Option WR4

We have to keep our countryside protected.

Np development on green belt/agricultural land

Option WR4 extends much further west then the current built up area in this location. It therefore encroaches on the green belt and will lead to a loss of openness. It will also be difficult to provide a defensible green belt boundary to the north.

There are currently no bus routes that travel down Hall Road and the nearest ones are by the train station at West Street, at the far end of a development this would be a long walk that modern day society may not be prepared to make.

The corner of Hall Road where it meets Ashingdon Road and West Street are often a bottleneck at certain times of the day. Adding a further 600 homes at possibly 2 or more cars per home would mean an extra 1200 cars a day on this road when it normally cannot meet demand. At the other end of the development in the morning especially there is normally always a bottleneck at the junction of Cherry Orchard Way and Eastwoodbury Lane. The developer says that this stretch of road can handle 3,350 vehicles an hour (transport assessment 2.1.7) Although the developer says that improvements will be made to these two areas there is little that can be done to stop the two bottlenecks.

Being potentially close to the railway could also create a problem with commuter parking and therefore each house needs to have an appropriate allocation of parking space so that the roads can have set time zones of no parking like St Andrews Road.

The developers for the corner property of Ironwell Lane and the Ashingdon Road were supposed to rectify the problem of the lake under the railway bridge, this has not been solved and the makeshift path is not level, so pushing a pram of any sort is difficult to not get wet, with the potential developer actually keep all the promises they make? On speaking to representatives from Bellway homes( the proposed developer for this area) one person advised that there would be no flats and another said that there would be a number of 1 and 2 bedroom flats, clearly showing a lack of understanding and communication on their part.

Rochford and this area is unlikely to be able to cope with most of these dwellings being in place by 2015, within 5 years there will be an extra 450 houses in this areas alone. 58% of Rochford's development up to 2015 will be on current protected Green Belt Fields.

With Rochford being such a large district is it wise to put so many new properties in one area rather than a number of small developments that would have less impact on its surrounding area.


Having access to open play areas will mean that the groups of youths will use it to meet up in as there is nowhere else for them to go in Rochford out of hours and they can use Ironwell Lane as a quick means of escape from the police.

There are very few jobs available in Rochford so any employment would involve commuting and therefore adding to congestion.

With the development of the airport further East of Rochford the surrounding area is going to be a lot busier anyway can it take another 600 houses here?

Rochford is planning on adding an additional 2745 homes and the only police station is open 9-5 Monday to Friday. No developer admits that there is an extra need for police with the amount of homes they intend to add and the nearest police station is Rayleigh.

There is a badger set within the area of development and any development of this scale would force the badger from its natural habitat and surrounding which is supposed to be protected.

This option minimises the flood risk issues. Please see our general comments.

Option WR2 is detached from the settlement and as such is not considered to be a sustainable location and there would be no defensible Green Belt boundary, contrary to PPG2.

Option WR4 would result in ribbon development along Hall Road and would not have a defensible boundary to the north, contrary to PPG2.

Paragraph 5.2 of PPS12 states that DPDs should adhere to the same advice on justification and effectiveness as applies to Core
Strategies. Paragraph 4.36 is particularly cited and this states that the "most appropriate strategy should be adopted when
considered against reasonable alternatives".

It is considered that the emerging DPD does not accord with the advice since some of the options are simply not realistic when
considered against normal land use criteria for selecting sustainable urban extensions. Whilst not necessarily endorsing the strategic location, the following sub options are not seen as realistic and should be discounted

- WR2
- WR4
- WH1
- SC1
- SC2
- SEA2
- SEA3
- WGW2
- WGW3.

RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.