A. Stonebridge
Comments relate to the sites around Stonebridge, as far as CFS260AD, CFS26AB and CFS260AE to the west and CFS260L, CFS260Tand CFS260K to the east.
Sites commented upon: CFS260B; CFS260H ; CFS260C; CFS260J; CFS260F; CFS260L; CFS260T; CFS260K ; CFS260I; CFS071; CFS103; CFS260G; CFS260AH; CFS260AF; CFS260AE; CFS260AB; CFS260AD
Development on these sites is objected to on the following grounds:
• 76% (13) of the 17 sites have parts of the site in a critical drainage area.
• In all sites, development would result in high harm to the Green Belt.
• For all sites, based on the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study, the majority of the site falls within only the medium capacity category for accommodating development.
• In 76% (13) of the sites part of the site falls within a minerals safeguarding area.
• The DEFRA provisional agricultural land classification (ALC) Natural England Open Data maps updated April 2017 show the area as almost entirely Grade 1 agricultural land. All sites are described in the Rochford DC Site Appraisal Paper as containing Grade 1-3 agricultural land in the majority of the site.
• In terms of the impact of development on archaeology and built heritage, the Rochford District Council ‘Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project’, March 2006 describes the area as characterised by known dispersed medieval farms and associated fields, with potential likelihood of extensive archaeological deposits. It states that the coherence of dispersed settlement and structure of the historic landscape, together with potential buried deposits, would suffer if significant change occurred.
• Access to bus services is graded by the Transport Assessment as 1 for all sites, indicating transport sustainability as low, with no bus services received at stops within 400m.
• Access to train services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for 15 of the 17 sites – with access at least 2.3 km from a train station (2 sites are graded 1 – more than 5km from a train station).
• 4 sites are graded in the bottom 40% of site options close to junctions onto the strategic road network; 11 are not in the top 40% of site options closest to junctions onto the strategic road network.
• There is a significant amount of land being promoted in Stonebridge and Sutton, the vast majority not adjacent to existing communities. Stonebridge should remain an independent hamlet with its own character and sense of community. Any development should be strictly in keeping with the character of the hamlet and take inspiration from its individual rural and low-density character. The existing community of Stonebridge has very low need for new services such as education, healthcare, retail and jobs, which are easily accessible to inhabitants in Southend and further afield.

B. Stambridge
Comments relate to sites CFS072; CFS073; CFS141.
Development on these sites is objected to on the following grounds:
• All sites have parts of the site in a critical drainage area.
• In all sites, development would result in high harm to the Green Belt.
• For sites CFS072 and CFS073, based on the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study, the majority of each site falls within the low-medium capacity category for accommodating development. Site CFS141 falls in the medium capacity category.
• Part of each site falls within a minerals safeguarding area.
• The DEFRA provisional agricultural land classification (ALC) Natural England Open Data maps updated April 2017 show the area as Grade 2 agricultural land. All sites are described in the Rochford DC Site Appraisal Paper as containing Grade 1-3 agricultural land in the majority of the site.
• In terms of the impact of development on archaeology and built heritage, the Rochford District Council ‘Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project’, March 2006 describes the area as characterised by archaeological deposits and features of multi-period date with a number of medieval moated sites. There is a focus of prehistoric and Roman activity centred on the settlement of Great Stambridge, which itself possesses a church of Saxon origin. World War II and Cold War Military remains lie on the periphery of the built-up area of Rochford. Historic dispersed settlement, with known medieval farms and associated fields and an overall structure of tracks and roads survives well. There is a potential likelihood of extensive archaeological deposits, and the coherence of the dispersed settlement and the structure of historic landscape, together with potential buried deposits would suffer if significant change occurred.
• Access to bus services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for all sites, indicating transport sustainability as low, with only 1-3 bus services received at stops within 400m.
• Access to train services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for all sites – with access between 2.3 km and 5 km from a train station.
• All sites are graded in the bottom 20% of site options closest to junctions onto the strategic road network.
• The draft vision statement for Great Stambridge states that in 2050, it should remain an independent village with its own character and sense of community. It should benefit from improved accessibility to wider services in Rochford town, but any development should be strictly in keeping with the character of the village and be of a form and type that responds to the individual needs of the village. We do not believe that significant development of any of the above three sites would achieve these aims.