H2 - Alternative Options

On 28 October in the Echo, Anna Waite, Planning Cabinet Member at Southend Council on the possibility of NEW plans to build 10,000 new homes in the next 20 years on land at Fossetts Farm and Bournes Green, Southend said:

"This scheme is ill-conceived, unsustainable and very undesirable.

"I believe we should be protecting the green belt from housing developments and farming our agricultural land to sustain the population.

"I shall be opposing this proposal, which I strongly believe the residents of east Southend do not want."

And yet just a week later, 6 November, again in the Echo, she said: "We would be looking at a new road running from the area of the Tesco roundabout on the A127 to Eastwoodbury Lane in the area of the Smallholdings. "The council would expect this part of any new road to be funded by the airport and we would only be looking at funding a small road, from the Smallholdings to Warners Bridge, with access to the airport."

"The next phase of the scheme would extend the road from Warners Bridge to Fossetts Farm and finally as far as Shoebury."

And the spectre of a full outer relief road through Rochford District's green belt is not being considered.

But will the traffic not just feed direct into the beleaguered A127?

So a proposed development in the Fossetts Farm and Bournes Green area, spilling over into Rochford District now seems to be on again despite the initial adverse reaction of Anna Waite. Perhaps she had no where else to go to meet the EERA allocation of 10,000 new houses in Southend?

But Rochford District Council is firmly against with Keith Hudson, Council Cabinet Member at Rochford for Planning saying that he was fighting this at a public meeting on 13 November in Hawkwell.

Indeed in the Echo on 28 October Keith Hudson was reported in the Echo as that he agreed the proposal was totally unacceptable.

So we have Southend now moving forward with the possibility of a development on land at Fossetts Farm and Bournes Green and Rochford District Council against and the developer having made application to the EERA (East of England Regional Assembly).

How will the story end? We don't know but the EERA and Go-East (Government Office) could conceivably step into Rochford's Core Strategy and either add these on to the 3500 houses that Rochford already propose on Green Belt or could the 3500 be replaced with development in the East of Rochford instead?

How does Rochford District Council reconcile its likely wish to approve an expansion of Southend Airport under the JAAP with trying to stop a big development in the East of the Rochford District? Could it be said that a new road approved under the JAAP to link Warners Bridge to the A127 at Tesco's might by a further extension paid for by a developer facilitate a major development in Rochford that it does not want?

Strangely none of this is discussed in terms of Options in Rochford District Council's Core Strategy which is in public consultation until 17 December.

Certainly Southend cannot expand in the East unless Rochford agrees. Publicly Rochford is against. And are there frustrated regional planners waiting in the wings to act?

Does Rochford think that just saying "No" without a reasoned planning case is going to be enough?

The loss of green belt argument goes a bit soft when Rochford is already planning to build on green belt in a series of scattered locations for 3500 new houses across the Rochford District already in its Rochford Core Strategy - Preferred Options public consultation.

And the Council already agrees that it will not get the infrastructure improvements it needs to make such a level of development sustainable. Keith Hudson said in Hawkwell of the Council's existing Core Strategy "that a billion pounds is needed to put right our poor infrastructure". Council Leader Terry Cutmore had already said in Council when the Core Strategy was presented that he feared that Rochford would not get the infrastructure improvements it needed for the plan put forward by the Council.

I thought that Rochford District Council had promised two major strategic options in its next consultation on new housing..........so what happened to the second one then?

And would that secure the infrastructure that is needed to sustain development in Southend and Rochford as an alternative?

There needs to be a joint professional spatial planning analysis with RDC working with Southend Borough Council of that option conducted, just like the JAAP for the Soutnenmd Airport Expansion proposal, and then more public debate and consultation in both Rochford and Southend.

No consideration has been given to option of focusing development in a few locations The CS process errs in not considering the option of a few sites and risks future legal challenge.
The Seaside/Colonnade proposal for housing east of Rochford, and other planning applications for this area, represents a valid alternative option which needs to be addressed. Why have RDC not considered this option?

The objection to the option of developing North of Rayleigh applies to the preferred option of developments north of London Road. This development would reduce significantly the greenbelt divide between Rayleigh and Wickford.

South West Rayleigh cannot accommodate 100 homes without irreparable harm to the landscape as viewed from the West and North, the land at the rear of Spring Gardens is partcularly visible as part of the hilly ridge, and should only be developed at the Poyntens end of the site, where it is in the lee of high ground.
The land north of London Road is also of some landscape value, and I can only hope it does not infer the land up to Rawreth Hall, which would be an environmental disaster.Whatever happened to green belt, or is it a moveable feast?.

The analysis that the topography of SW Rayleigh makes it unviable to develop more than 100 homes in the area, rather implies that the site has great landscape value, in turn undermining the plan to develop any homes in this unique landscape at all.
To develop the land to the rear of spring gardens, and at the foot of the eastern slope of the hilltop meadow behind it, will destoy this historic landscape which has existed as part of Great Wheatley Farm since the Doomsday Book, and enhances the historic setting (Church&Windmill)of Rayleigh. Please continue to protect this Green Belt area.

With reference to the land referred to as North of Ashingdon being unsuitable because of being located away from services and facilities it should be noted that all of the sites suggested are away from facilities. If the main item is sewerage then all sites require this and extra capacity will have to be provided for them as well. This location is already on the transport system and has schools within easy access. The land is considered as scrub land and already has housing surrounding it. Using this would prevent the use of some valuable farmland being lost.

would prefer larger towns to accommodate more development. southend has plenty of brownfield sites.

I believe the required additional homes should be built as a new village with self-contained services in the west of Rochford from a new access road to the A1245 (old A130). This is by far the best location for access to the existing trunk road network and would eliminate the detrimental effect on the rest of the district.

Land to the south east of Rayleigh at Lime House Nursery is supported as an alternative location for new housing growth. The issue of coalescence can be overcome if development is planned properly. This could include the retention of a protected green corridor, which could assist in acknowledging the strategic importance of maintaining the separate identities of Rayleigh and Southend. This site has already been acknowledged by the Inspector at the last Local Plan Inquiry as a sustainable location, and the allocation of smaller sites in Rayleigh could ensure the delivery of the Council's housing requirement.

I object to the development in South West Rayleigh due to the pressure of people on resources and infrastucture and protection of green belt. Access is also not suitable. The land is not suitable for development due to it's topography.

Land at Mount Bovers Lane should be considered favourably for the reasons set out in relation to Policy H2.

Building additional housing in the proposed areas to the South West of Rayleigh would be in direct conflict to the GB1 Green Belt Protection - Preferred Option, and would significantly damage the character of this part of the town. Traffic access to the area is limited and this level of development would be inappropriate given the shape of the land.

I object to the planned large development between Rawreth Lane and London Road, Rayleigh. Rawreth lane is already struggling with traffic during the rush hour and when Watery Lane has to be closed (which it does periodically) it is at a standstill. Surely it would be better to in-fill smaller areas of housing in the area, rather than having one large development.

Alternative Option 2: Somewhat a nonsensical arguament as development in smaller settlements has the potential to harm their character too! Basically, the strategy should be a balancing act to minimise negative impacts on large or small i.e. maximise sustainibility.

Response to Core Strategy - Local Government Framework Oct 2008-12-24

Thank you for opportunity to comment on the above and I make the following objections.

HOUSING

I object to proposals in Preferred Options under this heading in following 10 paras.

Numbers. I object to ordained housing numbers. Up to 2025, East of England Plan requires 5,600 minimum, of which, after actual and projected completions, gives remainder of 4,700, based on current need - adult children wanting to leave home, break-up of relationships, population projected increase from 78,489 to 87,000 by 2020s. This is largely supposition. Even the original remainder of 3,500 to 2021 after projected completions is too many. Notional redistribution of numbers around District centres following last Core Strategy consultation is fruitless when one studies the map showing areas excluded from development due to: flood plain, SSIs, conservation etc which comprise the bulk of the District. The built area plus projected green belt release won't sustain it. Don't forget, based on history, post 2025 Government will require ever more notional numbers accommodated.

Population. Planning Services express fear of continued out-migration due to housing shortage. In fact much known such migration is caused precisely by over-development, families looking to move to roomier, less claustrophobic environments. It will be necessary to discourage inward migration by persuading other Local Authorities to make improvements to education etc.

Much is made of the old causing a housing problem. This is skewed logic. The under 20 age group will not fall. The Office of National Statistics has reported a further baby boom commenced 2001 - an increase. The over 65 population will increase solely because the ageing earlier baby boom generation mostly under that age now will join them, but that doesn't increase population. The 24 to 64 age group will lose at the top and gain at the bottom.

In this connection complaint is made of the old hanging onto houses instead of down-sizing to so-called sheltered housing and allied ghettoes. If over-65s are found a problem, Third Reich had a solution that should appeal to EEDA: they could set up termination camps, with double benefit: get rid of them and clear their homes for redevelopment.

It should be pointed out much over-large new build market housing is for upwardly mobile, but middle and old aged persons from elsewhere, whose children have left home. An estate of 5 such units houses 10 persons. Some mansions are built or bought purposely for one person.

Distribution/General locations. I appreciate new concern with 'town cramming' and note view that Government target of 60% on 'brownfield' land is unrealistic (that damage already done) and that you propose much less. If this can be done with one Government target, why not cut down others?

I regret, however, that the newly restrictive approach against town cramming does not apply to 'windfall' development - very much of that has been done - over-dense, out of scale with existing dwellings, particularly in Hockley.

In this respect I'm sceptical of your new good intentions, as revised Urban Capacity Study 2007 notes 'intensification of existing residential land has made significantly larger contribution to housing figures than other forms of development..'.

Presumably the proposals listed under H2 and H3 are based on the 'call for sites' letter 2007 and have been offered by developers. The total for south Hawkwell of 350 to 2025 is over the top in relation to impact and land availability. It is bounded by over-busy B1013, former country lane. New roads required for it will mean compulsory purchase and some green belt residents will have to go.

Hockley seems unusually favoured with 50 units, but only as officials know well that windfall development will continue without restriction, as in the past, so no need to overdo target.

Core Strategy Preferred Options is a blank cheque, exact locations to be given in later allocations document.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

I object to outlined proposals as follows. The noted dire shortage, with waiting list of young looking to leave home, etc, has resulted from shed loads of council housing having been sold off under the Thatcher Government in 1980s, or you would not need this genre. Council housing was meant for two sections: first those who would never be able to afford a mortgage and should not be pressured to do so; secondly, first-timers who could not initially afford ownership, but with aid of cheap rent could save over time for a deposit on their own place.

CHARACTER OF PLACE AND DWELLING TYPES

I object to proposals for reasons in following 7 paras.

Traditional. It is noted that the District 'has character, appearance, much of which stems from traditional buildings that still dominate towns and villages'. Unfortunately, as I noted under housing, much of that has been eliminated, many remaining dwellings now threatened with same, as Locally Listed buildings and their environs have gone, especially in Hockley, though Rochford, Rayleigh, small settlements have been reasonably well spared in this respect.

Intensification. Rochford District recognises defects of intensification of residential areas and proposes limiting redevelopment not in keeping with density and character of the area. But failure to clarify that those terms both mean not only destruction of heritage, but replacement with edifices out of scale in bulk, area, height, will lead to jeopardy of existing homes. Some new build may be out of character, but might be acceptable if not out of scale. Planning Services have been known to decide planned over-large buildings comply with density - they might do numerically, but are over-dense proportionally.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment is happy for market housing to be out of scale with existing: '...recommends Local Authorities don't set rigid requirements for size of dwellings, particularly...market housing, market is adept at matching dwelling size to market demand at local level'. Precisely. The upwardly mobile private sector have no regard for others and want multi-bedroomed dwellings massively out of scale with neighbours (who are often unfortunate to be north of them) plus all sorts of intrusive security systems to match. This should be resisted.

Planning Policy Statement 3 states: 'Design which is inappropriate in its context and which fails to take opportunity for character and quality of area should not be accepted. Development which is not inclusive and does not fit with surroundings..'. This is just what the typical 'executive' house, in gated site, 'town' house (also 3 storey where locale is 2 storey), flats etc, encouraged for Hockley has done. So clearly Government dictate has not been followed in this regard.

Character of place. Much has been made of the idea that, unlike Rochford, Rayleigh, the small settlements, Hockley village is not where once sited - around Hockley Church a 12C Listed building, but is a construct arising with the railway in 1887, all growth haphazard and dated subsequently, having no heritage value. This is inaccurate.

The road from Rayleigh to Rochford, via Hockley was a country lane. What is now B1013 was made a toll road in 18C for coaches, which is why it by-passed the church. To my certain recollection a dozen period houses, as good or better than Rochford's, from Marigold Corner (Hawkwell end of Hockley hill) to the Spa Hotel, dating 17C to 19C, have been destroyed since c.1975 for redevelopment.

4 Tiers. Core Strategy proposes dividing District settlements into 4 tiers of graded sustainability for more housing, those in the 4th tier being thought unsuitable. No wonder such places as Paglesham, Foulness, Stambridge have closed schools, churches, for lack of people.

MATERIALS

My objections here should be included in those under Character of Place. Core Strategy notes 'modern standardised building materials and design have begun to erode character of the District'. That is very true: there is a new element of hard sell by contractors, who want to replace traditional work, materials, with eg. Plastics, spray paint, steel. Personally, to avoid this I have had to engage a contractor specializing in heritage work to do standard painting, repair of external cast iron, timber work. Formerly, any general building would have done the work required as asked without argument.

It is a joke that design is expected to be sympathetic to locale and in-house building styles to fit local setting, not other way round. It is too late. Developers have strived to spoil local setting precisely to jeopardise existing housing, so it can be acquired for redevelopment.

LOCAL LIST

I list my objections to proposals for preferred options under this heading in following 6 paras.

I note Rochford District Council dropped Local List just prior to enabling demolition of Black's Farm (1 Southend Road), which was on that list, a house and garden that certainly conformed to 'local distinctiveness and [central to] a cherished and local scene' in Hockley.

The List was ostensibly dropped as, so a former Planning policy Manager said, 'Government frowns on such Lists'. Other councils, unaware of that, retained theirs. His comment to an Inspector on objection to proposed flats redevelopment of 1 Southend Road 'Just politics, lot of local interest, nothing of character in that area', presumably presaging his plans for the area. He also remarked on intended replacement 'flats sell well' - not a planning consideration. Surprise, surprise! As soon as the item was successfully demolished, we learned more recent Government guidance encouraged Local Lists! 'There is now positive encouragement from Government in recent White Paper for such Lists and we propose to reintroduce one for the District'. How disingenuous can you get.?. Were they holding it back, then?

It seems to me where Hockley is concerned notional land values for developers are more important than anything standing on it. In fact a former councillor once said exactly that.

An adviser proposed an Article 4 Direction be served for 1 Southend Road (an embargo on demolition while listing is considered. If it fails, compensation may be payable to the developer by council). The council refused because of that risk. English Heritage, well documented, as also Dept. of Culture, didn't visit, but left the matter to Essex County Council heritage department, who were inevitably not interested from scratch. After all was too late, English Heritage even advised another time one should get a period building under threat put on the Local List! Meanwhile in the time when 3 Hockley period houses were demolished for redevelopment, including No1, there was sickening sight of several Rochford buildings under repair 'sponsored by English Heritage' and other funded organisations. In Rayleigh large sums of public money, including from Thames Gateway, Lottery, were spent on schemes such as the Mill. And to think the council begrudged an unlikely financial risk in respect of Article 4 on 1 Southend Road Hockley.

I insist that a draft Local List be issued for consultation for ALL residents, which right to propose or refuse what goes on it. If, as suggested in earlier Strategy document, new development is to be included, then all adjacent properties are to be included as a conservation area.

Heritage, etc, Award by RDC. In view of all the above, there is hypocrisy in this scheme for heritage style redevelopment. Period houses now demolished, are replaced with out of scale pseudo-period redevelopment, particularly, as a planner said, on 'important, significant hill top, hillside sites' (money) such as Etheldore Avenue and Southend Road. These are of doubtful marketability, but this award is a pretence of concern with heritage to hide the real facts.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORT

I list objections to proposals under this heading in following 5 paras.

Standard Charges. Though I welcome proposals at CLT 1 for developers to pay towards the problems caused by their plans, it is a pity these are not to be set at a realistically punitive level to discourage them from excessive schemes. It has been suggested if a developer won't provide required infrastructure, opportunity will be given to another who will. But what if first developer already owns the site council is keen to see developed? Also, there is still a risk that retention of S.106 Planning Agreements will cause developers to buy Consents they might not otherwise get.

South Hawkwell building proposal. Re H2 alternative options, namely N E Hockley thought unviable for development due to impact on highway network of traffic heading through/out of Hockley to Ashingdon, but development south of Hawkwell found better placed in relation to highway network and employment growth at Southend Airport - this is grossly illogical.

I certainly don't support further development for N E Hockley. It is already burdened by Etheldore/Wood Avenue, Broadlands estate and much new else, and appreciate Greensward traffic, though less than main roads, does meet extra traffic traversing Lower Road. But to suggest that B1013 through Hockley and Hawkwell, busiest B road in UK, carrying 2000/hour quiet times, gridlock at peak times, now threatened by vast economic expansion proposal at the airport, is a suitable venue for 330 extra dwellings in south Hawkwell is ludicrous. Since opening of Cherry Orchard Bypass, all area traffic has been directed through Hockley and Hawkwell to Southend on B1013. B1013 (like the above roads) is a winding country lane. It has been hinted there will be new roads - where, and will this also involve compulsory purchase?

Highway improvements. I note these are under consideration to serve new developments, particularly to cast-west routes. Please do not subject home owners along B1013 winding lane to compulsory purchase of frontages to effect highway efficiency. This was done to owners on both sides of that road along Southend Road on Hockley hill in the 1960s. Apart from loss, speeds increased, accidents occurred and owners have had on-going problems. Any more and owners would lose homes as well.

Public transport improvements. Presumably as Standard Charges, are envisaged for new development at H Appendix 1 and CLT1. You need to watch crafty manoeuvres by services to get more money this way. For example, it is not coincidence that, since the revised Core Strategy consultation, with proposed large developments for Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford was issued, Arriva bus company propose cutting back further their already abysmally poor Nos 7 and 8 services, presumably as ploy to get more money to reinstate them. Don't forget also that, unlike eg a community centre, classroom etc once provided a bus service is on-going. What happens to bus service when the builder has made his profit and moved on?

RETAIL AND TOWN CENTRES

I list my objections to proposals in Core Strategy under this heading in following 5 paras.

'2008 Retail/Leisure Study shows significant leakage out of the District...[should] direct retail development to town centres: Rayleigh/Rochford/Hockley'. You should understand Hockley has always been a village, traditionally having staple day-to-day shopping needs, eg grocers, butchers, bakers, fishmongers, greengrocers, haberdashers, hardware, newsagents, pharmacy, shoemenders, post office, building society or bank. Hawkwell also has a small shop parade with similar basics. At most, a modest extra supermarket might be set in the industrial estate in Eldon Way.

Regrettably, several prime Hockley units have become occupied by numerous estate agents. These should be reduced to two. An instructive example follows: in late 1980s, with already 6 agents, owner of one unit wanted change of use to estate agent. Planning Services refused on grounds it would be one too many. He appealed and won. In 1990 recession he closed, as did all the rest bar two, proving for once planners were right. A number of trivia shops have also arisen, which last a short time.

Residents have always expected to travel to Southend for furniture, clothing, large DIY stores other than hardware, bathrooms etc. This is NOT going to change. Any attempts have failed.

You need to understand there won't be any 'national multiples' in Hockley. Presumably Eldon Way industrial estate was considered a possible venue. The crowds and traffic would build up further in Spa Road, already a bottleneck. Remember your point that further housing for NE Hockley would increase traffic impact passing through Hockley. Also how would this fit with possible plans for extra housing in Eldon Way?

I have heard central Hockley central area might be regenerated. That will be resisted; there must be no demolition or compulsory purchase here, where there are listed and period buildings, too many of latter have been destroyed in Hockley already, intentionally to change its character.

There is also no space for large multiple stores in either Rayleigh or Rochford, which would be damaged. Southend High Street and Hamlet Court Road are ideal for large scale shopping.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

I object to proposals in Core Strategy preferred options as follows. 'East of England Plan specifies the number of jobs any sub-region must provide'. Apart from the airport, Rochford District is not within Thames Gateway and EEDA are not qualified to dictate 3000 jobs must be found. EEDA's idea the airport will generate large employment is unrealistic - jobs from this will be temporary.

Many attempts have been made to 'reduce reliance on out-commuting' without success. Vide the empty office blocks in Southend once occupied by eg Willis Faber, C E Heath & Co., Prudential, CU - all now elsewhere. You cannot replicate London employment in Rochford.

EDUCATION

I understood 'new residential development' was for extension of existing population, not meant to 'result in more people living in the District' already overcrowded. I'm surprised Hockley isn't expected to generate additional educational needs. I conclude the new upwardly mobile moving to executive mansions from elsewhere get their young tutored at private prep schools in Southend to pass the 11+ and get into Southend grammar schools. It should be noted parents have for years had a problem getting their children into any of the 3 overcrowded primary schools.

HEALTHCARE

It seems appropriate to propose under CLT4 that 'new developments be accompanied by a Health Impact Assessment... and developers be required to address negative effects prior to development implementation'.

Having, with other existing neighbours, experienced deafening noise 7am to 7pm 7 days per week for several years, polluting and furnace heating fires, daylight denying and night dark removing huge edifices in course of adjacent development, there is a definite impact on health by development.

PLAY SPACE

I object to preferred options proposals under this heading for following reasons. I thought Strategy said RDC would be abolishing practice of removing homes and gardens to get greater density. Gardens for children are essential. Even if out of sight, they are within earshot of adults. I note couples with small children are usually keen to have a place with garden. Communal play space advocated under CLT7 means children must be escorted. There is one on Hawkwell green, adults not permitted to enter.

AGEING POPULATION

I object to preferred options comments here. Core Strategy is obsessed with this. It is nonsense that ageing population leads to a smaller workforce with higher dependency ratio. Many persons of retirement age forced out of jobs by the baby boom continue to earn a living if allowed to do so, well beyond retirement.

Final insult under Youth Facilities '...ageing population (which could lead to increased demand for health and social care, rather than services for youth) it is important....needs of young people...catered for..'. The old, as well as striving to keep economically sound, also take steps to remain healthy and so are no more a burden to NHS and social services than younger groups.

As I said under Housing, if you feel the old are in the way in various ways, EEDA could clear them with termination camps.

PROTECTION, ENHANCEMENT OF LANDSCAPE AND HABITATS

I object that landscape and gardens in built area gardens have been excluded.

This is laudable, but it should be noted that landscape and habitat are also found in local gardens. Any wild life if found in same would need protection - definitely not translocation as at Etheldore Avenue etc, with unfortunate results. Developers have been known to drive protected wildlife out ahead of building and Rochford Woodland office to designate flourishing hedgerows 'dying, diseased'. So I object to landscape and habitats in gardens, built area being omitted from preferred options here.

CONCLUSION

I appreciate all this sounds negative, but development and inward migration ideas are out of hand.

Greenbelt. The perceived need to release some and recognition that existing settlements have increasingly limited space for further development clarifies that further government/developer demands must now be resisted. S E Essex is overcrowded and too small for further incursion.

Flood risk. Practically all Thames Gateway is a flood basin. From RDC map, most of the District is either at flood risk from N. Sea, rivers Crouch, Roach or else enjoys special protection. Permeable pavement is a good idea to stop surface flooding from paved residential frontages (now needing planning permission), but another problem is the many drainage ditches that have been filled in in residential and other areas.

Car dependency and congestion will continue with any population growth.

Energy consumption. Small wind turbines don't produce relevant energy. Most homes don't have cavity walls (doubtless an excuse for demolition as not sustainable).

In sum, I object to Core Strategy preferred options as further extensive development in Rochford District cannot be contained.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

Executive summary

RW Land & Planning Ltd welcome the opportunity to submit representations on
behalf of J F Spencer & Son Ltd in response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options, published by Rochford District Council in October 2008.
This submission is split into two parts:

1. Core Strategy Representations
It is felt that the "Core Strategy Preferred Options" does not provide a balanced or
justified distribution of the housing numbers throughout the district and that key
sustainability principles have been disregarded when identifying the preferred housing allocations.

Accordingly, it is considered that Hockley, as a first tier settlement within the district should be allocated a larger proportion of the housing numbers in the area already identified on the Key Diagram as being suitable for housing growth (West Hockley).

2. Site Suitability Appraisal - Land and property at Folly Chase, Hockley

A suitability appraisal of land off Folly Chase, Hockley including the residential plot
known as Thistledown, demonstrates its suitability as a deliverable location for housing in line with the Core Strategy principles. The sites location, within walking distance of Hockley town centre and the available facilities, services and public transport links locally and regionally identify this site as being able to meet sustainability principles and should be considered
appropriate for development.

A Masterplan illustrates one of the many ways this site can be developed for housing and provide a deliverable opportunity to provide social housing within a sustainable location, reducing the reliance on the private car.
Appendix 1 - Site Suitability Matrix
Appendix 2 - Site Photographs

1. Core Strategy Representations
Sustainable Community Strategy - Page 6
We welcome the importance the Council place on the close links between the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Core Strategy including ensuring accessibility to services.
Housing Issues and Options - Page 16
We welcome the acceptance by the Council that infilling alone will not be able to provide the housing numbers necessary and that this would have an adverse effect on the character of the towns.

Whilst we acknowledge that the release of greenfield sites for development present
an opportunity to provide new infrastructure, it is surely more sustainable to concentrate additional housing on greenfield sites which benefit from existing infrastructure and nearby services. This would then enable Planning Obligations to improve services and facilities rather than having to focus on providing basic
infrastructure.

Transport Issues and Options - Page 18
It is acknowledged within the Core Strategy that car dependency within the district
is higher away from the main three settlements of Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell and
Rochford/Ashingdon, primarily due to the rail links within these three towns.

This principle of sustainable development therefore dictates, unless there is a justifiable reason, that the majority of the housing proposed should be within or adjacent to the main three settlements.

Settlements Issues and Options - Page 20
We welcome the four tiers of settlements and the Council's acknowledgment that Hockley is classed as a Tier One settlement containing a "local town centre catering for local need".
We also agree that the Second tier Settlements of Hullbridge and Great Wakering have a "more limited range of services access to public transport is relatively poor".

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
We acknowledge that brownfield sites should take priority over the development of
Greenfield sites. However, with a rising housing market over recent years, many of the sites identified in the Urban Capacity Study still remain undeveloped it could be argued that if the sites were suitable for development they would have come forward by now. The Council must therefore demonstrate that there is evidence to
suggest that the remaining sites are genuinely available and deliverable within the specified phased timescale.

If they are not deemed to be available, the housing must be allocated on greenfield sites associated with a Tier One settlement.

H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option

It is welcomed that the Core Strategy accepts that greenfield development will be necessary in order to achieve the required housing numbers.
As set out in the H2 chart and Key diagram, the reliance of Tier Two and Three settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering and Canewdon) to provide 860 houses pre 2021 is unsustainable, unjustified and contrary to sustainable planning
guidance at national, regional and local level.

It is acknowledged by the Core Strategy that the Tier Two and Three Settlements only having limited services and poor public transport links and despite this, over 34% of the greenfield housing allocations have been located here without justification.

We acknowledge that development in Tier Two and Three Settlements is necessary to ensure that village communities continue to grow. However, there has been no justification provided that warrants such a large percentage of the overall housing numbers being allocated to these lower tier settlements.

The distribution of the greenfield housing allocations as it stands is contrary to PPS3 which provides clear local level guidance for Core Strategies when deciding on housing locations:
"...at the local level, Local Development Documents should set out a strategy for
the planned location of new housing which contributes to the achievement of
sustainable development." Part of which is "...the contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions from focusing new development in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car..."
Even with significant public transport improvements, residents will have to travel a
substantial distance to Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell or Rochford/Ashingdon in order to catch a train and go beyond the local area. This level of development in the lower tier locations are promoting a significant increase in carbon emissions, contrary to PPS3, even if the residents travel by public transport, which the Core Strategy accepts is not the current situation, with high car dependency.

Despite being a Tier One Settlement with an active and diverse town centre and good public transport including a train station, Hockley has only been allocated 50 houses (2% of the total greenfield allocation within the district). This goes against the Core Strategy vision of concentrating development on Upper Tier settlements which have the services and facilities to accommodate additional development.
In light of this unsustainable and unsound approach to housing distribution, Policy H2 General Locations and Phasing - Preferred Option and the Key diagram should be amended to reduce the proposed housing numbers associated with Tier Two and Three settlements and redistribute the surplus to Tier One Settlements and Hockley in particular which has received an unnecessarily low number of houses
despite existing services and facilities to accommodate additional development.

It is proposed in the analysis set out in Appendix 1 that Land at Folly Chase, West Hockley is suitable and capable of accommodating circa 200 houses. Policy H2 should be amended to reflect this.

We welcome a flexible approach to the release of land in order to maintain a five year land supply is supported and necessary. It is imperative, however that in assessing the release of land, the landowners willingness to sell or develop the site is taken into account.

We welcome the identification of West Hockley as being a suitable location for development pre-2015.

H2 Alternative Options
We welcome the comments regarding North East Hockley and agree that the location would place undue pressure on the highway network and that it is unviable for development.

H3 General Locations - Post 2021
The continued reliance on lower tier settlements post 2021 is again unjustified and
unsustainable with 340 homes proposed. These locations, even following improvements to the infrastructure will not provide genuine alternatives to the private car due to the length of journeys required to get to services, facilities and employment.

H4 Affordable Housing
The 35% level proposed must be based on sound qualitative evidence with the flexibility to be reduced if there are site specific circumstances that warrant it.

We do not accept the desire by the Core Strategy to "pepper pot" social housing
throughout developments, it causes difficulty for Housing Associations to manage their properties effectively and efficiently. This should be amended to allow for clusters of social housing units in say, groups of 15-20.

H5 Dwelling Types
Whilst we acknowledge that PPS3 suggests that local level planning documents should assist in developing a suitable mix of houses on sites, PPS3 para 23 also states that developers should "...bring forward proposals that reflect demand and the profile of households requiring market housing...". It is therefore imperative
that H5 makes reference to the influence of market demands and does not solely
rely on the advice of the Strategic Housing Team as the policy currently intimates.

H6 Lifetime Homes
We welcome the fact that the pursuit of 100% Lifetime Homes from 2010 will be viability tested.
H Appendix 1

We welcome the associated infrastructure required in relation to development at
West Hockley.

As part of the development of Land off Folly Chase, Hockley, further community benefits beyond those listed could be included, such as a new community woodland and play space.
Proposed development at the lower tier settlements (Hullbridge, Great Wakering
and Canewdon) are reliant on significant public transport improvements which sequentially is contrary to sustainability principles of focusing development in areas of good public transport, with the ability to improve further.

ENV3 Flood Risk
We welcome the proposal to pursue development in areas which fall into Flood
Zone 1 and the use of the sequential test in PPS25.

ENV4 Sustainable Urban Drainage
SUDS is not always the best environmental option for dealing with drainage. We welcome the viability test intended to identify those sites where SUDS is not appropriate.

ENV8 Renewable Energy
We recognise the Core Strategies desire to adhere to the Code for Sustainable Homes star rating, however, there remains a doubt as to whether Code Level 6 is realistically achievable within the current timescales. There will always be the potential for National Policies to alter the rating system and timescales. There is a
requirement for the Core Strategy to remain flexible and be in parity with The Code for Sustainable Homes, or its successor. Moving away from the Code should it alter, would alienate the Districts development sites from developers and reduce the likelihood of them being built within the Core Strategy phasing timescales.

We welcome the decision to not pursue the 10% renewable "Merton Rule" as piecemeal renewable energy production is not an efficient approach to its production.

T1 Highways
We welcome the objective to locate and design housing developments that reduce the reliance on the private car.

T2 Public Transport
We welcome the objective developments must be well related to public transport, or accessible by means other than the private car.

RTC1 Retail
We welcome the designation of Hockley as a district centre and that retail developments will be focussed towards it along with Rayleigh and Rochford.

RTC5 Hockley Town Centre
We welcome the proposals contained within this policy for the improvement of facilities, services and town centre living within Hockley Town centre.

CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges
We welcome the continued use of Planning Obligations to secure reasonable on and off site improvements as set out in Circular 05/2005.
Standard charges must take into account the level of impact the future residents are likely to have on the strategic infrastructure and be negotiated on a site by site basis.

[more details including photographs regarding the site put forward can be found our ref allocations no. 69]

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL

RESPONSE TO ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL ON THE CORE STRATEGY.

GENERAL BACKGROUND:
Members of Hawkwell Parish Council have had some opportunity to consider the Core Strategy Document issued by Rochford District Council. Whilst we are grateful to the District for providing 6 copies, this is a very large document needing considerable time to read and digest. Limitation of our access to 6 copies means that each document has had to be studied by up to 3 Members thus creating time constraints that should not be suffered with such an important document.

We note that the objective of this exercise is, primarily, to allow residents to respond to the options that have been identified as preferred. However we wish to make a number of observations to assertions made in the introductory remarks.

We are concerned that we are being asked to respond before we have had a chance to consider the Allocations Development Plan Document that is to be issued shortly. Whilst many sites have been the subject of speculation we cannot respond specifically until we have had the benefit of the formal statement identifying the actual sites and numbers of property to be built thereon. We therefore require the Planning Authority to provide good opportunity for residents to consider specific sites prior to their approval.

LISTENING TO YOUR VIEWS.

1. Page 3: In response to the comment that there is too much residential development proposed in our village/town. You have said you have reconsidered the matter but have given no indication of your conclusions. Do you accept the assertion or do you reject it, and if so on what basis.
2. Page 4 Intensification: We are concerned that you have inserted the phrase as 'far as is practicable' yet in H1 you state that you will resist intensification on smaller sites. Is this comment also subject to the aforementioned caveat, if not what powers will you rely on to achieve this and why can you not resist intensification currently.
3. Page 8 Priority 5: You state that walking and cycling are to be encouraged. With the greatest of respect, with an ageing population (Core Strategy Document penultimate paragraph page 14) is it realistic to brush aside the opportunity to ease an already almost gridlocked transport system and ignore the additional pressure to be imposed by an additional 3.5K houses by expecting elderly people to walk or cycle everywhere? Though much of the transport congestion experienced in the district is from the district much of it is also traffic travelling from outside Rochford to Southend.
4. Page 8 Priority 6: You say you are committed to improving access to sporting facilities yet we understand you recently rejected a central government initiative to give free swimming to the older people in Rochford. This decision is set against an acknowledgement that the population of over 65's is increasing and is expected to outnumber the under 20s by 2015! This aspiration does not sit well with the insistence on franchising the public sporting facilities out to the private sector that charge high entrance/membership fees thus reducing the ability of fixed income people to make use of these facilities.

CHARACTERISTICS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES:
Page 20 Settlements: We are incensed by the failure to recognise Hawkwell as a settlement in its own right. As the biggest Parish (based on population) and second only to Rayleigh Town we have, in this report, apparently been subsumed into Hockley. Whilst you may argue that, at the recent Central Area Committee, residents expressions of concern about the number and locations of new houses was premature, we cannot help but feel that, as a settlement that is ignored in the Core Strategy, we are having little say in the allocations of housing to our parish.

HOUSING:
We now wish to make the following observations in response to the chapter on Housing:
General Observation:
It is stated on page 23 (penultimate paragraph) that a balance of 2489 units have to be delivered before 2021 and the total to be delivered by 2025 is 3489, this figure after allowing for the 1301 units identified by the urban capacity study. This represents a 10% in housing and whilst we fully endorse the need to re-use land (brown-field sites) and allow small infill developments where the impact on the local infrastructure can reasonably be accommodated, we cannot agree that finding locations for almost three and a half thousand new homes (or a 10% increase) should be addressed on the basis of cramming them into existing settlements. We suggest that this requires a much more strategic view and the piecemeal approach based on a 'call for sites' is totally inadequate. In our policy document sent to the Planning Authority in December 2007/January 2008, we supported the view that a new settlement should be developed where the infrastructure needs can be properly developed and accommodated and where the additional housing will have the minimum impact of existing overdeveloped settlements. We believe there is strong argument that a new settlement would be far greener and thus, in the longer term, more sustainable that a myriad of smaller in fill sites. This option must not be rejected out of hand as is currently the case

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option
We are concerned that whilst our Planning Authority has adopted a policy against the intensification under this preferred option, this is contrary to what is currently happening with the increase in the number of flats being approved and the number of plots being turned from single dwelling sites to multiple dwelling sites. We are currently told that such intensification cannot be resisted, how then will the new policy be enforced? That said we would support the limitation on intensification and require that new lower levels agreed be adhered to.

In the penultimate paragraph on page 26 (General Locations) it is asserted that you have adopted a balanced strategy in respect of the location of housing development, we cannot see how the emerging proposals for Hawkwell are, in anyway, balanced allocations.

H2 General Locations & Phasing - Preferred Option:
Members hold the view that our policy developed and forwarded to the Head of Planning and Transportation in January 2008 still holds good. A copy of our policy is attached. Our view is that the Core Strategy appears to distribute new housing development on an uneven basis. We hold the view, as clearly stated in our policy, that if additional housing has to be distributed amongst existing towns and villages then it must be done on a sensible and defensible base such as existing population or geographical size and not on the ad hoc base that the call for sites appears to have produced. We strongly object to being subsumed into a settlement called Hockley/Hawkwell and then being expected to take the lions share of new houses that the Core Strategy allocates to this pseudo-settlement. (as indicated by the table in H2)

We do not believe that the argument against Rayleigh taking more of the allocation as given in H2 Alternatives (top of page 29) gives any sensible basis for rejection of this option, if the comment 'best access to services' still holds good then it must be properly considered and not thrown out as a result of clamour from the Rayleigh lobbyists on the District Council.

Transport
The diagram provided on the last page of the document shows a heavy concentration of development within Hawkwell and Rochford. This will inevitably have an impact on Rectory Road, Ashingdon Road, Main Road, Hawkwell and Hall Road ensuring a triangle of congestion on all routes to and from our village.

We cannot help but feel that the options in this section are pious hopes with little real substance. Seeking contributions from developers for public transport provision is laudable but transport companies and developers are ephemeral, housing estates are less so. We have experienced the way the private sector has progressively withdrawn service from our village, what safeguards are offered to sustain this transport when the provider decides it is not profitable and withdraws the service?

T7 Parking Standards:
We are concerned by the decision to apply minimum parking standards in residential developments. The District has insufficient resources to manage the consequential bad parking that occurs with cars parked over pavements causing obstruction to pedestrians and traffic alike. It is not sensible to adopt such a policy without also properly evaluating the consequence and then resourcing the appropriate methods of enforcement.

RTC 4 & 5 - Preferred Options:
We understand from the various consultations that the Hockley and Rochford Town Centre Studies have not yet been completed and we would require that these are completed and properly considered before any decisions are taken.

Economic Development Preferred Options: ED1 to ED 4
Contrary to what is stated in the Core Strategy there is too much reliance on the development of the airport and its environs involving the release of green belt land to provide jobs, it appears to be assumed that the new residents of Hawkwell will work there thus justifying the large proportion of housing in or adjacent to our parish.

We feel the Core Strategy and the JAAP in respect of Southend Airport should be properly integrated so that recommendations are consistent.

Character of Place:
Hawkwell Parish Council welcomes the re-introduction of the local list.

Community Infrastructure, Leisure and Tourism:
CLT 1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Preferred Option
We are concerned that the interpretation of sustainability has been insufficiently addressed and we request that any proposal for a specific site be accompanied by a clear and unequivocal statement of the results of the test of sustainability and that only developments where the assessment shows a clear positive result in respect of sustainability are approved. Furthermore we would request that each site is tested against the sustainability test developed for a 'new' settlement to allow a fair comparison of advantages and disadvantages.

We note that government policy is that 60% of the development should be on brown field sites and the balance on green field, the indications emerging from the Core Strategy document seem to have reversed the policy with the higher percentage on green field sites and the balance on brown field.

Land North at Bull Lane, Rayleigh - 11.52 acres is considered an alternative option.

It should be the preferred option for affordable housing

It should be the preferred option due to the fact that it immediately adjoins Rayleigh Town.

The promotion of the Land at Bull Lane through the Local Development Framework is a very good option to for allocation of housing. It reaches the consideration of a most sustainable location. In respect to the land being in walking distance of Rayleigh station, buses and local shops, and local infants and senior schools. It joins the existing town of Rayleigh, and still allows enough buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley.

It is served with a good bus service, local schools, shops and health centre, and doctors HP9.

The release of the land would still allow presence of the openness of Green Belt. It surgeries. It is in keeping with Policies HP8/PH1 and the criteria defined in Policy would not encroach on the 'Green Buffer' suggested in the councils preliminary publications.

Town Shopping - Rayleigh Town Centre - itself with its wide range of shops, also
The Local Park, Library, Community Centre, are also just a mile away.
Schools Infants and Junior School are services by the Grove School which is 0.4 mile distance from the site.
The Fitzwymark Senior School is local and is just 0.5 miles away.
Travel Policy TP1
Roads - Bull Lane has a good road structure for travelling from Rochford - Southend - London - Chelmsford.
Buses - There is a good choice of regular buses from Rayleigh which links the county in all directions, see attached routes.
Trains - The good train service carries passengers from Rayleigh to Southend and London directions.
Points raised here are within the East of England Plan and for these reasons we believe that Bull Lane would be suitable for development.

Land North at Bull Lane, Rayleigh - 11.52 acres is considered an alternative option.

It should be the preferred option for affordable housing

This is we suggest is a preferred option due to the fact that it immediately adjoins Rayleigh Town.

The promotion of the Land at Bull Lane through the Local Development Framework is a very good option to for allocation of housing. It reaches the consideration of a most sustainable location. In respect to the land being in walking distance of Rayleigh station, buses and local shops, and local infants and senior schools. It joins the existing town of Rayleigh, and still allows enough buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley.

It is served with a Local Park, Library, Community Centre, both close by. It benefits from a good bus service, local schools, shops and health centre, and doctors surgeries and local amenities.

The release of the land would still allow presence of the openness of Green Belt. It is in keeping with Policies HP8/PH1 and the criteria defined in Policy would not encroach on the 'Green Buffer' suggested in the councils preliminary publications.

Schools Infants and Junior School are services by the Grove School are both under 0.5 miles away.

Travel Policy TP1
Bull Lane has a good road structure for travelling from Rochford - Southend - London - Chelmsford to allow people to travel to and from work, and Grammar Schools.
Buses - There is a good choice of regular buses from Rayleigh which links the county in all directions, see attached routes.
Trains - The good train service carries passengers from Rayleigh to Southend and London directions.
Points raised here are within the East of England Plan and for these reasons we believe that Bull Lane would be suitable for development.

Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation

Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.

We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.

As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.

Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.

Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.

We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).

It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).

Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:

- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.

We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.

Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.

Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation

Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.

We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.

As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.

Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.

Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.

We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).

It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).

Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:

- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.

We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.

Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The following response is submitted on behalf of Mr G Marshall, who owns both 193 Southend Road, Rochford and an area of 3.9ha to the east This land will be described below.

Summary of Response

1.2 We support the overall Core Strategy as it relates to the identification of residual housing land required within the District.

1.3 Whilst we support the hierarchical approach to housing distribution across the District, we object to the distribution of housing growth itself as it relates to some settlements and locations.

1.4 We support the level of housing growth assigned to Rochford itself, but object to the broad locations indicated for this growth.

1.5 My client's site represents a more logical and sustainable location for this growth.

2.0 THE REPRESENTATION SITE

2.1 The site is shown identified on the attached plan. It comprises an area of 3.9 ha. located on the southern edge of Rochford. The site is bounded by residential development to the west fronting Southend Road and Warners Bridge Chase; residential development to the north fronting Ravenswood Chase: and to the east
and south by the heavily vegetated Prittle Brook and Harp House Ditch. As a consequence it is well contained and well related to existing development

2.2 To the west beyond Southend Road is the Southend Victoria-Rayleigh-London Liverpool Street railway line. To the south-west is a retail park on part of Southend Airport which was developed approximately 5 years ago. To the south are recreational uses.

2.3 The site itself is not in productive agricultural use, although is cut for hay once a year principally to keep it from becoming overgrown. It includes a number of former agricultural buildings none of which is of any architectural or historic merit. and which are in varying states of disrepair. It includes the dwellinghouse at 193
Southend Road. which again is of no architectural or historic merit. and which
can be demolished to provide access into the site. Although there is a further potential access from the north via the end of Sutton Court Drive. this is subject of a ransom strip.

2.4 Attached with this response is a sketch layout plan, which demonstrates that the
site can be accessed and developed in a manner that would secure a good quality and highly sustainable residential development It shows a green edge along the eastern boundary of the site that incorporates sustainable pedestrian
and cycle links to surrounding housing, employment airport and recreational facilities. Access would be via the existing property. whilst existing dense landscaping around the edge would be retained The allocation and development of the site would secure affordable housing provision. together with other potential benefits such as new pedestrian and cycle links and open space.

Planning History

2.5 It is understood that there is no planning application history relating to the site. However, it is believed by the landowner that the land was earmarked for development in the 1920's when his grandfather purchased the land, but not
pursued.

2.6 It is the case however that the site was considered for longer-term residential
development in 1985. and attached as Appendix 1 is a copy of a letter confirming
that a report prepared by the local plan Working Party recommended the identification of the land as such. proposed for release in the period after 1990.