Core Strategy

Through proposed changes to the Core Strategy Submission Document (in response to representations 15740 Object and 15741 Object) it is proposed that Baltic Wharf, Essex Marina and other associated areas will be recognised as an exisitng substantial and major developed site in the Green Belt. Furthermore, the changes proposed by the Local Planning Authority state: "The redevelopment framework for the site should be recognised in the context of future expansion of the marina based facilities but including a broad range of developments and land uses". Consistency with Annex c of PPG2 is indicated as a guiding policy framework.
It is vital that the thrust of the policy framework in the Core Strategy is given a more detailed perspective in the Allocations DPD - enabling the physical extent of the major developed site to be defined, and the broad range of developments and uses to be set out. The current options for the Baltic Wharf site only recognise/allocate part of the site, and do so exclusively for employment/economic development. That is inconsistent with Annex C of PPG2 which would allow for a broader range of potential developments and uses. The Allocations DPD must reflect and be consistent with PPG2, and with Policy URV2 of the Core Strategy Submission Document.

The Joint Action Plan for Southend Airport stated that, 'It is not considered desirable for the airport to handle significant volumes of freight due to its location'. Recently in the Echo a senior manager of the airport was allegedly quoted as saying '80% of freight was carried in passenger planes'. The Airport will be carrying freight. Have the residents been mislead by RDC?

This section is factually incorrect and misleading as follows:
"From this, the Core Strategy Submission document has emerged, which has taken account of all previous stages and comments received."
The Core Strategy Submission document was opened for public consultation, and many representations have been received. The next step in actioning these representations is as per the public enquiry starting May this year in which the Planning inspector will hear the representations. Surely until these representations have been heard neither the core strategy, or this DPD documentation should be considered finalised.
Also this section goes onto state "Specific locations for the development will be discussed in this document and states how this will be delivered." This document includes questions to prompt public feedback by asking questions such as those in the "Other Issues and Next Steps" section. If this document, and the core stratgy document is final, then why waste the publics time seeking feedback! The party's not over until the fat lady sings! Or is it. Please clarify.

Ashingdon Parish Council feel that any further housing, or other, development in and around this Parish must be preceded or accompanied by appropriate and adequate additions to the local infrastructure.

This section of the consultation document could have been clearer on the current status of the Core Strategy and the potential for changes to the document through the examination process which will affect site options in the Allocations DPD. A number of representations have been made on the soundness of the Core Strategy which may lead an independent Government Inspector to conclude an alternative hierarchy and distribution of development.

With regard to the Hockley Area Action Plan, the traffic congestion on the B1013 will become even more critical with the proposed extension of Southend Airport. As we have previously stated, possible traffic improvements (which will be needed if the proposed developments in Hockley and Hawkwell also go ahead), will not solve the congestion problem.

In our opinion, the only options are the following:

A) Straighten out and widen existing winding (ex country) roads such as the
B1013, or build a bypass for Hockley and Hawkwell. In both cases this is
unrealistic economically (properties which have to be compulsory purchased,
and where are the displaced residents going to go?), or taking the bypass
through open spaces (such as Hockley Woods/Jubilee Park).

B) Discourage people from using cars. One way of doing this is by drastically improving public transport (again, not realistic since bus services still aren't good enough despite "improvements"). SERT has been mentioned as the only specific plan regarding improvements of public transport, but it does not touch Hawkwell nor Hockley.

Another way to discourage car use is to improve and build more connecting,
properly sign-posted cycle paths and walkways (most existing cycle paths
and walkways don't connect with each other and need local knowledge to know
that they even exist) that are designed to be used safely by both cyclists
and pedestrians (rather than a half-hearted way to get cyclists off the
roads), while encouraging the use and sale of bicycles (for example by
using the Cycle2Work tax-exempt scheme).

The core strategy concentrates on developing large blocks of land completely ignoring the potential of infill on the numerous plot land developments that exist through the area. Bland yet meaningless arguments against development of small plots are put forward, but the real reason is that such development would represent an increased additional work load for staff. Derelict land exists in abundance in the area yet the strategy concentrates on developing prime agricultural land that is used for other pourposes at the moment.