Option WH2

see comments re village life

This area is totally wrong for major development of 50 dwellings. All roads that surrond these sites are totally unsuitable to support the development, Folly Lane, Fountain Lane and Church Road, are narrow and are currently not able to suport further traffic. These roads are already beening used to excess to avoid the congestion on the B1013 from Rayleigh to Hockley, which we know from ECC is currently running at full capacity, even on a Saturday. Alternative support roads to the development would be Manor Road, Osborne Ave & Chevening Gardens, by the school. A Big safety issue, with children.

Better use of land in residential area, rather than industrial etc.

As per WH1, traffic congestion too great.

This seems to be the 'brownfield' option, which is good if existing users can be happily rehoused.

this site in our opinion with the surrounding land is the most obvious one to use being near the main road for easy access and already has housing on all sides

The development of any additional housing in the area is not supported for the following reasons:
 There is no proposed solution to traffic issues on the already busy roads around Church Road, Folly Lane and Fountain Lane, which are dangerous, narrow, winding and used by many horseriders.
 There is no proposed solution to traffic issues at Hockley primary school caused by 'school runs' due to the additional children
However, if development is enforced, then Option WH2 (mushroom farm - brownfield site) is preferred as it avoids the loss of greenbelt and open spaces.

If development is enforced, then Option WH2 (mushroom farm - brownfield site) is preferred as it avoids the loss of greenbelt and open spaces.

I object to this development on the grounds that this will set a dangerous precedent and will allow at a future date greedy developers to propose, and for spineless councillors to acquiese to, development on so-called disused farmland nearby

Brown Field site protects green belt

Insufficient infrastructure to cope with any new development

We at CPRE feel that this would be a preferred site. It preserves the green belt, and perhaps all 50 dwellings should be on one area.

This may be better because it is brownfield and not greenbelt but the question still unanswered is how will any residential development in the district address the needs of the increased traffic congestion which exists daily between Rayleigh, Hockley, Hawkwell and Rochford. I have yet to see any suggestions on how this will be addressed in any of the proposed developments. Our districts roads are too small and inadequate and it is obvious that there is no way of making them bigger and getting better traffic flow otherwise suggestions would have been made, and encouraging use of public transport HOW?

I have to state that the building of a further 50 homes would, presumably, lead to a further 100 or so cars. Folly Lane/Folly Chase/Fountain Lane are, especially at peak times, already over-stretched to cope with the volume of traffic. Without a major by-pass [ as has been muted previously by The Council ], this suggestion would only add further unacceptable congestion. The infastructure, as exists, would be insufficient to accommodate the additional strain of this development.

If 50 houses must be built, this site would be better for the community.
It's not green belt and not surrounded by existing houses. It is a disused factory site and access to it would be better (although not perfect) as Folly Lane is a more major road than Osbourne Road or Folly Chase (which would be access to the other WH1,3 and 4 sites).
This site is not a much loved and well used open green area, as the other proposed sites are.
This site has natural boundaries and would not be open to further development at a later stage.

In view of the fact that this proposal would not remove any of the green belt boundary, it would appear to be the better option. Children at Hockley Primary School use the local footpath next to their school, to visit Bluebell woods, St. Peter and St. Pauls Church and their frequent visits to the Meadowfield Centre. These visits would probably be cancelled due to the fact of the safety aspect for getting the children safely to the venues. A walk in the countryside is so much safer than walking in the road (as there is no footpath) to Meadowfields.

There is already existing traffic into this site, including very large commercial vehicles, by erecting the 50 homes here on an existing brownfield site would be the better option. There would be increased traffic in and out of the site but at least there would be big reduction in commercial and HGVs once the site is established

This would be awful for local residents and for the pupils at Hockley Primary School.Traffic is already a big problem aroud the School and the children of HPS use the propsed route to walk to Meadowfields through woodland.This would all be destroyed if the plans went ahead.No new housing is needed in this area all the Infastructure in Hockley is already bursting at the seams!!

THIS AREA IS THE BEST OPTION IT FEEDS OFF FOLLY LANE WITH GOOD ACCESS INTO AND OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THE SITE IS AT PRESENT USED AS A SEMI BROWN FIELD DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD BE A BETTER DEVELOPMENT IF USED FOR HOUSING. THIS IS THE OBVIOUS AND NATURAL PROGRESSION FOR THE SITE.

Thank you for your letter dated 17th March 2010 concerning the developments that you are proposing in our area.

We think they are totally unsuitable.

Hockley is a small area with a village feel. This will be totally destroyed. We think that the amount of housing that is being planned will swamp the area and take away its character. The traffic will be unbearable, it is bad enough now! The roads will not be able to cope. The drains area forever collapsing already.

The pollution in the form of Sulpha dioxide and Carbon monoxide will rise and our health will suffer. Our quality of life be greatly affected.

What about health care, doctors, dentist, etc, we are limited at the moment. Hospitals will be overloaded as they are stretched now.

Education would be another area that springs to mind. Where are the children going to go to school the places are inadequate now. In some places parents are being asked to send children out of the area. This would cause a great deal of stress.

It was nice of you to inform us about your intentions but what about all the other people in the area, as you are not widely advertising the facts at tyhis point and our information is received via the HRA. Is a tiny notice tucked away on page 17 in the Echo 22nd March 2010 inviting us to view the plans at various places enough? Surely these kinds of plans which will cause a major impact on the community should have more prominence.

The people who live in the Folly Lane area have suffered years of being plagued by the smell from the mushroom farm (we have lived here for forty years) followed by huge 'Artics' day and night and now industrial units have moved in and more heavy vehicles. Why are there industrial units there now when it was classed as agricultural land? (A farm that grew tomatoes and then mushrooms).

Now we have been told of the plan for fifty or more houses on the site, and as usual our views will probably ignored.

Another point to be considered is the more densely populated an area becomes the more crime it invites.

Children need space to grow and all the green spaces and all the green spaces are being eroded and there will be nothing left for the next generation. Just a concrete jungle and the only people to benefit as always are the builders and those engaged in numerous consultations.

With regard to the Watery Lane area, you can't be seriously thinking of building there? The clue is in the name it floods. Surely lessons should be learned from other areas in the country that have been built on at there cost. Or is this just a smoke screen.

As for the development of Eldon Way (We were told that the area was originally a pond so that would be liable to floods). It would be far better to concentrate on the shops that we already have. Reducing their rates would be a start so that they can compete with the supermarket giants.

Also we are most alarmed at the suggestion of a gypsy camp in Lower Road. Have the council seen the pictures in the Echo of the last camp in Wickford? Is that what you want for Hockley? We are enclosing the cutting for you to see.

We hope our comments will be taken very seriously as all these developments will have a huge and lasting impact on our lives.

We note at the bottom of your letter is the logo 'investors in people' who are these people? Certainly not us we fear.

We very much object to houses being built off Folly Chase.

If this is inevitable however, the Pond Chase site would be most suitable from every point of view.

Reasons for objection

1. Folly chase is a private road
2. Close is too narrow for development
3. Children's play space destroyed
4. Loss of green belt
5. Destruction of rural scene
6. Footpaths destroyed
7. Country walks lost
8. Unsold properties in the area therefore no more properties needed.
9. Loss of wild life
10. Loss of trees, plants etc.

1. INTRODUCTION

We act for Pond Chase Nursery Limited, the owners of Site Option WH2 as identified in the above document.

We have submitted previous representations to the District Council in support of this site in response to Call for Sites, the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and the Core Strategy.

These representations seek to demonstrate that the Pond Chase Nursery Site is available, suitable and achievable for development in accordance with objectives set out in paragraph 54 of PPS3.

The Core Strategy Submission Document provides for 50 dwellings at West Hockley. The Site Allocations document is required to be consistent with the Core Strategy and in that regard part of the representations submitted below will demonstrate that housing development on the Pond Chase Nursery site will be consistent with policies contained in the Submission Core Strategy.

The representations will also consider the other option sites in relation to West Hockley. A Sustainability Appraisal relating to development on the site is also attached.

2. SITE CONTEXT

The site comprises part previously developed land and part open land with a total area of about 4 hectares. Site plan attached.

The southern part of the site comprises previously developed land formed by an extensive range of buildings and area of concrete hardstanding with existing access onto Folly Lane. The northern rear part of the site comprises open land with the northern boundary defined by the existing railway.

The site lies just over 1 km. from the town centre where a range of retail and community facilities are located. The site also lies broadly within 400m. of regular bus services that operate on Aldermans Hill where services run to Rayleigh and Southend.

3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The previous submissions to the local authority have indicated that housing development would take place on the previously developed land which comprises about 1.8 hectares with the current open land being provided as public open space and for nature conservation purposes. That area would comprise about 2.2 hectares.

Insofar as the housing development is concerned, it will adhere to principles of the Essex Design Guide and will provide for a range of dwelling sizes commensurate with needs arising within the local community.

A Design Brief for the site will be prepared and will indicate a higher density of development for the front of the site reducing to a lower density to achieve an appropriate relationship with the open land to the rear.

Insofar as the open land is concerned, it is proposed that about 0.7 hectares will be provided for public open space to include opportunities for passive and active recreation including a children's play area. The remainder of the open land will be provided as an area for nature conservation and it is proposed that measures for enhancement and management will be subject of discussion with appropriate bodies in due course.

Insofar as the area for nature conservation interest is concerned, the site has been the subject of an ecological appraisal which will inform proposals for the site. It is proposed that the area for nature conservation will be transferred to a public body to ensure that it is retained for nature conservation interests in perpetuity.

The site has also been the subject of flood risk assessment and geo-environmental investigation. Insofar as the geo-environmental investigation is concerned, the conclusions indicated that the site is suitable for residential development and that there is a low risk of any widespread contamination. The report recommended that a detailed analysis be undertaken in support of any planning application.

Insofar as the flood risk assessment is concerned, the site is shown to be within Flood Zone 1 and highlighted that the amount of impermeable area will be significantly reduced through re-development and the removal of existing hardstanding on the site. A drainage strategy and revised flood risk assessment taking into account the latest guidance will be submitted in support of any application for development.

4. CORE STRATEGY

The Core Strategy has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is scheduled to be the subject of an examination commencing in May 2010.

The Core Strategy identifies that the East of England Plan requires that a minimum of 4,600 dwellings be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In response to that the Core Strategy at Policy H2 identifies the distribution of dwellings in the District to include provision of 50 units at West Hockley within the plan period to 2015.

Of that housing provision, Policy H4 requires that affordable housing should form 35% of developments with an indication that 80% be provided for social housing and 20% for intermediate housing.

Policy H5 requires new development to contain a mix of dwelling types to ensure that they meet needs from within the community.

Appendix 1 in relation to the Housing Section of the Core Strategy identifies infrastructure items that are expected to be delivered from housing development.

Insofar as West Hockley is concerned, four items are identified as follows:

* Sustainable drainage systems:
Response: A planning application for housing development on the site will be accompanied by a drainage strategy which will seek to provide for sustainable drainage systems. The flood risk assessment indicated such an approach.

* Public open space:
Response: The proposed development provides for a total of 2.2 hectares of open land part of which will be provided as active public open space with a balance for nature conservation but where limited public access will remain available.

* Local highway improvements:
Response: The planning application will be the subject of a transport assessment which will compare flows from the existing uses with that of the proposed residential development. Development will make a contribution to reasonably related off-site highway improvements.

* Play space:
Response: Provision will be made for play space either within the area of public open space and/or within the proposed housing area. The size and distribution of such play space within the development will be subject to discussion with the local authority.

* Link to cycle/network:
Response: Provision is made for segregated cycle route within the proposed development. This can be extended through the site to abut the northern boundary to meet any off-site cycle path proposals that may come forward. Development will contribute to other off-site cycle route measures to encourage cycle use between the development and local facilities.

The above demonstrates that the proposed development for the site will achieve consistency with housing policies set out in the Core Strategy Submission document.

Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy submission indicates that the local authority will allocate the minimum amount of Green Belt land necessary to meet the District's housing and employment needs.

Insofar as Pond Chase Nursery is concerned, other than the direct frontage to Folly Lane, the site lies within the Green Belt. However, that part proposed for housing comprises entirely previously developed land with existing open land to the rear being proposed for positive use for recreational and nature conservation purposes in accordance with general Green Belt objectives. Development of the site therefore does not propose development on currently open Green Belt land.

The provision of allocation for development at Pond Chase Nursery has the capacity to provide for the housing allocation for West Hockley with minimum incursion into the Green Belt.

5. OPTION SITES

The Allocations dpd identifies five possible development sites to accommodate the housing requirement for West Hockley. We consider these in turn below.

Option WH1: Folly Chase:

This site comprises open arable land to the north of the built-up area of Hockley. The site merges with other open Green Belt land both to the east and west with the railway line to the north.

Folly Chase is a private road serving low density detached houses and also forms a public footpath that continues beyond the railway to the north.

We object to this proposed option on the basis that it comprises open Green Belt land that merges with open land adjacent. In addition, the highway access would require significant improvements including road widening and possible demolition of existing residential properties to achieve satisfactory access. Such access will also give rise to conflicts with users of the public footpath. In overall terms development would be highly intrusive within the landscape abutting the edge of Hockley.



Option WH2:

We support the housing allocation of this site for the reasons set out in our statement above.

The site comprises previously developed land and can provide for a defensible Green Belt boundary.

In order to provide additional beneficial development we would recommend that the site allocation extend to include land to the north and for that part to be identified for public open space and an area for nature conservation.

Option WH3:

We object to housing development on this site for the same reasons as WH1. It comprises open Green Belt land merging with other land adjacent.

Vehicular access to the site is particularly difficult and will require significant widening of Folly Chase and the possible demolition of residential properties. Traffic generated by the development would conflict with public footpath users.

In overall terms development would be highly intrusive within the Green Belt on the northern edge of Hockley.

Option WH4:

We object to development on this site because it comprises open agricultural land merging with adjoining land. It is also more detached from the built-up area being enclosed to the south by woodland. Vehicular access to the site would be difficult for the same reasons as other options in that Folly Chase would require significant improvement to accommodate vehicular access which may result in the loss of residential properties. There will also be conflict with public footpath users.
Development would be visually intrusive on the northern edge of Hockley.


Option WH5:

Insofar as this site indicates a possible extension of Option WH2 we raise no objections and acknowledge that expansion towards Church Road has the potential of a second phase of development post 2015.

Development of the scale proposed prior to 2015 of 50 dwellings can be satisfactorily accessed from a single point of access from Folly Lane but a second access to Church Road as part of with any second phase of development would be a matter for detailed highway consideration at that stage.

It is noted that such expansion would encompass previously developed land comprising existing residential properties and curtilages.

Insofar as this option is concerned it is an option that Pond Chase Nursery do not wish to actively support but its long term capacity is acknowledged.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The above represent our submission in response to the Allocations Development Plan Document. We have sought to identify that the allocation of land as Option WH2 meets policy objectives set out in the Core Strategy Submission Document and in terms of meeting housing delivery objectives of PPS3.

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: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



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



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.

Various questions and comments received.

For further details see paper copy.

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

Various comments received, for further details see paper copy.