Option SWH1

Absurd and Very Ridiculous Proposal

1. Green Belt
2. Flood Plain!!!
3. Inadequate Infrastructure
4. Below Sea Level
5. Inadequate Road Systems
6. Increased Population by 30%
7. No police station, no bank, no dentist, no fire station, no senior school

In view of the above, surely there must be some intelligent people at the council Planning Offices with old fashioned common sense, who will realise what a ludicrous proposal this is and reject these plans immediately.

We are the owners of 74 Windermere Avenue Hullbridge.

We have viewed the local authority planning and green belt policies and are comforted by the local authority attitude to preserve green belt land and limit development to identified sites.

As council tax payers we are further comforted that the local authority planning controls are reasonable and shows care for their community.

The planning proposal would fly in the face of the local authority green belt and planning policy and would tend normal minded people like us to conclude that the council considers the proposal and any future planning application to be a paper exercise with no merit.

Furthermore if the council were to grant outline or full planning permission to allow the development to proceed we would ask the council to confirm when the public consultation took place in respect of amending the green belt and planning policy?

If the public consultation has not taken place and permission is granted for any development this would be in total contravention of the current green belt and planning policy.

Turning now to the consideration that must also be given to the infrastructure of Hullbridge.

ROADS

Access and egress from any proposed development would be from Windermere Avenue. Part of this road is currently un-adopted and not a publicly maintainable highway. Access to any development would be over the un-adopted part of Windermere Avenue.

This said, whether the road is adopted or not the amount of traffic congestion, noise and pollution would be unacceptable to the current residents of Windermere Avenue and the other residents of Hullbridge.

The main road into Hullbridge is Ferry Road, which is a busy main road, and any additional traffic would cause excessive traffic congestion, noise and pollution.

In today's world most house owners have two cars some have more. With such a large proposed development there would be a substantial amount more additional vehicles using Windermere Avenue and Ferry Road.

SCHOOLS

Hullbridge has the benefit of local infant and junior school's, which has and hopefully will continue to provide education of the highest standard to the children of Hullbridge.

This success can be in part attributed to the number of children in each class; this allows the staff to provide invaluable time and attention to each child's individual needs.

As well as providing a good standard of education which parents expect schools also have to aspire to and produce results in line with central government's policy on education particularly children at primary level.

Allowing any proposed development would result in an influx in the amount of children attending the school and would therefore affect the numbers in each class and this would be detrimental to the education of the children who attend the school.

In addition the morale of the staff would be affected which again central government whish to avoid due to the amount of teaching staff leaving the profession because of the unacceptable numbers of children in classes.

WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE

We have not studied in detail the water authorities plans if these are at all available at this stage, consideration needs to be given to the location of the main sewer whether public or private and the mains water supply. Any proposed development will require these facilities. Can the current sewers and mains water support the additional usage as a result of the additional properties?

EMERGENCY SERVICES

With the ever-increasing pressure placed on the emergency services having the additional properties within the Hullbridge area would result in further work for the already overworked staff to undertake.

The Ambulance station at Southend Hospital was closed and merged with Rayleigh Ambulance station. The police would either have to come from Rochford or Rayleigh Police Stations.

Having to deal with emergency calls throughout the Southend, Rayleigh, Hullbridge and other surrounding areas does the staff really need an increase to the already widespread catchments area?

THE COUNTRYSIDE

The village of Hullbridge being steeped in history is something, which we all must aspire to maintain. Part of that history is the outstanding views of the English countryside, which we are proud to say Hullbridge benefits from greatly. Any proposed development would destroy and lose the natural beauty of the fields and countryside.

The residents of Windermere Avenue and surrounding roads enjoy living in close proximity to the open countryside, which benefits from peace and quiet and the aesthetic views.

The proposed development will take place on green belt land, which benefits from natural beauty and forms the habitat of many species of wildlife, which will be affected and possibly destroyed forever.

Village life is again something, which we must be proud of and again maintain before it is lost and becomes a thing of the past.

The arguments for developing this site are misleading. There existing numerous opportunities to develop the in fill and derelict sites in the Hullbridge Gardens estate (Kingsway etc) and the other plot land developments in Central Avenue, Pevensey Gardens as well as Montefiore Avenue and Vanderbilt Avenue. The argument about not extending the Green belt envelop is facile here, as what is proposed will deprive the area of a green area used for a number of events and other uses, whereas the small plots referred to are derelict but surrounded by existing houses.

Option SWH1 is a very large site which would impact on the openness of the green belt.

Hullbridge is unable to take a further 500 properties, RDC has renegaded on the amount originaly intended for the village.

To choose to buld here would affect much of the village. New build numbers must be limited. Hullbridge is unable to cope iwith schooling, transport, parking & access to and from the new homes. Too much new road structure required.

The green belt enjoyed by many will be detroyed

TOO MANY HOUSES PROPOSED - its a disgrace

Hullbridge is unable to take a further 500 properties, RDC has renegaded on the amount originaly intended for the village.

To choose to buld here would affect much of the village. New build numbers must be limited as Hullbridge is unable to cope with schooling, transport, parking & access to and from the new homes.

The existing road structure is unable to cope . THIS IS A DISGRACE TO COSIDER SO MANY NEW BUILDS IN HULLBRIDGE

Thank you once again for giving your presentation at the Hullbridge Parish Council Meeting on the 12th April 2010.

I have since read through the Local Development Framework Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document and I am writing to give my personal news as follows:

While I have to object on grounds of lack of infrastructure and flooding I have considered the four options and I am giving my preferences.

If this development has to go ahead my first choice would be option SWH1.

My second choice would be SWH3 if the most westerly part could be used for public open space, solving the documents concerns about community cohesion.

I do not like option SWH2 due to the fact Watery Lane often floods. In addition to this there have been great problems with heavy goods vehicles using this road which is unsuitable for them. I fear widening any part of this road would encourage this to start happening again.

I like option SWH4 least of all because of the reasons for my dislike of option SWH2 plus it would be a creeping development towards Rayleigh.

In terms of flooding I think that it would be better to look for available land to the east at Hullbridge which is on higher ground.

With regard to other matters in the document affecting Hullbridge I would like to make the following submissions:

I like option E17 best for employment land.

Please can Kendel Park Hullbridge be added to the list of Wildlife Sites.

I am happy that the document protects Riverside Infants and Junior School (soon to become Riverside Primary). I would like to see further secondary school places added to the document.

I am also very pleased to see Hullbridge Community Association Community Centre safeguarded from development.

I came away from the recent meeting very surprised that the attempts of Rochford District Council to inform residents of this and previous consultations has had very little impact on local residents.

I am sorry if in my capacity of Chairman at Hullbridge Parish Council I have failed to assist you in this. If there is anything I can do to help prevent this happening again. Please let me know.

Re: Allocation DPD Discussion and Consultation Document - South West Hullbridge
500 dwellings Option SWH1

Please accept this letter as my full support for the option only SWH1 as above

Reasons why

a) the Environment.....Making it better
b) Infrastructure.....Making it work
c) Flood.....none of the option swh1 is on a flood risk register
d) Drainage..... Any new building work would need new drainage system and this would benefit the existing properties.
e) Roads.....This could only benefit the residents due to the muddy road being made up along Windermere. A new road needs to be looked at getting people out of Hullbridge.
g) Schools..... This could only make it better.
e) Shops..... This can only benefit the local shops in Hullbridge.

Re: Allocation DPD Discussion and Consultation Document - South West Hullbridge
500 dwellings Option SWH1

Please accept this letter as my full support for the option only SWH1 as above

Reasons why

a) the Environment.....Making it better
b) Infrastructure.....Making it work
c) Flood.....none of the option swh1 is on a flood risk register
d) Drainage..... Any new building work would need new drainage system and this would benefit the existing properties.
e) Roads.....This could only benefit the residents due to the muddy road being made up along Windermere. A new road needs to be looked at getting people out of Hullbridge.
g) Schools..... This could only make it better.
e) Shops..... This can only benefit the local shops in Hullbridge.

It is not considered that this location has good access to public transport (trains) and therefore these residents will be more dependent on the private car; would also question the suitability of the existing road network to cope with the level of traffic associated with the proposed 500 dwellings.

All of these options result in a large addition to the western side of the existing settlement, and although the various options follow existing field boundaries, these vary for the different options, as such it is not considered that this would result in defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.

Option SWH2 is at risk of flooding, the other options should be considered that remove the potential risk of flooding and the potential threat to vulnerable uses (residential).

Option SWH3 extends further west from the settlement and the existing facilities and services, making it less sustainable that options SWH1 & SWH2. In addition, the northern section of this option does not follow an existing field boundary so would not have a defensible boundary.

Option SWH4 is the only option that extends to the south of Lower Road, which with one exception is the southern limit of the settlement, this is considered to put pressure for further development south of Lower Road, resulting in the settlement spreading in both a west and south direction.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this six page letter is a formal response of objection to the Allocations DPD, Discussion and Consultation Document on the following counts:
The overall proposals shown in the ADPD for the Parish of Rawreth amount to overdevelopment within a semi rural Parish with disproportionate allocations in comparison to the remainder of the District and are totally unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2 and the Council object most strongly to the document as drafted and the proposals therein.

Within the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth has site specific allocations shown for housing, industry and gypsy and traveller sites, whilst other Towns and Parishes within the District appear in the document but are confined to one area of site allocations be it housing, industry or gypsy and traveller sites and on much smaller scales. Overall under the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth stands to take the biggest allocation of houses in one phase, with its overall allocation being only 50 less than that of West Rochford.

Rawreth Parish Council has never been opposed to development within the Parish, however they have always expressed that appropriate amounts of additional housing should be built on smaller, existing and brownfield sites within the greenbelt thus enhancing the lives of new and existing residents instead of eroding our green buffers and starting the coalescence of Rayleigh and Wickford.
Rochford District Council have chosen to totally ignore the alternative proposals put forward by Rawreth Parish Council in the "Call for Sites" document all of which would use previous brownfield sites within the green belt, enhance the centre of Rawreth and avoid the use of so much farmland GB1. Building approximately 200 houses within Rawreth village, with a possibility of more at a later date, would alleviate the need for such a large scale development of 550 houses all in one place. Drainage, traffic and access would all be much enhanced and under our proposal any development would have less impact on the lives of residents within the Parish and neighbouring areas. These proposals however have in the opinion of the Council never been considered or taken seriously.

The area surrounding the Parish of Rawreth is seen as "The Gateway to Rochford" yet under the ADPD the proposals for the land north of London Road NLR1 to NLR5 will take away beautiful, productive, open farmland and turn it into a mix of housing and industry. To build 550 houses on the North/South Eastern area of this land, to legalise and possibly double the Gypsy and Traveller Site on the North Western edge GT1 and to add an Industrial Site on the South Western Corner, which was supposed to be the Green Buffer within NLR1, is absolutely unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2. To consider placing ANY of these proposals on this area of high quality farmland will absolutely destroy the openness and character of this entire part of Rawreth for ever. In addition the existing roads, A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane are already full to capacity and frequently at a standstill, to add more traffic as a result of these proposals is completely unacceptable.

On Thursday the 25th of March 2010 Rawreth Parish Council undertook a 12 hour constant traffic survey in both Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road. In Rawreth Lane during the hours of 7am and 7pm 7,179 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 7,217 in a Westerly direction, this is a road that does not even have a B classification. In Beeches Road during the hours of 7am to 7pm 2,848 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 2,022 were recorded travelling in a Westerly, this is a very small, winding rural lane.

The full details of these surveys are attached.

In addition to the above comments the Parish Councils observations, objections and proposals on specific options are as follows:

Land North of London Road. Large scale development here will have massive impact on all local roads- A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane. The development will impact highly on drainage and surface water run-off which will cause even more flooding to parts of the Parish which are already classified as being within Flood Zone 3, Watery Lane in particular has been closed twice already this year in February, with motorists needing to be rescued by the Fire Service using boats.

In March this year Cllr Hudson said quite categorically in a local newspaper that all the traffic generating from the proposed sites North of London Road would gain access to and from the A129 and, therefore, would have no effect whatsoever upon Rawreth Lane, this statement is completely contra to the proposals detailed under NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5 where access is quite clearly gained from Rawreth Lane.
NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5, would have massive impact on the traffic in Rawreth Lane and are completely unsustainable and impracticable.

NLR2, NLR3 would have better access in and out of the area as long as correct and adequate roads are put in.

SWH1 States that "sustainable urban drainage systems MUST be implemented" - this is an absolute minimum as the whole area is only just above sea level and subject to possible large scale flooding. Areas within the Parish are already within Flood Zone 3.

All schemes for the Parish of Hullbridge would result in a huge increase in traffic using either Rawreth Lane or Beeches Road/Watery Lane which are both already full to capacity. Watery Lane is a very narrow, winding lane which is frequently closed due to 3 foot deep flooding and any attempt to "straighten " it must also be subject to consideration of the resident Water Vole population which nest within the watercourses and ditches in this area, this is a protected species . No scheme at all should include housing along any part of Watery Lane as in SWH2 and SWH4.

GT1 - The only gypsy and traveller site pinpointed for real consideration is in the Parish of Rawreth , alongside the very busy A1245 dual carriageway. Essex Highways have already objected to this site on the grounds of safe access. It is within 100metres of traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane, with traffic accelerating at this point. To allow access at this point is extremely dangerous.

GT2 - Is even more dangerous as, to double the size of this site to accommodate ALL the pitch requirements for the whole district, would result in even more traffic accessing the site within the area of this busy junction.

GT3, 4 & 5 - could all accommodate some of the pitches and, all have good access to surrounding roads.

GT6 - would have good access and would be able to accommodate all pitches required.

GT7 - Has very restricted access, is an unmade road/track with no mains services. Use of this site would lead to increase in traffic in Rawreth Lane.

In addition to the ADPD gypsy and traveller proposals Rawreth Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and East of the A1245 directly opposite GT6 in a Easterly direction would be very suitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site, this proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered, the site has the capacity to support the full allocation of required pitches has access to all routes and allows the Traveller community to remain in one area continuing their own community cohesion.

E13, E14, E15 & E16 would all be able to accommodate the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Estate and could fit in fairly well with the already established businesses, Wheatleys Garden Centre, Swallows Fish Centre and the Cafe. They would all provide good access to A1245, A129 and A127, but would initially increase the traffic on the immediate A129 area.

E17 Is most strongly objected to. This is the "green buffer", the land that Rochford District Council have indicated in all the Land to the North of London Road Proposals would be put to green "park" use to establish a barrier to stop houses etc., being built right up to the A1245.

In additional ADPD Industrial Site proposals the Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and West of the A1245 shown in the ADPD document as GT6 would be very suitable as an industrial site if properly designed with security, the site would also adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District. The site provides excellent road and transport links with its close proximity to all the major routes, the A127, A130 and A13 and adjoining the main Southend to London Liverpool Street railway line. The site is currently under enforcement action for inappropriate use therefore to develop this further as an industrial site would ensure the correct use of what is already semi industrial land thus ensuring the environmental improvement of the site as a whole. This proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered,
Community Facilities - Education:
Rawreth Parish Council do not agree with allocating land on North of London Road for a new Primary School. This would have a very serious detrimental effect on St Nicholas Primary School, located within less than a mile of this proposal EDU11. St Nicholas has capacity and planning to double the size of the present school but is unable to do this, as all other local Primary Schools have spare capacity and a new school with its enormous incumbent costs is, therefore, not necessary in this location. Education predictions have indicated that there will be spare capacity within the area in the next few years which could result in one of the local schools having to close.

In addition to the ADPD the Council have considered the Development Management DPD Regulations document and comment as follows.

The National Policy on Green Belt PPG2 states "The most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness". PPG2 states that the purpose of including land with the GB are as follows:

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

The Land North of London Road in its current use complies with all of these points and MUST therefore be retained and preserved as it stands.

The Parish Council looks forward to receiving your acknowledgement of this submission by return.

North of London Road, Rayleigh

I have asked several people from outside of the district where they would consider "North of London Road, Rayleigh" would be. I showed them a Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No. 175 (see Appendix 1) and showed them the Civil Parish boundaries as identified on the map. None of them thought the area you highlight to be North of London Road, Rayleigh. They believe the area you show to be North of London Road, Rawreth. They also identified the land at Sweyne school and Sweyne Park to fit the title you use here.

The title was used to indicate in the emerging Core Strategy document (page 44 Policy H2) where development of 550 houses would be.
Either the emerging Core Strategy is wrong or you have chosen the wrong site(s).

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

I have asked several people from outside of the district where they would consider "South West Hullbridge" would be. I showed them a Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No. 175 (see Appendix 1) and showed them the Civil Parish boundaries as identified on the map. None of them thought the area you highlight to be South West Hullbridge. They believe the area you have highlighted to be North West and or at a push West Hullbridge. They identified the land to the right of Hullbridge Road to be South West Hullbridge.

The title was used to indicate in the emerging Core Strategy document (page 44 Policy H2 and page 45 Policy H3) where development of 500 houses would be, (250 + 250).

Either the emerging Core Strategy is wrong or you have chosen the wrong site(s).

OPTION SWH1
Highlighted fields

The field top left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH2
Highlighted fields

The field bottom left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH3
Highlighted fields

See also my question Add 3 also the field top left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH4
Highlighted fields

Please refer to my question Add 4. The same field in question is included in this option.

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.

1 Introduction

1.1 This report sets out representations submitted on behalf of H R Philpot and Sons Ltd and P W Robinson to Rochford District Council's public consultation on its emerging Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD)

1.2 H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson are local landowners with land interests to the west of Hullbridge. Bidwells has previously submitted representations on their behalf in respect of previous consultations on the Council's emerging Core Strategy, as explained in the following section.

1.3 The Council is currently consulting on its Issues and Options draft Allocations DPD. The document identifies four potential options for the expansion of Hullbridge to accommodate 500 new homes. This report sets out a critique of each option in respect of their suitability, opportunity and constraints for development.

1.4 Our client wishes to express support for the Council's emerging strategy of new housing locations as highlighted in the Core Strategy Submissions. New development focused on larger villages such as Hullbridge has the potential to provide the following significant benefits:

New first time buyer and family homes.
New local affordable housing.
Public open space.
Improvements to the wider road network.
Enhancement to local community facilities and schools as part of planning contributions.
Enhanced access to the water side by introducing new footpaths and cycle routes.
Sustainable homes using modern methods of construction and sustainable energy.

2 Background to Representations

2.1 The Council's Core Strategy, which was submitted to the Secretary of State in September 2009 and is due to be examined this summer, identifies South West Hullbridge as a growth location for 250 homes over the period 2015-2021 and a further 250 post-2021 (500 homes in total - see Figure One below). The document is likely to be adopted by the Council if it is found to be 'sound' by an Inspector following the examination.

2.2 H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson have submitted representations as part of the Core Strategy drafting process over the last three years, including the most recent consultation on the submission draft in October 2009. Whilst the proposed expansion at Hullbridge as whole is supported, these representations identified only if South West Hullbridge as a specific location for growth. H R Philpot and P W Robinson contend that, to be found sound, the Core Strategy should not identify site specific locations for growth and should simply identify Hullbridge as a growth settlement, leaving more scope for the Site Allocations DPD to identify the most suitable sites to facilitate the strategic growth of the town and to allow the testing of these options. We await a further opportunity to present to the appointed Inspector on these points later in 2010.

3 Critique of Rochford District Council's Options for Growth

3.1 In accordance with the scope of the Core Strategy, the four options for growth have been put forward and these are all located to the south west of Hullbridge. The options presented by the Council, as shown below, illustrate that various parcels of land being considered for development over the Core Strategy Plan period. This section of the report sets out H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson's critique of each and provides the Council with our clients' thoughts on specific development options including opportunities and constraints.


Option One - SWH1

3.2 Option One would lead to the development of the field immediately north of Lower Road, with development extending further to the north and west, joining up with existing development along Windermere Avenue. It would surround Malyon's Farm.

3.3 Lower Road currently presents a highly attractive approach to the village from the west (see Figures Two and Three below). A high quality hedgerow marks the boundary of the highway with the open countryside to the north. Grassland and paddocks frame the village and add to its character as a settlement. This option for development would significantly increase the sense of urbanisation on the approach to the village and have a considerable impact on visual amenity in this highly sensitive area should part or all of this option be taken forward then landscape impact and enhancement measures would need to be reconsidered.

3.4 The suggestion of expanding the village to the south-west as proposed by Option One would locate new development close to the main highway at Lower Road, however, many of the new homes would be located further from the centre of the village and the hub of essential services provided on Ferry Road and the leisure opportunities on offer closer to the River Crouch. You would need to drive from these locations to the centre of the village. More need for car usage for groups living on new development.

3.5 The suggested arrangement may engender the creation of a separate 'dormitory' annexe to the village that bears little relation to the main settlement. With easy access to Lower Road and the higher order settlements surrounding Hullbridge, many residents may not need to enter the village centre, pass via the High Street or provide passing trade for local facilities. To this end, Option One would reduce the current cohesiveness of the settlement and provide less support for its facilities than could be the case if developing further north.

Option One Opportunities

Good access onto Lower Road.
Potential for limited development to the west of the village.

Option One Constraints

Impact on immediate landscape as you enter village.
Development could drift further to the west as unconstrained.
Potential for local flooding.
No direct access to waterfront and access to large areas of open space.

Option Two - SWH2

3.6 Option Two would have a similar impact on the character of the village by extending development further west along Watery Lane, however this does illustrate increased growth to the west along Watery Lane which we consider is unacceptable. Malyons Farm remains surrounded by development.

3.7 A new access from Lower Road or Watery Lane would be required. The most favourable solution in highway engineering terms would appear to be a roundabout at the junction of the two roads, but this may not be feasible given the location of existing development north of the junction.

3.8 There is significant local concern about the impact of flooding along Watery Lane and this does not yet appear to have been fully investigated by the District Council in relation to the southern element of the site.

Option Two Opportunities

Access to Lower Road good in highway terms.
Limited development adjacent access road.

Option Two Constraints

Increased built form along Lower Road and Watery Lane.
Identified flooding on Watery Lane/potential on site flooding.
Impact on wider landscape when viewed from highway.

Option Three - SWH3

3.9 Option Three proposes growth of Malyons Farm and a number of roads abutting land further to the north.

3.10 Option Three is the most deliverable option for preserving the rural character of the village. It will have significantly less impact on visual amenity when approaching the village from the west and should cause less harm to the character of the settlement as a whole.

3.11 Removing new development from the edge of Lower Road and Watery Lane will make it less prominent for the majority of residents and reduce perceived urbanisation of the village. Whilst there may be implications for the views enjoyed by some properties at the ends of Riverview Gardens and Grasmere and Windermere Avenues, the impact on the village as a whole should be significantly reduced. To mitigate the concerns of the residents' better planting could be introduced as strategic planting. However we consider a new access would need to be located on Lower Road and there may be opportunities for landscape enhancement to the north-west and south-west of the village by incorporating open space or recreational land in these areas. A growth option plan attached at Appendix 2 illustrates options for maintaining development abutting the western boundary with a new access road acting as a defensible boundary with strategic planting and open space. An attractive
avenue of trees and shrubs would be introduced to enhance the local area.

3.12 This option is likely to enable the village to be expanded in a more cohesive manner. The dwellings would be located close to the centre of the village and the range of essential services available on Ferry Road, including the Cooperative market, Post Office, opticians and pharmacy (see Figure Five below). The development would form a more integrated part of Hullbridge given that access to some of the new homes could be provided from existing streets leading off the main thoroughfare of the village such as Ferry Road. Utilising these roads, some of which are in a poor state of repair and not maintainable at public expense, may present an opportunity to support their enhancement, to the benefit of existing residents. There would be no need to use motor cars as there are strong links on foot with good linkage with the introduction of shared surface.

Option Three Opportunities

Reduced impact on wider landscape to the west.
Delivery of considerable amount of open space for wider village use.
Access to beauty riverside walk for local residents.
Permeable access to facilities including local shops and school.
Opportunity to enhance adjoining access roads.
Attractive balancing ponds for water run off.

Option Three Constraints

Impact of development to the south of the village in landscape terms. Enhancement required.
Careful consideration will be required for linkages to the waterside area.

Option Four - SWH4

3.13 Option Four appears to be the least favourable of all the proposals put forward by the Council. Not only would it lead to the development of open fields to the north of Lower Road and Watery Lane, with all the drawbacks highlighted in relation to Options One and Two, it would also extend development south of Lower Road (see Figure Six). This is currently a defensible, physical barrier to the expansion of the settlement that should be maintained.

3.14 Access would be required to the north from Lower Road/Watery Lane, a further highway junction would be required to the south, to serve the southern parcel of development. This would need to be in the vicinity of the existing junction with Watery Lane, which is on a sharp bend, and the new access to development land to the north. This could be to the detriment of highway safety.

3.15 Option Four would increase the urbanisation of the approach to the village, affecting the character of the whole settlement, and, again, engender a more fragmented form of development that may not encourage a cohesive community. Whilst the views of the few properties overlooking open fields on Windermere Avenue, Ambleside Gardens and Elm Grove would be less affected than by Options

One to Three, the wider relationship of development as a whole should be considered. To this end, Option Four is not considered to be a favourable solution.

Option Four Opportunities

Provision of open space at entrance to village.
Opportunity to provide much needed housing for village
.
Option Four Constraints

The site is divided by Lower Road which divorces the site from the village.
Development proposed to the south of the village does not provide suitable access to the village facilities.
Need for use of car little ability to walk to centre.

4 Conclusions

4.1 The emerging Rochford District Core Strategy, which has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is due to be examined and adopted later this year, establishes the principle of expanding Hullbridge to provide 500 new homes. The Council is currently consulting on four potential options to accommodate this level of strategic growth to the south-west of the village.

4.2 This report presents the representations of H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson, who contend that Option Three is the most favourable option to deliver the identified need for strategic housing growth. This proposal will have the least impact on the character of the settlement as a whole, is well located to support and expand the range of services offered in the village centre and is most likely to enable the village to grow in cohesive manner, preserving its identity as a single community.

4.3 The Councils Option Three has a number of positive benefits for the village, which we reinforce below based on our assessment of the options undertaken to date:

Quality new housing to meet the needs of the area.
Additional affordable housing.
Links to future attractive riverside walk.
Introduction of new large areas of public open space.
Support for local community facilities as part of planning obligations.
Sustainable construction and energy generation on site.
Excellent linkage to local facilities and the school.
Opportunities for attractive development to adjoin high quality open space with opportunities to walk to the centre for new residents and local community.

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.

Objection to housing development Hullbridge SWH1, SWH2 and SWH3. See paper copy for details.

Objection to housing in Hullbridge and comments on SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Comments to housing in Hullbridge and Support th SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Objection to SWH4 and Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Objection to SWH4 and Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

I am writing in response to the Allocations DPD Consultation Document in respect of South West Hullbridge for 500 dwellings between 2015 and 2021.

In my opinion the option for the above SWH! is my preferred site due to the fact that it is keeping the village of Hullbridge contained within the houses that are already there.

The option SWH1 is more convenient for the doctor's surgery, schools and shops and is more central to the village, thus keeping Hullbridge separate from neighbouring areas such as Rawreth and Rayleigh.

Also sent in with petition of 21 signatures stating their support for option SWH1. For more details of petition, please 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.