretically support between 1,564 and 1,896 sq. m of ‘commercial leisure’ uses within the District. This category includes theatres and cultural centres; museums/galleries; health & fitness (including gyms and other indoor facilities such as trampoline centres or soft play); escape rooms; and games of chance (e.g., casinos and bingo halls). The Study recommends the Plan adopts a flexible strategy in accommodating potential demand from sectors which are innovative and rapidly changing.

7.2.22. Accordingly, the Council will support in particular proposals for visitor attractions or accommodation which are located in or on the edge of town centres and which either make use of existing retail/commercial units or propose to construct new space. Proposals will be considered in conjunction with Retail Policies TC1-3.

7.2.23. Where proposals for visitor attractions or accommodation are located elsewhere, the impact on the local area will be taken into account. Part 1 of Policy EC3 will apply for proposals in residential areas. Proposals within employment areas will be assessed against Policy EC2, reflecting how the District’s employment sites are already home to a sizeable number of leisure uses, leading to a need to ensure such sites prioritise the listed employment activities. Some uses may be appropriate, depending on their employment potential and compatibility with existing uses (e.g., a proposal for a hotel on a business park may provide benefits to existing occupiers whilst providing employment in its own right). Any proposals in the Green Belt will be expected to comply with the Green Belt policies in Chapter 4.

Have Your Say…

Policy EC6 – Employment & Skills

Context and Background

7.2.24. The Rochford District Economic Growth Strategy 2025-2028 identifies improving skills as a key priority, committing the Council to achieving this working with local employers, developers, Essex County Council and education/training partners to tackle known skills gaps. There has long been a need to raise employability levels to enable local residents to take advantage of opportunities created by new development, with construction cited as a particular sector of focus. Introducing a policy to ensure larger developments contribute to skills and employment initiatives for local residents will bring Rochford District in line with the standard across the rest of Essex.

Summary of Consultation Feedback

7.2.25. The 2021 Spatial Options consultation received strong feedback that more skilled job opportunities should be provided within the District, and that business space provision and skills strategy should be integrated to help attract more inward investors and support existing business start-ups and growth. The growth of the Airport was also seen as an opportunity to boost particular skills related to the aviation sector.

7.2.26. There was strong support for identifying sites for further/higher education in the wider area in conjunction with neighbours. This was alongside strong support for a strategic skills-based approach to work with businesses, training providers, ECC and other stakeholders to identify skills shortages and provide appropriate employment/training opportunities to enable local residents to train, upskill or reskill and access higher paid opportunities in the local area. This included enhancing provision of apprenticeships, placements and training linked to jobs with skills shortages. There was a particular emphasis on STEM subjects to increase candidates with skills in fields such as engineering, information technology and biomedical. Some developers also felt their schemes could be ways to help upskill locals in construction specialisms.

7.2.27. ECC’s Skills Commissioner has provided useful feedback in developing this policy, aligning it with the existing provisions set out in ECC’s Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions¹².

Draft Policy

Which Strategic Objective does this relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow 

Reasoned Justification

7.2.28. Whilst Rochford District has a below-average unemployment rate (3.6% in 2023, in comparison to the Great Britain average of 4.2%), the skills level of the working age population is considerably below the national average, with fewer residents holding NVQ level 4+ qualifications than the East of England and national averages, along with average weekly pay for full-time workers. To help residents access high-quality local employment opportunities, it is important to improve skills levels and access to educational opportunities, particularly address known skills shortages in key local sectors, e.g., construction, engineering and advanced manufacturing. This will, in turn, increase business growth and productivity, increasing the attractiveness of the District to new inward investment.

7.2.29. The Local Plan seeks to align the District’s aspirations for new development to deliver employment and training opportunities with the need for a structure to secure and allocate contributions. As a result, proposals of over 50 homes, or 2,500 sq. m commercial space, will be required to submit an Employment & Skills Plan (ESP), which must include a set of key performance indicators to demonstrate:

7.2.30. For the construction phase, how the project will support construction apprenticeships; engagement activities with schools and colleges to promote opportunities in the Construction/Built Environment sectors; work placements; supported employment opportunities; pre-employment/skills training opportunities; and notification of job vacancies.

7.2.31. For the end-use phase (in major commercial developments), how the scheme will provide supported employment for local residents (including those who are unemployed or who require additional support); paid job placements; and notification of job vacancies.

7.2.32. In producing an ESP, regard should be given to the relevant ‘Employment and Skills Plans’ section in ECC’s Developer’s Guide to Infrastructure Contributions, which lists the range of employment/training obligations expected during the construction and end-use phases, along with required financial contributions for each component of this.

7.2.33. The District is characterised by its entrepreneurial business base of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro-businesses, with one of the highest new business survival rates in the region. Recognising that SMEs are the backbone of the local economy, Economic Growth Strategy 2022-2025 seeks to support local SMEs to expand, adapt and innovate, providing a package of support, training and networking opportunities to do so. The Local Plan is identified as a key component of this, and the promotion of the District’s SME business base as part of the supply chain of new developments is strongly encouraged.

Have Your Say…

Policy EC7 – Southend Airport

Background and Context

7.2.34. The Council will continue to work jointly work with Southend City Council to deliver the existing Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) for the Airport and environs, along with any future review or preparation of a joint masterplan as required. This includes policies governing the development and monitoring of airport operations; development of employment sites surrounding the airport within the JAAP boundaries; and promotion and monitoring of sustainable travel opportunities for both

7.2.35. Opportunities to enhance the airport and associated train station as a sustainable transport hub and to improve surface access, minimise congestion and environmental impacts will be supported.

7.2.36. The development of skills training and work placement initiatives between the airport, on-site and neighbouring employers, local educational institutions and local communities, will be supported. This will help increase both the aviation and non-aviation-related skills base in the local area and meet local employment needs.

Which Strategic Objective does this relate to?

• SO2: Employment and commercial space to help our businesses grow
• SO6: Sustainable Transport Provision

Reasoned Justification

7.2.37. London Southend Airport is a key regional transport hub providing a gateway to Europe and helps to generate important economic investment and jobs in Rochford and south Essex more generally. The airport lies partly in the District and partly in Southend. Both Southend and Rochford Councils are relevant planning authorities and the above policy is therefore included in both draft Local Plans. The Council must therefore balance the important economic opportunities that the airport brings, with the impact that the airport operation and traffic generated on local residents and infrastructure.

National Aviation Policy and Guidance

7.2.38. The government issues specific guidance on airport development, recognising their importance at a national level, although is also clear that the local planning process is equipped to deal with applications for airports to increase passenger caps by fewer than 10 million passengers per year. Local authorities must consult fully and judge such proposals on their individual merits, taking careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts, along with proposed mitigation.

7.2.39. National policy recognises the importance of providing for large-scale transport facilities such as airports, alongside the infrastructure and wider development required to ensure they fulfil their potential in contributing to the wider economy. It also highlights the importance of maintaining a national network of airfields for general aviation. The most up to date policy documents which set out the Government’s ambitions regarding aviation include the Aviation Policy Framework¹ (2013); the Beyond the Horizon: the Future of UK Aviation ²Report (2018), its accompanying document, Making Best Use of Existing Runways³; the Jet Zero Strategy: Delivering Net Zero Aviation by 2050⁴ (2022); and the Overarching Aviation Noise Policy⁵ (2023) are the most up-to-date policy on planning for airport development, and set out the Government’s ambitions regarding aviation, including:

• To make best use of existing runway capacity;

• To ensure the aviation sector makes a significant contribution towards reducing global emissions;

• To ensure communities surrounding airports share in the economic benefits and adverse impacts such as noise are mitigated wherever possible;

• To limit and where possible reduce the number of people significantly affected by noise;

• That Government, local authorities and airports should work together to improve air quality.

7.2.40. Flightpath to the Future, the Government’s aviation strategy (2022), sets out a strategic framework for UK aviation for the next decade, seeking to revitalise the industry and embrace innovation to help the sector grow in a sustainable manner. It highlights the importance of the UK’s network of regional airports for the national and local economies as employers. The economic role of airports in local communities is emphasised, in terms of providing connectivity across the UK, as well as in supporting a wide range of both direct and indirect economic activity, including business growth, tourism, inward investment, innovation in the aerospace industry, and skills development. The strategy’s 10-point plan includes a number of points relevant to the local context, including supporting growth in airport capacity where it is sustainable; using the UK’s network of airport infrastructure to unlock benefits and ‘level up’; using new technology to improve services and reduce pollution and noise; and investing in aviation and aerospace skills. The Government supports the expansion of regional airport capacity to level up the economy, provided environmental and climate change obligations are met.

7.2.41. The Airports National Policy Statement (2018), although focused on building strategic aviation hub capacity at London Heathrow, contains a useful set of assessment principles and impacts in Chapters 4 and 5, many of which are generic and apply to all airport expansion proposals. These include:

• climate change adaptation and carbon emissions;

• pollution control and environmental protection (including air/water quality);

• noise;

• health;

• accessibility;

• surface access;

• resources and waste management;

• landscape and visual impact;

• community engagement;

• skills; and

• flood risk

7.2.42. Any future proposals to extend or adapt Southend Airport in respect of its aviation and ancillary activities should have regard to these principles.

Adopted Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) for the Airport and environs

7.2.43. Rochford District Council and Southend-on-Sea City Council jointly prepared and adopted the Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) in 2014. The JAAP established the following objectives to achieve this:

• maximising the economic benefits of a thriving airport and related activity;

• ensuring good connectivity to the development area by all modes of transport, with appropriate improvements to sustainable transport and the highway network;

• ensuring a high-quality public realm and environment for residents and workers;

• seeking maximum return on public investment through attracting inward investment; and

• developing efficient use and upgrading of existing employment land resources.

7.2.44. The JAAP sets out how the airport is expected to grow in a sustainable manner up to 2031 and includes policies covering both development within the curtilage of the airport itself, and that of designated employment sites within the surrounding designated area, which were to deliver over 100,000 m² of employment floorspace and 5,000 additional jobs. These jobs contribute to the delivery of the jobs totals for Rochford District Council and Southend-on-Sea City Council – the apportionment to each district is based on a 50-50 split of the overall jobs total to be provided within the JAAP area.

7.2.45. Whilst the Covid19 pandemic had a substantive impact on the development of London Southend Airport, the JAAP continues to provide a relevant long-term vision for the Airport and its environs. The Airport's growth to date has helped to deliver additional jobs alongside substantial new infrastructure. This has included a new business park, state of the art air traffic control tower, runway extension, railway station, passenger terminal and associated on-site hotel facilities. It has also witnessed new and improved bus routes and supported successful funding bids for capacity improvements to the local road network.

7.2.46. The Council will continue to work with partners to continue to realise the airport’s economic potential for both the District and wider South Essex subregion, as the aviation industry recovers from global and national trends, whilst having regard to local amenity and environmental issues. The JAAP, along with the established forums for dialogue between the airport and relevant partners and stakeholders (i.e., the Airport Consultative Committee, Airport Transport Forum, Community Noise Forum, Airport Liaison Group and Transport Liaison Group), will enable the Council to regulate the operation of the airport through balancing noise and environmental issues with residential amenity.

7.2.47. In the longer term, the Council will work with the Airport, Southend-on-Sea City Council, Essex County Council and other partners to develop an appropriate planning framework to replace the JAAP, should this be deemed necessary. It will also work constructively with partners to ensure a robust and up-to-date suite of monitoring documents is in place to manage Airport operations, including any changes to the existing Section 106 agreement.

7.2.48. In accordance with the existing Section 106 agreement, the Council will continue to work with the airport and other local authority partners to improve and promote sustainable travel opportunities for both staff and visitors at the airport. Opportunities to further enhance the airport’s role as a sustainable, multi-modal transport hub, acting as an interchange of bus, rail and active travel routes for the wider area, will also be explored.

7.2.49. The development of employment sites around the airport within the JAAP boundaries, both the recent employment allocations (such as Airport Business Park) and modernisation, enhancement and intensification of existing employment land (such as Aviation Way Industrial Estate) will continue to be supported to increase local employment opportunities within the District.

Airport Safeguarding

7.2.50. There are two elements to safeguarding at London Southend Airport.

• Public Safety Zones (PSZs) are triangular areas located at the end of runways as defined in the DfT Policy Paper "Control of development in airport public safety zones" (updated October 2021). PSZs restrict new development such as housing and employment within the designated area.

• Airport Safeguarding Zones are intended to make sure that there isn't a conflict between new development above a certain height and the safe operation of aircraft, including any impacts on radar, instrument landing systems and air traffic control equipment. As Local Planning Authority the City Council consults the Airport on applications that meet the defined locational and elevational criteria and are set out in Safeguarding maps.

Have Your Say…