Environmental Issues

This seems to be a 'text book' set of issues driven by legislation and lobby groups. However, there is no consideration of the future of, for example, farming or market gardening. It seems distinctly possible that there will be a growing (pardon the pun) demand for local produce to combat the effects of climate change and long distant transport of food. How will the strategy deal with that?

Thank you for the papers received on 25 February 2010.

Please find enclosed schedules requested in respect of sections 8 and 10 of the Core Strategy. Because of the short time to respond I have concentrated on two key issues in my earlier submission. I stress that these sheets are in support of my submission and not its replacement. The other points I have made are equally valid. For instance my comments reference primary schools are based on information produced by Essex C.C that I saw as a Governor about four years ago. I was also a Governor at 'Doggetts' for about eight months.

I would be grateful if you could forward this letter along with the other papers to the Inspectorate.

Separate sheet reference DPD section 10 Travel

Part B

6.

The Travel plan lacks credibility.

Section 10.3 states that 'expansion will produce intolerable levels of congestion'. Section 10.7 states the intention 'to reduce car dependency', and there is also a reference that there 'must be adequate highway infrastructure'.

As in so many parts of the Strategy there is no 'hard' data on the existing position and trends to help understand the size of the challenge. What has been traffic growth? What has been the level of traffic congestion What are the projected levels of traffic (splitting cars and lorries) and congestion before and after the expansion development etc. etc.?

There is no mention in the Plan of dealing with lorry traffic, or the increased road traffic from air passengers.

The solutions to the anticipated traffic growth are weak. SERT will not apply to the Rochford District for the foreseeable future, if at all. It is stated that new 'developments are to be in such a way to reduce reliance on private cars'. What does this mean? In what way is this to be achieved? Mention is made of shared car schemes. There could be some benefit from larger organisations. The new factory units will be relatively small. Is the Council expecting the occupants on a new factory industrial estate to get together and organise 'car pools'? Are there any plans to increase the routes, frequency, reliability, and reduce the cost of public transport? What is concerning is that all of the proposed solutions are outside the control of Rochford Council. Highways infrastructure, SERT, developments to reduce private car use (the developer), and shared car schemes (the occupants) depend on others.

Rochford District is part of a peninsular on the perimeters of Essex with one major trunk road (A127) on which it is proposed to direct airport traffic, and a parallel road (B3103) used by many of the local population and likely to be severely affected by the expansion. The opportunity for traffic congestion in this environment is considerable.

7.

The issue of road traffic and travel is the most difficult, along with carbon emissions, and it is understandable why Rochford District Council have limited tangible proposals to make.

It should be confirmed that the benefits of each traffic reducing option has been estimated (including the likelihood of it happening e.g. SERT) together with a risk assessment. Any proposal with a risk factor of 55% or more should be excluded from projections.

A separate paragraph should be added to the Strategy showing the projected traffic growth at yearly intervals for the first five years and three yearly thereafter. Traffic levels should be monitored against these targets. The projected traffic levels will incorporate the 'savings' from the traffic reducing proposals.

It is assumed that the Core Strategy as is understates future traffic growth and congestion and offers no realistic options for its control.

There are three ways that could have an impact.

One would be improvements in highway infrastructure. The most important would be to make the A127 three lanes. The likelihood of this happening is remote and can be discounted.

Secondly to add some form of compulsion to induce not using cars or lorries. The biggest effect would come from a financial penalty like a congestion charge or toll. Rochford District Council would have the means to introduce such a measure, but probably not the political will.

The third way would be expanding, and making more attractive public transport. Bus and train companies are unlikely to initiate any schemes without a profit incentive. Public transport could be more attractive by subsidising lower prices at peak times to encourage its use over a car. A levy on the airport complex and new factories to pay for the subsidy would be an option. It should be simple to introduce such a scheme through Council Tax, and it penalises those generating extra traffic.

Include in the Strategy as a separate paragraph the 'third way' as noted above.


Separate sheet reference DPD section 8 Environment.

Part B

6.

The Climate Change Act 2008 committed the Government (and the country) to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

Paragraph 8.26 of the Submission commits the Council to reduce carbon emissions. There is no statement in the Plan setting the base level from which to measure emissions reductions, or the level to which they are to be reduced.

The Plan proposes to increase air travel, build more houses, create more factories, and increase the local population over that which it projects (the only growth in the indigenous populace is in the age 65+), with many/most of the new houses and jobs being filled by people moving into the area, all with a resulting increase in cars and lorries. As an example if half of the projected two million air passengers arrive by car, with three people to a car, then the round trip will add 660,000 extra cars on the road each year.

It is impossible to ascertain from the Core Strategy what targets are being set for carbon emission reductions.

7.

Unless all levels of Government are committed to national targets then as a country failure is inevitable.

Without firm measurable targets monitoring is irrelevant.

Because of the importance of this item it should be given a separate paragraph within section 8.

It is suggested words based on the following should be used.

Carbon emissions levels for the Rochford District in 1990 were measured at.... (A base should be calculated as soon as possible if no figures are available for 1990). From this base point carbon emissions will be reduced by:
X% 2014
Y% 2017
A% 2020
B% 2024
And so on for the planning period setting targets that will finish with 80% savings by 2050.