Housing

PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies should be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies"
Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which
does not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise
residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound

The Hawkwell Action Group
C/O 84 Thorpe Road
Hawkwell
Essex
SS5 4JT


23 October 2009


I wish to register the objections of the Hawkwell Action Group (est.500 Members) to the proposal to build 175 houses in South Hawkwell (which does not exist and is in fact Hawkwell West), on the grounds that it is unsound and legally incompliant with the Council's own Core Strategy and the Government's PPS12 Policy for the following reasons:

Travel

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is not space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

I am told Essex County Council has already acknowledge concern with regard to the bottleneck at the railway bridge at St Mary's Church where additional traffic from other proposed developments in the District will 'rat run' to and from the B1013.

In Short:
• Limited public transport
• Increased car use causing heavy congestion
• Inability to improve highways
• Distance from shops
• Distance from rail stations

Environment

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West. This development, if it is to be off Rectory Road, will cause the urban coalescence of Hockley to Ashingdon via Hawkwell, surely this is not in line with spatial planning.

In Short:
• Semi rural location unsuitable for large development
• Complete loss of character
• Loss of green belt
• Loss of wildlife (I note the Environmental Report does not mention Muntjack deer located on the site)
• NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever

We believe locations for development are based on the 'Call for Sites'. Surely locations should be based on the sustainability criteria within PPS12 and not on something that suits landowners? The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and therefore the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by The Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location.


Yours sincerely


Carol Dutton
On Behalf of the Hawkwell Action Group

Rochford District Residents is a Registered Political Party
Councillor John Mason, Representing the Hawkwell West Ward

This is a representation that the Submission Version of the Rochford Core Strategy is UNSOUND because the location of South Hawkwell and a quantum of 175 houses does not meet the principles and conditions set out in the Core Strategy and that the development is not deliverable in terms of the sustainability criteria of PPS12 and Policy PPS3.

I would like to participate at the oral examination.

The "Location" name of South Hawkwell chosen in the Core Strategy throughout the whole process of consultation has been seriously misleading to the public because the whole of South Hawkwell is included within the District Council Electoral Ward of Hawkwell West which is recognised whilst South Hawkwell is not and can be easily confused with the District Ward of Hawkwell South. I have made representations about this and the Council has declined to make the appropriate change to the Core Strategy.

The Core Strategy specifically refers to protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits apply to this Location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing rural settlement in Hawkwell West.

It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This proposal will adversely affect the character of the existing rural settlement in Hawkwell West.

"The character, layout and form of groups of buildings, streets and spaces make a significant contribution to providing a sense of place and adding to the quality of life in town and country. Residents have a strong sense of identity with their own settlement" Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008

The Core Strategy says that it is to 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and 'accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no significant space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car.

Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus route which runs during the daytime (there is no evening service) to and from Southend/Rayleigh with one per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term. Long term is emphasised because a temporary or fixed period contract/service is not a sustainable service.

This Location is one where the Portfolio Holder has now acknowledged at a Central Area Committee, District Council Meeting that development is "difficult".

It should, therefore, not have been included in the Core Strategy as a Preferred Option and does not warrant the designation of Tier 1 or 2.

Here is a very brief summary of these issues and because of this development at this quantum is not deliverable in terms of the sustainability criteria of PPS12 or under PPS3.

Travel
- limited public transport
- increased car use causing heavy congestion
- inability to improve highways
- distance from shops
- distance from rail stations

Environment
- semi rural location unsuitable for large development
- complete loss of character
- loss of green belt
- loss of wildlife

- NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever

Having set out a summary I now wish to extend my representation to the detail which is necessary for the Planning Inspector to review the proposal against PPS12 and PPS3.

This letter also represents the collective views of the strong opposition that has been expressed by residents of my Ward through the many letters and emails that have been sent to me and what they have said at four public meetings.

As a Ward Councillor I did not support the proposal of 330 houses in South Hawkwell previously put forward in the Core Strategy and nor do I support 175 because the infrastructure to sustain the development under PPS12 still has been grossly underestimated. Yes, it is difficult to justify the development of a housing estate in this Location. A housing estate under the Government requirements of PP12 expects "mixed use and high density development". This cannot be achieved in this Location. I shall explain why.

"Rochford District is predominantly rural with three larger urban areas and a number of smaller settlements." Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008

Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) is not one of the three larger urban areas and is a smaller semi rural settlement which under PPS3 is where "the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities having regard to the proportions of households that require market or affordable housing and the existing mix of housing in the locality".

The population profile of Hawkwell West is as follows: Source: Office of National Statistics

0-16 22%
16-24 6.5%
24-30 4%
30-44 23%
45-59 22%
60-90 21%

Lone parent families only account for 5% in Hawkwell West as against other Wards which are double that. Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008.

"The District is one with an ever increasing percentage of older residents." "The percentage of older people aged over 65-84 is predicted to increase by 53%" "The population of Rochford is expected to age, as the table below shows the fastest growing section of the population is the over 65's." Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008.

All of these statements directly reflect the situation in Hawkwell West and the effect on the population profile is expected to be at least proportionate.

The position is that this community of South Hawkwell does not have need for a "mixed use and high density development" and the evidence for this is that the proportions of households indicate that 66% are unlikely to require market or affordable housing based on the population profile and projected needs.

There is further evidence for such a conclusion from the Thames Gateway South Essex, Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

"In Rochford, the greatest pressures are for larger properties with three and four bedrooms."

"The majority of household growth is expected to result from increasing single person households. However a high proportion of these are existing older households who already have housing."

"Mainstream housing in both public and private sectors is likely to remain the main means of meeting demand from a growing older population."

"Some vulnerable individuals will however require support or bespoke housing solutions. The levels of support which older households will require will depend on their fitness and mobility and to a degree their age." This means that development to meet such needs must be in the existing centres and the three main urban areas and not places like Hawkwell West which is on the urban fringe and too far away from necessary services.

Furthermore the existing mix of housing in the locality is as follows:

"44% are detached households, 50% are semi-detached households, 3% are terraced houses, 2% are flats and 1% are purpose built flats." Source: Office of National Statistics

Applying PPS3 "the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities having regard to the existing mix of housing in the locality it is evident that the mix of a housing estate under PPS12 and PPS3 would be vastly different to the existing mix. This is a further reason why the proposal for a mixed use and high density housing estate is UNSOUND because it does not follow the policies in PPS12 or PPS3.

One of the most important aspects of sustainability are roads and traffic. There is no space for strategic development of local roads to the level required to support this proposal and other development proposals nearby put forward in the Core Strategy, which will also use roads in Hawkwell West, especially in Rectory Road, where any development here would significantly increase the requirement to travel, especially by car.

What you can readily see from data that I am presenting later in this letter is that there is already a significantly greater flow of traffic, 34% or 10,000 more vehicle movements, in Rectory Road, Hawkwell than even on the B1013.

It is not appropriate for an unclassified road to have to suffer greater traffic flows than even the B1013 and it is not a sustainable option to even consider adding even more traffic from a new housing estate of 175 houses. I believe that the reason for this is that Rectory Road has already become a link road to the B1013 from East Hockley, Hullbridge, Ashingdon and Canewdon to, more importantly, the A127. In addition a large quantum of additional houses planned to be built in the Hullbridge and Brays Lane area will put yet more unacceptable volumes of traffic on to Rectory Road in both directions during a day and this too needs reconsideration.

The traffic jams that are caused on the entry of the B1013 to Southend Borough from Rochford District are legendary and such a development will add to an already unacceptable situation. I have often been assured that the re-development of London - Southend Airport will improve this particular bottleneck but having seen the Planning Application submitted on 13 October it is clear that there are to be no improvements to the traffic flows from Rochford wishing to enter the A127.

The same issue applies in Hall Road at entry to Rochford.

Furthermore ECC has acknowledged concern about the other bottleneck at the railway bridge at St. Mary's Church, Hawkwell where it is not only the add

Highway & Traffic Implications
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The District of Rochford is predominately spread on a West/East axis along the railway line. Hockley is located in the middle of the district and the two estates are adjacent to the railway station. Bus services are poor with just 3* an hour (following a recent 50% reduction in services) and the operator has admitted they cannot compete with the railway making improvements to new sites away from major centres unlikely. (* one of the 3 services is paid for by ECC on a 6 mth trial and may be terminated in the new year).

However, the Core Strategy proposes to relocate these two estates to a greenfield site near the airport. This site is 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station and there are currently no bus services to the area. As a result, RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual-carriageway, although the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway and is already at 72% of capacity (ECC Highways stats). This is despite extra traffic expected in the area as a result of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) which proposes considerable growth at neighbouring Southend Airport, as well as the new industrial estate.

The site selected for the new industrial estate also contravenes PPS4 which states;
• (EC7.3C) "out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. There is no existing public transport and no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres.
• EC7.5 1 "whether the site is or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car". Its remote location. Accessed by the narrow, busy B1013 is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.

It also contravenes PPS1 (27 vii) "Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

Summary:
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4 & PPS1. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

The Transport Evidence Base has not been re-evaluated following the decision to impose extra housing on the Eldon Way & Foundry Industrial Estates. ECC Highways have confirmed that the B1013 is running at 72% of its maximum theoretical capacity) and the effect of extra housing in Hockley (as well as Hawkwell) has not been re-evaluated and it is unclear what improvements will be required and whether they can be physically achieved.

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound
RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. The "Core Strategy" is not a strategy but simply a collection of disparate sites. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts or the funding required to upgrade them. At the Central Area Committee on 25 June 2009, RDC stated (in response to a question):
"Rochford Council is not the highway authority, but is working closely with Essex County Council to identify highway infrastructure requirements. Highway infrastructure improvements will be set out in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents as required. These will be fed into the next version of the Essex Local Transport Plan, which is effectively a bidding document for funds to implement highway infrastructure improvements, schemes to tackle congestion, etc.
The District Council is working closely with the Essex County Council to ensure that highway infrastructure identified in the Core Strategy can be delivered."

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates to the very edge of the District with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is also clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

Summary:
RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of addressing the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned.

No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).

The concept of paying for improvements through use of Standard Charges is totally unproven and unsound.

Summary:
PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

SERT is put forward as a solution to reducing car use but it will only skirt the edge of the district and the Core Strategy acknowledges there is only "potential" to do so in the future. SERT is not realistic or reliable a solution and the proposal is therefore unsound.

Previous consultations ignored by RDC:
• The Hockley Parish Plan (dated 2007), clearly states that residents are strongly against any large scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be additional housing, then there should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces, and no large housing estate developments. It was also stated that any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.
• The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:
Previous consultations ignored by RDC:
The proposals ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence baseand are unsound

RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates
• The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW businesses entirely
• the Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned in any plan version; A recent amendment to the Core Strategy states this omission was due to a typing error!
• The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:
RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates
• The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW
businesses entirely
• the Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned;
• The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation.

Neither the Core Strategy nor HAAP define its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. Why is there no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land?

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.

If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

Summary:
The Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation and neither defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities.

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP.

If a decision is taken as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies should be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies". Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which does not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound.

THE Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008.

The Core Strategy states (12.38) "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floorspace".

Whereas, the R&LS actually states:
1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.
2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."
3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's
existing strengths, rather than retail expansion"
4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moveover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".
The Core Strategy is inaccurate, misleading and unsound.

Summary:
The Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008. The Core Strategy states"The Retail & Leisure Study states Hockley has great potential and has a need for additional convenience floorspace". Whereas, the R&LS states: 1) "does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure. 2) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space." 3) "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths." 4) " the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".

Please find enclosed my objection to the Core Strategy Submission DPD. Please kindly acknowledge receipt of this objection and duly register it.

Objections to RDC's Core Strategy Submission DPD

Reason Unsound
1. Highway & Traffic Implications
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The District of Rochford is predominately spread on a West/East axis along the railway line. Hockley is located in the middle of the district and the two estates are adjacent to the railway station. Bus service are poor with just 3* an hour (following a recent 50% reduction in services) and the operator has admitted they cannot compete with the railway making improvements to new sites away from major centres unlikely. (* one of the 3 services is paid for by ECC on a 6 mth trial and may be terminated in the new year).

However, the Core Strategy proposes to relocate these two estates to a greenfield site near the airport. This site is 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station and there are currently no bus services to the area. As a result, RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual-carriageway, although the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway and is already at 72% of capacity (ECC Highways stats). This is despite extra traffic expected in the area as a result of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) which proposes considerable growth at neighbouring Southend Airport, as well as the new industrial estate.

The site selected for the new industrial estate also contravenes PPS4 which states:

(EC7.3C) "out-of-centre site, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. There is no existing public transport and no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres.

EC7.5 1 "whether the site is or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car". Its remote location. Accessed by the narrow, busy B1013 is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.

It also contravenes PPSI (27 vii) "Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

2. The Transport Evidence Base has not been re-evaluated following the decision to impose extra housing on the Eldon Way & Foundry Industrial Estates. ECC Highways have confirmed that the B1013 is running at 72% of its maximum theoretical capacity) and the effect of extra housing in Hockley (as well as Hawkwell) has not been re-evaluated and it is unclear what improvements will be required and whether they can be physically achieved.

3. RCD are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. The "Core Strategy" is not a strategy but simply a collection of disparate sites. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts or the funding required to upgrade them. At the Central Area Committee on 25 June 2009, RDC stated (in response to a question):

"Rochford Council is not the highway authority, but is working closely with Essex County Council to identify highway infrastructure requirements. Highway infrastructure improvements will be set out in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents as required. These will be fed into the next version of the Essex Local Transport Plan, which is effectively a bidding document for funds to implement highway infrastructure improvements, schemes to tackle congestion, etc.

The District Council is working closely with the Essex County Council to ensure that highway infrastructure identified in the Core Strategy can be delivered."

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates to the very edge of the District with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is also clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

4. PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs not, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. Thus it is unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of address the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned.

No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).

The concept of paying for improvements through use of Standard Charges is totally unproven and unsound.

5. SERT is put forward as a solution to reducing car use but it will only skirt the edge of the district and the Core Strategy acknowledges there is only "potential" to do so in the future. SERT is not realistic or reliable a solution and the proposal is therefore unsound.

6. Previous consultations ignored by RDC:

The Hockley Parish Plan (dated 2007), clearly states that residents are strongly against any large scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be additional housing, then there should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces, and no large housing estate developments. It was also stated that any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.

The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

7. RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates

The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW businesses entirely

The Foundry Industrial Estates has never even been previously mentioned in any plan version; A recent amendment to the Core Strategy acknowledges this omission was due to a typing error!

The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

8. Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing HAAP consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation.

Neither the Core Strategy or Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. Why is there no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land?

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.

If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

9. PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies show be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies". Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which doe not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound.

10. The Core Strategy misrepresent the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008.

The Core Strategy states (12.38) "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floorspace".

Whereas, the R&LS actually states:

1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.

2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."

3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths, rather than retail expansion".

4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moreover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".

The Core Strategy is inaccurate, misleading and unsound.

1. Highway & Traffic Implications
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The District of Rochford is predominately spread on a West/East axis along the railway line. Hockley is located in the middle of the district and the two estates are adjacent to the railway station. Bus service are poor with just 3* an hour (following a recent 50% reduction in services) and the operator has admitted they cannot compete with the railway making improvements to new sites away from major centres unlikely. (* one of the 3 services is paid for by ECC on a 6 mth trial and may be terminated in the new year).

However, the Core Strategy proposes to relocate these two estates to a greenfield site near the airport. This site is 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station and there are currently no bus services to the area. As a result, RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual-carriageway, although the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway and is already at 72% of capacity (ECC Highways stats). This is despite extra traffic expected in the area as a result of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) which proposes considerable growth at neighbouring Southend Airport, as well as the new industrial estate.

The site selected for the new industrial estate also contravenes PPS4 which states:

(EC7.3C) "out-of-centre site, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. There is no existing public transport and no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres.

EC7.5 1 "whether the site is or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car". Its remote location. Accessed by the narrow, busy B1013 is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.

It also contravenes PPSI (27 vii) "Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

2. The Transport Evidence Base has not been re-evaluated following the decision to impose extra housing on the Eldon Way & Foundry Industrial Estates. ECC Highways have confirmed that the B1013 is running at 72% of its maximum theoretical capacity) and the effect of extra housing in Hockley (as well as Hawkwell) has not been re-evaluated and it is unclear what improvements will be required and whether they can be physically achieved.

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

3. RCD are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. The "Core Strategy" is not a strategy but simply a collection of disparate sites. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts or the funding required to upgrade them. At the Central Area Committee on 25 June 2009, RDC stated (in response to a question):

"Rochford Council is not the highway authority, but is working closely with Essex County Council to identify highway infrastructure requirements. Highway infrastructure improvements will be set out in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents as required. These will be fed into the next version of the Essex Local Transport Plan, which is effectively a bidding document for funds to implement highway infrastructure improvements, schemes to tackle congestion, etc.

The District Council is working closely with the Essex County Council to ensure that highway infrastructure identified in the Core Strategy can be delivered."

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates to the very edge of the District with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is also clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

Summary:

RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts.

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

4. PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs not, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. Thus it is unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of address the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned.

No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).

The concept of paying for improvements through use of Standard Charges is totally unproven and unsound.

Summary:

PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

5. SERT is put forward as a solution to reducing car use but it will only skirt the edge of the district and the Core Strategy acknowledges there is only "potential" to do so in the future. SERT is not realistic or reliable a solution and the proposal is therefore unsound.

6. Previous consultations ignored by RDC:

The Hockley Parish Plan (dated 2007), clearly states that residents are strongly against any large scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be additional housing, then there should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces, and no large housing estate developments. It was also stated that any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.

The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:

Previous consultations ignored by RDC:

The proposals ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

7. RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates.

The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW businesses entirely.

The Foundry Industrial Estates has never even been previously mentioned in any plan version; A recent amendment to the Core Strategy acknowledges this omission was due to a typing error!

The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:

RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates.

The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing FW businesses entirely.

The Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned.

The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate.

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

8. Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing HAAP consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation.

Neither the Core Strategy or Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. Why is there no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land?

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.

If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

Summary

The Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation and neither defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities.

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP.

If a decision is taken as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejectionrate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

9. PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies show be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies". Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which doe not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound.

10. The Core Strategy misrepresent the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008.

The Core Strategy states (12.38) "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floorspace".

Whereas, the R&LS actually states:

1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.

2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."

3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths, rather than retail expansion".

4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moreover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".

The Core Strategy is inaccurate, misleading and unsound.

Summary:

The Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008. The Core Strategy states "The Retail & Leisure Study states Hockley has great potential and has a need for additional convenience floorspace". Whereas, the R&LS states: 1) "does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure. 2) "There is no immediate capacity for additional space." 3) "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths." 4) "the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre.

1. Highway & Traffic Implications
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The District of Rochford is predominately spread on a West/East axis along the railway line. Hockley is located in the middle of the district and the two estates are adjacent to the railway station. Bus service are poor with just 3* an hour (following a recent 50% reduction in services) and the operator has admitted they cannot compete with the railway making improvements to new sites away from major centres unlikely. (* one of the 3 services is paid for by ECC on a 6 mth trial and may be terminated in the new year).

However, the Core Strategy proposes to relocate these two estates to a greenfield site near the airport. This site is 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station and there are currently no bus services to the area. As a result, RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual-carriageway, although the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway and is already at 72% of capacity (ECC Highways stats). This is despite extra traffic expected in the area as a result of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) which proposes considerable growth at neighbouring Southend Airport, as well as the new industrial estate.

The site selected for the new industrial estate also contravenes PPS4 which states:

(EC7.3C) "out-of-centre site, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. There is no existing public transport and no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres.

EC7.5 1 "whether the site is or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car". Its remote location. Accessed by the narrow, busy B1013 is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.

It also contravenes PPSI (27 vii) "Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".

Summary:

Proposals for moving employment to of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport inks, are contrary to government policy PPG4 & PPS1. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

2. The Transport Evidence Base has not been re-evaluated following the decision to impose extra housing on the Eldon Way & Foundry Industrial Estates. ECC Highways have confirmed that the B1013 is running at 72% of its maximum theoretical capacity) and the effect of extra housing in Hockley (as well as Hawkwell) has not been re-evaluated and it is unclear what improvements will be required and whether they can be physically achieved.

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

3. RCD are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. The "Core Strategy" is not a strategy but simply a collection of disparate sites. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts or the funding required to upgrade them. At the Central Area Committee on 25 June 2009, RDC stated (in response to a question):

"Rochford Council is not the highway authority, but is working closely with Essex County Council to identify highway infrastructure requirements. Highway infrastructure improvements will be set out in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents as required. These will be fed into the next version of the Essex Local Transport Plan, which is effectively a bidding document for funds to implement highway infrastructure improvements, schemes to tackle congestion, etc.

The District Council is working closely with the Essex County Council to ensure that highway infrastructure identified in the Core Strategy can be delivered."

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates to the very edge of the District with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is also clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

Summary:

RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts.

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

4. PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs not, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. Thus it is unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of address the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned.

No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).

The concept of paying for improvements through use of Standard Charges is totally unproven and unsound.

Summary:

PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

5. SERT is put forward as a solution to reducing car use but it will only skirt the edge of the district and the Core Strategy acknowledges there is only "potential" to do so in the future. SERT is not realistic or reliable a solution and the proposal is therefore unsound.

6. Previous consultations ignored by RDC:

The Hockley Parish Plan (dated 2007), clearly states that residents are strongly against any large scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be additional housing, then there should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces, and no large housing estate developments. It was also stated that any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.

The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:

Previous consultations ignored by RDC:

The proposals ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

7. RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates.

The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW businesses entirely.

The Foundry Industrial Estates has never even been previously mentioned in any plan version; A recent amendment to the Core Strategy acknowledges this omission was due to a typing error!

The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:

RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates.

The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing FW businesses entirely.

The Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned.

The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate.

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

8. Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing HAAP consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation.

Neither the Core Strategy or Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. Why is there no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land?

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.

If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

Summary

The Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation and neither defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities.

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP.

If a decision is taken as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejectionrate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

9. PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies show be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies". Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which doe not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound.

10. The Core Strategy misrepresent the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008.

The Core Strategy states (12.38) "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floorspace".

Whereas, the R&LS actually states:

1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.

2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."

3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths, rather than retail expansion".

4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moreover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".

The Core Strategy is inaccurate, misleading and unsound.

Summary:

The Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008. The Core Strategy states "The Retail & Leisure Study states Hockley has great potential and has a need for additional convenience floorspace". Whereas, the R&LS states: 1) "does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure. 2) "There is no immediate capacity for additional space." 3) "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths." 4) "the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre.

Highway & Traffic Implications
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The District of Rochford is predominately spread on a West/East axis along the railway line. Hockley is located in the middle of the district and the two estates are adjacent to the railway station. Bus services are poor with just 3* an hour (following a recent 50% reduction in services) and the operator has admitted they cannot compete with the railway making improvements to new sites away from major centres unlikely. (* one of the 3 services is paid for by ECC on a 6 mth trial and may be terminated in the new year).

However, the Core Strategy proposes to relocate these two estates to a greenfield site near the airport. This site is 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station and there are currently no bus services to the area. As a result, RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual-carriageway, although the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway and is already at 72% of capacity (ECC Highways stats). This is despite extra traffic expected in the area as a result of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) which proposes considerable growth at neighboring Southend Airport, as well as the new industrial estate.

The site selected for the new industrial estate also contravenes PPS4 which states;
• (EC7.3C) "out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. There is no existing public transport and no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres.
• EC7.5 1 "whether the site is or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car". Its remote location. Accessed by the narrow, busy B1013 is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.

It also contravenes PPS1 (27 vii) "Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

Summary:
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4 & PPS1. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and
providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.
The Transport Evidence Base has not been re-evaluated following the decision to impose extra housing on the Eldon Way & Foundry Industrial Estates. ECC Highways have confirmed that the B1013 is running at 72% of its maximum theoretical capacity) and the effect of extra housing in Hockley (as well as Hawkwell) has not been re-evaluated and it is unclear what improvements will be required and whether they can be physically achieved.

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound
RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. The "Core Strategy" is not a strategy but simply a collection of disparate sites. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts or the funding required to upgrade them. At the Central Area Committee on 25 June 2009, RDC stated (in response to a question):
"Rochford Council is not the highway authority, but is working closely with Essex County Council to identify highway infrastructure requirements. Highway infrastructure improvements will be set out in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents as required. These will be fed into the next version of the Essex Local Transport Plan, which is effectively a bidding document for funds to implement highway infrastructure improvements, schemes to tackle congestion, etc.
The District Council is working closely with the Essex County Council to ensure that highway infrastructure identified in the Core Strategy can be delivered."

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates to the very edge of the District with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is also clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

Summary:
RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modeling has been undertaken to determine the impacts

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of addressing the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned.

No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).

The concept of paying for improvements through use of Standard Charges is totally unproven and unsound.

Summary:
PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.
SERT is put forward as a solution to reducing car use but it will only skirt the edge of the district and the Core Strategy acknowledges there is only "potential" to do so in the future. SERT is not realistic or reliable a solution and the proposal is therefore unsound.
Previous consultations ignored by RDC:
• The Hockley Parish Plan (dated 2007), clearly states that residents are strongly against any large scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be additional housing, then there should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces, and no large housing estate developments. It was also stated that any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.
• The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:
Previous consultations ignored by RDC:
The proposals ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound

RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates
• The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW businesses entirely
• the Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned in any plan version; A recent amendment to the Core Strategy states this omission was due to a typing error!
• The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:
RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates
• The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW
businesses entirely
• the Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned;
• The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible
evidence base and are unsound.

Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation.

Neither the Core Strategy nor HAAP define its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. Why is there no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land?

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.

If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

Summary:
The Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation and neither defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities.

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP.

If a decision is taken as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the
previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.
PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies should be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies". Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which does not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound.

THE Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008.

The Core Strategy states (12.38) "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floorspace".

Whereas, the R&LS actually states:
1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.
2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."
3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's
existing strengths, rather than retail expansion"
4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moveover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".
The Core Strategy is inaccurate, misleading and unsound.

Summary:
The Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008. The Core Strategy states "The Retail & Leisure Study states Hockley has great potential and has a need for additional convenience floorspace". Whereas, the R&LS states: 1) "does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure. 2) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space." 3) "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths." 4) " the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".

Highway & Traffic Implications
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The District of Rochford is predominately spread on a West/East axis along the railway line. Hockley is located in the middle of the district and the two estates are adjacent to the railway station. Bus services are poor with just 3* an hour (following a recent 50% reduction in services) and the operator has admitted they cannot compete with the railway making improvements to new sites away from major centres unlikely. (* one of the 3 services is paid for by ECC on a 6 mth trial and may be terminated in the new year).

However, the Core Strategy proposes to relocate these two estates to a greenfield site near the airport. This site is 2-3 miles from the nearest railway station and there are currently no bus services to the area. As a result, RDC are proposing to upgrade the nearest road to a dual-carriageway, although the main connecting road (the B1013), which runs through Hockley, will remain single-carriageway and is already at 72% of capacity (ECC Highways stats). This is despite extra traffic expected in the area as a result of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) which proposes considerable growth at neighboring Southend Airport, as well as the new industrial estate.

The site selected for the new industrial estate also contravenes PPS4 which states;
• (EC7.3C) "out-of-centre sites, with preference given to sites which are or will be well served by a choice of means of transport and which are close to the centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. There is no existing public transport and no obvious likelihood of forming links with any existing centres.
• EC7.5 1 "whether the site is or will be accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport, especially public transport, walking and cycling, as well as by car". Its remote location. Accessed by the narrow, busy B1013 is not suitable for access by cycle or on foot.

It also contravenes PPS1 (27 vii) "Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.

Summary:
Proposals for moving employment to out of town locations, at either end of the district, with no existing public transport links, are contrary to government policy PPG4 & PPS1. It also contravenes the Core Strategy's stated aims of reducing carbon emissions; reliance on car transport and
providing "an integrated network of cycle paths".

The Core Strategy also contravenes its own policy T1 and is unsound.
The Transport Evidence Base has not been re-evaluated following the decision to impose extra housing on the Eldon Way & Foundry Industrial Estates. ECC Highways have confirmed that the B1013 is running at 72% of its maximum theoretical capacity) and the effect of extra housing in Hockley (as well as Hawkwell) has not been re-evaluated and it is unclear what improvements will be required and whether they can be physically achieved.

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound
RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. The "Core Strategy" is not a strategy but simply a collection of disparate sites. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts or the funding required to upgrade them. At the Central Area Committee on 25 June 2009, RDC stated (in response to a question):
"Rochford Council is not the highway authority, but is working closely with Essex County Council to identify highway infrastructure requirements. Highway infrastructure improvements will be set out in the Core Strategy and other subsequent Development Plan Documents as required. These will be fed into the next version of the Essex Local Transport Plan, which is effectively a bidding document for funds to implement highway infrastructure improvements, schemes to tackle congestion, etc.
The District Council is working closely with the Essex County Council to ensure that highway infrastructure identified in the Core Strategy can be delivered."

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates to the very edge of the District with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is also clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

Summary:
RDC are proposing to scatter housing across the district in around 12 or sites but no detailed consideration has been given to the implications for highways across the District. Many roads across the District are at or near capacity but no modeling has been undertaken to determine the impacts

It is clear that (i) the combined impact of scattering houses across the District and (ii) relocating Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estates with no public transport services will exacerbate existing problems. It is clear that the extent of improvements required is both unknown and not funded and the proposal is unsound.

PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The district's highways suffer from years of under investment and over use. The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.

Policy T2 provides a list of required highway improvements. The list contains most of the more major roads in the District including Rectory Lane, which has a single track, traffic light controlled railway bridge. 1200 dwellings are proposed for the northern end of Rectory Road and a further 175 at the southern end. The cost of addressing the railway bridge bottleneck will be significant but is not mentioned.

No attempt is made to either cost these charges or explain how improvements not linked to any one specific development will be paid for (eg B1013; Ashingdon Road; a network of walking, cycling, bridleways).

The concept of paying for improvements through use of Standard Charges is totally unproven and unsound.

Summary:
PPS12 4.9 states "The infrastructure planning process should identify, as far as possible: infrastructure needs and costs". Neither needs nor, especially, costs have been identified and the Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

The Core Strategy proposes to fund infrastructure improvements through use of Standard Charges. However, no detail is provided and no attempt made to identify the likely scale of such charges. It is therefore unclear if use of Standard Charges is financially viable.
SERT is put forward as a solution to reducing car use but it will only skirt the edge of the district and the Core Strategy acknowledges there is only "potential" to do so in the future. SERT is not realistic or reliable a solution and the proposal is therefore unsound.
Previous consultations ignored by RDC:
• The Hockley Parish Plan (dated 2007), clearly states that residents are strongly against any large scale housing development in Hockley, but if there has to be additional housing, then there should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces, and no large housing estate developments. It was also stated that any developments must be matched by the appropriate levels of infrastructure.
• The proposals also ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:
Previous consultations ignored by RDC:
The proposals ignore the 95% rejection rate of respondents to RDC's own Hockley Area Plan (HAAP) Consultation (2009), which included specific proposals for Eldon Way (although HAAP did not even mention the adjoining Foundry Industrial Estate). Why have a consultation and ignore it?

Thus the proposals are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound

RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates
• The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW businesses entirely
• the Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned in any plan version; A recent amendment to the Core Strategy states this omission was due to a typing error!
• The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and are unsound.

Summary:
RDC have not consulted on the very specific proposals to relocate the Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates
• The previous CS Strategy stated "we will look at opportunities for more valuable and appropriate uses of the industrial land" with absolutely no consultation at all on concept of moving existing EW
businesses entirely
• the Foundry Industrial Estate has never even been previously mentioned;
• The Urban Capacity study stated a "low probability" of housing and did not even mention the Foundry Estate

Thus the proposals are they are not founded on a robust and credible
evidence base and are unsound.

Eldon Way and Foundry Industrial Estates form a significant part of the ongoing Hockley Area Action Plan (HAAP) consultation but the Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation.

Neither the Core Strategy nor HAAP define its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities. Why is there no cross-referencing between concurrent plans affecting the exact same piece of land?

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP regarding the description of proposed uses for the two industrial estates. The Core Strategy refers to Leisure, Commercial and Residential whilst HAAP mentions a "village green, introducing a significant area of public open space". There is not sufficient space for both and the Core Strategy is again pre-empting the ongoing HAAP.

If a decision is taken now, as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.

Summary:
The Core Strategy proposals pre-empt the next stage of the HAAP consultation and neither defines its status relevant to the other plan and subsequent priorities.

There are also inconsistencies between the Core Strategy & HAAP.

If a decision is taken as part of the Core Strategy, to relocate all the existing businesses on the two estates, it will set a legal precedent which HAAP will need to follow and renders the next stage of HAAP virtually redundant. Particularly given the 95% rejection rate of respondents to the
previous round of HAAP such an approach is entirely undemocratic and unsound.
PPS12, 4.6, states that Cores Strategies should be flexible and "should be able to show how they will handle contingencies". Several large planning applications have already been submitted to RDC proposing developments outside the Core Strategy which does not indicate how such applications will be handled and does not comply with PPS12. Neither have RDC been able to advise residents how such changes will be made and the strategy is unsound.

THE Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008.

The Core Strategy states (12.38) "The Retail & Leisure Study indicates Hockley has great potential. Hockley has been identified as having a need for additional convenience floorspace".

Whereas, the R&LS actually states:
1) (10.26) "the scale of need does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure.
2) (10.28) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space."
3) (10.29 "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's
existing strengths, rather than retail expansion"
4) 10.31 "The current nature of Hockley does not lend itself to classification as a 'town centre' as defined by PPS6. Moveover, we have identified that it is a very small catchment population. Accordingly, the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".
The Core Strategy is inaccurate, misleading and unsound.

Summary:
The Core Strategy misrepresents the findings of The Retail & Leisure Study (R&LS) 2008. The Core Strategy states "The Retail & Leisure Study states Hockley has great potential and has a need for additional convenience floorspace". Whereas, the R&LS states: 1) "does not lend itself to a foodstore capable of retaining a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure. 2) "There is no immediate capacity for additional floor space." 3) "we recommend that focus be maintained on developing Hockley's existing strengths." 4) " the Council may wish to consider reclassifying Hockley from a town centre to a district centre".

(1) Sewer known to overflow into Crouch at Battlesbridge.

(2) Power cuts to domestic homes through the year

(3) Reservoir at Hanningfield has difficulty coping with demand.

(4) Schools overcrowded.

(5) Open spaces owned by council below requirement has the size of Rayleigh population.

(6) The land in agricultural and homes should be no more than 4 to the acre.

(1) Larger sewer.

(2) Increased power.

(3) Another reservoir.

(4) Grammar School.

(5) Insist that selling agent tells buyers of homes.