I apologise for responding so late to your Core Strategy Local Development Framework document. It is obvious that considerable effort has gone into preparing it.

I noted from one of the other reports that people are attracted to the Rochford area because of the rural nature, relative quietness and cleanliness. Basically the quality of life. A sentiment shared by many in the District.

Although I am focusing on the overall strategy I support wholeheartedly the efforts Hockley Residents' Association are making for that region.

HOUSING AND EDUCATION.

I do not understand the Housing assumptions. I have been advised by RDC that the driver for the additional houses is the population growth and that is centred on the over 65 years. There is no mention as to whether this change requires a strategic response in terms of the number of retirement and care homes. The under 20 population is projected to fall, and the over 20 to 64 to remain stable. Looking at the period beyond 2021 it is stated that 251 homes a year will need to be built. These homes will obviously be constructed on Greenfield sites if the current proposed strategy is continued. Yet given the under 65's falling or stable numbers the population overall should be reducing as people die.
The population is to increase by 5300. The house build is approximately 3500 of which around one third will be for affordable housing. It is assumed that this housing will be flats or terraced properties used at least in part to address the issue of 'concealed housing'. Depending on how much of the 5300 includes people not needing a property e.g. births, and how much the growth needs to be adjusted for the 'concealed housing' factor a ratio of between 1+ and under 2 people per new house is computed.
The strategy sets out a plan for a growth in the number of Primary Schools. I found this proposal surprising. Until three years ago I was a School Governor. The Essex CC projection at that time showed an ongoing trend for falling numbers of primary school children. In addition most schools had capacity. As an example Doggetts in Rochford had 100 children when a few years before they had well over 300.

Questions

I) Given the ageing population why is there no consideration to their housing needs?
II) Why are 251 homes needed each year after 2021?
III) What percentage of the existing Greenfield site available in 2021 will the 251 houses utilise if the current strategy is extended?
IV) The average occupancy of the planned homes could be as low as 1. Why are houses to be built on the assumption of a lower occupancy rate than currently actually exists in the District?
V) The Strategy declares that 'there is a question mark over the long-term viability over many of the smaller schools in the District'. Has any consideration been given to a 'change of use' of the land to housing?

EMPLOYMENT

The strategy states that 70% of working residents work outside the District. Rochford is in a commuter belt surrounded by three towns and a major hospital. The job density ratio is unsurprising given the location. No mention is made in the report of an estimate of the split of the 3000 additional jobs between those filled by people in the District, those filled by those moving into the District and those filled by people commuting into the District. This data would be useful in assessing the impact on infrastructure needs.
It would appear from the Strategy assumption and comments in the local paper that the Authorities accept the Airport expansion with attention focusing on mitigating the impact of night noise etc. Airport growth supports the aims of increased employment (much of which may be satisfied from outside the District) and local regeneration. Against it is set environmental issues, increased carbon footprint, and infrastructure issues like increased traffic. It is felt that there is a majority of residents against a major development of the Airport.
Within the Plan the comment is made of 'care in the home', and emphasis put on Lifetime Homes. There appears to be no strategy for developing a labour force to provide the increasing in house support to the growing elderly population.

Questions

i) Of the 3000 created jobs what percentage is anticipated to be filled by new people moving into the District, and what percentage by people commuting from outside the District?
ii) Will the wishes of the residents regarding the three options for the Airport be adopted even if the minimum growth route is preferred?
iii) There will be a growing market to provide support to the elderly at home. Why is there no strategy to develop a labour pool to satisfy this need?

INFRASTRUCTURE.

The aspect of infrastructure support to the various projects is vague. Perhaps this is understandable given the extent of the developments across the District and the difficulty of appreciating the overall impact that the sum of these could have. There is also the challenge of getting the enhancements done and determining who pays?
Rather than considering the whole spectrum of services an examination of the issues surrounding Transport indicates the obstacles that have to be overcome. More houses, jobs, leisure facilities, airport expansion etc. will increase traffic on the roads. The laudable ideas of improving public transport could have some affect, but the convenience, comfort, time, and load carrying capacity of a car will be a major barrier. One has to question the achievability of the aspirations in the strategy. It is stated that 'there will be no new major highway developments, the District is not included in the current SERT proposals, limited public transport results in congested routes, but improvements to public transport cannot provide the solution to the District's transport issues'. The ideas of car pools, walking trains, cycling etc. have all been considered before.
The focus is on the car and there are no proposals to deal with lorry transportation. Any regeneration will increase this mode of transport that is more damaging to roads.
The infrastructure support for new developments is imprecise. Statements that these are 'to be accompanied by the requisite highway improvements' and 'achieved by planning obligations, developers, and a partnership with Essex CC' are arguable.

Questions.

I) Why are lorries not considered in the Strategy?
II) In granting planning permission for any development will the Council require the infrastructure agreed to be completed first e.g. before building a house?
III) Where is the money to come from to support the infrastructure needs?

RISKS

No mention of risks or priorities is mentioned in the Strategy. The current economic climate will restrict funding, and the lack of a cogent infrastructure plan threatens the quality of life in the District.

Questions.

i) What are the risks associated with achieving the Strategy?
ii) What is the plan to deal with these risks?
iii) If the Strategy cannot proceed in its entirety which items will be given priority?

SUMMARY

It seems strange that the elderly sector, which is causing the population growth, sees little consideration in the strategy for housing, or in generating support from the labour market for their future needs. Presumably 'concealed housing' and 'affordable housing' are the reasons for the lower than average new build occupancy rate. Shortly with the direction of the Plan all new houses will be built on Greenfield sites.

Any major expansion of the Airport will add to the infrastructure problems of the area, and dilute those features of the District that are so attractive to residents. More emphasis in the Strategy should be given to employment diversification through 'the expansion of uses around the Airport not directly related to aviation'. It is expected that people outside the District will fill the majority of the new jobs created.

It is the infrastructure strategy that seems the least viable. The proposals are 'woolly' and lack substance. Transport policy which has it's own section in the report is focused primarily on stopping people using their cars. The other major road users of lorries and vans seem to have been totally ignored. Any Airport expansion without major infrastructure addition e.g. A127 will be seriously detrimental to the 'quality of life'.

The future economic climate for the Country looks quite horrible. Lack of funding could be the biggest threat to the Strategy. Lack of infrastructure the biggest impact on residents' lifestyles.