Comment

Representation ID: 701

Received: 02/07/2007

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (Essex)

Agent: RPS Planning and Development

Paragraph 4.6.15 of the document states that Hockley/Hawkwell has a population of 20,140. Rochford/Ashingdon in contrast has a population of just 10,775. There appears little justification for Rochford/Ashingdon being given a considerably higher allocation than Hockley/Hawkwell.


Paragraph 4.6.19
Whilst we agree that Rayleigh benefits from its position adjacent to the A127 and could therefore take some additional development, the text seems to infer that Hockley/Hawkwell is somehow less well connected to the existing highway network, the A127 and Southend-on-Sea than Rochford/Ashingdon, which we believe to be untrue.

Hockley/Hawkwell is connected to the A127 and Southend-on-Sea by the partly dualled B1013 whilst the road between Rochford/Ashingdon and Southend-on-Sea is unclassified. Furthermore, Ashingdon Road already suffers from heavy congestion as stated at para 4.6.20 of the draft Core Strategy. Rochford/Ashingdon would therefore be an inappropriate location for the scale of additional development advocated without significant infrastructure improvements, whilst Hockley/Hawkwell could accommodate some additional development without the need for such improvements.

We also believe that a greater emphasis should be placed on the role that railways and public transport can play. This is in accordance with PPS3, which states that new development should be focused in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car.

The railway station in Hockley/Hawkwell is located in a much more central position than in Rochford/Ashingdon with all residents living within 2 kilometres of the station, and therefore within reasonable walking/cycling distance. In contrast, the northern parts of Ashingdon are located almost 4 kilometres from Rochford railway station. This additional distance is likely to reduce the likelihood of residents using public transport and could lead to an over reliance on the private car.

The text states that Hockley/Hawkwell is significantly limited in terms of opportunities for expansion and whilst it is accepted that there are a number of environmental designations to the north and west of the settlement, the Council does not appear to consider the potential for development to the east and south, where there are opportunities such as at land off Greensward Lane (see attached plan) to provide a sustainable urban extension of some 100 dwellings without causing environmental problems..

We therefore conclude that the current proposed split of development is not appropriate and a greater proportion of the development should go to Hockley/Hawkwell.

Paragraph 4.6.22
The text states that four criteria have been used to assess and allocate the levels of housing distribution across the three settlements. These include:
* Size
* Location
* Environmental designation
* Need to ensure that new housing development is sustainable

With these criteria in mind, there appears to be no clear justification for allocating such a significantly higher distribution (250% higher) of housing to Rochford/Ashingdon than Hockley/Hawkwell because when assessed against these criteria, there is no evidence to suggest that Rochford/Ashingdon is a more appropriate location for additional growth.

It should be stressed that the Green Belt is not an environmental designation and should not be treated as such. PPG2 specifies five purposes of including land in Green Belts including: checking unrestricted urban sprawl; preventing neighbouring towns from merging; assisting in safeguarding countryside from encroachment; preserving the setting of historic towns; and assisting in urban regeneration through the use of derelict land. Indeed paragraph 1.7 of PPG2 states that "although Green Belts often contain areas of attractive landscape, the quality of the landscape is not relevant to the inclusion of land within the Green Belt".

Land at the eastern edge of Hockley, at Greensward lane (see attached plan) can be developed without compromising the purposes of the Green Belt. Hockley is some distance from the built up areas of adjacent settlements and the gap between Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon would still be well maintained if this land was developed, as no part of the development would be closer to Ashingdon than the existing built up area. The historic character of Rochford and Rayleigh and other settlements would not be harmed by development in this location, nor would urban regeneration be discouraged.