South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings

This is a great many dwellings for such a small community with few facilities.

Too many dwellings for a single development.

Whilst opposed to use of Green Belt, this site is closer to the town centre than most other options under consideration. It should therefore be the first site to be developed if such capacity is required.

South East Ashingdon

1. We support a residential allocation in the location known by the Council as 'South East Ashingdon'. This is a sustainable location which is well related to the existing urban area, local facilities and also the town centre. A key bus route into the town runs along Ashingdon Road, with bus stops in close proximity to the broad location identified.

2. We act on behalf of the landowners who own the land that runs parallel and to the south of Oxford Road and also adjoining land that runs north-south from the eastern end of Oxford Road down to the existing built up area to the south (see attached land ownership plan ref: 010036/07).

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

i. Site SEA1: Land to the south of Oxford Road and the East of Ashingdon Road, extending to the existing dwellings to the south
ii. Site SEA2: Land to the south and east of Oxford Road
iii. Site SEA3: Land to the south of Oxford Road

4. Each of these sites is considered in turn below. In addition, we identify our preferred option, called Option SEA4, details of which are set out below.

Option SEA1

5. This site covers an area of around 21 hectares and could accommodate between 480 and 640 dwellings (based on a density range of 30 to 40 dph). However, given the relatively low density of surrounding development, it is envisaged that a density closer to 30 dph is more likely to be appropriate. In view of the need to have a site that can be certain to accommodate 500 units and provide any necessary infrastructure, other uses and a landscape buffer to screen the development from the surrounding countryside, the site would need to be increased in order to ensure that the site can accommodate the number of dwellings proposed by the Council. Also the exclusion of the land to the east of Oxford Road from the site reduces the options for access to the site.

Option SEA2

6. This site covers an area of around 17 hectares and could only accommodate around 380 to 500 dwellings. As identified above, it is likely that a scheme in this location would be relatively low density and therefore a scheme would be likely to generate a supply of housing in the region of the lower estimate. This site area is therefore too small and a larger site should be identified.

7. The Council comment that the impacts of increased traffic movement on Oxford Road would need to be carefully considered. It should be noted that development in this location could be accessed off Ashingdon Road and Oxford Road. Furthermore, the proposed bus access route and turning circle as part of the 'East Ashingdon' proposals would result in a decrease in vehicular movements, particularly buses, along Oxford Road.

8. The Council also comments that it would be difficult to create a defensible green belt boundary. It is submitted in response that the eastern side of the site follows an existing field boundary which would be enhanced with further planting and that the southern boundary could also be carefully screened and designed to minimise impact. However, as identified above, increasing the site area would increase the opportunity to create a defensible green belt boundary.

OPTION SEA3

9. This site is similar to, but smaller than site SEA2. It is around 13 hectares and can only accommodate around 300 to 400 dwellings, and would therefore fail to achieve the number of dwellings identified in the Core Strategy.

10. The comments in relation to SEA2 above also apply to option SEA3.

OPTION SEA4 (Our preferred option)

11. Of the three options submitted, Options SEA1 and SEA2 are the most appropriate, but should be combined to ensure that the site allocated is of a sufficient size to ensure that the housing requirement of 500 units is met whilst providing sufficient open space, community facilities (if necessary) and a landscape buffer to the east.

12. Development of this site could also be accompanied by further residential development off Doggetts Close/Doggetts Chase, which can also be considered as part of the 'South East Ashingdon' broad location. This site lies broadly adjacent to the Waterman primary school and in close proximity to the town centre and also falls within our client's ownership. Again, development could be sensitively designed and landscaped to minimise visual impact.

13. The attached plan (ref: 010036/08) identifies the wider site that should be identified as the South-East Ashingdon allocation. Allocation of this land will ensure that the Council's housing requirements are met.

14. This option includes some land falling within our client's ownership. Our clients would work with the adjoining landowner to deliver a comprehensive scheme.

I am writing to you to object to the proposed development in Hullbridge. We do not have the infrastructure to cope with such a development.

The sewerage works at the moment cannot cope, the electricity supply is inadequate, the roads will not cope with 500 houses plus all the cars and population increase of 30 per cent, all the infrastructure will collapse.

I expect all these points to be invesigated and a written response from you addressing this letter is a firm objection to the proposal.

Objection to proposed residential land allocation in Hullbridge.

Concerns regarding:

Flooding


See paper copy for details including photograph of flooded back garden.

Objection to proposed residential and gypsy and traveller land allocation in Hullbridge.

See paper copy for details.

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



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



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



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



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



WE SAY NO !!!!!!



I look forward to hearing from you

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.

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.

Objection to South East Ashingdon proposal SEA1 SEA2 and SEA3. See paper copy for details.

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.

Objection to housing in Ashingdon. See paper copy for details.

Response of Essex County Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

SUMMARY REVIEW OF HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS

A. Residential Land Allocations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Brownfield Sites

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

C. New Employment Land Allocations

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

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

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

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

Objection to the housing in East Ashingdon.
See paper copy for details.

Various questions and comments received.

For further details see paper copy.

Objection to the housing in South East Ashingdon.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to the housing in East and South East Ashingdon.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to the housing in East and South East Ashingdon.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to the housing in East and South East Ashindon.
See paper copy for details.

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

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

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

A defensible Green Belt boundary could not be maintained.

Could result in the devaluation of properties in Oxford Road.

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

Objection to the housing in South East Ashingdon.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings and South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings. See paper copy.

Objection to South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings SEA1 SEA2 SEA3. See paper copy.

Rochford Site Allocations DPD

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

Section 2: Residential

Residential Land Allocations

North of London Road Rayleigh

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

West Rochford

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

West Hockley

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

South Hawkwell

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

East Ashingdon

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

South West Hullbridge

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

South Canewdon

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

South East Ashingdon

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

West Great Wakering

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

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

Brownfield Sties

Stambridge Mills

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

Section 3 Economic Development

Additional Employment Land to be Allocated

West of Rayleigh

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

Michelins Farm

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

London Southend Airport and Environs

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

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

South of Great Wakering

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

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