NEW LOCAL PLAN - Rochford District Council 2018 - Issues and Options

3. OUR CHARACTERISTICS

Our Economy

3.3 "South Essex.. a national priority for growth and regeneration". I object. We have employment sources eg London Southend Airport (but people commute in from elsewhere for jobs and rent locally, thus using up jobs and housing. We have local businesses, industrial parks, shops. Many commute to London. But S. Essex is overcrowded and there is some unemployment. Though we are served by Greater Anglia and C2C rail lines to London, other areas, Kent, Sussex etc, are served by main line termini, so we don't need more population here.

3.13-3.16 As you well illustrate, circa two thirds of Rochford district is agricultural, flood risk, so difficult of access and of limited population, the bulk of which is in much smaller west. Consequences are clear.

Schools are overcrowded and measures are being sought, with difficulty, to extend them. Examples:- developers of new 600 estate in Hall Road promised a new primary school. Then, then with excuse that 2 developers involved, only 300 each, they opted out of S106 agreement, so no school.

Hospitals are at risk, surgeries are overcrowded - and it isn't just the old problem.

Traffic, on most accesses, including B1013, now of rush hour size all day, characterised by mile long traffic jams. Road works may contribute, including A127 at Kent Elms, but all noticeably worse since autumn 2016 due to Hall Road, Clements Hall, Christmas Tree Farm and other large developments in the west. Wholesale demolition of residences for redevelopment, including historic ones in eg Hockley that would have been listed elsewhere.

3.18 Note historic Rochford and Rayleigh, plus Conservation areas, of high historic value. "400 listed buildings.. a number of heritage assets not listed nationally, but of local historic importance". But in Hockley, a considerable number of historic buildings have been demolished that elsewhere would have been listed. Reference is made to Local List - one iconic, historic building on the hill entering Hockley was on Local List. So Rochford council abolished its Local List "Government now frowns on Local Lists", until after demolition, when list was renewed. Building was replaced by flats. Hockley has always been the poor relation in this respect. Meanwhile much public money was being spent on preservation is Rayleigh and Rochford, council saying money mustn't be wasted on preservation of iconic building in Hockley.

3.20 "higher proportion of older residents". For a while, but recently an increasing number of younger people in Hockley, so don't target older people for eviction.

3.22 "long term worsening in affordability" and 893 households on Housing Waiting List. One major cause - Government policy of mass selling off of Council housing cheaply during 1980s, councils not allowed to use resultant sums to build more council homes or care for what remained. Council houses had 2 purposes:- one, for families need to save up with cheap rent till they could buy own home; two, for families who could never afford to buy.

4 Our spatial challenges

4.4 I object. Under the National Planning Policy Framework Local Planning Authorities are to work out how many houses they need and plan positively how to meet need in full or if they need help from neighbours - presumably Duty to Cooperate - this is unrealistic.

4.13, 15, 18 I object. If Castle Point, Southend, London are unable to meet all their need for new homes, as you demonstrated in paras 4.13, 15, 16, Rochford will be unable to fulfil their surplus needs under Duty to Cooperate.

5. OUR VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

5.11 Drafting our Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objective 2 this doesn't work... Affordability - developers of schemes above a certain size are required to set 35% as affordable. Information is at least one developer sold off the Waiting List percentage to another borough for its Waiting List. What about Rochford's Waiting List of over 900?

Strategic objective 10 Doesn't work. ".. to work with other authorities and Essex County Council to deliver meaningful improvements to highway network". The ECC 2016 fund for this showed a £4.4 billion gap not matched by Government investment.

Strategic Objective 14 "To work with ECC and health care providers to ensure residents have.. quality social and health services. Doesn't work. Local health arrangements are struggling and too many people are pouring down from London and elsewhere to live here. Hospital under threat and Government heavy charges for care at home.

Strategic Objective 17 Doesn't work. On 4.2.18 Government announced change to plan law to permit extending buildings by 1-3 storeys - how can you cope with that?

Strategic Objective 18 I object. "to support.. delivery of.. primary, secondary etc education facilities".. see my earlier comment re a developer promising S106 agreement for a primary school, then when plan consent given, he opted out as 2 developers involved - 300 homes each. What can you do about that except getting law changed?

6 Delivering Homes/Jobs

6.2 I object. "Delivering.. of new homes.. market, affordable etc". "Any new homes.. supported by suitable infrastructure.. so does not impose unnecessary burden on capacity of existing infrastructure". As I commented under earlier headings, local population has been added to by others coming down from London and elsewhere. Local settlements were agricultural villages and 2 market towns, so local main roads were narrow, winding country lanes, now tarmacked over for motorised traffic, which cannot be changed to motorways, particularly as they are now fully developed either side and beyond.

Also as I said earlier, in 2016 Essex County Council has a £4.4 billion fund gap for highways infrastructure.

6.9 6.10 This sums it up - realisation that environment capacity and availability, viability, infrastructure etc limits what is possible re housing need.

The only possible solution - a new garden settlement to take more population, obviously in Green Belt some of which is flood plain. A by-road would be needed which would also help with traffic density elsewhere. This would need to be carefully planned.

6.19 Affordability a significant issue in Rochford. Re market houses - London people are selling up for good prices and can buy in Rochford district for lower price, though still expensive apparently and local people cannot afford. Re the 921 people on Rochford Waiting List, information is that another council bought out the required percentage of social homes in one development. I think such cases should be taken into account in the Duty to Cooperate.

There are local families who want gardens for their children - even homes they could afford are snapped up by developers. Estates are built with houses packed together, for profit naturally - builders need a living - so no gardens.

6.20 I agree what you say re private rent and Waiting List. As before - 1980s Government had council houses sold off - rest assigned to housing associations. Until law changes re council housing - nil you can do.

6.25 Re Duty to Cooperate, it is already clear you cannot contribute to other districts, without driving locals out of their homes.

6.29 It is clear to you also you cannot deliver the target given by S. Essex HMA, so you cannot aid other councils under Duty to Cooperate.

6.30 I agree Option C seems the most practical.

6.30 and 31 Problem seems insoluble.

6.33 Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities Don't forget many older people are able to manage in own homes. Some are suggesting they be removed to make room for younger people. In fact, if removed, only the bulldozer would move in to provide expensive executive dwellings for rich people moving down from London and elsewhere.

7 Supporting Commercial Development

7.12 Retail/Leisure/Town Centres

Re Cinema - "Scope for small independent niche cinema" - you had the Regal cinema in Rayleigh, very successful, but demolished to accommodate the Mill Hall.

"Catering.. priority need for Class A3 restaurant/café in Hockley - I object - there are no less than 7 in the centre already. Hockley well provided for retail, except that since supermarket arrived, basic needs - grocers, butchers, greengrocers with which Hockley was well furnished and are needed, have all gone.

8 Delivering Infrastructure

8.4 "high level of car ownership" - naturally, nowadays. Hence that militates against largescale developments.

8.6 Object. CIL and S.106 agreements won't solve anything. Firstly, they are only for developers to mitigate immediate vicinity traffic problems in relation to their application. In Rochford and elsewhere traffic problem is widespread. Secondly, it is notorious that developers enter S.106 agreements to get plan consent, then they find excuses to opt out of them.

8.8 This is the nub. Your propose eg 7,500 new homes, needing vast changes to traffic facilities, costing huge sums. As previously, Essex County Council noted in 2016 a £4.4 billion fund gap in their infrastructure needs, not matched by Government investment.

8.13 "lack of resilience on local highway network" eg "large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions" - this is just what you get with huge new development estates - each home having 2+ cars.

8.14 The B1013 via Rayleigh, Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford "large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions" is just what you had in morning/evening rush hours. Now, since autumn 2016, you have it all day, often 7 days/week, precisely due to vast new development estates in the vicinity. A new settlement is needed, probably in Green Belt.

8.19 " it's important to acknowledge.. there are limited funds available.. to deliver improvements to the local highway network" - exactly as noted before regarding ECC highways funds - this militates against large development whatever Government is reputed to demand.

8.20 Options

B CIL, like S.106 agreements, as before, is doubtful and individual cases of improvement would not solve B1013 problem. It's now almost as busy with commercial traffic as A127.

Only answer is new motorway through S E Essex, also serving new settlement.
8.22 Sustainable Travel

Idea of increasing public transport is great. Only problem is bus services are privatised. Due to many of those working age in some areas having cars, the bulk of bus passengers there are free passers and Arriva naturally doesn't want them - they claim full sum is not paid to them via Government. Once said "we are not running a service, but a business". This is why some services are drastically cut. I can't think of a solution.

What are the identified issues?

8.33 You note cycle paths are badly needed. Problems of safety occur in Hockley for lack of them. Problem is there is no transit area available for them in Hockley.

You propose amendments to bus routes in Rochford, presumably via Bradley Way - fair enough. There is a rumour of re-routing No8 through Hall Road and Cherry Orchard Way, presumably to serve new 600 estate and new business park. If true, hard luck for those in Rectory Road, Hawkwell. Also, unlike rest of Rectory Road, new stops either side serving new Christmas Tree Farm estate are hardly ever used. Won't the same apply to Hall Road estate whose occupants will undoubtedly be car owners, likewise users of the business park?

Free bus service for Hullbridge secondary school children a good idea.

8.37 What are the realistic options? Option C seems the most practical.

Water and Flood Risk Management

What are the realistic options?

8.58 Option A Retain existing flood risk policy for coastal flooding - forbid development with exception of brownfield - most likely but still doubtful - even if previously developed, still at flood risk.

Planning obligations and standard charges

8.67 Problem with S.106 agreements (payments or mitigating additional works by developers) as before, they enter agreements to get plan consent, then find plausible excuses to opt out.

8.69 Planning conditions - also opted out if they want something else.

8.70 As before one developer promised a primary school, then claimed 2 builders involved, each with half the houses, so escaped obligation. A developer reputedly sold his percentage of social housing to another council for their Waiting List. I hope you can succeed with Community Infrastructure Levy.

9 Supporting Health, Community an Culture

9.7 to 9.10 What are the identified issues
With inevitable Government cuts to NHS provision for the hospital and surgeries and ever greater numbers pouring down into S E Essex from London and elsewhere, problem is insoluble.

9.11 What are the realistic options?

I cannot think of a solution. Money and land needed not available.

Community Facilities

What are the identified issues?

9.14 "facilities.. under threat.. to be developed for other uses" not only shops, pubs etc, also public libraries - eg Hockley one admitted by a County Councillor an a Leader of RDC councillors to be so.

Options

Option B definitely a good idea ".. to resist conversion of community facilities to residential". In fact "prevent" would be better word than "resist".

Education and Skills

I am informed some London 11+ passers are bussed to our nearby grammar schools - Southend and Westcliff, thus reducing places for local children.

Re local villages - some primary schools have closed due to reduced population, but middle class parents so resident drive their children to preparatory schools in Southend, while those of other social classes are left out.

9.28 Option E I support Promoting apprenticeships through cooperation with businesses in offering same and further education a good idea.

10 Protecting an Enhancing our Environment

10.15 I agree with the Environmental Capacity Study 2015 that "it is uncertain whether the district could accommodate additional growth, and unlikely t9o be able to accommodate needs from other areas".

10.16 Options

Option B is sinister - "an assessment of the Green Belt as a whole would need to be taken into consideration". I admit I said a new settlement would possibly be unavoidable, but wholesale change is not on. There would be a solid wall of development from London to the coast.

10.26 Habitats I agree Natural England's need to develop an Essex-wide strategy to identify how potential impacts of .. disturbance resulting from delivering new homes in the country may be mitigated against. The fact is a number of home gardens in somewhat developed areas have habitats of protected creatures which are potentially threatened by developers, not just SPAs, SACs and Ramsars.

10.40 I disagree - Environmental Capacity Study 2015 re grades of agricultural land, Study recommends distinction between 3a and 3b to identify possibilities for smallscale housing development - ? is that how 600 were built in Hall road outside Rochford, mostly sold to Londoners for £650,000?

10.48 How to overcome the Local List - typical - 1 Southend Road Hockley - iconic building, up for development and on Local List - so Rochford council abolished their Local List - "government now frowns on Local Lists", until I =t was demolished. Then Local List was restored as government now approved Lists. (Other councils denied knowledge of such order and had no intention of abolishing theirs.

10.50 conservation Areas - such designation does not prevent adverse changes apparently - so why bother?

10.52 Options

Option A - Action Plans for Rochford and Rayleigh in particular, due to their historic significance are heavily focussed on protecting the character o town centres, unlike Hockley where many historic and iconic buildings have ben demolished. Incidentally circa half of Rayleigh centre was demolished in 1960s, now obviously replaced with typical 1960s buildings. See my comment at 10.48 re one iconic building in Hockley, where in fact many such buildings, which would have been protected elsewhere have gone.

10.54 "good design" to prevent further erosion of area's character - where Hockley is concerned - don't make me laugh at the consequences.

11 Detailed Policy considerations

11.2 35% affordable, of which 80% should be social, to provide homes for those on Rochford Waiting List - fine, but how come we are informed of a case this percentage was bought out by another council for their waiting list?

11.4 "If definition changes we would still need to ensure we seek to meet needs of our residents as far as we can" throws some doubt on your powers in 11.2 in face of above and government and the House Builders Federation.

11.5 This seems to confirm my doubts about the Waiting List in view of government policy and above federation.





Light Pollution

11.73-11.76
11.74 "Identification of environmental zones to dictate the permitted lighting threshold that can be reached" is nonsense. It doesn't matter whether urban, countryside, whatever, if a neighbour light can be seen from one's home, but does not penetrate one's home same, that is permissible. But if the light does penetrate one's home, that is not permissible.