London Southend Airport and Environs

I attended the CAC Meeting in Hawkwell.

Hockley must remain as a distinct community with boundaries and green spaces between Hockley and neighbouring parishes. Countryside in and around Hockley including woods, footpaths,bridleways play areas, playing fields and nature reserves must be 100% preserved. There should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces in Hockley or the surrounding areas.

Due to shortage of available building land, housing development in and around Hockley must be minimal, and should include starter homes and affordable housing. Historic and listed buildings must be preserved.

Hockley Town Centre development must maintain the character of Hockley, and include a variety of shops, family restaurants,enhanced parking facilitiers, and facilities for the youth. It must consder appropriate facilities for people with disabilities.

Increased pollution in Hockley and its neighbouring parishes must be supported by additional healthcare (dentists and doctors)primary and secondary school places, community services, and leisure facilities.

Improved highways and cycle networks are essential in and around Hockley to support increased traffic volumes, improve road safety and eliminate congestion.

There must be no additional pollution in Hockley in terms of air quality and noise, particularly related to increased traffic volumes and airport expansion programmes.

Public transport must be improved in and around Hockley in terms of routes and frequencies to support additional population and to alleviate the impact of additional traffic volumes.

Additional controls must be introduced to ensure crime levels, vandalism and anti-social behaviour issues, in and around Hockley, do not increase due to additional population numbers.

The core strategy does not provide an option of placing all 3500 homes in one new locations, remote from Hockley, with provision of appropriate self supporting infrastructure (schools, healthcare,community services and leisure facilities) and including public transport and highway networks that do not impact on Hockley.

As the majority of proposed additional housing, pupulation and traffic is located to the east of Hockley, the plan is not sustainable, in and around Hockley, due to insufficient infrastructure proposals (schools, healthcare,community services and leisure facilities) and particularly related to public transport and highway networks. Roads through Hockley already suffer from major congestions issues, and no plans are evident in the strategy to eliminatge current and future traffic issues.

Surely it is not unreasonable to expect there to be a planned infrastructure
put in place before all these houses are built. Where are all these new
roads going to go, stating the obvious that we do have the sea one side.

Also what about our farm land we need this protected for food supply.

One further comment, most people live in Hockley or come back to Hockley because of what it is now, when this wonderful vision for John Prescott eventually happens, no body will want to come back!

My concern about the expansion of the airport is long term and the by products of its growth. If this goes ahead I think the proposal for a new North Road/A127 relief road will gain pace (using the airport as the main driving factor). In turn this will attract more developers to adjacent land. This could then lead to re-visiting the idea of housing on the New Ranges which is too close to the haven of Wakering Stairs. Rochford needs to watch this carefully!

No details are given of road improvements required to enable residents to reach the airport. For many residents this will involve crsossing the railway with existing bottlenecks at bridges. Noise, pollution and delay will increase.

Now that it has been announced that the Eddy Stobart Co. has bought the airport what problems will this bring?
Stobart has declared in the local press that they intend to expand both freight and holiday flights, plus competing against London City Airport for national and international business services.
This will without doubt, impact immensly on road traffic through the district.
Freight lorries and cars country wide will be using our roads 24/7.
Stobart also states he has involvement with the proposed Thames container terminal.
Lorry traffic will be constant and chances are it will be using Rawreth Lane and the B1013.

I write with the reference to your letter dated 3rd November 2008 which enclosed a questionnaire relating to the above exercise. I have to say I was a little surprised to receive your letter in as much as I reside within the Borough of Southend and normally look to Southend Council to consult me on any planning applications likely to effect me.
I can only think that your letter to me may have been the result of the correspondence I have had over the years with your good selves, amongst others, on the proposals of the expansion of Southend Airport. Living as we do on the flight path to and from the airport this remains a vital issue for us and our future quality of life; and we feel strongly that it is only right and proper that we (and residents in a similar position to us) are directly invited to have our say on whatever conclusions the working party reach as the result of there consideration of the consultation exercise on the Joint Area Action Plan. We felt very aggrieved that we were not directly included in this exercise having only become aware through a relatively small item in the Southend Standard. I wrote to the leader of Southend Council as the result of this and was assured by him that opportunity would be given to all interested parties of all contribute.
We are particularly in a difficult position relating to the airport issue inasmuch as we reside in the area under the jurisdiction of Southend Council but, of course, the airport and issue relating to it fall in the responsibility of Rochford District Council. I would therefore welcome your assurance that we will be invited to contribute before proposals are set in stone and your advice as to when such an invitation is likely to be sent out and from which council.

Regarding the booklet on the Core Strategy. I wish to comment on the information contained. Air quality is mentioned, so why is so much being spoken about the expansion of Southend Airport when the exhaust gases from jet engines is one of the worst polluters. You can have quieter engines but you cannot get rid of exhaust gases.

Also your document states there are more old people living in Rochford than most towns, this is true, and they require a retirement of peace which will be displaced with airport expansion.

Coupled to the above will be more lorry movements plus disturbance by night flights.

Recently we learn of a plan to reduce bus services, so that will mean more cars, so more pollution.

On employment issues if Rochford District Council had done more to support the people opposed to the closure of Rochford Hospital you would still have employment for dozens of people, especially those just leaving school. My children used the hospital to start out on lives working, as did many others.

On the housing issue, I would like to see more homes built instead of flats everywhere.

Flats are not an acceptable accommodation for bringing up children, they need a garden to play in.

Therefore, with strict controls some small areas of the green belt could be utilised.

I also support the Wallasea Wetland Scheme, and welcome the views in the document.

Summing up no doubt you will not be suprised when I inform you that I am against Southend Airport Expansion, its pie in the sky.

I consider affordable housing is a myth, what you buy you have to pay for.

One day it will be pleasant to learn that the peoples views on house building numbers have been listened to and conveyed to the Government.

Comments from the FSB SE Essex Branch Vice Chairman.

Due to the lack of a sustainable road transport infrastructure in the district, the need to ensure that each centre of population has a concentration of suitable commercial premises to enable local employment to succeed. This could be attained by the careful introduction of commercial centres within the community. Better utilization of existing building and out buildings, farm and redundant properties which would lead to local employment possibilities. Local mini business centres could mushroom with the right type and size of accommodation for starter companies. There would be a need for various types of business accommodation as not all businesses will be in the high tech category. This could lead to growth areas being formed which could lead onto larger estates sited in the west of the district.

There is a common belief that we need to embrace high tech industries. The presented base information indicates not only are we an area of small and ultra small businesses there is a vast diversity of trades of which many are service based.

With the recently announced purchaser of the Airport the potential development based on other locations, leans to the possibility of large warehousing and transport based industry. This, though it will bring employment to the area, will only bring a certain type of employment and the need to have a better scatter of types of businesses in the location possibly has been missed. There will now be an urgent need to upgrade the road and rail infrastructure to cope with the increase in goods movement. The demise of yet another air support company may in turn mean a problem for growth in the form of commercial air travel, thus aircraft based industries must not be relied upon as the answer to future employment. The need to open the immediate area to low tech industries and small and micro small businesses is paramount.

The presented vision of creating a business park for larger concerns in the west of the district, to release much needed housing allocation, is in the bases a reasonable solution. Large transporters would not have to negotiate the restricted road infrastructure of the district. Though we have existing large companies who are well established within the district, some who would have trouble relocating due to the type and size of their operation eg Baltic Wharf .

There also could be a counter argument in that due to the lack of road infrastructure, there may be a problem of access at peak times for staff. This is a common problem on our existing trading estates such as Purdies Estate Rochford. Also the need to move staff from one side of the district to the other will not help the already inadequate transport system. The positive is there is direct access to major road system. But there may be also a need to investigate if there is a need of an upgrade of the rail infrastructure, this is due to the inadequacy of the national road infrastructure of the future.

The three main retail centres are at this time having a real challenging time. Due to the restraints of public spending and the need to use car parking fees as a source of revenue does not make it easy for the high street retailers. As the district originated from market towns and we can't compete with the out of town shopping centres and large super markets, should we be. looking at returning to the small centres with convenience/service stores. With more "on street" drop by parking, maybe pedestrian walk ways areas. Smaller towns and villages to adopt a similar style of small retail outlets. New residential developments should be required as part of the development include "Corner Shop" type units. This not only forms a micro community but helps in retaining the "spend" within the district and the need not to have to travel to the major shopping areas for the basic essentials.

If the ideals of the tourism initiative are implanted into the district, the need for more cheap but adequate accommodation within the newly developed countryside, eg Wild Coast at Wallasea, Jubilee Park at Hawkwell. There will be a need to change planning policy to accept this type of development. Yet there must also be suitable hotel accommodation in the west of the district to cover the proposed new industrial area.

There are concerns that the Core Strategy does not cover the future of the Roach and its tributies from the aspect of the existing users of the river. There seems to be scant regard to the illegal waterside development in the area, House boats, live a board's, waterside constructions. Following the latest Appeal Decision at Pagelsham Boatyard is the now a need to look again at a coherent policy on House boats/ Live Aboard Craft on the rivers.

The lack of access by the public to the riverside both on the Roach and the Crouch. There is a great need to open up such public access to the rivers as we only have one point at Hullbridge which is not designated as a slipway but a road end.

The proposed increase in commercial boat yards/ Marina's is not matched by the decrease in river traffic and boats in the rivers. The CHA report a marked drop in mooring take up, to gain better access to the water will mean negotiations with bordering land owners. The problem as always will be controlled access and costs.

In reflection and in reading the document again after composing the contents of this reply I note many of the points raised have been covered or partially discussed in the LGF (October revision) document.

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.

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.