Option SH4

No, I am of the view Hockley/Hawkwell is currently reaching maximum development, and untill the roads, in particular, are developed to handle the current volume of traffic that not only services Hockley/Hawkwell, but is taking traffic that is avoiding the A127 congestions between Rayleigh and Southend, to get to Rochford, Ashingdon and Southend/Southend Airport. Cherry Orchard Lane has been upgraded, but it has increased traffic through Hockley. New Roads must be developed, that are feeder roads to RDC towns, and are free from houses, industrial estates, etc., hence allowing traffic to clear the area smoothly and efficiently

The location of the 500 dwelling location is totally ridiculious, without considering the infrastructure of the area. Access to this site, currently, can only be accessed by public transport, or car. Hence access can only be from Lower Road from Southend or from the A127 & A130 via A1245 using either Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane. Rawreth Lane, RDC in this document are proposing large dwelling development how will this and Hullbridge large development get sensible access to/from there homes??
How will Rayleigh Station and Parking cope, Rayleigh Town Parking. We cannot continue to consider development in this fragmented way.

Better to develope within existing roads which can support the additional traffic.

I STILL object to this loss of our local countryside, I have moved from a busy Town to Hullbridge a quiet village with minimum traffic, It will change this lovely village into a BUSY TOWN. ALAS if this housing has to be somewhere this would be the best location, It affects less of the actual village. The site is NOT in the middle of a residential settlement and not extending as far North to the river, It is easily acceptable via Hullbridge road and Watery lane, which the roads will be more able to cope with.

SH4, page 29: The inclusion of an area of land to the south of Rectory Road would erode the open gap between Hawkwell/Hockley and Southend on Sea which Green Belt in this area seeks to preserve for coalescence reasons. This cuts against one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt in this area and for this reason alone is not a suitable alternative. Importantly, I find that it would introduce development into an area where the creation of a Green Belt boundary would be difficult given the open views through the site from the south. Its remoteness from the main built up area of Hawkwell would not encourage walking to facilities including shops, employment and leisure facilities and whilst it would be located alongside a bus route the opportunity for footpath connections and integration with the built up area would be limited. It is not the most sustainable location as option SH1 offers better opportunities for integration, thus according more with PPS3 objectives for securing integration. Paragraph 2.8 to 2.10 of PPG2 advises on the criteria for creating Green Belt boundaries. The advice is that Green Belts should be several miles wide, be clearly defined along regularly recognisable features such as roads, streams or woodland edges and should take into account the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. This would not be the case with the land to the south of Rectory Road. This option excludes an area of land to the west of Thorpe Road, which is in an inappropriate Green Belt use. It would not be appropriate to retain that when a more appropriate option is to secure redevelopment for a needed housing end use. As a consequence the area of land to the south of Rectory Road should be removed and Option SH1 adopted.

In principle I do not agree with any of the options put forward because I disagree with the loss of any further green belt land for development. The additional housing needs of Hawkwell are far less than 175 and such needs can easily be accommodated on smaller brown field sites rather than green belt. However, if you are going to force a 175 housing estate on us in Hawkwell West which in my opinion is unsustainable, then I would prefer Option SH3.

This location is quite shocking as it takes out the heart of Hawkwell. Has no consideration been given to local residents at all. I cannot see how the Planners could even consider a site such as this in a semi rural location such as Hawkwell West. Any development in this area should be on a mixture of small sites.

Insufficient infrastructure to accommodate such a large development to the detriment of local residents.

Further documentation has been sent via email, today, to planning.applications@Rochford.gov.uk; with the above reference 14699.

If for any reason the documentation cannot be located please contact us on 01702 478195.

Kind Regards
Steven Kearney

Option SH4 by virtue of its location, would significantly contribute to the coalescence of Hockley and Hawkwell.

As for SH2.

Please see our general comments.

Both Options SH3 & SH4 would involve development to the south of Rectory Road extending the settlement boundary into the open countryside, contrary to PPG2.

Options SH1 & SH2 are the preferred options in this location as they are contained to the north of Rectory Road, within the existing settlement, and would result in a more compact solution. However, part of SH1 (northern part), is at risk of flooding; this area should be excluded from the residential development.

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.

Please find attached our representations with regard to the Rochford Allocations Document.

There are 3 files attached; 1) The report 2) Appendix 1 Part 1 3) Appendix 1 part 2

See paper copy for further details.