Introduction

Housing to be scattered mainly to West and North of District whilst industry will be concentrated in South East at airport

The impact of thousand of extra car movements each day is unsustainable. Roads are already at near full capacity and the railway bridges across the district are pinch point which will difficult and expensive to circumvent. This approach contravenes government policy PPG4.

PP4 says: "encourage new development in locations that can be served by more energy efficient modes of transport". The CS does the opposite with housing mainly in West and North. Bus services are virtually non-existant.

I have just received information from the Hockley Residents Association regarding the Rochford District Council's new Core Strategy Preferred Options.

It would have been nice to have been fully informed of all the proposals which have been put forward with regard to Hockley Town Centre, new homes etc but it appears that we have only been given "certain" figures i.e., 1700 new homes in the Hockley Area.

I feel that there a a number of points which need to be raised before such changes can be made, to the benefit of all who live in Hockley and the surrounding areas.

I have actually lived in Hockley for just under 5 years and in that time have seen an alarming increase in traffic clogging up the main roads during the peak rush hour times. This means if I have to drive during those times, exiting Woodlands Road takes far longer than it should, traffic builds up along the main road and just getting to Rayleigh takes at least half an hour (three miles). This is before the proposed cuts in Public Transport so there will be even more people on the roads. Parking in Rayleigh is almost at its limit so where will all the extra cars park?

Why does to council do nothing about people using residential roads as FREE car parks. I have drawn this to the attention of the Police and Council. We have a more than adequate Car Park so why can't they enforce parking restrictions on all residential roads and I don't mean charging residents to park outside their own homes. At least put in place restrictions such as no parking before 10 am up to 12 noon and say 3-5 pm. Most of those parking are either Mums or people who work in Hockley, therefore their revenue would help brighten up the Town Centre.

Are we to get a new School to take care of new children in the area? Westerings School creates havoc now in my road Kilnwood Avenue, with mums parking irresponsibly across drives on both sides of the road etc etc (blah blah been over this no end of times with the Council and Police).

We are losing shops in the Town Centre, due to a large raise in rents, so we are told. There is no competition with regard to supermarkets for those who cannot drive. We have to pay extortionately higher prices for less that a best quality goods. Apart from our excellent butcher! We have too many eating places and we now have another just opened!

If the Airport expands with no road infrastructure and the A127 is not widened, we will become a no go area due to excessive traffic and Hockley would lose it's appeal to those who wish to live in a more rural, peaceful area. The same goes for places like Ashingdon, Rochford etc. It takes me back to the problems they used to have in Margate, Ramsgate etc where there were no decent roads and no businesses moving into the area!

We don't want to become part of the "Greater London" suburbs. That's why we moved here!

I think I've said enough but will be at the meeting on 9th December!

Happy Christmas

I have just received information from the Hockley Residents Association regarding the Rochford District Council's new Core Strategy Preferred Options.

It would have been nice to have been fully informed of all the proposals which have been put forward with regard to Hockley Town Centre, new homes etc but it appears that we have only been given "certain" figures i.e., 1700 new homes in the Hockley Area.

I feel that there a a number of points which need to be raised before such changes can be made, to the benefit of all who live in Hockley and the surrounding areas.

I have actually lived in Hockley for just under 5 years and in that time have seen an alarming increase in traffic clogging up the main roads during the peak rush hour times. This means if I have to drive during those times, exiting Woodlands Road takes far longer than it should, traffic builds up along the main road and just getting to Rayleigh takes at least half an hour (three miles). This is before the proposed cuts in Public Transport so there will be even more people on the roads. Parking in Rayleigh is almost at its limit so where will all the extra cars park?

Why does to council do nothing about people using residential roads as FREE car parks. I have drawn this to the attention of the Police and Council. We have a more than adequate Car Park so why can't they enforce parking restrictions on all residential roads and I don't mean charging residents to park outside their own homes. At least put in place restrictions such as no parking before 10 am up to 12 noon and say 3-5 pm. Most of those parking are either Mums or people who work in Hockley, therefore their revenue would help brighten up the Town Centre.

Are we to get a new School to take care of new children in the area? Westerings School creates havoc now in my road Kilnwood Avenue, with mums parking irresponsibly across drives on both sides of the road etc etc (blah blah been over this no end of times with the Council and Police).

We are losing shops in the Town Centre, due to a large raise in rents, so we are told. There is no competition with regard to supermarkets for those who cannot drive. We have to pay extortionately higher prices for less that a best quality goods. Apart from our excellent butcher! We have too many eating places and we now have another just opened!

If the Airport expands with no road infrastructure and the A127 is not widened, we will become a no go area due to excessive traffic and Hockley would lose it's appeal to those who wish to live in a more rural, peaceful area. The same goes for places like Ashingdon, Rochford etc. It takes me back to the problems they used to have in Margate, Ramsgate etc where there were no decent roads and no businesses moving into the area!

We don't want to become part of the "Greater London" suburbs. That's why we moved here!

I think I've said enough but will be at the meeting on 9th December!

Happy Christmas

The proposals recognise the need for infrastructure improvements but these have not been considered , costed, or funded. Many roads are at or near capacity but no plans on how to address the extra traffic.

The Government's regional funding allocation has been cut to £80 million, which will have to be split across East Anglia. This is insufficient.

Once the CS locations have been accepted it will be difficult/impossible to change them. Infrastructure costs must be identified before agreeing sites.

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.

The statement that "the only long-term option for Rochford District is to try and reduce the need to travel by car and promote the use of alternative methods of transport" reflects Government guidance is welcomed. Unfortunately it has not been applied to Policy H2 which identifies land for residential development at Canewdon despite it being classed as a Small Rural Settlement which is isolated, has few services and public transport provision is poor. The same comment can be applied to a lesser extent to the proposed large scale expansion of the second tier settlements of Hullbridge and Great Wakering.

The transport aspects of the Core Strategy are well rounded and make good reference to the transportation aspirations of the County.

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.

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.

Regarding the Core Strategy Preferred Options document, I would to make my opinions known concerning several points mentioned in the document and I refer to a few additional suggestions from me in general.

I am strongly against the construction of new areas of housing in Rochford District. We have already seen a very great number of developments in Rochford, Rayleigh and in the 14 or so villages in the RDC over many years.

I am strongly against the construction of new industrial estates in most of Rochford District. We already have several in the RDC area and within most, there are some vacant properties and a few areas for expansion within them.

I am strongly against the construction of new major roads in Rochford District.

I am in favour of developing Southend Airport and its passenger terminals, new railway station, freight facilities, engineering and industrial areas.

I am fully in favour of the work done by RDC in the expansion of recreational, leisure and wildlife areas, such as the many woods and the Cherry Orchard Country Park.

I am prepared to accept incremental expansion of existing areas, mainly in or very close to the urban areas.

I am strongly against the further expansion of any of the villages in the RDC area. The villages are already over-developed, over-crowded and in many cases spoilt by what has been built in the past.

I am against the considerable expansion of housing and population in our District. If we were in the middle of the country with a full 360 degrees of surrounding areas and a "hub and spoke" star pattern of routes, population areas, directions, destinations, routes of escape and scope for access and expansion, it might be a different matter. But, we do not have that geography.

With Rochford located where it is - nestled or trapped hard up against the sea in the east and surrounded and enclosed north and south by two major rivers - The Thames and The Crouch and enclosed by the ribbon urban expanse of Southend-on-Sea Borough along The Thames, it is impossible to fit in any more routes or infrastructure. Apart from heading west along completely inadequate and insufficient roads - much of which we have to share with the very populous Southend-on-Sea Borough population - there is nowhere else to go to get in or out. It is a narrow one way approach.

With the infrastructure that we have and the limited space within our District, there is simply no room nor scope for more than a small amount of expansion.

The existing population in the RDC is too high for the roads that we have.

I must add to that the much higher population of Southend-on-Sea Borough competes with us for the same scarce and inadequate resources.

There are no relief roads and no room for any of any significance to be built. I and many people whom I know would protest very strongly against the very suggestion of brand new highways built on green fields.

There is no choice of alternative routes for when congestion is bad or when it will get worse, nor for a theoretical higher population.

one of the problems that we will encounter with new housing in our area is the strain to be felt on roads and traffic, public services, schools, doctors and much more needed for larger populations. We must remember that: For every 1000 houses, we can expect in excess of 2000 more cars on the roads for the residents plus more for visitors and deliveries. For every 1000 houses we can expect in excess of 2500 more people. For every 1000 houses we can expect at least 1000 more school children. For every 1000 houses we will need some more doctors' services.

I am strongly against the growth in traffic calming measures and road layout changes. They are called "traffic calming". But, they are anything but calming, they are antagonizing, irritating, inefficient and in many cases - absolutely dangerous. I fear that with a significant growth in housing and traffic, there is going to be the desire to interfere with road layouts and architecture. In my experience from observations locally, regionally and nationwide, road narrowing, pinch points, road-centre islands, tarmac projections to deviate the path of traffic and many similar types of traffic manipulation result in traffic momentarily delayed and sometimes considerably delayed. The result of that is that traffic having been held up, sppeds away at a speed far in excess of what it would have done if progress had not been impeded. Traffic which approaches pinch points has to pass oncoming traffic much too close to the centre of the road and too close to other vehicles with a closing speed of 60 miles per hour (or more) being the 30mph limit times two. Traffic approaching islands which block one lane with priority in the other direction causes traffic to speed up before they reach the obstruction - to avoid getting held up if they arrived more slowly. Then having rushed through the obstruction, it is a while before they can reduce speed. Road centre islands are a death-trap for cyclists and horse riders which leaves them and the traffic with nowhere to go when a motorist comes upon an island without seeing them until too late. The cycling and riding community are fully aware that the authorities are using them and their fragile bodies as part of the traffic calming obstacles and measures.

Quite frankly, I am against any more development. I understand that there has to be some new houses and services. I would not block all of it, but it has to be limited, delayed and phased in a progressive, slow and sustainable way.

If it is the central government which is demanding new development, then it our duty as citizens and local authorities to object and if need be refuse to accept the development where it is not sustainable, or not wanted. Central government like any type of government has to remember that they are not our bosses who can push us around. On the contrary, we are their bosses and they are our servants, and they should do as we - the voting public tell them to do, or as we tell them not to do.

I feel very strongly about all of these points and if it is of any interest, I am expressing the same or similar views of many people who have told me about such points, just as I have listed in my letter above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

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.