West Rochford 600 dwellings

To locate 150 dwellings in this location will have a major impact on the infrastructure, not just in the vicinity of it but to the whole of Rochford/Hockley. Before any approval is given, studies must be carried out to determine the impacts on the Rochford/Hockley Area. This should include but not be limited to Schools, Roads (RDC & ECC responsibility), Doctors, Dentist, Increase Parking in Rochford Town Centre, Station access and parking. The total plan must then be costed and incorporated in the development plans, this document should be submitted for public consultation. Hopefully this will stop fragmented development.

Although, we at CPRE object to this development in principle, this site would have less impact on Rochford Town Centre and surrounding roads.

No development should be allowed on any green belt/agricultural land

I am concerned to note that the planning application is already lodged, ahead of the decision - and that work on Hall Road services appears to have already begun.
I am further concerned that the PA only assesses drainage and other detriments to the site and the new estate, and does not consider increased risk to existing houses. As I have an ancient land drain on my property, which has been known to fill in the past, a further 600 houses sending down water is a frightening prospect. I am not satisfied that "SUDS" will be adequate to meet this risk.

I am concerned to note that the planning application is already in ahead of the decision: also that infrastructure work already appears to have begun on Hall Road.
The plans submitted only consider flood risk and other detriment relative to the site and new houses: no account is taken of increased risk to existing housing. As I have an old land drain running
towards my house, which has been known to fill in the past, a further 600 properties sending water my way is a frightening prospect. I am not satisfied that "SUDS" will be adequate to meet this risk.

I am further disturbed by the apparent intention to create a second town centre, with a "central square", school, and other facilities, necessarily separate from the original one and possibly superseding it. Infill and development south, north and west will inevitably follow until a continuous development with Hawkwell/Hockley and possibly even Southend is achieved.

Public transport does not exist in this location, and cannot be provided due to the configuration of the bridge at Hall Road. The existing bus connection to Rochford station only stops in one direction, and the obvious route from the new houses to the Southend bus will be down Ironwell Lane. Either it will be destroyed by the extra foot traffic, or pressure to tarmac and urbanise it will result in its incorporation into the site and eventual development.

Development along Ironwell Lane will create a development link via the built-up end of the Lane to meet the Christmas Tree development at Hawkwell, and lead to coalescence and pressure to fill in between the three roads Hall Road, Ironwell Lane and Rectory Road. Even with the cemetery and pub garden holding back some green space, a continuous town from Rochford to Hockley and Ashingdon is likely to result.

A developer has already submitted plans for an area larger that option 1 anyway and has completed extensive research into the site. This is supposed to be protected Green Belt Land. The road infrastructure in this area cannot cope with an additional 600 homes.

Protected greenbelt - does this mean nothing?
Prime agricultural farmland - ignore the future source of our food?
Loss of Rochford's nearest open landscape.
Existing residents - about 100 houses - swamped by 600 houses.
Totally contrary to RDC's own documented Conservation aims to preserve Hall Road approach at all costs.
Primary school? ECC show little interest unless at least thirty 5 year-olds can be assured annually. Unlikely unless attracting from outside area with consequent inevitable traffic.
Little apparent acknowledgement of existing heavy traffic use of Hall Road, especially the "insoluble" rail-bridge bottleneck.
Summary - WR1 -4 crazy proposals creating problems, solving nothing.

Keep our green open spaces, just that green and open!

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Allocations DPD consultation
West Rochford Action Group Response
Proposed Allocation WR 1-4

Green Belt

It is inappropriate to allocate any of these sites as all are within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to the protection of the Green Belt as detailed in PPG2. In para 1.4 it states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. They help to protect the countryside and Green Belts can shape patterns of urban development at sub-regional and regional scale and help to ensure that development occurs in locations allocated in development plans. PPG 2 also states the other central purposes of including land in the Green Belt (paragraph 1.5):

- To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

PPG 2 explains that the purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection and that development within Green Belts is strictly controlled by National Green Belt policy under PPG 2 to ensure that the purposes of Green Belts are not undermined and in para 1.6 states that once Green Belts have been defined the use of land in them has a positive role to play in fulfilling the specified objectives including the provision of opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population and to retain attractive landscapes and enhance landscapes near to where people live and to retain land in agricultural forestry and related areas

The proposals to allocate one of these sites for residential development would undoubtedly cause harm to the Green Belt for the reasons set out below:-

"The sprawl of a large built up area"

The proposal to allocate one of these sites for 600 dwellings and a primary school would result in the spreading outwards of this built up area since additional and significant residential development would be directly linked to the surrounding existing settlement. Such would result in a marked sprawl of the urban area.

Impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt including "the loss of an open, attractive landscape close to where people live


(a) Loss of an open landscape

As stated in PPG 2, the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. Whilst some land designated as Green Belt may not be entirely open in nature as buildings or uses that reduce openness may occupy a site, this is certainly not the case at any of these sites where the existing landscape is exceptional.

All 4 sites are entirely open in nature, contain no built structures, and are not made subject to any use which might compromise openness. The Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Directive 2005 final regulatory impact statement when considering the size of development that would be potentially harmful to the green belt and should require referral to the Secretary of State states that that a site which roughly equate to ten new, average-size dwellings broadly represents the scale of development around which there is the potential for significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt

The sizeable proposed development of 600 dwellings and a primary school would create substantial built form on land which is currently entirely open in nature which would result in significant harm as a result of a considerable loss of openness.

In addition there is no evidence provided in the Allocations DPD that the Council have undertaken a landscape impact assessment prior to proposing this site be allocated for residential development.

(b) Loss of an attractive landscape close to where people live

Sites WR1 and WR4 adjoin the western edge of the built up residential settlement of Rochford and is therefore located close to where people live.

All 4 of the Sites are natural in appearance, consisting of an actively toiled agricultural field.

The visual attractiveness of all of the 4 sites arises as a consequence of both the natural appearance of the land alongside the fact that the land is actively toiled and provides a traditional land use typical of, and pleasant to observe in, the countryside. The allocation of this land for development will be contrary to the provisions of PPG2.

( c) Impact on character

The proposed development would also dramatically change the character of the Site. The Site is currently peaceful and free from general activity. The only activity which can presently be gauged is that characterised by an extremely modest level of vehicular activity (comprising the infrequent use of farm machinery) and a low-level pedestrian flow arising from those who may use the existing public right of way when traversing the Site for recreational and/or scenic purposes.

The proposed development would significantly increase the level of general activity, noise and disturbance at the Site. Such would be wholly incongruous to the Site. This would derive from a significant increase in pedestrian and vehicular activity which would result from the creation of up to 600 residential dwellings and a primary school.

The appearance of the land alongside the fact that the land is actively toiled provides a traditional land use typical of, and pleasant to observe in, the countryside.

This particular area of West Rochford although technically on the edge of the town is unique in character. The railway line on the eastern side forms a boundary which has the effect of separating the town from the Hall Road giving the effect of a separate settlement. This area contains a small amount of low density housing Part of the area on the south side contains Rochford Hall a Grade1 listed building which is part of the conservation area. The remainder is an attractive expanse of well kept open fields trees and hedgerows . The unique character of the area was recognised by Rochford District Council in May 2007 in its document entitled" LDF - Evidence Base- Rochford Conservation Area and Management Plan.

The area analysis begins by describing Hall Road as follows:

Until the first half of the 20th century, Hall Road was undeveloped. It still has a rural feel to it, to which the trees along it make a significant contribution, and forms an attractive approach to the town and conservation area. The large houses which have been built along Hall Road since the Second World War begin on the south side outside the conservation area and stop at Rochford Hall where the conservation area begins. The Hall and the conservation area have formed an obstacle to development on this side of the road, but the houses resume on the north side outside the conservation area boundary which is drawn along the north side of the road. It is essential to the preservation of this approach to the town, and of the setting of Rochford Hall, that further suburbanisation of the road is avoided. In particular, boundary walls in unsympathetic materials can have an effect quite disproportionate to their size or the appearance of the road (Fig. 15). Hedges are much more appropriate in this context.

The current proposals for WR 1-4 are completely at odds with the Council's own statements in this context in that it proposes large scale development with a massive quantity of visible brick

In relation to WR1 one of the reasons stated to justify this site being the Council's preferred option is that it provides a defensible Green Belt boundary. However the existing boundary with Oak Road is fully defensible if the normal criteria of PPG2 are applied

.2. Agricultural Land

The proposal to release prime agricultural land ignores the need to fulfil the future requirements of feeding the country in view of the serious concerns for world food shortages and the estimated large increase in the population of the world and particularly this country. It will not be environmentally acceptable to pursue a policy of importing food which could be grown in this country

The land in Hall Road falls into the category of Best and Most Versatile land (BMV) and is identified at para 8.16 of the present Local Development Plan as being a national resource and should be protected from permanent loss. This is confirmed by national statistics as TIN049 from Natural England states that Grade 1 and2 together form around 21% of all farmland in England. The need for such land to be protected is further stated in PPS7 paras 28 and 29. This states that where significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable Local Planning Authorities should seek to use area of poorer quality land (grade 3b 4 & 5)in preference. Para 29 requires that development land should include policies which identify any major areas of agricultural land that are planned for development and where it is proposed to develop BMV land this should be done having carefully weighed the options in the light of competent advice. The CSCD and Allocations DPD do not include policies specifically identify agricultural land in this way. Furthermore no evidence has been provided that the local Planning Authority have taken competent advice as required by para 29.

3.Roads and transport -

Traffic congestion in Hall Road and on the outskirts of Rochford town is a frequent occurrence particularly at peak times. Additional development in West Rochford on the scale proposed will force additional traffic on to both Hall Road and Cherry Orchard Way and thence on to the A127 or via Warners Bridge towards Southend Town Centre - both routes are regularly congested. The junction improvement proposed will not solve the issue because it was acknowledged in the East of England Plan paras 4.57 and 4.58 that in the morning peak period traffic flows on the A127 already exceed capacity in the westbound direction which it is expected to become worse by 2031. It was also acknowledged that traffic flows already exceed capacity on several sections of the A13 and are forecast to increase further . If the employment proposals north of Aviation Way which have been included as part of the airport expansion and development scheme proceed the traffic impact would be even worse. Furthermore the pedestrian access under the bridge at Rochford station already poses dangers to pedestrians particularly for those in wheelchairs and prams with no potential for access improvements. The increased traffic flow generated by development proposals will exacerbate the dangers.

Emergency services must be able to gain access to incidents and a significant further increase in traffic flows that will result from these proposals will jeopardise their effective operation.

It is stated that all 4 sites are within walking distance of Rochford Railway station and bus routes. Any development at the western end of WR1 and WR4 or on any part of WR2 and WR3 will entail a considerable walk in excess of 30 minutes to either the train station bus routes or Town Centre There is currently no bus service serving Hall Road or Cherry Orchard Way. The distance from the western end of site WR1 is approximately 0.5 miles to the train station and from the north western point of the site approx 0.7 miles to the train station with a further walk to the town centre.

The nearest bus stop for westward travel is by the train station and for eastward travel either in Dalys Road or East Street The practical result of these proposals is that residents in this area will rely on the motor car contrary to the objective of the Core Strategy and not in line with PPG13. The proposal to include a primary school in this location will exacerbate the traffic situation still further with additional cars parking in the early morning and mid afternoon. This scenario already exists in relation to Rochford Primary school where the lack of parking facilities results in parents cars being parked in St Andrews Road and the access road in Church Lane in the early morning and mid afternoon. It was also acknowledged in the Core Strategy document that 84% of households have cars.

A full transport assessment is required to ensure the provisions of PPG13 para 23 can be met before reallocating green belt land and ensure achievement of the key planning objective set out in para 19 of PPG13 to ensure that developments are accessible by public transport walking and cycling to promote social inclusion particularly for those who do not have regular use of a car. The emphasis in the Core Strategy on social housing provision makes this requirement particularly important. Para 40 of PPG13 requires that this same policy should be applied in rural areas where public transport is less available.

WRAG response to Allocations DPD
Community Facilities page 110.

We have already objected to the residential development in WR1-4 which it is proposed to include a primary school. A new primary school in this location is unsuitable as it does not meet the criteria set out on page 111.

In particular Hall Road provides a direct route for emergency services and traffic calming measures would therefore be inappropriate in this location. Hall Road is a direct route into the town centre from the west and already carries considerable traffic which will be exacerbated by further residential and primary school development.

A new primary school would cause considerable parking problems in the area as is already the case early in the mornings and late afternoon when St Andrews Road in particular is utilised as a car park for parents of children at Rochford Primary School following the development of the schools car park several years ago.

As has already been stated under objections to WR1-4 there are no buses in this location

We are writing to log our views against building housing developments north and south of Brays Lane. I think the perfect location to build houses is the site off Hall road. This is near to Rochford primary school and is within distance of The King Edmund School and very close proximity to Rochford Train station. There is also minimal distance to the A127.

If you build on the land north of Brays Lane, I think it will be extremely difficult to have a definite defensible green belt boundary line for the remaining green belt Land. You would have the issue of more pedestrians crossing Brays Lane. This is a fatal accident waiting to happen.


Brays lane is an extremely busy road, with Juggernaut lorries continuously travelling up and down the road. You have the sewerage lorries, the steel and timber lorries plus the occasional boat too.

I understand that Essex highways believe that the current infrastructure can cope with additional cars but I don't believe it can, neither do I believe that just by changing the layout of the roads, like Ashingdon Road will this ease the congestion. It is already bad now, in the mornings from 7.30 - 9.00 and 2.00- 4.00 when the schools open and close.

I have seen a suggestion for the bus entrance in Brays Lane for The King Edmund School and I do not believe that was user friendly either. The bus entrance should be well away from the residential area and have space for 8 buses to wait together. The buses arrive at 1.30 p.m. with their engines running for that period of time until 2.15 when they leave. They usually arrive together and the proposed drop off would not accomdate this and the buses would end up stacking up the resdential road which would cause futher problems.

I really do think that the housing should be placed off of the Hall Road option and the brays lane entrance should be left alone.

Response to Allocations Development Plan Consultation


Serious concerns that the three sites, Rochford West, Ashingdon South and Rochford East, would create major highways implications with the increase in vehicles, particular the latter two sites which would impact on the already overused and congested Ashingdon Road.
The infrastructure in Rochford cannot sustain a large increase in housing.
The loss of Green Belt land at a time when there is a shortage of farming land to provide food for the increasing population.
A major part of Rochford's Green Belt will be taken up with the Airport Development
Environmental issues due to increase of housing. This would create more vehicles thus increasing pollution from emissions.
Any expansion of King Edmund School would create increased vehicle movements, including buses to transport pupils from the Wakering/Barling/Foulness area. Although it is noted that there would be new access road to the School within the South Ashingdon development, the traffic would still have to use Ashingdon Road and other unclassified roads around Rochford.
An increase in housing would impact on the amount of policing required.
Regarding the proposal for Rochford West, Ironwell Lane is an ancient byway, where there a number of protected hedges, therefore it should be ensured that no direct access to Ironwell Lane from the new development is allowed.

Both my wife and myself strongly object to any further residential developments at: Hall Road, Clements Hall, Brays Lane and behind Sapwood.



It is total madness to suggest any future development in the above areas; one would have to be a total moron or a complete idiot to even think of this.



We live opposite Brays Lane and on average it takes 45mins to 1 hr to get to Southend in the rush hour, the majority of this hold-up being on the Ashingdon Rd. EVERY SINGLE ROAD IS JAMMED PACKED WITH CARS TRYING TO GET THROUGH ASHINGDON/ROCHFORD.If you try going down Rectory Rd, the queue is from the junction of Hall Rd back to St Andrews church. The queue in Hall Rd is from Rochford Station roundabout back to the roundabout at Cherry orchard lane and Cherry orchard Lane queues from Snakes Lane back to Hall Rd.



This is not a one off but an everyday occurrence for the occupants of Ashingdon. WE KNOW, WE DO THE JOURNEY EVERY DAY. It is a known fact that people coming from Chelmsford use Watery Lane then through Hullbridge, down past the Dome and then left onto Ashingdon Road - we are just a cut through for every other road user in Essex trying to get to Southend without using the A127.



These areas are some of the most densely populated in Europe and have reached saturation point and it is about time you thought of the needs OF YOUR RESIDENTS instead of creating a town of bricks and concrete.



WE SAY NO !!!!!!



I look forward to hearing from you

To whom it may concern

The following are my opinions concerning the proposals for the increase in housing within the Hockley/Hawkwell area.

I am not going to highlight each development individually as I believe there should be NO major housing development within the area. My reasons are as follows.

50 new homes in the Folly Chase, 175 homes within the Hawkwell area as well as homes in the Eldon Way. I have recently found out that there is planning for 600 homes off Hall road, Rochford and 500 homes to built in Hullbridge. That brings a total of 1325+ home within our small region. The last 2 developments may not be in Hockley/Hawkwell but would have an adverse effect on the VILLAGE.

Issues with mass new developments it does not take a rocket scientist to highlight there will be a huge impact on local roads and infrastructure, where at present, they are already very busy and by adding more cars will simply bring the local area to a standstill.

Impact on local services will be huge, doctors cannot cope with huge numbers. Schools are at bursting point and the fiasco of a NHS dentist over the last few months further highlights the point of the local services CANNOT COPE.

With all the new developments it was highlighted by council planning staff there would be road improvements. Folly Chase and Folly Lane cannot be widened due to existing housing and railway bridge. It does not matter how you improve road network it still cannot cope with an influx of cars.

I believe more housing would be detrimental effect on the Hockley and surrounding area. With more people it becomes more congested and busy. This is the opposite reason why so many people want to live in Hockley became of it VILLAGE lifestyle. The effect would be Hockley becomes too busy and congested, noisy it soon does not become a nice place to live and eventually house prices will begin to fall because of the law of diminishing returns. The busier the VILLAGE becomes the more congested it becomes and people then would want to move out.

As stated by the council planning staff at the Meeting at Greensward school housing would be built on green belt land. I thought that green belt land is protected against development. It seems that of the council want to build on green belt land they can when it suits them.

I am aware that the extra housing is being forced upon you by central government. Could the planning department please have some balls and stick up for local residents and stand up to government with these issues.

A last issue as we approach the General Election what are the chances of the development being completed if a new government is formed?

Below is my first statement of the development of Hockley stating my opinions on the development and aspects will relate to the present increase in homes.

1. The report continually refers to Hockley as a town. I believe Hockley is still a village and for most residents this remains so. Rayleigh has a population of over 30,000 which reflects its town's status whilst Hockley has less than 8,900 people. Stated in the report on p54, Hockley is not considered to meet the definition of a 'town centre' Retail and Leisure Study 2008.
2. The high amount of residential homes to be built I believe will put even more pressure on already stretched public services. Local schools are at bursting point; Greensward School has very little space if at all available to build to build more classrooms. Doctor's surgeries are so busy they only have a limited time to care for patients.
3. Building flats/apartments obviously saves on land but the impacts are more widespread. This increase population again putting more stress on public services and infrastructure. As stated on p16 (2.6.1) there are aprox 15,000 cars a day use Hockley's roads. By increasing the amount of homes this will put even more stress on the roads from the inhabitant's cars.
4. The traffic problem at the Spa roundabout is not solely due to the poor road layout but to too many cars due to a high population coupled with drivers not understanding how to actually use a roundabout. I frequently observe drivers signalling right and continuing straight on. Traffic lights are not the answer to solve the problem. Most of the time the junction is fine except at rush hour due to huge numbers of people using the junction.
5. Stated in the report (p11) the council would look to build larger retail unit. I presume by this statement it would mean a large supermarket chain such a Tesco. By encouraging big multinational companies into the village would spell disaster for the local butchers, greengrocer, and newsagents. Further points to highlight concerning a big supermarket chain would be more traffic from local areas into the centre of the village creating more chaos and stress on local roads. Secondly there are already three big supermarket chains within a short drive of Hockley. Tesco on the A127, ASDA on Rawreth Lane and Sainsbury's at Rayleigh Weir. There should be encouragement of local Business not huge companies with no ties to the area.
6. Nowhere in the report does it state an introduction of cycle paths. Referring back to point 3 and 15,000 cars use the roads would it be a good idea to try and encourage people onto their bikes and maybe reduce the amount of cars. I frequently cycle to work and at times still do not feel safe. I am aware that people travel long distances to work and cycling is not a viable option, but provision should still be available. This could act to encourage people to cycle and reduce the amount of traffic.

7. As stated earlier I think Hockley could benefit from development in its shopping area. An increase in housing I feel would be detrimental to the work that is going to put into the area. After studying the tables on pages 41-45 it seems a huge increase in properties being built depending on which option is chosen. I have already stated the stress on local services. With more property being built comes cars. If every dwelling had an average of 2 cars per household that would mean more cars on the road. The table below shows how many more cars would be on the road



Option No. of Dwellings No of cars
1.1 140 180
1.2 114 128
2.1 158 316
2.2 209 418
3.1 157 314
3.2 186 372

8. Under the 6 proposals The Hockley clinic (area H) would be moved to area L. I understand that health visitors from this unit have already been moved out to Rayleigh, so new mothers and families have to travel to Rayleigh for care, help and advice. What is the point of providing a service of care if they are already in another town? Secondly what is stopping the local authorities of moving health care altogether out of Hockley into a super clinic in Rayleigh? This can be referred back to the point I keep stressing of the increase in population but limited public services available.
9. Further questions are, what is the time scale for this development? With the present financial climate is this the right time? Stated in point 3.10.3 it will be a long term matter will the development just simply fade away over time? Will there be a formal meeting for residents of Hockley and the council so we can air our views?

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO ALLOCATIONS DPD DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

1 INTRODUCTION:

Hawkwell Parish Council is still of the opinion that a new village should be created in South West Rayleigh to enable the benefits of easy access to the highway network to be realised and where all the infrastructure could be provided in a phased way without compromising existing settlements.

We consider that a Local Development Framework should be a document that sets out the strategy for spatial planning in the district. Whilst we understand that the Planning Authority has a statutory obligation to undertake a call for sites we are firmly of the opinion that such an approach mitigates against a truly strategic approach with the result that around 200 sites have now being put forward. We note that the DPD asserts that, of the 3,790 dwellings that have to provided according to the East of England Plan, some 2745 of these dwellings will be on green belt. The maths is simple, that means over 72% of the dwellings will be on green belt which is contrary to the stated policy of using brown field sites for the majority of these new dwellings. With such a gross distortion of the guidelines established by government a truly strategic approach (ie a new settlement) is all the more essential.

However, bearing in mind the above view, the Parish will respond to the proposed site allocations on the basis of preference for those which will do the least damage and provide the best defence to the remaining greenbelt. In this respect sites in Rayleigh, Rawreth area NLR5 seem the most suitable option.

2 RESIDENTIAL:

West Rayleigh

NLR5 is probably the best option because it has a strong defensible boundary and a bus service could be provided between London Rd and Rawreth Lane.

West Rochford

600 dwellings and a school in this location would destroy the rural nature of Hall Road. It would reduce and indeed almost remove the differentiation between Rochford and Hawkwell and is a prime example of urban creep. It will contribute to congestion as traffic tries to access the A127 via the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way. The loss of high quality agricultural land is always regrettable, especially in view of recent comment in the popular press on the need to protect prime agricultural land for food production in the coming years. Option WR1 is possibly the least damaging if the hedge line is protected along Ironwell Lane and Hall Road and access to Ironwell Lane by motor vehicle is prohibited.

West Hockley WH2

This option is preferred because it has previous industrial use and can be accessed off Folly Lane.

South Hawkwell 175 dwellings

The Parish Council maintains that this location is unsuitable and does not meet the sustainability requirements. Of these options, SH2 is the least damaging because it retains the wooded area behind Thorpe Close.


SH3 or SH4

These options must not be entertained because they encompass land between Rectory Road and Hall Road as well as Hawkwell Nursery site. The Jewson's site as a brown field site should, with resolution of access problems, take some of the allocation for South Hawkwell.

East Ashingdon 100 dwellings and land for extension of King Edmond School

Kind Edmond School would be large enough if a secondary school was provided in Great Wakering. This would save long journeys for the children (some 600 bussed every day causing increased traffic and pollution to local roads). However, Option EA is the least damaging as it limits development to one side of Brays Lane.

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

Option SWH1 is probably the least damaging.

South Canewdon 60 dwellings

SC6 is the most suitable providing a defensible boundary can be maintained.

South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings

All of the sites are unsuitable because they have an impact on Oxford Road.

SEA1 could be accessed off Oxford Road, The Drive and Ashingdon Road which will cause further traffic problems in these locations. West Great Wakering Option WGW5 would be most suitable.

Rawreth Industrial Estate

It is possibly better relocated and replaced by housing.

Stambridge Mills

This site would benefit from being zoned for housing providing public access is maintained to the waterfront.

Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Brickworks could accommodate housing although it is well located as an industrial site.

Eldon Way/Foundry Estate

Eldon Way should stay as local employers convenient for the station and has leisure uses. The Foundry Site could well be relocated and developed for housing, it would be a natural extension to the flats either side of Railway approach.


Gypsy and Traveller site locations

Option GT3 is the most suitable as it is closer to shops and schools.

3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAND:

West Rayleigh E18

Seems the most suitable because of its Highway location.

South of Great Wakering

Option E22 offers the least disruption to residents and has less impact on Poynters Lane.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATIONS:

The Parish Council agrees that areas shown on figure 4.3 and listed in table 41 should be allocated wildlife sites. Also agree that figure 4.4 should be allocated as the upper Roach Valley.

We also agree that the Coastal protection Belt should be shown as figure 4.5.

5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES:

Education

The Parish agrees in principle with the approach that a new Primary School be provided within future residential locations.

If the proposed site west of Rochford is on the eastern side of the new development it would appear to be far too near Rochford Primary we would question the need in this location.

Of the options presented Option KES2 is the most suitable however we maintain the view that if a new Secondary School were built in Great Wakering there would be no need to extend Kind Edmonds School and a large number of children would have their journey to school substantially reduced .

Open Space

We agree with the open space being protected through OS1 and consider that sites must be allocated rather than to left to determination by the vagary of negotiations with developers. We are again offended by the continuance of the Planning Authority to regard Hawkwell as a sub set of Hockley (there is no mention of Hawkwell in figure 5.1) - Glencroft is in Hawkwell, it is leased and managed by Hawkwell ( as are Spencers and Magnolia) and to state on page 127 that it is in Hockley undermines our confidence in the knowledge of the author of the detail of the layout of the district and the importance of community identity in such an important document.

Community Facilities

We believe community facilities proposed in (Option CF1) and illustrated and listed in figure 5.2 must be safeguarded. However we note that no account has been taken of the other community facilities that exist in the district (eg we draw specific attention to Hawkwell Village & Ashingdon & East Hawkwell Village Halls - both charitable trusts) that make significant contributions to community in the district, these too must be safeguarded.

6. TOWN CENTRES:

Rayleigh Town Centre Option TC1

Existing town centre boundary to be maintained.

Rochford TC4 is less restrictive but also allows customers to move around a smaller area.

Hockley Option TC8 seems the best option providing a more contained area.

We support the view that Hockley should be re-allocated as a District Centre.

Option TC12 Rayleigh

There must be a distinction between primary and secondary shopping frontages to maintain a vibrant town centre.

Rochford TC13

The distinction between secondary and primary should be maintained. The mixed-use development must be included in the primary shopping area because it contains the Supermarket.

Hockley TC15

We support this option as it utilises the existing primary shopping frontage to form primary shopping area.


7 OTHER ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS:

Hawkwell Parish Council wishes to be represented at The Examination in Public.

Response of Essex County Council

Essex County Council welcomes the production of an Allocations DPD by Rochford District Council. The setting out of site specific options for development at the general locations identified within the Core Strategy Submission Document will positively assist realisation of the Core Strategy and the Vision for the District. The inclusion of options not just for residential and business development but also for community facilities and environmental designations is particularly supported as providing a firm basis for the holistic and sustainable approach to the future of the District. Similarly, the stated intent (Page 6) to ensure delivery of required infrastructure alongside residential development is fully supported.

The scope and coverage of the Allocations DPD is broadly supported but the general approach to site assessment, selection and definition could benefit from some further considerations, as follows,

1. as presented, many of the site specific options for development suggest artificial and/or straight.site boundaries. The definition of boundaries of the sites eventually selected should be based on and incorporate existing boundaries, in order to,
* respect the often ancient field patterns;
* existing hedges and other vegetation can provide a screen to the development or a feature at the periphery of the development;
* avoid odd parcels of land remaining which are too small to function independently;
* preserve often important wildlife habitats.

2. new single-form entry primary schools will be required to serve proposed residential at two locations - the site North of London Road, Rayleigh, and the site to the West of Rochford. Chapter 5 (Community Facilities) lists site characteristics for school provision at each of these sites (Pages 110 and 111). Essex County Council does not agree to these lists of characteristics. The criteria for identification and selection of school sites are much broader.

Essex County Council has produced an 'Education Contributions Guidelines Supplement' to its 'Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2010 Edition)' - both of which were subject to a public consultation exercise closing in February 2010. The 'Education Contributions Guidelines Supplement' (copy attached to response) sets out the detailed requirements for provision of new school sites. In the context of the statements on pages 110 and 111 of the Allocations DPD particular attention is drawn to the procedures and requirements for identification and selection of new school sites as set out in Appendices D, E and F. Within Appendix D particular attention is drawn to the section of the Checklist addressing the question of 'suitable safe access' to the site to emphasise that the design of the school and its relationship to the proposed and existing residential areas should facilitate provision of the best and safest walking routes to schools. The Supplement should be referenced within the Allocations DPD and other relevant documents within the Local Development Framework.

3. provision of Early Years and Childcare facilities is not discussed by the Document. Clear statements should be included that the two potential new primary schools would also need to incorporate Early Years and Childcare facilities. The District's Core Strategy (Policy CLT2) also requires provision of new Early Years and Childcare facilities in Hockley. Although it is not currently envisaged that a site could be identified in the Allocations DPD the requirement could be usefully identified in discussion of Hockley Town Centre (Page 144).

4. the proposed allocation of sites for education use is noted. However, allocation of such sites, and other County Council or public service sites, should not be applied such that it seeks to preserve existing uses on sites in perpetuity, thereby restricting the service provider's ability to expand/relocate the facility to better cater for future needs. Should a public service site cease to be required for its current purpose, its future use should be determined on the merits of the site and its location. Public service sites become surplus because local demand for the service has fallen to uneconomic levels or the facility has been replaced by more suitable facilities elsewhere. The Allocations DPD, and other documents within the Local Development Framework, should acknowledge that there will be circumstances when a better option for the community would be redevelopment of a public service site and re-investment of the proceeds elsewhere as part of a strategic programme of infrastructure replacement.

5. Section 4, Environment, of the Allocations DPD would benefit from an additional section that discusses the Historic Environment of Rochford District. Essex County Council would welcome early discussion with the District Council with the aim of producing jointly agreed text for such a section.

6. it should be noted that the County Library Service's medium-term plans include moving the existing library from its existing premises in Great Wakering. This may offer the opportunity for a joint project associated with the proposed enhancement of the Leisure Centre in the village, dependent on detailed location, access and other considerations.

7. the selected sites will generally be associated with greenspace creation. Information on greenspace deficiencies in the area is available in the 'Analysis of Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision for Essex, including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Unitary Authorities', which may be found on the Essex Wildlife Trust website.

8. the emphasis of the Document on provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems is welcomed, but it should be linked to broader support for the use of associated Green Infrastructure and greenspace creation.

9. the Allocations DPD should acknowledge and note the proportion of the development requirements that will be provided on existing development or brownfield sites.

In respect of the proposed site specific options and environmental designations Essex County Council has the following observations,

A. King Edmund School education site - there is an identified need to provide additional land to accommodate expansion of the school to meet additional demand and to secure improved vehicular access to the school via Brays Lane. Options KES2 and KES3 are preferred by Essex County Council because each presents an opportunity to contribute to both identified needs. Improvements to King Edmund School will need to be linked with adjacent proposals for residential development at the East Ashingdon location. Options EA1 or EA3 are preferred because of the opportunities they present to enable the improvements to the school, which Option EA1 does not. Essex County Council would welcome early discussion with the District Council to ensure the suitability of the detailed site specific requirements for improvement to King Edmund School and residential development at the East Ashingdon location. It should be noted that provision of access from King Edmund School to Brays Lane should be of a standard sufficient to accommodate cars and all associated vehicles serving the school.

B. the proposed environmental designations discussed in Chapter 4 (Environment) are supported. The proposed definition of a boundary for the Coastal Protection Belt is particularly supported as assisting realisation of Policy ENV2 of the Core Strategy and reflecting the currently saved Policy CC1 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan (2001). Also, the designation of Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park and the Upper Roach Valley is supported. However, the Allocations Document should also include the proposed Stonebridge Park, which is highlighted in the Parklands Vision as a potential sub-regional park centred around Great Wakering.

C. further detailed consideration would be required of the potential employment/ business density of the site and its transport and access requirements of Option E18, Michelins Farm (an option for 8.6 hectares of employment uses, Page 88) should the District Council wish to proceed with allocation of the site. The A1245 is classified as a Main Distributor in the Route Hierarchy and direct access from this class of road is normally prohibited. In addition, the distance on the A1245 between the A127 Fairglen junction and the railway line acts against achievement of the required technical specifications for a new junction. Any changes to the Fairglen junction to provide an access to the site would require comprehensive realignment of the northern western sector and, in addition, the existing roundabout contains a pumping station. Direct access to the A127 and A130 is also prohibited due to the classification of those roads and would need third party land.

D. Assessment of the preferred site options should also include specific consideration of their Historic Environment Character in terms of known and potential features and their contribution to the cultural and historic landscapes of the District. There should be a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of each site is taken into account at an early stage in selection of preferred site options and taken forward in subsequent work on the preferred sites. A summary description of the historic environment characteristics and the requirements for archaeological investigation of the residential, brownfield and new employment locations presented in the Allocations DPD is set out in the Annex to this response. The summaries have implications for choice of sites within the locations at West Hockley, South West Hullbridge, South Canewdon and West Great Wakering (residential) and at South of Great Wakering (employment). Essex County Council would be willing to contribute further detailed evaluation of the historic environment characteristics of each site to inform further stages in preparation of the Allocations DPD.


ANNEX TO ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE TO ROCHFORD ALLOCATIONS DPD, DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT (REGULATION 25) FEBRUARY 2010

SUMMARY REVIEW OF HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS

A. Residential Land Allocations

1. North of London Road Rayleigh - the Rochford Historic Environment Character (HEC) project identifies the options NLR1-4 for land north of London Road as lying within an area characterised by an historic dispersed settlement pattern retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HEC Zone 34). Whilst there would be no objection to any of the four options suggested, given the sites' adjacency to known heritage sites, the historic environment character and potential any future large scale housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

2. West of Rochford - the Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies the site West of Rochford as lying within an area of high potential for surviving below ground deposits in un-quarried areas (HEC Zone 18). The limited archaeological knowledge of the site probably relates to a lack of fieldwork than to a genuine lack of early settlement as extensive evidence of prehistoric occupation lies to the south of the site at Westbarrow Hall. The area around the scheduled Rochford Hall should also be considered one of archaeological potential, as the postulated location of medieval settlement. Whilst there would be no objection on Historic Environment grounds to any of the four options (WR1-4) suggested for land West of Rochford, given the sites adjacency to known heritage sites and its archaeological potential any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered

3. West Hockley - this proposed location lies with an historic landscape of dispersed settlement which dates to the medieval or earlier periods and within a zone (HEC Zone 33) identified in the Rochford Historic Environment Character project as retaining a high potential for historic environment assets. There would be no objection on Historic Environment grounds to any of the five options (WH1-5) suggested for land West of Hockley, although options WH2 or WH5 be would preferred due to previous development, they would entail the least impact on any surviving remains. The other options would however require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered. Consideration should also be given to the landscape character of the area and the woodland setting.

4. South of Hawkwell - within the Rochford HEC the proposed development south of Hawkwell lies within the HEC Z one26, Land between Hockley and Ashingdon. This area of predominantly rural landscape slopes down to the Crouch Estuary between Hawkwell and Ashingdon, is noted for its dispersed settlement and the number of find spots, particularly of prehistoric material and its potential for archaeological sites despite little formal investigation having been carried out. Having considered the sites' historic environment character and potential there would be no objection to the options (SH1-4) but given the sites archaeological potential any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

5. East Ashingdon - the site lies within HEC Zone 13, characterised by its landscape of dispersed and polyfocal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies less than a 1km to the north while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm lie close by. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. There would be no objection to the options (EA1-4) but there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

6. South West Hullbridge - the HEC Zone 36 for land west of Hullbridge states that whilst archaeological deposits are rare, prehistoric sites are present within the inter tidal zone and in general the area has potential for deposits to survive. Two known undated earthworks at Maylons and South of Maylons lie within the proposed area while a medieval moated site is close by. Options SWH1 and 2 have the greatest impact on the earthwork sites, Options 3 and 4, less impact. Whilst there would be no objection to the options outlined for South West Hullbridge, there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

7. South Canewdon - the HEC Zone 12 shows that Canewdon is an example of a late Saxon/early Medieval settlement focused on the church hall complex but surrounded by a wider dispersed pattern of manors. On comparison with similar settlements it is reasonable to assume that archaeological remains survive within and in the proximity of the historic settlement particularly those historic assets associated with the coast and historic core. Some archaeological finds have been unearthed immediately north of options SC2, 3 and 4 but little to the south, further away from the historic core, in the area of SC1. There would be no objection to the options outlined for South Canewdon, but there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

8. South East Ashingdon - the location lies within HEC Zone 13 characterised by its landscape of dispersed and poly-focal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies nearby while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm are in close proximity. Roman material has also been identified to the west of Doggetts Farm. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. There would be no objection to the options (SEA1-3) but there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

9. West Great Wakering - options for West Great Wakering lie within HEC Zone 7, an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying. There would be no objection to the options (WGW 1-5), although those incorporating, or part incorporating, former extractions such as WGW1-3 will have the least impact upon the historic environment. Otherwise non-quarried areas (most of WGW4 and 5) would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

B. Brownfield Sites

1. Stambridge Mills - the location survives as a complex multi-period site comprising a wide range of buildings, structures and earthworks which together chart the development of an historic milling site dating from the 18th century or earlier. In a wider context it sits within an industrial backdrop of quays and wharfs and a prehistoric landscape, with important Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement recently unearthed at nearby Coombes Farm. There would be no objection to the redevelopment of the Stambridge Mills site, but there would be a requirement for a historic building survey to record the complex prior to any demolition and an archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

C. New Employment Land Allocations

1. West of Rayleigh - the Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that the options for land West of Rayleigh lie within an area characterised by historic dispersed settlement retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HEC Zone 34). Whilst there would be no objection to the options for a new employment park, options E13 and E15 would have the least impact on the historic environment. Any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

2. Michelins Farm - the Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that option E18 for employment land at Michelins Farm lies within an area characterised by multi-period settlement, as revealed during the recent excavations along the A130, with a good potential for below ground deposits (HEC Zone 40). Whilst there would be no objection to option E18 any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

3. London Southend Airport and Environs - within the Rochford Historic Environment Character report the relevant character zones (HEC Zones 17 and 18) identify the areas at this location that not already developed as having a high potential for the survival of historic environment assets. The area is one which, although partially disturbed through construction of the airport and modern industrial buildings, retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to known sites, such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence, moated sites, post-medieval tile kilns and brickworks, further finds in the area of the on- going airport railway terminal and to the west of the site indicate extensive prehistoric activity. Furthermore the airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of the Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and still contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. Any future development proposals would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

4. South of Great Wakering - options for south of Great Wakering lie within HEC Zone 7, an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying. Due to quarrying, option E22 (south of Star Lane brickworks) and options E23 and& E24 (south of Poynters Road) have no historic environment implications and option E19 would have the least impact of the remaining options. Otherwise non- quarried areas would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1 We act on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd who control some 33.45 ha of land to the
west of Rochford. A Site Boundary Plan is contained at Appendix 1. 'Land to the
West of Rochford' has been identified by Rochford District Council (RDC) as a
location for housing development in the Submission draft of the Core Strategy
Document Plan Document (DPD) (see policy H2 and Appendix H1) and Bellway
support this proposal.

1.2 These representations set out our client's position with respect to the site specific
options for the general locations indentified within the Core Strategy Submission
DPD. Four options for land to the west of Rochford are considered in the Site
Allocations Discussion and Consultation DPD (WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4) and they
are either wholly, or partially located on our clients site.

1.3 The purpose of the Discussion and Consultation DPD is to provide stakeholders with
the opportunity to consider and comment upon allocation options that have been
put forward for development. We understand that the Consultation and Discussion
DPD will inform the final Site Allocations DPD which is expected to be adopted in
late 2011. RDC first undertook consultation on the Site Allocations DPD in January
2007 when the call for sites process commenced. At this point in time Bellway did
not control the site at Hall Road, but representations were made by the landowner.

The Site

1.4 The Bellway site forms a rectangular area of land abutting the western built up edge
of Rochford. It is currently in agricultural use. It is bounded by Hall Road to the
south. There are a number of large detached residential properties located
immediately to the south of Hall Road. The site is also surrounded by large ditches
along its western, northern and eastern boundaries as well as in part along its
southern boundary. The site is enclosed and contained on its northern boundary by
a tree belt approximately 15 metres in height and a substantial hedgerow
approximately 5 - 6 metres in height comprising oak, ash, maple, hawthorn and
blackthorn species. Ironwell Lane lies to the north of the site, and a footpath
crosses it, north-south, linking Ironwell Lane to Hall Road.

1.5 The site has an open character due to its agricultural (arable) land use. However,
the close proximity to local roads and existing residential areas to the south and
east, as well as its robust boundary vegetation mean that it is well screened in local
views and is well related and connected to the existing urban area.

1.6 The site is located 1000m from Rochford Town Centre and 600m from Rochford
Railway Station. Existing bus services run from the station to Southend and
Rayleigh. Measured from the centre of the site, Southend Airport is located 2km to
the south. The nearest employment centres are in the town centre and the
employment zone adjacent to the airport on Orchard Way.

1.7 The site is generally level and was designated in the Replacement Rochford Local
Plan (2006) as Green Belt countryside (Policy R2). The majority of the site falls
within Flood Zone 1. A small part in the north east corner was designated as flood
Zone 2; analysis by Ardent Consulting of the detailed Topographical Survey has
been demonstrated that the site falls within Flood Zone 1.
Outline Planning Application 10/00234/OUT

1.8 On 12 April 2010 Barton Willmore Planning LLP submitted an outline planning
application to RDC on behalf of Bellway Homes Ltd. The application was validated
on 27 April 2010. The application seeks approval for the following:

"Residential Development (Class C3) of 600 dwellings, associated access and a new primary school on Land north of Hall Road, Rochford. Such development to include the
infrastructure associated with residential development, public open space and new vehicular and pedestrian access routes."

1.9 The purpose of the application is to help RDC meet their strategic housing
requirement. The agreed Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) provides a 10 month timetable through to determination.

1.10 The application has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved except
access. A request for a Screening Opinion was sought from RDC on 29 January
2010 and a response was received on 16 February 2010 stating that an
Environmental Impact Assessment was not required. Appendix 2 contains a list of submitted application documents and plans. In line with emerging Core Strategy Policy H2, Parameters Plan PL-03 (Appendix 3) sets out the key principles of development. They are as follows:

* 600 residential units of a mix of sizes and densities;
* Creation of a high quality open space and landscape feature to the west and
north site to provide a new boundary to the Green Belt;
* Provision of a strategic planting buffer on the western edge to maintain the
character and openness of the Green Belt;
* Provision of two principal site access points from Hall Road;
* An area of at least 1.1 ha for a new primary school including playing fields
in the centre of the development;
* Creation of pedestrian and cycle links to the town centre;
* Provision of sustainable drainage systems;
* Retention and enhancement of Tree Preservation Orders on Hall Road; and
* Retention of views towards key features to enhance the sense of place.

1.11 Bellway has entered into a PPA with Rochford District Council as local planning
authority. The objectives of the PPA are as follows:
1. To establish a shared commitment to an agreed timetable towards the
assessment, consideration and determination of a planning application in due
course.
2. To identify determining issues and agree steps to resolve them wherever
possible.
3. To identify and address the detailed requirements of any planning conditions
and planning obligations which would be necessary should a planning
application be deemed acceptable in principle, subject to such matters.
4. To achieve the determination of an outline planning application relating to
the development of the Land North of Hall Road to provide for 600
residential units (Class C3) associated access and a new primary school. Such development will include the infrastructure associated with residential development, public open space and new vehicular and pedestrian access
routes.

2.0 POLICY CONTEXT, REQUIREMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE

Soundness of the draft Site Allocations DPD

2.1 The emerging DPD will be refined and ultimately tested through Examination
against, inter alia, the advice set out in PPS12. In addition, the Planning Inspectorate has also published 'Local development frameworks examining development plan documents soundness guidance' (July 2008).

2.2 In short, the emerging DPD must be:

* Justified - e.g. whether it complies with the Core Strategy;
* Effective - whether the polices, including site allocations, are deliverable, and
* Consistent with national policy

2.3 It is crucial for the emerging DPD to identify sufficient land to meet strategic
requirements and for such sites to be deliverable. For example, whether necessary
infrastructure has been planned and is certain and whether the delivery parties, in
particular the statutory consultees, are supportive of the DPD. In addition, the
emerging DPD needs to be flexible to respond to changing events and to constraints
on deliverability.

Planning Policy Statement 3

2.4 With respect to deliverability of sites, PPS3 advises at Para 54 that sites must be:
* Available: Is the site available for development in an appropriate timeframe?
* Suitable: Is the site suitable for housing now and would it contribute to the
creation of a sustainable mixed community?
* Achievable: Can the proposed development be achieved in the relevant time frame?

East of England Plan RSS

2.5 The soundness of the Council's proposed spatial strategy and for meeting housing
needs in particular falls to be considered against the polices set out in the East of
England Plan May 2008 (EEP) and of course, national policy, in particular PPS3 and
PPS12. As the Council acknowledge the need to release land from the Green Belt,
PPG2 is also of relevance.

2.6 The East of England Plan identifies a housing requirement for the District of 4,600
(2001 to 2021), at an annualised average (2006 to 2021) of 250. In order to meet
the need for Core Strategies to plan for at least 15 years housing need, RSS advises
that the annualised rate should be rolled forward in advance of the review of RSS.

Core Strategy Submission DPD

2.7 The submission draft confirms the Council's position, and in light of the findings of
the SHLAA, there is insufficient PDL or non Green Belt to meet housing needs
without the need to release Green Belt land (An Alternative Sites Assessment was submitted as part of application 10/00234/OUT). Land to the West of Rochford is identified as providing for 450 dwellings by 2015, and a further 150 dwellings between 2015 - 2021. Bellway submitted representations to the draft Core Strategy DPD in November 2009 and this view was endorsed.

2.8 In considering the soundness of the proposed release of the site, the merit of the
site needs to be tested against the criteria set out at Para 54 and 69 of PPS3.
Namely, is the site available, suitable and achievable (Para 54) and accordance with
Para 69 will the scheme:

* Achieve high quality housing?
* A good mix of dwellings?
* Use land effectively? and
* Be in line with planning for housing objectives?

2.9 In addition, the effect of the release of the land upon the functioning of the Green
Belt should also be tested. PPG2 states that that existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless alterations to the Structure Plan have been approved and necessitate such a revision (Para 2.7). Moreover that when drawing Green Belt boundaries account should be taken of the need for sustainable patterns of
development (Para 2.10) and the need for well defined long-term boundaries to help
ensure the future agricultural, recreational and amenity value of the Green Belt (Para 2.9).

2.10 In considering the soundness of the proposed identification of land to the West of
Rochford, we would suggest that the following matters fall to be considered:

* The housing requirement and availability of land.
* The spatial strategy and centres for growth.
* The infrastructure needs arising.
* Phasing and implementation.

3.0 SITE ALLOCATION OPTIONS

3.1 Page 14 of the Site Allocation DPD identifies 'Land West of Rochford' for 600
dwellings. Bellway support this broad location for development and consider this
aspect compliant with the emerging Core Strategy. The accompanying text on page
14 states that the allocation is required to provide:

* 600 dwellings
* Primary School
* Public Open Space
* Youth and Community Facilities
* Play Space

3.2 Four options for development in this strategic location are considered in the DPD.
Option WR1

3.3 Option WR1 is located north of Hall Road and adjoins the existing residential areas
to the south and east. It is within walking distance of core facilities and services
and the site is large enough to support the required number of dwellings. The site
forms an extension to the urban area.

3.4 The site has the potential to integrate with the existing community. Furthermore,
the infrastructure that could be delivered on site has the potential to benefit the wider community.

3.5 The only criticism is that the site cannot in its current state provide for a defensible
Green Belt boundary. However, if the site boundary were to be moved further west
where there is a defined field boundary that would enable a defensible Green Belt
boundary, Bellway would consider this option to be acceptable.

Option WR2

3.6 Option WR2 is part located in the western half of the Bellway site and part located
further west towards the junction of Hall Road with Orchard Way. This proposal is
dissected from Rochford and does not provide an urban extension. The proposed
development would create an isolated settlement that would not be with walking
distance of core services and facilities. Bellway consider that separation would result in two distinct communities and as a consequence community isolation will occur. This raises issues of sustainability. Furthermore the Green belt boundary would be pushed further west and encroachment into the countryside would be
substantial, resulting in greater environmental impact.

Option WR3

3.7 WR3 is very similar to WR1 except that the site extends further west and does not
extend as far as Ironwell Lane to the north. The site is within walking distance of core services and facilities. We understand that the main aim of this site shape is to create a green buffer around the northern and western perimeter of the site. However, the key states that the shaded green area would provide for open space
as well as built form. Consequently, we consider that a strong defensible Green Belt buffer can be provided through WR1 and there is no need to reduce the site boundary to the north and west through WR3.

Option WR4

3.8 WR4 is similar to WR1 except the site extends further west to the settlement
opposite Cherry Orchard Lane and does not extends as far north as Ironwell Lane.

3.9 Option WR4 constitutes lineated ribbon development and is generally not
encouraged as it would result in dwellings furthest north and west being removed
from the existing community and having to travel a lot further to reach the core
services and facilities.

3.10 Furthermore, development of this site will not provide a strong and defensible
greenbelt boundary, especially on the northern boundary as the shaded area on the
plan does not follow an existing field boundary.

Summary

3.11 Bellway supports the allocation of 600 dwellings to the west of Rochford, but has
reservations about all four options. Options WR2 and WR4 should be discounted
immediately. We do not consider option WR3 to be optimal as it would result in
unnecessary encroachment to the west, which in turn would have a greater impact
on the visual amenity of the Green belt compared to option WR1.

3.12 Option WR1 makes best use of the land and is considered the most sustainable
option. However, in creating a strong defensible Green Belt boundary, Bellway
consider the site should be extended further to the west where there is a defined
field boundary.

4.0 DELIVERIBILTY, SUSTAINABILTY AND SUITABILTY

4.1 PPS3 Para. 69 sets out five criteria to which Council's should have regard in
determining planning applications:

* Achieving high quality housing;
* Ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting the
accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular families and
older people;
* The suitability of the site for housing, including its environmental suitability;
* Using land effectively and efficiently;
* Ensuring the proposed development is in line with planning for housing
objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial
vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives e.g.
addressing housing market renewal issues.

4.2 The above provides a useful mechanism for considering the merits of the proposal.
RDC has identified land to the west of Rochford to be released from the Green Belt
to help meet the strategic housing requirements.

4.3 As discussed in Para 1.8, an outline application for 600 dwellings has been
submitted to RDC and Appendix 2 contains a list of supporting application documents that can be viewed at the Council Offices or through the Councils website. The only application document appended to this representation is the
Design and Access Statement (DAS) (Appendix 4).

Deliverability

4.4 The site is in single control and it is immediately available for development.
Design Quality

4.5 The submitted application is parameters based and the DAS demonstrates how the
parameters will set the principles of development in a manner that enables the
provision of a quality development.

4.6 The development will be consistent with the principles set out in the emerging Core
Strategy and Site Allocations DPD's with all development built to Lifetimes Homes
Standards (where applicable) and to the prevailing Code (Code for Sustainable
Homes) in accordance with emerging Core Streagy polices ENV9 and ENV10.

4.7 The DAS demonstrates how development of the site will be integrated with the
existing urban form and remaining countryside. The scheme will:

* Seek to reflect the character of the residential development to the south,
opposite on Hall Road;
* Provide a landscape buffer and protect the character of Ironwell Lane;
* Provide a new and robust defensible boundary to the Green Belt;
* Provide a site for a new primary school, integrated with the development and
existing community;
* Provide a range of open space for the enjoyment of residents;
* Protect and enhance biodiversity; and
* Maintain the character of the existing footpath.
Housing Needs and Mix

4.8 The Parameters Plan (Appendix 3) provides for 20 ha of developable land for
residential purposes, which would enable the provision of a range of dwelling types.
This equates to an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare. In addition, 35 %
of dwellings will be made available on an affordable basis at a tenure and mix to be
agreed with the Council.

4.9 The scheme will provide a range of unit types and sizes. All dwellings will meet the
criteria set out in the 'Dwelling Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document
- Consultation Draft'. They are also designed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes
Level 4 (Code 3 for open market housing); Secured by Design standards and all
affordable dwellings will meet the Housing Corporations Design and Quality
Standards.

Suitability

4.10 The submitted application is accompanied by a range of technical assessments,
including Flood Risk Assessment, Transport Assessment, Agricultural Assessment,
Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Archaeological Assessment, Ecological Assessment and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. They conclude that the site is well located to the existing local services, free of technical constraints and can be effectively integrated with the existing urban form and remaining
countryside. The following provides a brief summary and the full assessments can
be accessed through the Council if required.
Flood and Drainage

4.11 The Flood Risk Assessment states that following an inspection of the Environment
Agency's website, the site is confirmed as being entirely within Flood Risk Zones 1,
2 and 3. It has been demonstrated that Environment Agency's flood maps
definitions of Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3 within the site is inaccurate. The extent of
Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3 has been redefined to a much smaller area to that shown
on the Environment Agency's flood maps. All development proposals are therefore
within Flood Risk Zone 1. The existing site is almost entirely surrounded by
watercourses with no connection to the public sewers. A public foul water sewer
runs along the eastern boundary of the site. A surface water drainage strategy has
been prepared to demonstrate that the development proposals can be successfully
implemented and designed to withstand the impact of a 1:100 year rainfall event
(including climate change), in accordance with PPS25.

4.12 The surface water discharge rate will be limited to existing greenfield is charge
rates with flow matching for the 1:1 year, 1:30 year and 1:100 year storm event
including an allowance of 30% for climate change.

4.13 Anglian Water has been commissioned to undertake a foul water capacity appraisal
due to concerns over the capacity of the downstream pumping station. Anglian
Water has confirmed that the Rochford Sewage Treatment Works presently has
capacity available to accommodate this development's foul water flows.

4.14 The report concludes that:
1) The development proposals are situated wholly within the flood risk zone 1 area;
2) The Development and its occupants are not at an increased risk of flooding;
3) The Development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; and
4) The development can be drained in a sustainable manner;

4.15 The findings of the FRA identifies the opportunity to promote the sustainable re-use
of existing resources and potential to implement an appropriate SUDS strategy with
no detrimental effects to the flood risk status in the area. In this respect, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for this application in terms of flood risk and drainage matters. Should additional or detailed information be required it is anticipated that appropriate planning conditions will be recommended for future consideration.
Transport and Highway Improvements

4.16 The Transport Assessment concludes that the development would be accessed by
means of two new priority T-junctions on Hall Road, with right turn lanes on the
main road (requiring carriageway widening into the site). The eastern access will
also be used to access the proposed primary school.

4.17 A foot/cycleway will be provided along the north side of Hall Road along the site
frontage, and the section of Ironwell Lane to the west of the railway bridge along
the site frontage will also be surfaced and lit to provide a second pedestrian and
cycle route between the development and the town centre.

4.18 The Transport Assessment demonstrates that the site is within walking distance of
local services in Rochford town centre, of bus stops and Rochford railway station,
with direct access to the London-bound platform from Hall Road. The site is
therefore accessible by modes of travel other than the private car and hence is well
suited for residential development in accordance with current national, regional and
local planning policy guidance.

4.19 The Transport Assessment has predicted weekday peak hour trip generation of the
proposed development by each mode of travel. The expected increase in bus and
train passengers is minimal and can be accommodated by existing services. The
impact of the expected vehicle trips generated by the development on the operation
of the local highway network has been considered for assessment years of 2017 and
2022, allowing for projected growth of background traffic. To ensure a robust
assessment, the predicted traffic associated with both the committed developments,
and the proposed developments which are currently the subject of ongoing planning
appeals have also been included.

4.20 The proposed site accesses on Hall Road will have ample capacity to accommodate
the predicted Development Case flows in both weekday peak hours in each of the
two years. The Hall Road/Ashingdon Road/West Street mini roundabout could be
signalised in order to minimise the impact of the development. This will also provide
improved crossing facilities for pedestrians in the form of splitter islands on the
Ashingdon Road and West Street arms. It is proposed to widen the Southend Road
approach to the Bradley Way/South Street mini roundabout to alleviate the impact
of the development and achieve 'nil detriment'.

4.21 The Cherry Orchard Way/Eastwoodbury Lane roundabout is proposed to have
revised lane delineation on the Cherry Orchard Way approach to allow traffic to use
either lane to turn right, as the left turn flows will be reduced further due by the
diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane to accommodate the extension of the airport
runway. This will more than offset the impact from the proposed development. It is
proposed to widen the Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way approaches to the
roundabout at the junction of these two roads with Comet Way to ensure that nil
detriment as achieved at this junction.
Agriculture

4.22 The Agricultural Assessment demonstrates that, although leading to the loss of a
large Grade 2 arable field, the land can be developed for housing led purposes
without harm to the viability of the remaining farm.

Ecology

4.23 The Ecological Assessment confirms that the site is generally of low intrinsic value
from an ecological perspective, although the hedgerows, individual trees and pond
are considered to be of greater ecological value within the context of the site as a
whole. The hedgerows and trees are to be retained and incorporated into the
Development Proposals, whilst new wildlife habitat is to be created which will
significantly increase the nature conservation value of the Site over its current value.

4.24 The Crouch and Roach Estuaries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is
approximately 2.2km to the east of the Site. The SSSI is also part of the Crouch and
Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area / Ramsar site and the Essex Estuaries
Special Areas of Conservation. The Ecology Assessment considered it highly unlikely
that the Development Proposals would impact upon these statutorily designated
sites, which are separated from the site by existing built form.

Archaeology

4.25 The Archaeology Assessment states the majority of the study area has been in
agricultural use for many years and as such the disturbance of any archaeological
remains present is likely to have arisen through ploughing.

4.26 Based on guidance given in PPG 16 (Planning and Archaeology), the developer in
conjunction with Essex County Council is required to carry out further archaeological
investigations prior to development. These are on going.

Arboriculture

4.27 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment concludes that during the construction build
phase adequate provision is made for the protection of existing trees on site. This
will include:
1) Tree protective fencing as shown on the tree protective plan.
2) That those parts of the tree protection zone (TPZ) that cannot be protected
by fencing are protected using ground protection fit for purpose.
3) Design and implementation of new access roads and splay lines to take
account of retained trees. This means minimal or no excavation within tree
protection zones so finished levels need to take account of this.
4) The specific location of services where possible to avoid excavations within
RPAs, or if necessary to be undertaken by supervised hand dig only.

4.28 The recommendations for foundation depth and design should be in accordance with
NHBC 'Building near Trees', Chapter 4.2. It is advised that a copy of the report,
including the site specific method statements and tree protection plan is kept on
site at all times. Furthermore, the Appellants accept a condition will be imposed
stating that there must be arboricultural supervision at critical stages.

Landscape

4.29 The Landscape and Visual Assessment concludes that the site has an open character
due to its existing land use. However the close proximity to local roads and existing
residential areas to the south and east, as well as its robust boundary vegetation
mean that it is well screened in local views and is well related and connected to the
existing urban area.

4.30 Whilst development would inevitably change the existing character of the site, it
would have no material impact on the function of the Green Belt or the rural character of the surrounding landscape and the identity of Rochford. Residential development would include substantial structure planting along its boundaries and throughout a high quality streetscape. Once established, this planting would achieve an effective physical and visual screen. Along the western, northern and southern parts of the site, usable open space is proposed and existing boundary vegetation
would be strengthened and enhanced to reinforce the existing pattern of vegetation
apparent throughout the site and reinforce the contribution of the site to its local
landscape context. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would
be absorbed and assimilated into the surrounding landscape and would have no
material impact on views from surrounding areas including from within the green belt.

4.31 In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in landscape and visual terms and have no material landscape or adverse visual effects on the surrounding landscape including on the function of the Green belt.

Effective and Efficient Use of Land

4.32 The total application area is 33.45 ha. There is a need to provide for a defined
boundary to the Green Belt and a buffer to Ironwell Lane. In addition, the Council
seeks the provision of 1.1ha of land to accommodate a new primary school. As a
result, the developable land amounts to some 24.95 ha. This will provide sufficient
land area to accommodate the proposed 600 dwellings and provide flexibility to
provide a range of dwelling types and meet the Council's adopted standards.

Deliverability, Build-out Rates and Phasing

4.33 The residential element can be delivered within a seven year period, as per the
following programme:

* 2010: Apply and achieve a grant of outline planning permission
* 2011 (reserved matters application approved)
* 2012: Site preparation works and delivery of 50 dwellings
* 2013: Deliver 150 dwellings
* 2014: Deliver 150 dwellings
* 2015: Deliver 100 dwellings
* 2016: Deliver 100 dwellings
* 2017: Deliver 50 dwellings

4.34 In line with policy H2 of the emerging Core Strategy, 450 dwellings will be delivered
by April 2015. This phase will also include the primary school. A further 150
dwellings will be delivered in 2016 and 2017.

5.0 SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

5.1 Bellway Homes Ltd supports the identification of land to the west of Rochford for
development of 600 units, a new primary school and public open space.

5.2 The site as outlined in Appendix 1 has been the subject of a host of technical
assessments and these accompany the outline planning application submitted on 27
April 2010. The assessments conclude that the site is well located to existing local
services, free of technical constraints and can be effectively integrated with the
existing urban form and remaining countryside.

5.3 Whilst Bellway supports the allocation of 600 dwellings to the west of Rochford,
they raise an objection to aspects of the four options. Options WR2 and WR4
should be discounted immediately as they do not meet spatial policies for urban
extensions. Option WR3 does not make the most efficient use of the site.

5.4 Option WR1 makes best use of the land and is considered the most sustainable
option. However, in creating a strong defensible Green Belt boundary, Bellway
consider the site should be extended further to the west where there is a defined
field boundary.

5.5 Bellway request that they are contacted should any sites be added to the emerging
DPD. The pre submission DPD is expected to be released for consultation in
October / November 2010 and we look forward to providing our views at this stage.

Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4

None of the options are appropriate on the site in West Rochford and I show below my reasons for this statement:


1) The land is prime agricultural land and falls within the category of Best Most Versatile (BMV) land. The authority does not show any evidence of investigating more suitable sites, especially brownfield sites. At a time when there is such a need to feed a growing population this is not best use of this land and as such is not sustainable development.


2) Green Belt. The government has attached great importance to the protection of the metropolitan green belt as outlined in PPG2. The site in question is a gateway into the town of Rochford, close to the conservation area, close to the Cherry Orchard Country park and will not sit well in this surrounding. It will increase urban sprawl especially in view of planned developments as part of the JAAP for the airport. There will be no decent "Green wedge" between Rochford and Hockley as set out in the Local Plan. The authority demonstrated a desire to protect this area as part of the Rochford Conservation Area Report which forms part of LDF.


3) Loss of an Attractive Landscape. This was once part of the Roach Valley Conservation Area and, as such, was noted as a site of beauty and forms a green island between settlements. There is no evidence that the authority has made a landscape impact assessment. The development of 600 dwellings on this site will have a detrimental visual impact. This is especially true when considering this is a gateway for visitors to the Historic Market town of Rochford. Probably the best feature in the district of Rochford. This does not accord with the authority's tourism policies. The West side of Rochford is uniquely different from the Eastern side as being an area of tranquil beauty, the railway forms a natural boundary and land to the west deserves to be protected from development.


4) Transport Issues: Public transport will not be accessible to this site. There is no bus route (and unlikely that a bus company would be persuaded to lay on a service without heavy subsidy and cost to ratepayers), it is a considerable walk to the train station and the road, as it stands, is not "friendly" to pedestrians. No matter what road improvements may be planned, there will always be a bottle neck at the railway bridge for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Commuter cars will funnel on to the A127 and A13 which already have over reached their capacity at peak times (as per the East of England Plan). The building of a school will simply add to the congestion that already exists. Rochford runs the risk of being grid locked at peak travelling times.



5) Economic Development Issues. Proper, planned development in the Rochford area will be good for economic growth. However, this does not fall into the category of properly planned. Because of the lack of public transport, people will use their cars. They are much more likely to take the trip down Cherry Orchard Way for their shopping rather than into the already congested roads surrounding Rochford town. People are very unlikely to walk, (how would they get heavy shopping home) and therefore of very little advantage to the economy of Rochford Town. Pedestrian access is much easier into town from the eastern/northern side.



6) Need for Housing The statistics provided in the Core Strategy consultation did not demonstrate a need for housing on this scale for Rochford. There has been considerable development in the area recently and others planned which should satisfy those seeking housing in this area. The percentage of additional housing on a per capita basis is greater in Rochford than that planned for other settlements. This is not a fair strategy. The same applies to social housing. The numbers planned do not equate with the numbers seeking to live in this area. There are a number of recent new developments that have remained empty for some while. I have not seen any evidence of a proven a need for the number of dwellings planned in Rochford.


7) Ironwell Lane. A protected, ancient By Way which offers a wide variety of amenities for the residents of Rochford and also offers a diverse habitat in terms of flora and fauna. To build so close will seriously harm this habitat. At present it offers a peaceful place for families to walk and cycle as well as horse riders and dog walkers.


DM11 Rural Diversification (Development Management DPD)
Of the five bullet points in this option, this site does not meet the criteria. (i) It would have an undue impact on the openness of the green belt. (ii) It would introduce increased activity on the roads. (iii) It would impact on the sensitivity of the landscape. (iv) It would impact on the agricultural potential of the land. "It is important to protect the District's most valuable agricultural land from undue impact. And It is important to protect the diverse character of the District's Green Belt from undue impact."



This development should not go ahead. There must be many better sites around the district which will cause less harm. It is noted that the site did not appear in the "Call for Sites" initiative.


Option TC3 Existing Town Centre Boundary

I am very concerned about the proposal to change the boundary of the Town Centre. I certainly would not want to see the conservation area made smaller or for the businesses outside the boundary to be disadvantaged in any way. I am especially concerned that the three new proposals all exclude Back Lane Car park. The car park should be within the boundary.

I can see no advantage to the economic development of Rochford by making any changes.

I support keeping the boundary inTC3 as existing.

We object to sites/options SEA1, SEA2 and SEA3 reasons as follows:

Would put enormous strain on what is already over congested traffic in the area. Rochford will already be over capacitated with the new railway station and airport expansion, our roads will not take the excess traffic as it is.

Would overload Oxford Road's traffic, this road is extremely narrow compared to other sites and already burdened by heavy traffic from King Edmund School. Particularly from the school entrance adjoining Ashingdon Road, should 500 dwellings and further access ways be added this would increase the problem.

A defensible Green Belt boundary could not be maintained.

Could result in the devaluation of properties in Oxford Road.

Alternate sites to consider - WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4; these sites have less existing dwellings and could filter onto larger roads.

Objection to the housing in West Rochford.
See paper copy for details.

Suggest a new development in West Rayleigh to accommodate Rochford's housing allocation should be provided in a new village to take advantage from the highway network of A127, A130 and A1245 where all the infrastructure can be provided in a phased manner without compromising existing settlements.

Various comments received, for further details see paper copy.

Rochford Site Allocations DPD

Outlined below are the Historic Environment and management (HEM) Teams comments on those options set out in the Rochford site allocations DPD. These are mainly focused upon section 2 the residential allocations and brownfield sites and section 3 new employment sites. Section 4, Environment, requires the addition of an appropriately worded section to cover the Historic Environment of the Rochford Area. This could be provided by the HEM team if required.

Section 2: Residential

Residential Land Allocations

North of London Road Rayleigh

The Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that the options NLR1-4 for land north of London Road as lying within an area characterised by an historic dispersed settlement pattern retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HECZ 34). Whilst there would be no objection to any of the four options suggested, given the sites adjacency to known heritage sites, the historic environment character and potential any future large scale housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

West Rochford

The Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies the site West of Rochford as lying within an area of high potential for surviving below ground deposits in un-quarried areas (HECZ 18). The limited archaeological knowledge of the site probably relates to a lack of fieldwork than to a genuine lack of early settlement as extensive evidence of prehistoric occupation lies to the south of the site at Westbarrow Hall. The area around the scheduled Rochford Hall should also be considered one of archaeolgocial potential, as the postulated location of medieval settlement. Whilst there would be no objection on Historic Environment grounds to any of the four options (WR1-4) suggested for land West of Rochford, given the sites adjacency to known heritage sites and its archaeological potential any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

West Hockley

This proposed site area lies with an historic landscape of dispersed settlement which dates to the medieval or earlier periods and within a zone (HECZ 33) identified in the Rochford Historic Environment Character (HEC) project as retaining a high potential for historic environment assets. There would be no objection on Historic Environment grounds to any of the five options (HW1-5) suggested for land West of Hockley, although options WH2 or WH5 would be preferred due to previous development, they would entail the least impact on nay surviving remains. The other options would however require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered. Consideration should also be given to the landscape character of the are and the woodland setting.

South Hawkwell

Within the Rochford HEC the proposed development south of Hawkwell lies within the (HECZ 26), Land between Hockley and Ashingdon. This area of predominantly rural landscape slopes down to the Crouch Estuary between Hawkwell and Ashingdon, is noted for its dispersed settlement and the number of find spots, particularly of prehistoric material and its potential for archaeological sites despite little formal investigation having been carried out. Having considered the sites historic environment character and potential we would have no objection to the options (SH1-4) but given the sites archaeological potential any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

East Ashingdon

The site lies within Historic Environment Character Area (HECA 13) characterised by its landscape of dispersed and polyfocal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies less than a 1km to the north while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm lie closeby. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. We would have no objection to the options (EA1-4) but would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

South West Hullbridge

The Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ 36) for land west of Hullbridge states that whilst archaeological deposits are rare, prehistoric sites are present within the inter tidal zone and in general the area has potential for deposits to survive. Two known undated earthworks at Maylons and South of Maylons lie within the proposed area while a medieval moated site is closeby. Options SWH1 and 2 have the greatest impact on the earthwork sites, Options 3 and 4, less impact. We would have no objection to the options outlined for South west Hullbridge, but would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

South Canewdon

The Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ 12) shows that Canewdon is an example of a late Saxon/early Medieval settlement focused on the church hall complex but surrounded by a wider dispersed pattern of manors. On comparison with similar settlements it is reasonable to assume that archaeological remains survive within and in the proximity of the historic settlement particularly those historic assets associated with the coast and historic core. Some archaeological finds have been unearthed immediately north of option SC2-4 but little to the south, further away from the historic core, in the area of SC1. We would have no objection to the options outlined for South Canewdon, but would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

South East Ashingdon

The site lies within Historic Environment Character Area (HECA 13) characterised by its landscape of dispersed and poly-focal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies nearby while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm are in close proximity. Roman material has also been identified to the west of Doggetts Farm. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. We would have no objection to the options (SEA1-3) but would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

West Great Wakering

Options for West Great Wakering lie within Historic Environment Zone Area (HECZ 7) an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying.

We would have no objection to the options (WGW1-5), although those incorporating or part incorporating former extractions such as WGW1-3 will have the least impact upon the historic environment. Otherwise non-quarried areas (most of WGW 4 7 5 ) would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

Brownfield Sties

Stambridge Mills

Stambridge Mill survives as a complex multi-period site comprising a wide range of buildings, structures and earthworks which together chart the development of an historic milling site dating from the 18th century or earlier. In a wider context it sits within an industrial backdrop of quays and wharfs and a prehistoric landscape, with important Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement recently unearthed at nearby Coombes Farm. We would have no objection to the redevelopment of the Stambridge Mills site, but would require historic building survey to record the complex prior to any demolition and an archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

Section 3 Economic Development

Additional Employment Land to be Allocated

West of Rayleigh

The Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that the options for land West of Rayleigh lie within an area characterised by historic dispersed settlement retaining good potential for below ground deposits *HECZ 34). Whilst there would be no objection to the options for a new employment park, options E13 and E15 would have the least impact on the historic environment. Any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

Michelins Farm

The Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that option E18 for employment land at Michelins Farm lies within an area characterised by multi-period settlement, as revealed during the recent excavations along the A130, with a good potential for below ground deposits (HECZ 40). Whilst there would be no objection to option E18 any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

London Southend Airport and Environs

Within the Rochford Historic Environment Character report the relevant character zones (HECZ 17 & 18) identify the areas not already developed has having a high potential for the survival of historic environment assets.

The area is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to known sites such as the medieval church of St Lawrence, moated sites, post-medieval tile kilns and brickworks, further finds, in the area of the on-going airport railway terminal and to the west of the site indicate extensive prehistoric activity. Furthermore the airfield was established by the RFC during WW1 and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of the Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and still contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. Any future development proposals would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

South of Great Wakering

Options for south of Great Wakering lie within Historic Environment Zone Area (HECZ 7) an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying.

Due to quarrying options E22, south of Star Lane brickworks, and E23 & 24, south of Poynters Road have no historic environment implications and E19 would have the least impact of the remaining options. Otherwise non-quarried areas would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage.