Dear Rochford Council Planning Policy Dept

Issues & Options Document - Public Consultation ending 7th March 2018


1. Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments under the current public consultation exercise for this document.

Please note, I have used italic text to offer my suggestions for your consideration.

2. Section 3

3.1 Map of District (Figure 1)

2.1.1 Implications for Great Wakering

What is striking about this is the significant disparity in characteristics between the west and east of the district, where Great Wakering is currently the ONLY major residential area in the East.

2.1.2 No River Roach?.

What is also noticeable about the Figure 1 Map is the absence of the River Roach, although it is shown in Figure 5.

I suggest feature be shown on the map, together with a discussion of the implications for the District Plan, that such a natural constraint places on the District. This is because it forms a significant natural barrier, effectively splitting the eastern side of the district in two i.e. in order to reach the other shore you always have to go inland to Rochford.

2.2 Table 1 (3.19)

The figures shown in the Table present a useful (historic) baseline for a discussion of planning issues.

But it is suggested that these be augmented by population figures calculated using the Districts housing density / dwelling occupancy assumptions for those developments either planned or actually in development, arising from the Districts Adopted Allocations documents.

This would give a more accurate CURRENT and FUTURE picture of the impacts already taking place or in the pipeline within the various Parishes.


3. Section 4

3.1 General Comment

There is no point in Central Government merely dictating to Local Councils that they MUST build more new homes if Central Government is not prepared to help councils provide the wherewithal in terms technical infrastructure, particularly road transport, and Social infrastructure in terms of local medical facilities.

It is unclear how local councils are expected to attract businesses and economic activity if it is virtually impossible to travel across the District predominantly during the Working / School Day?, because of the inadequacies of the transport infrastructure, be that managed at National, County or local level.

3.2 4.8 onwards

Figure 8 presents a useful view of the neighbouring Authorities that the District has to deal with, as amplified by the paragraphs which follow it.

3.2.1 Essex County Council (ECC),

One Authority missing from this analysis is Essex County Council (ECC), a significant player in the local planning scene. For example does ECC recognise South-East Essex as a defined Sub-Region within the broader ambit of the county?

In view of the importance of the county for local planning it is suggested that an analysis of the relationship between the District and ECC could usefully be provided in this document.

3.2.2 Southend

When considering the relationship with Southend you may wish to include some reference to the potential knock-on effects for the District of the Temple Farm / New Southend United Stadium / residential / retail development.

Given that if it ever happens, it will sit right on the border of the District and will have a significant impact on the local road infrastructure, for example making getting to the Airport more difficult from the east of the District.


3.2.3 London

One specific transport development which you might want to mention is the introduction later this year of CrossRail 1 / The Elizabeth Line.

Although being phased in over a couple of years this will result in trains running from Shenfield through Central London (Liverpool Street) and the West End, and out further west toward Heathrow and Reading.

If successful, it is unclear what latent demand this will release for both employment and recreational opportunities albeit outside the District itself. But it could place additional burdens for transport and parking on the railway stations across the District,


4. Delivering Homes and Jobs = Section 6

4.1 Realistic Options (6.48)

Options 1 -4 are all equally unattractive

Merely dumping new housing on existing locations risks creating "Development Ghettos" i.e. condemning residents in these locations to an endless diet of continuous development for decades to come

A further points applies here regarding the further development of existing locations i.e. Copeability

In spite of all the fine words about "contributing more to existing infrastructure(6.46.D) if the currently planned developments in WGW are anything to go by, then such improvements are largely invisible and illusory i.e. the roads in the East of the District can't cope now, just building more housing is only going to make matters worse.

Also where are the improvements to the Social infrastructure e.g. the schools, the medical services, coming from? Merely adding more buses to the procession of vehicles leaving the village each morning carrying secondary age pupils to KES hardly seems to be an improvement.

So my preferred option is 6.46E, as it would allow a proper strategic approach to be taken especially to the infrastructure required to support such a development, rather than the piecemeal, tactical approach implicit in the other 4 options here.


5. Section 8

5.1 8.37 and elsewhere

Cycling and Walking are not the same. They should be separated out, as pedestrians needs are quite different from those of cyclists.

For example in the Great Wakering area:

 There is a need to improve the width of footpath e.g. Poynters Lane from Star Lane to Angel Inn roundabout, as currently it is very narrow and scary to walk along.

 Install a proper pavement from Cupids Corner to North Shoebury Road and along Old Southend Road. It is wrong in this day and age for people to have to take their life in their hands by walking on the carriageways which is the only option in these cases.

 Improve local crossing points i.e Star Lane / Poynters Lane Junction which is currently a nightmare for pedestrians

I am sure that similar examples can be found right across the District. To stimulate people to take up Walking options, much more has to be done to make it attractive and SAFE.



6. Improve Road Infrastructure (Section 8)

6.1 General Point

The points made throughout the document about the vital importance of the road infrastructure to the current and future well-being of the District are well made.

My disappointment is that in the Options Table at 8.20, there is NO explicit reference to addressing any specific issues regarding difficulties in the East of the District. In particular identifying improvements to those roads and junctions which link Great Wakering to Rochford and beyond.

6.2 8.25 Bus Services Map

This is potentially open to mis-interpretation because it does not distinguish between the types of services.

 regular including = Daily / Monday =- Saturday Services, although even in this category many routes do NOT run on Sundays or are curtailed , and,

 irregular e.g The Barrow Hall Road service which I think runs only on two days per week.

Suggest it be modified to do so i.e. to provide a more accurate picture..

6.3 8.23

There have also been a number of cutbacks from the County recently which have further diminished some local bus services.

Given that nearly all the Services in the District also involve other Authorities particularly Southend, it is suggested that reference be specifically for cooperation between these Authorities with the respective Bus Operators to minimise future reductions and promote greater use of such services.


7. Section 10

I note the word "coalescence" is only used once anywhere in the document i.e. in connection with Brownfield sites (11.47)

Suggest that it is added to the other discussions in Section 10 where residential developments could risk leading the District to become directly "joined" with the other Authorities as mentioned in Section 3. A situation which risks prejudicing the unique character of the District.

8. Other point

I was surprised that I could find no mention of the implications of increased residential development on the Recycling of household waste. An area on which the District can be rightly proud of your record on tackling this.

Suggest you might wish to include wording to cover this aspect.


9. Conclusion

Of all the points made in your document, by far the major need for the District in my view is for a Strategic look at the Road Transport needs, if the current increasing pressure on this scarce resource (road-space) is not ultimately to lead to gridlock before ECC actually decides to do something about it.

In the meantime we all suffer, businesses, employment opportunities, residents, schools, emergency services and those they are trying to help.

Merely adding to the Residential housing stock no matter how laudable, whilst doing nothing much about the road infrastructure will only hasten this unfortunate eventuality.

The District needs and deserves better, hopefully ECC can be prevailed upon to "up their game" and start addressing this issue strategically rather than tactically on development-by-development basis, because at the moment there seems to be little evidence of any action by them on this at all.

Finally Thank You for providing the opportunity for residents to comment on your Plans.