East Ashingdon 100 dwellings

I am not familiar with this plot, but Rochford Road system and access/parking at Rochford Station must be considered. We have the proposed development of Southend Airport and new Railway Station, all this is going to impact on Rochford and the surrounding areas. Should we not be developing a plan to deal with people/vehicle movements in the RDC/Southend Areas. We only seem to consider buiding more dwellings/factories estates, but do not consider transport development. Is it that difficult for ECC and RDC to come up with a joint development plan that addresses alln issues?

It is not clear whether Ashingdon has the facilities for a larger population; presumably they would use the newly developed centres of both Rochford and Hockley, which should therefore be in place by the time the houses are occupied.

All Ashingdon options encroach on green belt land which should be avoided. If green belt land has to be coverted to housing, that nearest the town centre should be used first.

The road infrastructure to support any of the Ashingdon options is insufficient. Ashingdon road is already overloaded. and even if thoughput could be improved there are bottlenecks at each of the railway crossing points to access main roads out of the area.

Telecommunications infrastructre also needs to be considered in any developments is this area. Broadband internet services currently operate at an unacceptably low speed and additional housing can only worsen the situation unless cabling and exchange services are uprated.

1. I am totally appalled by Rochford Councils inability to communicate with the existing Community on the plans to develop our area. In order to comply with your "Statement of Community Involvement (CSI) you need to go beyond just publishing in select media & make sure that all people receive, read and hear what you have to say. In order to be totally transparent, open and honest with your clients - us the Council Tax payers, you should ensure that everyone has the opportunity to understand these proposals before it is a 'fait accompli'. Have you spoken to the community to ask them what they want, and not simply bowed to the wishes of the land & building developers to do as they please because it is the easy option! I became aware of the Core Strategy document in late 2008 by mistake, it is absolutely amasing that nearly two years later very few people still know of its existance and the potential damage this will do to their community. Can you sleep at night in the knowledge that everyone has had the opportunity to put their views forward?
2. Brays Lane is already a very busy road and dangerous, the average speed of the traffic is in excess of the National Speed Limit of 30mph and is heavily used by HGV traffic to and from the Wharf. Large boat carrying lorries typically take-up both sides of Brays Lane to get down to the Wharf, which can cause chaos - are the owners of the Wharf aware of this development and impact on the freigh movement along Brays Lane? Access into and out of Brays Lane is already difficult and dangerous, & additional traffic from this development & the school buses will only make this worse.
3. Obviously any large scale development is going to create a vast amount of traffic filtering out onto an already extremely congested Ashingdon Road & down to the ridiculously busy junction with Hall Road & the proposed additional development of 600 extra houses. How many people or children walking to school along our roads, or ambulances stuck in traffic jams will it take, that results in accidents/injuries or deaths before the Council takes notice of the Communities concerns about the appalling inadequacies of our current road network?
4. Any new development on the either side of Brays Lane will lose the strong defensible green belt boundary which currently exists - it is understood the land owners will develop back to Canewdon View Road once this proposed development is complete. Retention of the land in its current state as green belt, would also mean less impact on the immense wildlife in our green belt for our future generations.
5. The proposed plans put forward by Andrew Martin indicate 175 houses, which is almost double the number of properties in the APDD (100)! It is hoped this proposal is therefore not even considered and promptly kicked out. If it isn't, the integrity of Rochford Council will have to be challenged as there will clearly be implications of bribery at hand.
6. I am not convinced the infrastructure is sufficient to support another 100 houses let alone 175 in Brays Lane, and even less so for the additional 1300 houses to be built in the Rochford area. We don't have enough Doctors, Dentists, school places, shops, open play areas, recreational facilities, public transport especially buses to support the existing community.
7. Even though these plans propose to expand King Edmund - (which is already full) - will it still be big enough for all this proposed housing that is going to be built in the immediate area - 100 East Ashingdon, 600 Hall Road, 175 South Hawkwell, 60 Canewdon, let alone the 500 for Sout East Ashingdon. What consideration is being given to the capacity in our Nurseries and Primary Schools for children in our existing homes, as the new school prosed for Hall Road will not be sufficient for the other development?
8. Will our creaking utility supplies be capable of supporting another 1300 houses - old gas mains, electricity supplies on poles above the ground, water pipes that continually leak, telephone exchange and Broadband capability that dips in and out, drains that overflow when we have a downpore? The fields either side of Brays Lane already flood when we have heavy periods of rain.
9. Although we do need to improve our schools & facilities for our children to grow & progress in life, the surrounding area in which they live must also play a part in how they develop, & the type of people that they become. Ashingdon is currently a reasonably nice green place to live, lets keep as much of our green belt as we can for the sake of our future generations to live in. We must fulfil the needs of local people with minimum impact on their lives, & not just the needs of the development companies who are not a part of this community. Our current MP Mark Francois has a similar view to protect our green belt from over development, and hopefully he will follow through with his manifesto to stop this before it is too late and we lose our green belt for ever.

East Ashingdon

1. We support a residential allocation in the location known by the Council as 'East Ashingdon'. We act on behalf of all of the landowners who own the agricultural land which adjoins the urban area to the north and south of Brays Lane (see attached land ownership plan ref: 010036/05).

2. This broad location is sustainably located, in close proximity to many valuable amenities. A parade of shops, known as the Golden Cross Shops, contains a range of uses and is within five minutes walking distance. For a wider range of services, Rochford town centre is 1.5 miles from the site and only a 4 minute bus ride away. The nearest bus stops are a short distance from the site at the junction of Ashingdon Road and Brays Lane, providing convenient access by public transport to the centre of Rochford, the train station and other centres in the area.

3. This land has been historically promoted through the planning process, with the Local Plan Inspector recognising in 2006 that:

"The site has advantages in its location on the edge of the existing settlement and in close proximity to shops, schools and other facilities and public transport links. Development could support the open space proposed in Brays Lane and the provision of improved access to the school."

However at that time there was no need to allocate this land as housing requirements could be met on brownfield sites.

4. Technical studies have been carried out in relation to our clients' land. These have revealed that there are no constraints which could prevent development from contributing towards the Council's five year housing land supply. Furthermore, development in this location can offer considerable community benefits, particularly to the King Edmund secondary school, which is located to the south of the representation site.

5. It is noted that the Council has identified three potential sites for development in this broad location.

i. Site EA1: to the south of Brays Lane
ii. Site EA2: to the north of Brays Lane
iii. Site EA3: to the north and south of Brays Lane

6. All of these three sites fall within our clients' ownership. We submit that a site which extends slightly further north than EA3 would represent the most appropriate option. For ease of reference, we call our preferred option EA4. A site plan showing this area is attached (ref: 010036/06).

7. It is our intention to submit an outline planning application for this site. Most of the technical studies and surveys and other supporting information have now been completed and detailed discussions have been held with Council officers which have helped to shape the proposals. It is anticipated that an application will be submitted to the Council in the next few weeks.

8. The application will cover a site area of around 10 ha and will primarily comprise residential development (up to 150 dwellings), reserve land for the secondary school and an access and bus turning circle for the school. The density of the development is 30 dwellings per hectare, which has been carefully assessed and is considered to be appropriate in this location, given the low density development in the vicinity and the location of the site on the edge of the urban area and the Council's standards and requirements in terms of housing layout. The illustrative masterplan attached (ref: 010036/03) shows how this can be achieved.

9. The Core Strategy identifies East Ashingdon as a broad location for housing at policy H2 and although it identifies that the site should deliver 100 dwellings by 2015, it does recognise that "the detailed location and quantum of development will be articulated within the Allocations Development Plan Document."

10. It should be noted that whilst the three options for this site identified by the Council consider different site areas (or locations) they do not consider quantum. Option EA3 encompasses both of the sites for Option EA1 and EA2 and yet the quantum for this larger site area remains fixed at 100 dwellings. It is assumed that the quantums and site areas have not been assessed in detail by the Council at this early stage in the process and that the exact site areas and quantums will be established through the development plan process. Notwithstanding this, we have given detailed consideration to the three options presented by the Council. Our evaluation of each of these options is set out below.

OPTION EA1

11. As this land immediately adjoins the King Edmund Secondary School, it is ideally placed to deliver the educational and highway improvements for the school. We have held discussions with both Blaise Gammie from School Organisation and Planning at Essex County Council and Mr Abel, the Headmaster of the school. There is agreement that this land, immediately to the north of the school in the most appropriate location for these improvements. Although the Core Strategy identifies that 3ha of land needs to be reserved for future educational requirements, it has been agreed that the school's requirements in terms of both the reserve land and the highways improvements can be accommodated within 3ha. Although this revised configuration allows for a larger residential land parcel (2.53 ha) this could only accommodate around 60 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Even at a higher density of 40 dwellings per hectare only around 80 dwellings could be achieved. Whilst achieving a greater number of units such a scheme would neither meet the Council's requirements of 100 units, nor would it reflect the character of the area. Furthermore, financial viability would be put into question given the significant infrastructure contributions required.

OPTION EA2

12. Whilst development in this location is supported, it should not come forward in isolation as it cannot deliver the improvements to King Edmund School. Further, this site area (2.91 ha) could only accommodate around 63 dwellings, which is considerably lower than the quantum set out in the Core Strategy.

OPTION EA3

13. This is the most suitable of the three options identified by the Council as it includes sufficient land for the school improvements, with the site being able to accommodate a larger area for residential development. However, we believe that the site area is not sufficient to deliver a high quality scheme, which meets parking and amenity standards and provides for all of the wider requirements of the Core Strategy. The site area should therefore be amended to include additional land to the north, for reasons set out below.

14. We note that the Council considers that "the site to the north would not provide a defensible green belt boundary". A Preliminary Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been undertaken to examine this. This report reveals that although the area of countryside is within the Green Belt, its intrinsic value and sensitivity of the landscape is low. The land parcel to the south of Brays Lane is well enclosed and has little relationship with the outlying countryside. The southern third of the northern parcel also has no publicly appreciable relationship or visual link to the outlying countryside and development here would not affect the character and the openness of the remaining Green Belt land. Further north the site does have some visual link with the Green Belt, however influences are highly limited. Development would not bring significant changes to the scene that cannot be mitigated. It is also possible that good design of the development edge could result in an enhanced urban edge. This option has a total site area of 5.44 ha and is capable of accommodating around 123 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Given that extending the site boundary further to the north has limited impacts in terms of landscape and visual amenity, it is submitted that any harm will be outweighed by the positive contribution to housing supply in a sustainable location.

15. In considering detailed proposals for this broad location a scheme was sought that met a number of criteria. These included meeting the objectives of the Core Strategy, providing a viable scheme given the substantial contributions required and ensuring that the proposals would be technically acceptable and that the impact on the Green Belt and landscape would be kept to a minimum.

16. As stated above, we put forward a preferred option, EA4, which is shown on the attached plan (ref. 010036/06). This option is considered in greater detail below.


OPTION EA4

17. This option can offer the following:

 Up to 150 dwellings, including affordable homes with a mix of types and tenures;
 Improved access and bus turning circle for the King Edmund School;
 Reserve school land to meet future requirements;
 Public open space;
 Potential to accommodate community/youth facilities if necessary;
 Contributions towards transportation improvements, if required; and
 Appropriate landscaping.

18. This option accords with the Core Strategy, providing development in an area which has been identified at policy H2 as a broad location for housing. It also accords with policy CLT3 by providing an improved access and bus turning circle and reserve land for the King Edmund School.

19. Although Option EA4 provides a greater quantum of development than the 100 dwellings identified in the Core Strategy, it is recognised at policy H2 that it will be the Site Allocations DPD through which quantums will be established. The Council recognises that this site is capable of accommodating more than 100 dwellings in their SHLAA and it is understood that the Core Strategy contains conservative estimates for Green Belt sites to ensure that targets are met.

20. Our detailed analysis has revealed that 150 dwellings can be accommodated on this site, making a valuable contribution towards housing land supply.

21. In conclusion, it is submitted that a revised site area in accordance with our Option EA4 should be identified as the Council's Preferred Option.

I am writing as a local resident to object to the above application.

I am greatly concerned about the proposal to build at Brays Lane and the alleged improvement of King Edmond School; if it goes ahead it will have significant detrimental effects on the environment and the local community. As a local resident this is a matter of concern which affects me and other local residents.

The applications should be rejected on the following grounds.

Building new homes will not improve Rochford in any way it will only cause our Town to become more congested and further traffic generation in this area would be a major problem. It would cause a major strain on the one access road in to and out of Rochford, which is already under great pressure.

The area is home to animals and bird's which is a conservation area. The development will harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties by virtue of its size and massing, and will not respect or enhance the surrounding area at all.

Perhaps instead of building houses and improving King Edmond School we should build new schools in these areas from where we are transporting pupils in to Rochford, using heavy commercial vehicles down small roads restricting residents parking and inconvenicing the residents in this area.

The building in this area will affect our privacy and the noise swearing and shouting already from the 5 football pitches till late at night is already a great problem.

Rochford has a village feel although it is a town and the people who live in Rochford would say the same. Rochford has had its fair share of new builds and to build even more housing here would put a strain on facilities shops, doctors and nursery schools.

I moved to Rochford five years ago and I took a great deal of time to find the right place to live and to have this disrupted and destroyed is not right, just because the government needs to build housing.

I have worked hard to achieve the home that I have and do not want it to be devalued in this way by people who do not even live here this is my home and my future.

With regard to the proposed development to land North & South of Brays Lane Rochford.

We strongly object to the above planning for the following reasons: -

Brays Lane is narrow and already has HGV's speeding up and down, with no regard for oncoming traffic, my daughter lives in Stambridge we use this route frequently, the lorries are so big they actually take up ¾ of the road, and my family are always having to move over onto the grass verge to avoid a collision. Any increase in traffic will only make this road more dangerous.

Ashingdon road is already highly congested especially during morning and evenings, from Rochford Station back to the Victory Public House. From Brays Lane our road crossing has been moved further away from us and any further traffic from new developments will only make this worse. The pavement is very narrow and a few years ago a very dear family friend was killed in the area.

There has already been housing developments off of Golden Cross Road, we do not see the need for more housing in this area, especially on green belt land, at the moment we are not overlooked our garden is very small and if this proposal goes ahead we would loose the country feel which is quiet and peaceful, this proposal would also affect the surrounding wildlife, we have bats, foxes, squirrels and variety of wild birds

We would like you to take our objection into consideration before passing the plans.

I am a resident of Golden Cross road and was horrified to hear of the proposed expansion of King Edmund School and development of land north/south of Brays Lane. I have lived in Golden Cross Road for the last 3 years and chose this semi rural location because of the open fields and because of the quietness associated with open countryside right on my doorstep. However, we did not realise the amount of congestion along Ashingdon Road which we already have to contend with on a daily basis. Brays Lane can be a very busy and dangerous road as it is.

Any new deveploment off Brays Lane will add even more traffic to the congestion and I am sure more people will soon be using my road as a speedier alternative when travelling north bound towards Hockley. It is already a problem with cars speeding up or down my road at sometimes twice the 30 mph speed limit - will it take a fatal accident for people to see sense?

If new housing is so important and school expansion so necessary, then why can't the open land south of Oxford Road and east of Ashingdon Road be used.

In summary Ashingdon is a nice green place to live. Lets keep as much of our green belt as we can for the sake of our future generations to live in. Consider the needs of local residents and not just the needs of the development companies who are not a part of our community.

I DO NOT WANT any new housing north or south of Brays Lane and the majority of residents of my road also feel the same.

Ref Planning Application Brays Lane
My wife and I wish to express our total opposition to proposed housing development. This is due to the infrastructure and the access approach to King Edmunds School.
Brays Lane is the same country road it has been over the centuries with only minimal improvements. Over the past five years we have had the gas board repair several leaks due to the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles. Also supporting poles for the overhead electrical and telephone wires have been brought down by high sided vehicles. This has caused serious disruption to the resident's affected.
A serious problem to be considered is the safety of children who cross Brays Lane on their walk to and from school. The extra traffic will make an already dangerous situation far worse.
To summarize the whole concept of this massive new building complex will be an affront to the quality of life of the residents of Brays Lane and it's surrounds. You must be already aware that the infrastructure is not capable of supporting building on this scale.

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.

I am putting in writing my objection to the proposed new developements on our Green Belt around Brays Lane. Increased housing is not an idea i think is managable in this area. The already extremely busy Ashingdon Road would not be able to cope with added traffic, causing concern for all of our safety especially the hundreds of children who use it on a daily basis for school access. The schools in the area - how would they cope. The doctors and dentists, our ameneties and the already bursting pipe supply lines.

Not to mention we live in a beautiful green, peaceful area. More houses on our Green Belt is not an idea i approve of. I dont want the area we live in ruined, the people who live directly on the roads in question, what happens to their way of life. They bought their houses with the understanding they were living by 'Protected Green Belt?' Is it only protected until someone offers enough money?

The Ashingdon/Rochford area cannot and should not be prepared to house, school, doctor, dentist, etc etc more people than is sensible and that is so not right for the area. Above all safety on roads, added congestion, added pressure of amenities etc, it cant be a good thing.

I strongly object to any developements in the beautiful area we currently live in. Please find somewhere else that is less populated and where there is sufficient space for new buildings and new schools etc to cope with it.

As resident's of some 35 years, we have long suffered the inconvenience of access to the King Edmund School by coaches and indescriminate parking by parent's and student's, also the need to take into consideration school times before planning any journey's or deliveries. We therefore welcomed the idea of school access being away from Spencer Gardens.

However, we strongly object to a housing developement in Brays Lane, which will result in an increase of traffic through Spencer Gardens. This has become a "Rat Run" anyway to avoid the Ashingdon Road. The situation here is already dire with parked vehicles, any increase in traffic volume would make life even more difficult for resident's. The entrance to Spencer Gardens from Brays Lane, would have to be made one way and policed or blocked completely.

Finally, any increase in traffic onto the Ashingdon Road, caused by housing developement on Brays Lane or Oxford Road, is unacceptable. Traffic flow is already very heavy due to the 3 schools along that route and commuting traffic To Southend at peak times.

OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT IN ROCHFORD
As a long time Rochford resident (45 years) I have seen the continuing removal of green areas within our community to build housing for greedy developers and land owners who do not live in the immediate delvelopment areas that they are turning from a small communites to sprawling housing estates with ZERO infrastructure to support them:
MAJOR Developments already approved:
Playing field Doggetts
Playing field Ashingdon Hill
Cricket Field Stambridge
Brickfields - Ashingdon Heights
Post Office Field Ashingdon Golden Cross
2 mini Estates off Golden Cross Road
Rochford Hospital site
Library Field - Ashingdon Road
Ironwell Lane - 1 detatched House turned into mini housing estate!
How many of the people who have bought these properties actually work locally??
It seems any piece of green land (however small) within our community (where children could play) has been eaten up ....they now want to start devouring our green belt land - and where does all the traffic converge from all of these proposed sites - ASHINGDON ROAD I attended the exhibition on the 24th April and none of the Andrew Martin Assocoates were able to answer key questions:
Roads: I was assured that Traffic analysis was being carried out on the Ashingdon Road - I travel from Spencer Gardens to Ashingdon Road EVERY day and can state the following facts:
I leave home at 7.40 My journey from Spencer Gardens to Purdeys Industrial Estate takes between 5 to 7 minutes when the children are on school holidays - the same journey takes between 20 to 25 minutes when the children are at school - this is due to the diabolical planning of 3 junior schools (which were built when children could actually walk to school because the school was in walking distance of their homes) This is what catchment areas used to mean - within walking distance Holt Farm - which was built to school children living on the Holt Farm Estate St Teresas - Catholic School built for Catholic children living in the catchment area (but is used by Parents outside of the catchment arrea who want their children to attend this school as it is deemed to be a better school than most in the area .... So they drive them to and from school from out side the catchment area) Rochford Primary: The original primary school for children who lived in Rochford The proposed location of development sites will increase the school traffic considerably as parents will not walk their children to school, they will drive them there Added to this is the decision to allow KES to change its starting hours from 8.50 to 8.10 - why was this allowed to happen - all this does is give children in the area (who are already bored as they have no where to 'hang out' additional hours in the afternoon to try to fill!!) It also adds to the misery of commuters who are lucky enough to find employment within driving distance of their homes a nightmare journey to work along the Ashingdon Road Spencer Gardens RAT RUN: What will be done to stop Spencer Gardens becoming a 'rat run' for the new housing estate in Brays Lane - which will be used by new Brays Lane Residents cutting through to Oxford Road who hope to avoid the traffic congestion on Ashingdon Road? I wonder how long it will take to even get out of the Oxford Road Junction with the additonal traffic queueing??
I have already complained (to the police and the Council) as before too long there will be a head on collision at the junction of Spencer Gardens and Oxford Road due to the parked cars that seriously limit visibility turning into Spencer Gardens - resulting in erratic breaking around areas where children are walking (usually caused by parents having to turn blindly into Spencer Gardens without being able to see if there is any oncoming vehicle) When we moved to Spencer Gardens, we knew and accepted that once a day there would be double decker busses dropping children off at school in spencer Gardens and it does not bother the residents - perhaps it is time that a Senior School was built in Wakering as this one time small population that did not warrant a Senior School is now growing as much as Rochford is. If KES is too small, why not do something with the Roachway School that would allow children from Wakering to be schooled - without having to drive them through Rochford - why has the land behind Purdey's industrial Estate (which would also keep traffic off Ashingdon Road not been considered for housing?
Overcrowding in Schools: I have heard that a new junior school is planned for the land behind Sapwood - what is wrong with improving Doggetts Primary which is just the other side of this site and has masses of land around it than can be used?? AND is sited away from the Ashingdon Road and could be accessed via Sutton Road I am sure that the landowners who are so happy to sell green belt land to housing developers will not object to having a road to a better equipped Doggetts Primary put in across their land??
Quality of life for existing Residents: Will the Developers be made to offer residents who want to move away from the immediate area and relocate in an area (akin to the one they lived in) before the NEW development was built and offer residents who wish to move compulsory property purchase at market price ...... without having to move to the new Development to achieve this, which appears to be the only deal on offer .... Buy one of our new ones and we will buy your old one??
Hopefully the Labour Government that has implemented hairbrained LDF schemes will be voted out in a couple of weeks and common sense will once again prevail A. Goldberg RESIDENT 10 Years Spencer Gardens and lifelong Rochford Resident PLEASE ENSURE THAT ANY PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD ARE WELL PUBLICISED AND COMUNICATED TO LOCAL RESIDENTS SO WE GET THE CHANCE TO BE HEARD

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.

As a resident living on Ashingdon Road close to Brays Lane I would like to object in the strongest way to the plans for further residential development adjoining Brays Lane. The Ashingdon road is already over congested with traffic queuing in both the morning and evening. It certainly will not take additional traffic from the proposed new housing. We already endure the lorry's going up and down the lane all day.

Class sizes in the local schools are already larger than they should be, without additional schools class size will increase further with this development negatively impacting on the education of our children.

I am also concerned that we already have to wait days for a doctors appointment, all additional housing will do is create even longer waiting lists.

These areas are one of the few green belt areas we have left, I personally enjoy walking my dog there, we should be doing everything we can to protect it, not giving it up for yet more housing that the infrastructure of Ashingdon and Rochford just can't sustain.

I am both disappointed and outraged the plan is being seriously considered; this will bring no benefits to existing residents and will impact greatly on their lives.

I would like to register my objection to the proposed development of 100 houses in the Brays lane area.

Although I ackowledge that the area needs some considerable work spent to improve the underlying infrastructure I don't think adding to the problem by building any new houses is the right answer. It seems perverse and totally irresponsible to suggest that the council can duck their responsiblilies by offloading the cost of delivering acceptable standards for the borough to a housing development solution. If funding is required for the required improvements then this should come out of the already very high council tax amounts that are paid or, failing that, the existing residents of the area should be asked to specify how they think funds could be raised. Perhaps the council should provide clear and comprehensive budget proposals showing required expenditure versus existing income streams along with any shortfals so residents can see all the facts and then vote on what they, the residents, want the elected council to do.

As has clearly been explained in almost every pamflet that has come through my door, the area itself is considered by many to be a desirable place to live as much of it is green belt. Although it would be nice to extend this desirability to live to others it is a sad fact that under the current proposals for housing development this will result in a lot less green space and more urban sprawl; in other words less desirable and so contrary to what is proposed. If any development is to happen at all then it is paramamount that something be done to improve all the suuround infastructure BEFORE development AND that any development be sited well away from the current residents as any increase in road usage alone will not be acceptable under the current road stucture.

We object to the proposed planning to green belt land off brays lane if this was to go ahead it would cause much disruption to the surrounding areas, especially for us local residents. Green belt land should remain as it is. We don't need all these extra houses, yes extra housing is needed but not on green belt land. Please leave our land alone and keep it as green belt.

i wish to object to the proposed building development at brays lane and surrounding areas of Ashingdon.

if this proposal is accepted the road infrastructure will not be able to withstand the extra homes.

Also, schools, doctors' surgurys, bus services, rail systems and social facilities will not cope with the strain of a higher population.

i am registered blind and spend a great deal of my time enjoying long walks, exercising my guide dog.

The loss of fields will cause a decline in my quality of life.

The present amount of cars and hugh lorries using brays lane, already make the road very dangerous to cross. if more traffic were to use the lane, it would be impossible for a blind/disabled person to cross safely. King Edmund's pupils would also be in danger.

I would like to object to the proposed development of East Ashingdon on both north and south sides of Brays Lane. Although I fully understand the need for further development I feel that the infrastructure cannot support this development or any other that feeds directly into Ashingdon Road. Increasingly Ashingdon Road is becoming more and more conjested, not only during the daily rush hour periods but also with the recent road works South Of Holt Farm School, during refuse collections or deliveries, traffic queues back further and further. I feel the council needs to identify areas that feed directly away from Rochford, or improve the infrastructure so as to by pass Rochford completely.

We attended the parish council meeting that was organised at Ashingdon Memorial Hall on Monday 19th April and was dismayed to see that more of our beautiful local green belt was going to be eaten up by housing development. I can appreciate that King Edmund School requires additional space for development and that your hands are somewhat tied in respect of having to provide land as part of the regional development authority's instigating, but we really cannot see why this should be at the expense of blatant development on green belt, which will result in a massive cost to the local community and its future generations, as our heritage is destroyed.
In fact, I note with some alarm that the council , as part of its core strategy, mentions 100 dwellings in East Ashingdon by 2015, but the plan put forward by Andrew Martin Associates on behalf of its clients talks about 150 dwellings - which will in all probability require the use of land both sides of Brays Lane. I really believe that if we are forced to use green belt lane, that we should limit development to the area south of Brays Lane and 100 dwellings.
Andrew Martin Associates have included two football pitches in their planning, even though the school already has five football pitches - how many do they really need at one time! Anyway, if these were put on the land at the end of Oxford Road, one of the options (Option EA1 page 31 of the land allocation document), then this would allow all 100 dwellings (which the council should ensure is the maximum number!) to be built on the south side, next to the school (option EA1 page 31 of the land allocation document). The significance of this is that it would allow the land north of Brays Lane to be kept within the green belt boundary and therefore safe from building development, with Brays Lane as the natural boundary with resultant less negative impact on wildlife plus the flora and fauna thereon.
If all 100 dwellings were kept to the south side, this would mean that there would only need to be one additional access road off of Brays Lane, not two. This is an important consideration because there is already a danger to other road and pedestrian users due to the use by HGV traffic viz a viz Baltic Wharf, etc, and this must be a major concern for the school in terms of risk of serious injury to its pupils.
We cannot see how any major building development of this size will improve the already congested roads, particularly the Ashingdon Road. More to the point, how can it not seriously worsen traffic conditions, especially at peak times? In itself, this should raise serious safety concerns from planners, the school and local parents, many of whom already send their children to King Edmund School. I do not believe that any serious study of traffic by Essex County Council could come up with the conclusion that the additional traffic that will result from this development will be "accommodated" that is unless gridlock at peak times is regarded as being acceptable.
Whilst we accept that we need to improve our local school's facilities for the sake of pupils and we do need to provide some land for building, the council must also accept that the surrounding area in which people live must play a significant role in their lives and future development. We need to minimise green belt usage, allowing future generations to enjoy what past generations have also enjoyed. Let's restrict the negative impact by limiting development to the area south of Brays Lane and restrict greedy land developers from destroying our heritage.

Please find attached a representation to the Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options consultation submitted on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek land south of Rayleigh put forward as a site residential site allocation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Regulation 25 Statement has been produced by Ransome and Company in response to the Rochford District's Council Allocations DPD: Discussion and Consultation document. We act on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek to put forward land south of Rayleigh as a residential site allocation. The site location plan is attached to the statement in Appendix 1. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.

Appendix 1

1.2 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn previously submitted separate representations to the 'Call for Sites' consultation and both requested to be contacted on future LDF consultations. It is noted that the Council misrepresented the sites put forward in terms of location and also failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn on the Council's LDF consultations. The Council has consequently been in breach of the Planning Regulations 2004 as amended. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this statement.

1.3 This site should be considered alongside 'Land south of Wyburn Primary School' which is put forward as a residential site allocation under a separate cover. The two sites are both highly sustainable and collectively could deliver important benefits to Rayleigh.

1.4 Mr Lambourn has also submitted a separate representation that partially includes some of the land that constitutes 'Land south of Rayleigh'.

1.5 This Regulation 25 Statement puts forward land south of Rayleigh as a site allocation within the Rochford Allocations DPD. This Statement is structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the procedural matters that the Council has been in breach of during the LDF process.
Section 3 sets out the site context for land south of Rayleigh.
Section 4 describes the proposed site allocation at land south of Rayleigh in the context of the Green Belt.
Section 5 considers the Council's housing land supply.
Section 6 considers the sites the Council has suggested as site allocation options.
Section 7 sets out the overall conclusions of the Statement.

SECTION 2: PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn submitted separate representations to the Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation in 2007. Both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn requested that they be contacted for future LDF consultations. Neither Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn were informed of the Rochford Core Strategy Pre-Submission consultation and as such were not given the opportunity to make representations on the soundness of the spatial strategy set out in the Core Strategy. By not informing Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn, the Council are in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended. The Core Strategy is consequently unsound on procedural matters. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

2.2 The Council have also misrepresented the representation submitted by Mr Maughan. This site was not recorded accurately and in fact the wrong site was accredited to Mr Maughan. For a matter of correctness both sites are now to be considered as one site and the site location plan is set in Appendix 1 of this report.

Appendix 1

2.3 In addition, the assessment of Mr Maughan's site wrongly states that this site would affect an existing recreational use and a public right of way. There are no public rights of way over this land and this site is not used for recreational purposes.

2.4 In respect to the procedural breach, Paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified about further LDF consultations and importantly the submission of a DPD to the Core Strategy, a request that was undertaken by both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.5 Paragraph 28 relates to the submission of the DPD. Part (e) of this paragraph states that the Council must give notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State. The Council did not do this as they failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.6 In addition, as significant landowners with land that adjoins Rayleigh and that they have requested to be notified by the Council, Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn should be consulted as General Consultation Bodies under the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This point has been clarified in paragraph 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008 which states that a local planning authority must notify general consultation bodies who may have an interest in the subject of the proposed DPD. It is also stated that the local planning authority must consider whether it is appropriate to invite representations from persons who are resident and/or carrying out business in their area and invite each of those bodies to make representations to the DPD.

2.7 Paragraph 32 considers the handling of site allocation representations. The Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation constitutes a consultation under the planning regulations. Under part (2) of paragraph 32 it is stated that as soon as reasonably practicable after the consultation period the local planning authority must make a site allocation representation available for inspection. This site allocation must be sent to the DPD bodies and appropriate notifications, as listed in the regulations, must be made. Paragraph 33 states that any person may make representations regarding the site allocation put forward. The Council are in breach of the planning regulations under paragraph 32 and 33 as they have inaccurately recorded the sites and stated false information about the sites put forward by Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn. Appendix 1 of the the Site Allocations Issues and Options document does not include the site put forward by Mr Maughan and instead considers the adjacent scrap site that Mr Maughan did not include in his representation. The Council has also inaccurately drawn the site boundaries put forward by Mr Maughan. This point has also been clarified under paragraph 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008.

SECTION 3: THE PROPOSED SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The proposed site extends to 6.4 hectares and is located to the south of the urban area of Rayleigh. This site has the potential to deliver up to approximately 190 market and affordable dwellings. The proposed main access into the site would be from Eastwood Road with a secondary access from South View Road.

3.2 The proposed site is located just 1 mile from Rayleigh town centre and 1.4 miles from Rayleigh Train Station which provides convenient public transport connections to Southend-on-Sea, Stratford and London Liverpool Street. A number of bus routes operate along Eastwood Road, with a bus stop adjacent to the proposed access. This provides good and convenient public transport accessibility to Rayleigh Town Centre and Rayleigh Train Station.

3.3 The site is well located to the main centres of employment in Rayleigh being located in close proximity to the town centre but is also just 800 metres by foot from Brook Street Industrial Estate or approximately 1.5 miles by bike or car.

3.4 The site adjoins the urban edge of Rayleigh to the south. The site abuts the rear boundary line of the dwellings located along South View Road and Eastwood Road.

3.5 The boundaries of the proposed site ensure that this site is enclosed. The eastern boundary is characterised by a mature wooded area that prevents views into the site and would also create a natural and defensible boundary for a future development. The southern boundary also has a mature tree line edge that screens the site from the A127 carriageway. The proposed site is located adjacent to an established small commercial site at its south-western boundary. The remainder of the western boundary is also characterised by a mature tree and hedge line. The site is enclosed by the mature landscaping along its boundary which prevents views into the site and provides natural screening.

3.6 The southern part of the proposed site is currently used for non-commercial grazing whilst the northern part has no function. The site has no beneficial agricultural function and no viable equestrian function.

3.7 There are no public footpaths or rights of way that cross this site and the site has no recreational value.

3.8 The proposed site is connected to existing utilities infrastructure.

3.9 The proposed site would be accessed from Eastwood Road.

SECTION 4: THE GREEN BELT

4.1 The site on land south of Rayleigh is currently designated as Green Belt in the Rochford Local Plan. It is considered that this designation is no longer relevant to this site. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Very special circumstances to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm to the Green Belt needs to be demonstrated for development on Green Belt land. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 outlines the intentions of Green Belt planning policy and states that the most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness.

4.3 Appendix 1 of this statement provides an illustrative demonstration of the enclosed nature of this site. It is clear that this site is enclosed and that there is a very limited degree of openness and as such this site does not fulfil the requirements of PPG2. The proposed site does not have any public footpaths running through it and is enclosed by the adjacent urban area of Rayleigh and the dense wooded area to the south, east and west. There are no views across the site from a public viewpoint.

4.4 The boundaries of the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh would create a more permanent or robust defensible boundary for the Green Belt at this location. The eastern and western boundary of the site contains a mature thick wooded area that provides a defensible boundary. The southern boundary is characterised by a mature landscaping with A127 carriageway running adjacent to the boundary. This road and the existing mature landscaping provides defensible boundary to the south.

4.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists the five purposes of the Green Belt:

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.6 With reference to point 1 above, the proposed site is located adjacent to the southern edge of Rayleigh. A scrapyard is located adjacent to the site on the south-eastern boundary. This site constitutes a previously developed site within the Green Belt and provides an urban setting to the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh. It is considered that the containment of the site by the A127 carriageway and the mature landscaping along the boundary are important characteristics which ensure that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.

4.7 In defining Green Belt boundaries, PPG2 advises that such boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features, such as roads and tree lines. It is considered that because the proposed site is enclosed by the mature landscaping on the eastern and western boundary and by the A127 carriageway, the site would have a robust and defensible boundary to the Green Belt, were residential development to be allocated at this site. The allocation of the proposed site for residential development would not make adjacent Green Belt land vulnerable to development.

4.8 Point 2 above states that the Green Belt will prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. With reference to the second purpose, a distance of 0.25 miles separates Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea at the closest point. The eastern edge of this proposed site is 0.5 miles from the boundary of Southend-on-Sea and would not bring Rayleigh any closer to Southend-on-Sea. Furthermore, the dense and mature landscaping along the proposed sites eastern boundary provides a robust barrier which prevents Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea from ever merging.

4.9 Point 3 requires the Green Belt to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The enclosed nature of the site would prevent encroachment. The loss of this site is essential for Council to meet its housing minimum housing targets.

4.10 Point 4 requires the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The historic core of Rayleigh is centred along the High Street. Historically, Rayleigh has developed by building on open land to that surrounds the town centre, particularly in the post war years, such that the original historic core is surrounded by more modern development. In these circumstances, the application site does not perform a function in preserving the setting of the historic centre of Rayleigh.

4.11 Point 5 states that the Green Belt is required to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This point is not applicable in this instance given the need for a release of Green Belt in Rochford District to meet housing targets.

4.12 Therefore it is considered that the site does not perform any of the Green Belt functions set out in PPG2. If the site were to be allocated for residential, the unrestricted sprawl of built-up area of Rayleigh would not follow, nor would Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea merge. The mature wooded area to the east of the proposed site together with the mature landscaping along the boundary edge and the A127 carriageway to the south would act as a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary and development on the site would not encourage or justify further encroachment into open countryside.

SECTION 5: ROCHFORD'S HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

5.1 This section provides a brief overview of land supply in Rochford with a focus upon the national planning policy, Rochford Core Strategy Submission document and Rochford's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
a) National Planning Policy Context

5.2 Paragraph 2 of PPS3 states that a principal aim of this policy document is to create a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Paragraph 7 states that Local Planning Authorities will need to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

5.3 Paragraph 11 states that policies in development plan documents should be evidence-based and land availability should be assessed through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In respect to the five-year supply, paragraph 54 states that Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. It is stated that for sites to be considered deliverable, sites should:
Be Available - the site is available now.
Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

5.4 Paragraph 55 states that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. Strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period should also be identified. Paragraph 56 states that to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged.

5.5 Annex C of PPS3 provides further information on the evidence base required as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It is stated that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:
Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.
Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments.
Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.
Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.
Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.
Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.
b) Rochford's Core Strategy Submission Document

5.6 The East of England Plan requires a minimum of 4,600 dwellings to be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore housing needs to be identified for the period to 2024.

5.7 The 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) examined the supply of housing land and, although identified some capacity from extant permissions and other appropriate sites, also ascertained that Green Belt would have to be reallocated in order to meet the requirements of the East of England Plan. It is stated that 2,745 dwellings are required on Green Belt land between 2006 and 2024. This is in addition to the 2,005 dwellings to be delivered on previously developed land.

5.8 The Core Strategy sets out the general locations for housing development. The Council state that the primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure; access to services; facilities; housing demand/need; deliverability; public transport/possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints; need to protect areas of landscape value, ecological importance and high quality agricultural land. The Council states that it seeks balance the distribution of housing by focusing growth upon the higher tier settlements.

5.9 The population of Rochford District is unevenly distributed with the largest settlement being Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people, 38% of the District's residents. As such the Council identified Rayleigh as a primary tier settlement as it contains a range services and facilities including good public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy however notes that their housing needs evidence indicates that 44% of the housing need in the borough originates from Rayleigh. This provides a strong basis in which to focus housing development upon Rayleigh.

5.10 Despite what is said in the Core Strategy, it is clear that Council has failed to consider a balanced approach to housing delivery. However the Council's proposed housing locations do not reflect this statement as the scattered approach around the district will deliver housing away from public transport and key services and will lead to unsustainable patterns of growth. The Council's own evidence states that 44% of the need for housing is focused on Rayleigh, yet Rayleigh will only deliver 19% of housing on Green Belt sites. Indeed 57% of the Green Belt housing site allocations is focused outside the primary tier settlements. This will result in increased car movements between the settlements and will have an unsustainable impact upon the existing infrastructure.

5.11 There is a need for the Council to identify and significant increase in the housing provision for Rayleigh to meet the socio-economic objectives set out in the Rochford Core Strategy Submission draft.

c) Rochford's Housing Land supply (2001 to 2024)

5.12 The Council's SHLAA noted that there is an inadequate housing supply in the district over a fifteen year period to 2024 and as such there is a requirement for the allocation of Green Belt land for residential development. The SHLAA identifies a requirement to allocate 2,477 dwellings on Green Belt land in the period to 2024.

5.13 The Rochford Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008 to 2009 demonstrates that Rochford has failed to deliver 309 dwellings of the required 1,840 between 2001 and 2009. The Council's SHLAA also suggests that 1,658 dwellings will be delivered between 2009 and 2014/15. The Council will also have to deliver 3,759 dwellings between 2009 and 2024.

5.14 It is considered that the land supply assessments used to indicate how these targets will be delivered is not based on a robust assessment and consequently it is clear that the Council cannot meet its housing supply requirements and that a significant dwelling shortfall will develop which will have significant implications for the future delivery of housing in Rochford.

5.15 It is considered that the Council's SHLAA and AMR do not provide an accurate assessment of the strategic housing land supply in Rochford and that in fact the future housing supply situation is worse than recorded. It is considered that the Council's SHLAA fails to take to account of:
Current housing market conditions in Rochford;
The time duration of the planning process i.e. from pre-application to completion;
The build out rates of housing sites; and
Site specific constraints.

5.16 The Council is unable to demonstrate a robust up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. The failure of the AMR to take account of these key matters is discussed below.

5.17 Rochford's annual East of England Plan housing supply requirement is to deliver 230 dwellings per annum. Between 2001 and 2009 this figure was met and exceeded on just two occasions, in 2005/06 and 2006/07. During this period Rochford was required to deliver 1,840 dwellings to meet the East of England housing supply requirement however just 1,531 dwellings were completed, resulting in a housing completion shortfall of 309 dwellings or a housing under-supply of 1.34 years.

5.18 The Council's housing trajectory set out in AMR states that over the next 5 years, annual housing per year will exceed 218 dwellings per annum. This level of growth is optimistic and does not reflect market trends in Rochford. It is a forlorn hope that housing supply could match its pre-credit crunch delivery rates over the five years given that during the pre-credit crunch years prior to 2007/08 Rochford was only able exceed its annual target on just two occasions. The Council has not provided any information that can justify how the housing market will be able to absorb the increased housing delivery that exceeds historical delivery records during a period when financial credit was more readily available.

5.19 The Council initiated a consultation titled 'Call for Sites', asking landowners and developers to put forward sites for consideration. This exercise was undertaken between January 2007 and April 2009. The Council's SHLAA states that these sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and achievability. However the land south of Rayleigh was not assessed and therefore it is clear that the Council is misleading in its assessment.

5.20 The SHLAA states that there is capacity within the District to accommodate 1,273 dwellings between 2009 and 2024 from outstanding planning permissions and other appropriate brownfield sites. This leaves an outstanding balance of 2,477 dwellings to be built by 2024 on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt.

5.22 The Council's SHLAA document and its AMR have failed to take account market factors that affect the delivery housing when consider housing supply to 2024. In particular the Council has not taken account the time delays caused by the planning system and the ability of the housebuilding industry to build out sites.

5.23 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007) was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to asses housing land supply in the UK. In consideration of timing from planning application submission to project completion, the Calcutt Review it was considered that the average time taken between planning application submission to construction completion is as follows:
Schemes of 15 to 49 units - 35.3 months
Schemes of 50 to 149 units - 39.4 months
Schemes of 150+ units - 44.6 months

5.24 This assessment does not include pre-application preparatory work which is cited in the Callcutt Review as taking 15.4 months on average for all schemes and 25.1 months for schemes of 150+ units.

5.25 The AMR and the SHLAA also do not make an accurate assessment of build out rates for specific sites and it is apparent that these documents do not understand the market forces that dictate the build-out rates. It is clear that in their assessment the Council has used an arbitrary figure that is not based on substantiated evidence. The 'Housing Markets and Planning Analysis Expert Panel - Factors Affecting Housing Build-out Rates: A report by Professor David Adams and Dr Chris Leishman' (the Housing Build-Out Rate Report) sought to determine the speed at which approved housing sites are developed.

5.26 Paragraph 2.4 of this report states that the research results suggest that the average optimal sales rate is about 59 units per annum for greenfield houses and 67 for brownfield apartments. Paragraph 2.5 states that most builders generally appear to set a target of between 40 and 80 units built and sold from each outlet annually. Paragraph 6.2 states that a typical strategy of most companies was to aim for a build and sales rate of about one unit per week on greenfield sites and slightly higher than this on brownfield sites and that this rate reflects the institutional structure of the British housebuilding industry in which fierce competition for land requires controlled and phased release of new development to ensure that the ambitious development values necessary to capture land in the first place are actually achieved when new homes are eventually sold.

5.27 Whilst the SHLAA has only recently been published, it is considered that it is not robust as the site assessment has not sufficiently taken into consideration the deliverability of sites as there is no technical evidence that demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between local housing markets and housing supply.

5.28 The AMR and SHLAA assessment of sites are optimistic and simplistic in their assessment of construction start dates and build-out rates. The housing land supply in Rochford is in fact worse than that set out in the AMR and SHLAA documents. Based on the assumptions using well founded national research it is clear that the Council has over estimated to the delivery of at least three sites identified within their SHLLAA and AMR. These sites are addressed below:
North London Road - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2016/17 and that 550 dwellings will be delivered by 2019/20. The Council's projected delivery rate exceeds that cited by Government research. Assuming that the start date is correct it likely that site would take up to 9 years to deliver with 60 dwellings delivered per annum. At least 120 dwellings would be delivered in the period post 2024.
West Rochford - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2012 and that 600 dwellings will be delivered by 2016/17. The Council project that 200 dwellings will be delivered in 2013/14 and that build out rates exceed 100 in four of the five years. This assumption is unrealistic and does not take account of the ability of the construction industry to deliver new dwellings. The start date is optimistic as it takes at least 2-years on large sites exceeding 150 dwellings from planning to start date. The first dwellings that would be completed, assuming a planning application is submitted in 2010, in 2013. Given the current stage of this DPD consultation it is unlikely that this site have a start date pre-2016. It is also highly optimistic that 600 dwellings would be delivered within 5-years as stated by the Council. Government research indicates that it would take up to 10 years to deliver this site. It is likely that the majority of this site will be delivered at the end of the 15-year period and that at least 120 dwellings will be delivered post 2024.
South West Hullbridge - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2019/20 and that 250 dwellings will be delivered by 2021 and a further 250 dwellings to be delivered post 2021. If the start date is correct then this site will only be able to deliver 120 dwellings by 2021 and 260 dwellings post 2024.

5.29 The housing supply over estimation amounts to at least 500 dwellings or an undersupply of over 2-years of housing. It is clear therefore that Council needs to identify more housing sites. It is necessary for the Council to allocate more residential sites to ensure that sufficient sites are available to meet the minimum housing requirements set out in the East of England Plan.

SECTION 6: THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSED OPTIONS

6.1 This section considers the options for residential development put forward by the Council in the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation. The comments in respect to these sites are follows:
a) North of London Road, Rayleigh

6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.

6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.

b) West Rochford

6.6 My clients do not object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Rochford to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients object to identification of land west of Rochford and Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4 as a suitable option.

6.7 This site is characterised by open agricultural land that forms the gateway into Rochford from Hockley and Hawkwell. Neither of the options would be appropriate and constitutes urban sprawl that conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:

The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rochford in a visually prominent location that links Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.
The proposed options will result in the development of land that provides an important gap that prevents the coalescence of Rochford with Hawkwell and Southend-on-Sea.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.8 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

c) South Hawkwell

6.9 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hawkwell as development at this location will result in unrestricted development that threatens to create a sense of coalescence with Rochford, particularly given that the Council proposes development to the west of Rochford. Consequently my client objects to Options SH1, SH2, SH3 and SH4 as a suitable option for residential development.

6.10 This site is characterised by its wooded character that provides an important green lung for this part of Essex. Each of the proposed options will result in the destruction of an important wooded area. It is considered that this location cannot support the quantum of development suggested within the Issues and Options consultation document.

d) East Ashingdon

6.11 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon and all the proposed options as this location is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh, the primary settlement in Rochford District.

6.12 Each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.13 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.14 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

e) South West Hullbridge

6.15 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hullbridge as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District and development at Hullbridge would fail to meet the housing need that exists in Rayleigh. The quantum of development at this location is broadly similar to that proposed for Rayleigh, however the Council's own evidence demonstrates that 44% of the identified housing need in the borough comes from Rayleigh. The Hullbridge options therefore constitute a mismatch between location and the need and demand for housing. My clients consequently object to options SWH1, SWH2, SWH3 and SWH4.

6.16 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Hullbridge at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.18 This Green Belt location is also constrained by its location in proximity to the River Croach and the impact of flooding.

6.19 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

f) South Canewdon

6.20 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Canewdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to options SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4.

6.21 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Canewdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.22 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.23 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

g) South East Ashingdon

6.24 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location would have a detrimental impact the character of the countryside. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to Options SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4.

6.25 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.26 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.27 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

h) West Great Wakering

6.28 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Great Wakering as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location and that the proposed quantum of development is disproportionate when considered against the size of the settlements in Rochford District and against the locations of identified housing need. West Great Wakering is remote from the rest of the district and has poor transport links. Residential development at the quantum proposed would result in a significant increase in the number car trips in this part of South East Essex, My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District which has the greatest proportion of identified need and has good public transport access. My clients consequently object to options WGW1, WGW2, WGW3, WGW4 and WGW5.

6.29 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.30 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.31 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 We request that land south of Rayleigh be allocated as a residential site within the Site Allocations DPD. This statement has demonstrated that:
1. The proposed site is well located to Rayleigh and would meet the Council's housing objectives and will assist in delivering housing to meet the Council's identified housing need in Rayleigh.
2. The proposed site would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives set out in PPG2.
3. The Council has under-estimated the amount of housing required on Green Belt sites to meet the districts housing requirements and consequently the Council needs to identify more housing locations and sites.
4. The Council's proposed residential sites are inappropriate as they constitute sites that conflict with PPG2 and the dispersed nature of these sites would result in unsustainable development away from public transport and key services that will lead to significant increases in car movements. Furthermore these sites would not assist in relieving the housing need in Rayleigh as identified by the Council.

I must object most strongly at this proposal for building upward of 175 houses in the area of Brays Lane, obviously whoever has thought about this does not live in the area, because of the amount of traffic on the main Ashingdon Road & people already using Spencer Gardens as a rat run & race track. Buses continually blocking driveways when dropping children off, they collect the children from the school so why not drop them off in the school? they do not even need to entre Spencer Gardens. IF the building of these houses goes ahead, how much of the building traffic is going to use Spencer Gardens as a rat run? If the council care at all about public feeling this project will not go ahead, "quality of life", is what we are all entitled to so why reduce ours?

I live along the Ashingdon Road, opposite Oxford Road. As stated in the letter delivered to my home, the Ashingdon Road is already an extremely busy road so the thought of having even more HGV's and construction vehicles using it horrifies me. I understand that people need homes, but the land you are proposing to sell to the developers is Green Belt. I took part in the march against building on Green Belt land in 1978 with my parents and understood at that tender age how important it is to have fields and places for people to enjoy the countryside that we live in. If you allow this development to go ahead, there will be no clear definition between towns and villages, they will all merge into one larger community, which is not what we want.

The local community will not be able to support the development of 500 houses behind Sapwoods, in "South East Ashingdon", nor East Ashingdon site off Brays Lane. The doctors surgery's are both full, the one dentist in Rochford is full for NHS patients, the schools are at capacity with people who live in the area currently not able to send their children to the local schools, so what will happen to these services. You are talking about cutting the local bus service. Again, a cost cutting exercise that will damage the community and limit access for the people who rely on it.

There will obviously be lots more children moving into the area, and this will mean more young teenagers hanging around in their 'packs' causing distress by their behaviour and noise and language levels - there is nowhere for them to go safely at the moment so where will all the new children go. Hordes of them hang around outside the off-licence and local Somerfield's store, swearing, smoking, leaving their bikes strewn across the pavement. My mother will not go to the local shops unless she drives as she does not feel safe about walking past them. I'm sure that they would not do anything untowards, but she feels intimidated by them.

Surely you should try to develop the existing local community before you extend it by over 1000 'dwellings' by the year 2021. The local conservative representative has been heard telling local people that they have blocked all development plans. Obviously another untruth, as they will surely be included in this project.

I am going to be speaking to my immediate and surrounding neighbours to guage their views and feelings on this, but I am certain that this will not be an easy ride for the Council and hope that someone there takes the views of us, your community, seriously.

I would welcome a response and had there been proper notification, I and my neighbours, would have attended any meetings you held to hear the excuses for this appalling suggestion.

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.

Re:Proposed development to the North & South of Brays Lane.


We object most stronly to ANY development taking place for many reasons,
in particular:

Ther is no valid reason why King Edmund School should need yet another 2 football pitches, which would make a total of 7 !!

Brays Lane is a country road, BUT, used more and more by HGV's. By building both sides of Brays Lane would lead to unsustainable volume of traffic, and at certain times of the day eg rush hour/school time, may very well lead to "gridlock"

Canewdon View Road and Golden Cross Road have become "rat runs"
for traffic leaving the Ashingdon Road, more houses means more vehicles,
which would lead to increased and severe congestion to all these roads.

Green belt land should remain, so that current/future generations can enjoy
wildlife/open spaces etc.

Substantial development has already been carried out in the area
eg Trafalgar Green/Golden Cross Mews, without ANY improvement to the infrastructure, more houses would only degenerate the area further.

Ashingdon Road, is at most times of the day very busy, and at certain times of the day eg rush hour/school time, almost at "gridlock", if this development was approved, then Ashingdon Road and sourrounding roads
could become totally "blocked".

The council has a duty to all it's tax payers to act on their comments,
we therefore urge you to reject ANY proposed development to either the
North or South of Brays Lane.

Dear Sir.
Ref. the above relating to the Brays Lane option for access to King Edmund School expansion.

There appear to be two options.
1) Brays Lane.
This is possible if Brays Lane is up graded and Ashingdon Road widened. This would account for todays congestion with a small extra capacity for some expansion for through traffic. The existing traffic using Brays lane Large lorries from Canewdon, Wallasea and farms clogs up what we have.
2) Sapwoods. This could come off the existing Ashingdon Road, which still needs to be upgraded. through the farm field. Crossing Oxford Rod into the existing access to King Edmund School. This to my mind will cause the least disruption also keeping down costs. More importantly not involving property developers building more houses.
Therefore this is my preferred option with no increase in housing.


My main objections to any further housing are:
1) Road Infrastructure not able to accommodate existing traffic without major up grade. To move away from the area as well as through traffic.
2) Main drainage can't cope now, lifting manhole covers/flooding Brays Lane and Farm fields (I also understand this happens in Stambridge Road as well) so any further increase must be avoided at all costs until sufficient systems are in place.
3)Water, Gas and Electric supplies are also under resourced.

Expansion is not yet required, as no new dwellings have been built.

The options seem to be:
(1)Vehicle access to King Edmund School via rear Sapwood/end of Oxford Road and any
further pitches or development to be similarly placed(ref.KES1).
(2)School-vehicle access via land south of Brays Lane and construction of 100 dwellings
with no pitches(ref.EA1).
(3)"Concrete Heaven"construction of road access,dwellings north/south
Brays lane and pitches.
My conclusion is that any construction to the north of Brays should be
avoided;(a)Brays lane has very poor traffic management and is hence
very hazardous to all users(b)The area is on a flood plain with regular
sewage surcharges(c)The field should be considered a Green-Belt with
Badgers,slow-worms etc and thus protected.
Item (1) is the best option with no dwellings required.

I write to give my concerns regarding the proposed East Ashindon/Brays Lane development.

I live in the road directly opposite Brays Lane. I moved here becasue it was a relatively quiet area and within one minute of leaving home and entering Brays Lane, nothing but open countryside could be seen.

Having seen the plans of the proposed newbuildings, no account seems to have been taken with regard to exiting Doric Avenue right towards Southend. Not only does the bus shelter on the left obscure vision, but invariably cars are parked in the layby which only exacerbates the situation; many times I have had to edge out to the middle of the road before I can see clearly whether there is any traffic on my left. At one time the quicker route was via the Golden Cross parade of shops, but this is now proving just as difficult as people wait in their cars to park for the shops and there is often a queueing line of traffic on the Ashingdon Road, which makes it virtually impossible to exit via this route. With the proposed new development there will obviously be a considerable increase in the volume of traffic, which will lead to more frustration and possibly serious injury to parents/students trying to get across the road.

The Ashingdon Road cannot cope with the current amount of traffic and to propose to introduce even more with the intended 100 new dwellings, as well as the new entrance to King Edmund School, I fear will only lead to more congestion and a possible accident blackspot.

I am writing to comment and object to the proposed development of green belt land,both North and South of King Edmunds School, in Brays Lane,Rochford.

In the last few years there has already been some 80 dwellings built in this area, this has been evident to residents of Brays Lane by the increase in traffic along the road.
As well as this increase in traffic, the speed that they travel at and the HGV traffic that uses it, have been complained about in the past.If the proposed development goes ahead as planned then there will be a large number of children attempting to cross Brays Lane to access both their new homes and the football pitch facilites. In a road where there is no enforcement of speed control, or safe areas to cross this will be a accident waiting to happen. Proposing to have a mini roundabout makes no difference to the speed travelled as they will simply drive over it, as will the HGV traffic as it wil be unable to navigate the roundabout properly due to the space.

This increase in traffic will also add to an already congested Ashingdon Road, making a 1.1mile journey to Rochford take anything up to 25 minutes. In a world where pollution and car emissions are supposedly of paramount importance this practice does nothing to suppport this.

Locally the schools are already over subscribed,as are the General Practioners, where are all these new residents supposed to educate their children or seek medical advice if all the schools and doctors are full already?

There are also plans to accomodate Housing Association residents within the privately owned dwellings. The implications of this have already been observed in Rochford where local residents have experienced damage to their properties and vehicles from the Housing Association tenants residing in the old Rochford Hospital site. There is no doubt in my mind that the residents of Brays Lane will experience the same problems, this will cause our car and house insurance to inflate through no fault of our own.

In the last 20 years the population of the local areas has massively increased, there has to be some control over this as the attraction of living in this area has always been its rural appeal. Continued building will merge all the areas into something resembling Southend and put further strain on the facilities available to its residents.

Re: Planning application from Andrew Martin Associates for 150 Dwellings off Brays Lane

I am writing to OBJECT against the planning application to build 150 new homes off Brays lane to the North & South.

I have only just recently moved from Hockley to get away from traffic and being surrounded by houses. At present, where I live at the moment is surrounded by trees and several greens and farm land, just how I experienced my childhood and I wanted the same safe and clean environment for my children. Especially as my solicitor confirmed the fields around us was GREEN BELT!!!

After living hear for 10 month's I am horrified to learn that I could have my lovely GREEN BELT view destroyed by a new development. I would like to point out the following factors why I think you should TURN DOWN THE APPLICATION.

1) If all 100 dwellings were kept to the South Side, then Brays land would act as a very strong defensible green belt boundary. Where as any development on the North side would create an INDEFENSIBLE BOUNDARY.

2) If all 100 dwellings were kept to the South side there would then only need to be on additional access road off Brays Lane, NOT TWO, as Brays Lane is a DANGEROUS road due to its heavy use by HGV traffic.

3) Keeping the development to the South side only, would also mean less impact on the wildlife in our green belt for our future generations.

4) In recent years much development has taken place on the North side of Brays Lane, Trafalgar Green & Golden Cross Mews (approx 80 dwellings).

5) If all 100 dwellings were kept to the South side this would then mean that school children would not have to cross over Brays Lane and contend with the heavy HGV traffic.

6) Obviously any large-scale development is going to create a vast amount of traffic filtering out onto an already EXTREMELY congested Ashingdon Road.

7) Although we do need to improve our schools facilities for our children to grow and progress in life, but also the surrounding are in which they live must also play a part in how they develop and the tupe of people that they become. Ashingdon is a nice GREEN place to live, lets keep as much of our GREEN BELT as we can for the sake of our future generations to live in. We must fulfil the needs of local people with minimum impact on their lives and not just the needs of the development companies who are NOT apart of this community.

I hope you reconsider this application VERY CAREFULLY as once the GREEN BELT has been built on there is no going back especially for the wild life. A copy will be sent to my local MP Mark Francois for his help as he has stopped other developments going ahead on GREEN BELT in this area.

Having examined the proposed housing developments for East and South East Ashingdon, I wish to present my objections to both schemes.



My reasons can be summarised as below.

- The traffic around our region is already almost at a stand-still. To add more houses will add to the number of cars and consequently to worsening of the situation.

- Many people from Southend, Shoebury, Thorpe Bay and Wakering already use the Ashingdon road as a 'rat run' to Hullbridge and beyond. Added traffic cannot be accommodated within the existing road framework. A plan that was considered at one time was to add a road to the east of Rochford to take this traffic. As this infrastructure improvement has not been made further pressure on the already busy Ashingdon Road will make this route a nightmare for local residents.

- Our corner of Essex is already overcrowded. If more housing is needed it should be built in those areas needing re-development in order to attract people away from over-populated regions.

- Green belt areas are getting smaller and smaller. I seriously object to these areas suddenly becoming available for entrepreneurial property developers.

- With all the proposed added housing, there will inevitably be more children. No plans are in place for more schools.

- If some of the proposed housing is 'Social Housing', these will bring their own problems - added crime, violence etc.. and only the very naive can ignore this .Our already stretched police force aren't capable of supporting us today so how will they cope with added needs.



These are my main objections and hope they you will note them accordingly.