Taking the easiest section first Green and Blue Infrastructure , via the RCCT I have along with the CHA ( I am a trustee of the CHA) and Angela Hutchinson raised the current issues of water safety on our rivers. Not only are we really concerned about issues afloat but the now have regard to an asset of the “Coastal Foot Path”. No real thought has been made for those who walk the path for leisure but don’t really realise the dangerous state of some section which are no longer maintained by the Environmental Agency. We have a coastline made up of mainly mud flats and deep inlets, the rivers have a fast flowing currents and are narrow and have areas of deep dangerous mud flats. Many sections are in areas of difficult access by road if there is an incident, being a long way from population areas, some areas don’t have good mobile phone coverage.
I believe there is a 106s Charge for new estates and new builds which concerns developments near to protected areas. I don’t know much about this but I think its been brought into play at South Woodham Ferries on a new estate extension. This looks like a conflict of ideas, in one case give the right to roam, in the other charge for it via the 106 system.
Just looking at one area of the “Green and Blue Infrastructure” it appears the foot path around the RSPB site at Wallasea Island is incorrect, they have made islands by breaching the sea wall in 3 places thus its not as shown continuous? RSPB also are changing policy to start charging for carparking. Thus limiting access to non-member general public, who will pay once but a good percentage won’t pay twice? Access to that area will be heavily restricted and to reach the much advertised and subsidised “Beagle Platform” you will have to pay? Thus “verge parking” like many other access points will be the order of the day. Small villages such as Canewdon, Paglesham, South Fambridge have access to the rivers but no parking. Bus services are no existent. Theory is sound but in practice something has yet to be thought through.

Turning to employment, this would possible be best connected to transport as well. As I said in my reply this area has a net figure of around 75% of the working population moving out for work each day. A census / population study many years ago showed this and the trend has grown. The only hold back is the Covid pandemic factor, but latest TfL figures for use of their systems show we are beginning to migrate back to London with workers.
Thus we have to make available if you are to progress with more housing a good supply of cheap day commuter parking or reliable surface transport to bring you near to the main transport hubs, so people can use the new invigorated transport systems to carry on their journeys. Park and ride would be a boon but not just to town shopping centres but industrial and out of town shopping areas, in many cases over the borders into Basildon, Castle Point and Southend.
We no longer are a growth area of industrial/ commercial concerns. We have in Rochford possibly 2 or 3 main employers of over 150 people , we have very few official business parks for small to medium companies. As said the industrial areas around Cherry Orchard Way were on one side to become a excellence of Avionics or Medical research but that’s gone and its heading for low tech warehousing employing far few. The original proposed “Enterprise Centre” is no more. The Toomey’s site originally was at its western edge designated for small to medium sized units for small companies, no more? Cllr Webster a once leader of RDC said we are coming a dormitory area and that has manifest its self. But for some of the population to get from Wakering to the Fairglen Intersection can take over an hour in the commuter rush. To get from the never ending of proposed expansion of Canewdon, it takes some 25 mins to get into the stations of Hockley and Rochford, with very limited cheap parking on arrival.
Many years ago, we as the FSB, were asked to comment on many proposals and to suggest our own. Sadly the strength of the various Business Representative Organisations has gone. But I am glad to see at least one of my suggestions placed at that time for a new commercial park has been taken up of late and placed at the junctions of the A127 and A130, this leads to further developing an area each side of the old A130 and A127 which is on the fringe of the residential area stopping heavy transport entering our area. But we still have areas such as Foulness, Baltic Wharf, Shoeburyness and the airport needing a sensible routing to their destinations for heavy lorries. The route to the hopefully expanding Baltic Wharf needs desperate up grading throughout. The number of movements per day on just this section makes this a real safety issue as well as it’s the same route an anticipated 100,000pa visitors to the RSPB site. The route at this moment suggested uses one of the most congested roads in the area Ashingdon Road, passes 4 schools and its proposed additional housing developments feeding into it. It crosses 5 roundabouts to get down to the A127. You can’t widen it, playing with roundabouts and junction is a short term cheap fix.

Additional mass housing or just infills just brings more issues as many have discussed and this become an endless discussion on infrastructure. Using out of town experts is not always the answer, they may have grand plans and have used them else where but they don’t understand the demographics of the locality.