West of Rayleigh

Strongly object. E12 will require significant clean up of the area if used for housing. Significant impact of cleanup operation on neighbourhood North of Cheapside West with 'toxic' dust, noise and heavy vehicle movements.

I assume access to cleanup vehicles/plant will ONLY be via Rawreth Lane (not Victoria Avenue & Cheapside West)

Strongly object: Proposals E13,14,15,16,17 would all result in significant loss of Green Belt land.

E13,14,15,16,17 all require significant upgrade to existing road network, particularly London Road which is busy throughout the day and nearly at a standstill at rush hour.

E13,14,15,16,17 would significantly change the character of the West of Rayleigh by making industrial units more 'high profile' on main approach to Rayleigh Centre

E13,14,15,16,17 environmental impact of access, heavy lorries, waste, air pollution, clean-up etc.on area close to existing school and housing require careful consideration.

E13,14,15,16,17 would be opposite/alongside proposed residential areas with possible conflict of access to already congested roads.

It would be totally inappropriate to have such a development located to so close to existing schools and residential areas because of the resulting increase volume in traffic as well as potential noise and pollution issues.

The existing infrastructure would be unable to cope with the volume of large vehicles and additional traffic that a development of this kind would generate.

Option E18 is away from existing residential areas, more suitable for larger vehicles and small industrial units and has better access to main A127/A13 roads avoiding adding to the existing traffic congestion in Rayleigh and surrounding minor roads.

The infrastructure of this area of Rayleigh would not be able to cope with a development of this kind, the increase in volume of large vehicles and additional traffic, potential resultant noise and polution would be detrimental to existing schools and residents in the surrounding area.

Option E18 would appear to be a more practical location for small industrial units well away from existing residential areas and far more accessable for A127/A13 thereby avoiding large vehicles and additional traffic adding to the already congested minor roads surrounding Rayleigh.

The possible noise and pollution of an industrial site so close to residential areas, schools and the resulting increase in traffic as well as large commercial vehicles on this proposed site is totally inappropriate.

This land is also designated green belt and is productive farmland that should be protected from development of any kind.

Option E18 being closer to A127/A13 thus avoiding any of the minor roads is an existing brown field site away from residential areas would be far more suitable if there is a need for a site such as this in this area.

Background

In accordance with their representations to the Core Strategy, Countryside Properties are supportive of the proposals for the provision of additional employment land to the west of Rayleigh, but we consider that such provision should be made to the north of London Road as part of a comprehensive mixed-use development, not to the south of London Road (or at Michelins Farm).

Representations

In our view, the most appropriate location for new employment development west of Rayleigh is to the north of London Road, as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme. In our original submissions to the Core Strategy, we advanced a number of arguments to support this position, including:

* It is inherently more sustainable in principle to provide for an integrated mixed-use scheme, rather than segregated residential and commercial areas;
* The viability of providing the new employment land is increased as part of a mixed-use scheme, since the costs of infrastructure (including roads, drainage, and utilities) is shared;
* There is more than sufficient land north of London Road to deliver a mixed-use scheme - there is less certainty that the scale of development required could be successfully provided south of London Road;
* To be attractive to new business, a high quality business park of sufficient size will be required - there is more land north of London Road to achieve this;
* There are advantages in terms of public transport accessibility/viability in serving a business location alongside a residential location (greater patronage and two-way passenger flows);
* It is difficult to see how the Green Belt boundary south of London Road could successfully be changed to allow for a large scale employment area, without either creating a ribbon of development along London Road, or an isolated incursion not linked to the existing community;
* Countryside Properties has particular experience in successfully delivering mixed-use schemes, including the creation of modern, flexible business space.

In the light of the above, we do not support the potential employment sites E13, E14, E15, or E16, all of which lie to the south of London Road.

In addition to the general observations above, we note that in relation to the particular sites E13-E16 the following additional points:

* All of these options utilise to some extent of other land already in commercial use. This raises two significant questions: Is the land proposed genuinely available, given the existing uses, and is the land genuinely additional employment land, or simply a replacement of existing jobs?
On the first question, it appears to us that each of these options is based upon land in multiple ownership, and where there are existing businesses/tenancies which together may make the land impossible to bring forward in a comprehensive way.

On the second question, although the existing commercial uses may not be allocated for businesses purposes as such, there are long-standing commercial uses on the site that are an existing source of employment. All four options E13-E16 appear to be premised upon the loss of the existing commercial uses, and therefore any net increase in allocated employment land would need to take in to account the extent of existing land lost.

* Notwithstanding the above, none of the options presented are of sufficient scale to provide for the extent of employment land required under the Core Strategy. The four options vary between a minimum of 2.65 ha and a maximum of 5 ha. The Core Strategy identified a need for 2 ha for office use and 6 ha for the relocation of Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, making a minimum of 8 ha. In our view (and notwithstanding our concerns regarding practicality), relocating Rawreth Industrial Estate would require more than 6ha - the existing estate is already over-crowded, as the extent of on-street parking demonstrates, allows no scope for businesses to expand, and the existing layout does not provide the quality of environment that the Council would rightly expect (and which new businesses would demand) from a new commercial park.

In our view, around 10 ha is a more realistic land-take for replacing Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, making around 12 ha of land in total to be found west of Rayleigh to support the employment proposals of the Core Strategy. This scale of development cannot be found south of London Road (or at Michelins Farm).

E17 is the only option put forward to the north of London Road, and clearly therefore on the basis of the above, we feel this option warrants further consideration, albeit in isolation it would still not be large enough to accommodate the full employment land requirement (if Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate is to be redeveloped).

There is however potential to increase the size of site E17, whether by extension to the north (whilst still avoiding areas of flood risk), or by extension to the east, as part of or linking in with the proposed new residential neighbourhood. The potential to integrate with the proposed residential uses is a major advantage of land to the north of London Road, compared to the options proposed for south of London Road.

We note that the description of site E17 states that it is detached from any residential settlement, though it is not clear whether or not this is put forward as a point in its favour or against. It is of course a similar distance to Rayleigh as the most of the options south of London Road, but moreover has the potential to integrate with the proposed new residential development north of London Road, whilst still enabling good access to the highway network for commercial vehicles.

There is no reason why commercial uses should be separated from residential uses, and indeed planning policy at all levels extols the virtues of mixed-used development in sustainability terms. Our view is very strongly in favour of having commercial uses integrated with residential uses as part of a comprehensive mixed-use masterplan, that protects residential amenity whilst still promoting ease of access. Sites that are "detached" should not be favoured over sites that have the potential to create strong mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Turning then lastly to E18, we do not consider this to be a suitable site for commercial development.

Although it may be possible to enhance the existing sub-standard access to the site from the A127/A1245 slip road, the site is removed from the residential communities that the employment would serve, and there is no realistic prospect of accessing the site by public transport or by non-vehicular modes. This is an isolated site in the countryside, accessible only by car, where development would be contrary to advice in PPG13 regarding location of development attracting large numbers of trips and sustainable travel.

As an isolated development site in the heart of the countryside, development here would also have significant adverse impacts on the strategic purposes of the Green Belt, introducing an expanse of commercial development in a highly prominent location between the A127, A1245, A130 and Southend-Liverpool Street railway. This is not development that would be compatible with the retention of the site in the Green Belt, and it would therefore result in a release of Green Belt land in the heart of an area of strategic Green Belt significance.

In summary, in our view the most appropriate location for new employment land west of Rayleigh is to the north of London Road, as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme. The employment land provision could include all or part of E17, or alternative locations north of London Road.

Do we need industrial sites in this location? If EON are to vacate their site in London Road why not use this?

It has just been brought to my attention, the councils proposed future development plans for the area surrounding my home. I am totally opposed to further development here. Since I moved here 31 years ago the area has had many area's developed and this has made the London Road far too busy. Morning and evening rush hours are horendous; traffic at a crawl or totally standstill. Trying to turn onto the road is nearly impossible because of the volume of traffic. The schols are not capable of taking the extra children. The sewers are not able to take the extra volume of sewage which would be created.

As for industrial sites closer to my home, this would bring even further traffic and pollution and stop the enjoyment of our homes in the area. I thought we were supposed to have the green belt in existence. It seems the council wants to toally spoil our area and allow building on every available space. Why?

There are many empty houses in the area, why allow more to be built. There have been many problems with traveller sites in our area. At Ramsden Heath problems have occured with the site/neightbouring houses. People withdrew their children from the local school and travellers enrolled their children there because they needed to be educated. The school now has massive abenteeism.

You already appear to be doing nothing about the illegal site in Rawreth A130. Other sites keep appearing on A127 Rayleigh between Progress Road and A130 turnoff and further towards Basildon. Why do you not insist on planning permission being required as with the normal proceedures required and take appropriate action? We have done building in the past I had to obtain permission. It is one law for us and another for others. We had to find our own accommodation and pay for things legally. People who do things 'illegally' appear to get help by being given sites to live on. This doesn't seem right to me. You are giving the ok to spoil our area and this just is not right. The traffic/sewage/schools/doctors/dentists/hospitals etc will not be able to cope. Please see sense before ruining life here for everyone.

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to you as I strongly object to the proposed plans to build a further 550 houses on what is currently green belt land and an additional 220 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate.

Rayleigh has seen a surge of new houses built in the last 20 years, particularly in West Rayleigh and the Rawreth area, whilst there may have been a need for this, the promise of additional amenities has never materialised into anything more.

Our schools are oversubscribed; doctors and dentists have long waiting lists; and traffic and parking in the area is horrendous. Not to mention the fact that our children have nowhere to play safely anymore.

If these proposals go ahead and these houses are built, the existing and new properties are likely to be affected by flooding. There will be nowhere for the water to run; some houses in the area are already affected by this.

Employment in the area will also be affected. With the impending closure of Eon on London Road as well as HSBC in Southend, there are an additional 1000 unemployed people now looking for work in this area. How is bringing more people into the area going to help reduce the unemployment figure?

I believe that green belt land should be left exactly that. There isn't enough farmland and countryside left in this area, and once building works start it may not stop.

I understand the reasons why the Rawreth Industrial Estate needs moving, pollution, noise etc but for the same reasons I do not believe that by moving them to London Road this problem will be solved.

Some of the suggestions that have been raised previously include using the land on the junction of the A1245 and the A127. This is further away from residential areas and schools therefore a safer option for residents and less traffic congestion as well as providing easier access to the main roads.

With regards to the 550 new houses, maybe the site on the A1245 would be a better choice as it will not affect the green belt land but be built on what is currently brown belt land.
When making this decision, please seriously consider the impact on the current community and surroundings; and ensure ample facilities are provided time.

Dear Sir
With regards to options NRL1, NRL2, NRL3, NRL4 and NRL5 we have lived on the London Road for 29 years. During that time we have seen the completion of the Little Wheatley Estate and its extention, the 'Bird' Estate and a development at the top end of Victoria Avenue. We are now faced with continuous traffic and severe hold-ups each morning and evening with not a lot of let-up during the day. If any of these developments go ahead there will be an additional 500+ cars trying to get to Rayleigh either through London Road or Rawreth Lane with the same result - gridlock!!
I understand there are 'brown' sites north of Rawreth Lane which have been offered by Rawreth Parish Council. Why can this not be a viable proposition?
Why does it appear to be that every housing development for Rochford District Council has to be placed west of Rayleigh?
The plans show a light industrial estate on the London Road and our objections regarding traffic are as above. A site adjacent to the A127 and A1245 has been suggested and this would surely be a better solution.
If there has to be a travellers site in the area can it not be amalgamated with the illegal one that is near Rawreth Lane on the A1245.
the final thought on this is that you are taking agricultural land which is needed and where will we be once it has all gone?
Trust you will consider our feelings on this.

I am writing to object to the proposal to locate a gypsy site on London Road, Rayleigh and the moving of the industrial estate from Rawreth Lane to London Road.

We do not need the eye sore of both a gypsy site and an industrial estate on this approach into Rayleigh, what impression does this give of Rayleigh.

Your website proposed an alternative site as you leave the A127 by the Fairglens roundabout, in my opinion this would be a much better option especially as the travellers do not wish to be integrated into the local community.

I am opposing GT3 on the grounds of extra traffic on the A129 which is bad enough at the best of times. The crime rate will rise. Schools will be Overcrowded. Extra litter. House prices will drop and we wont be able to sell our properties'

I am opposing NLR5 on the grounds of once again the traffic congestion on the A129. Once again the schools will be overcrowded. We have no Facilities on this side pf Rayleigh ie doctors, dentists, vets etc. If we need any of these facilities Rayleigh can be a nightmare to reach with the Amount of traffic already. With the proposed 550 new houses plus there cars travelling will be diabolical.

I am opposing options E13 E14 E15 E16 and E17. Putting an industrial site on either side of the A129 will cause chaos with more traffic. Lorries turning onto an already busy road. The environment will be affected by the extra lorries and traffic, backing on to a school.

I feel that there must be better options for all the proposed proposals ie E18 is well away from our houses and could accommodate the industrial Estate and the gypsies with better access to the A127 and A1245.

I am extremely annoyed that these planning applications were not widely advertised giving the local residents time to digest what the full impact Would be. It seems that this whole thing was so low key that it seems that the council wanted to push these plans through without the local rate Payers knowledge. I in tact only heard about a meeting an hour before it started and that was by word of mouth.

My family and I moved to Essex (Rayleigh) six years ago from London, and have been very happy. We moved like most families for a better way of life, although we have now heard that some of that happiness is going to be spoilt due to plans to have the following built:

- AN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

- NEW HOUSES

- TRAVELLERS SITES

The Industrial estate will surely cause more traffic along what is already a really busy road!

More houses will also create more traffic, and when in the past new houses have been built no more local facilities (drs, schools, shops) were built!

Surely there are other sites where travellers can be sited!

Lastly surely land that is not green should be build on first? There is some land that is close to Battles bridge Rail Station that could be used!

I therefore would like to make my above concerns heard, and that the items listed should not go ahead.

Thank you for your time in reading this

We wish to lodge an objection to the Local Development Allocations proposal for Industrial Units under Options E13, E14, E15, E16 and E17.

Infrastructure cannot accommodate increase number of large vehicles
Locations are too close to schools and residential area
Noise and pollution will rise significantly
It will ruin beautiful rural area and result in a loss of agricultural land that can never be regained
E18 would be a suitable site for the Industrial units along with the Travellers site

Re: Relocating the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

As a general rule, I have no objections to building new houses on an old industrial site, as long as the relevant facilities are also built, i.e.
Doctors, parks and schools.

In order to accommodate these 220 new homes it is VITAL that a new school is built as I do not believe the 4 schools in the local vicinity (St Nicholas, Downhall, Our Lady of Ransom and Glebe) can accommodate them without detrimental effect. IF THE NEW SCHOOL IS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT THEN I OBJECT TO THE HOUSES BEING BUILT!


Re: Relocating Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

I strongly object to it being put anywhere on the London Road (A129) in West Rayleigh, as all industrial estates should be kept well away from residential areas. This is especially the case with Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate as it is experiencing lots of dust pollution. West Rayleigh would then be expected to put up with more traffic congestion, traffic pollution and dust pollution.

Re: Development Ref: NLR1-5

I also strongly object to a further 550 houses being built on both greenbelt land and a floodplain. I do not believe we should ever build houses on either as this is just asking for trouble bearing in mind our current climate. Floodplains are there for a very important reason!

I also feel the traffic it would cause down the A129 would be horrific as this road is already a very busy and congested road.

There is no way the local schools can accommodate a further 550 houses.

I believe West Rayleigh should/could not accommodate ANY more developments!
Our infrastructure cannot cope, i.e. Travel, schooling, doctors and sewerage.

Re: Gypsy & Travelers site Ref GT3

I do not feel the best place for the travelers site is down the A129. There is already a travelers site on the A1245, between Rayleigh and Rawreth, why not make this site bigger? Why lose more greenfields in an already built up area. I therefore feel option GT2 is the best solution.

I feel West Rayleigh is being bombarded with potential developments which will totally ruin the area - 770 house, an industrial estate and travelers site.

DO NOT BUILD EVERYWHERE AND RUIN OUR GREEN SPACE.

NO

TO ALL

THE DROSS PLANNING

BEING SENT TO RAWRETH

WE DO NOT WANT INDUSTRY

TRAVELLORS

OR MORE HOUSING

We wish to submit our OBJECTIONS to some of the proposals presented in the Allocations DPD. We are doing so by email because of the restrictions on the number of words that can be used within the online form.


1. Residential - Options NLR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5



We are very concerned that a large development is proposed for the area north of the London Road, Rayleigh.



1.1 Access to the town centre is already extremely challenging at peak times. A development of 550 homes would increase traffic unacceptably along London Road / Rawreth Lane.



1.2 This area was promised a new school, shops and amenities when the Little Wheatleys Estate was built 30 years ago. These did not materialise. In the intervening 30 years there have been several large scale housing developments in this area but still no additional infrastructure or amenities have been provided. This area cannot sustain any further large scale growth. It is hard to believe that the promised amenities will be built if the council's track record on honouring infrastructure development agreements is a yardstick.



1.3 These options would further erode the green belt and will from experience surely increase the risk of flooding in this area some of which is already in flood zone 3.



1.4 In addition we note that the site of Rawreth Industrial Estate has already been identified in the Urban Capacity Study as suitable for housing use. We also understand that this land will accommodate 220 dwellings. This adds even further weight to our objections to developing the sites NLR 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.



1.5 There are other areas in Rayleigh of a similar size that have more favourable assessment criteria, fewer constraints and less potential impact.



At Appendix 1, sites 29 and 195 are located to the South West of Rayleigh in close proximity to the town centre . As noted in the assessment criteria, they have good access to services, leisure facilities, schools and the highways network. Why were these areas not considered suitable for consultation? Was it because they are close to Great Wheatley Road and Western Road? Analysing the constraints, assessment criteria and potential impact sections these sites would seem to be more suitable that the proposed options NLR1 - 5.



1.6 Why do 550 dwellings have to be built in one area? Surely smaller clusters of houses in different parts of the district will mean less pressure on the existing infrastructure and amenities. It would also reduce additional traffic on already heavily congested highways.



1.7 Why are some areas of the district, for example Canewdon, not included in the housing allocation?








2. Gipsy and Travellers - Options GT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7



2.1 The plan seems confused about the number of pitches that Rochford District Council is required to provide. The text on page 62 of the DPD indicates that there is a need to provide 11 additional pitches in order to achieve the required total of 18. However options GT1, 2, 5 and 7 would provide at minimum 15 pitches.



2.2 We are concerned that if the Gypsy and Travellers pitches are sited at GT1, 2, 3 or 6 the sites may expand illegally into the surrounding countryside as has happened at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



2.3 The document states that integrating the Gypsy and Traveller sites into residential settlements to promote community cohesion is an important aim. Large sites do not encourage such integration as has been found at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



For these reasons we would advocate that the requirement be met by smaller sites spread across the district in areas that cannot easily be expanded. This would provide smaller Gypsy and Traveller communities that are more likely to integrate with existing residential settlements.







3. Economic Development - Options E13, 14, 15 ,16 and 18



3.1 We feel that the options E13 - 16 are unsuitable for economic development. They are in close proximity to existing residential sites and schools. These will be detrimentally affected by, among other things, noise and air pollution and would add considerably to the existing traffic congestion already experienced on the London Road, Rayleigh which is not suitable for heavy goods vehicles.



3.2 We do not understand why the majority of future employment will be directed to the West of the district. There are surely more suitable sites that would better meet the aim of being "in proximity to London Southend Airport".



3.3 Of the options proposed we would advocate that option E18, which is detached from residential settlements and has close proximity to main routes which are suitable for heavy goods vehicles, would be a better choice.

Once again we would take the opportunity to remind you that we are still awaiting a response to questions we have previously raised on various planning matters e.g. HAAP and JAAP.



We would also like to make the following comments in respect of the above document:-



2 Residential pg 4 - how are these figures arrived at ( I understand by another Conservative controlled quango)? How can it be blithely stated that 250 houses are to be built per annum post 2021, surely at some point building will have to cease otherwise there will be no room?

No mention is made of the number of dwellings that have already been built in the area since 2006 and the fact that some of these are still for sale long after completion (e.g. Follygate development on Aldermans Hill near Folly Lane in Hockley)? What are these numbers and why aren't they shown?

How have the figures for each location been arrived at? Seems very arbitrary

The council seems to show a lack of appreciation for quality of life for existing residents and just seeks to cram in more and more development - bewildering having seen this morning that whole estates new properties in Northern Ireland are being demolished because their housing boom never quite materialised and surely something that nationally needs to be properly considered?



Pg 5 - I refer you back to our comments on the HAAP (attached). Why is the council so obsessed with supporting the overdevelopment of the area and concreting over everything, especially as the road infrastructure cannot support large numbers of houses along the B1013. The HAAP is still at consultation stage and I believe 95% of respondents rejected the Council's proposals for redevelopment as unsuitable.



Pg 6 - It could alternatively be stated that the Council rejects proposals for significant redevelopment as the infrastructure is incapable of receiving the necessary upgrade. In recent years RDC has lost a Hospital and a Secondary School (Park in Rayleigh) to housing development, even with significant redevelopment Southend Hospital will not be able to cope and the roads in the region (especially the B1013) will be at capacity.



Pg 8 - Rawreth - there is already a green buffer - undeveloped land! - Development will lead to the joining up of Rayleigh to Rawreth, something that the Council has always previously sought to avoid - the merger of separate community areas. A theme repeated on pages 16 & 18, which effectively will merge Rochford and Hawkwell.



Pg 19-24 West Hockley development - As mentioned above the Follygate development has I am certain only been completed since 2006 and comprises 14 flats. If there is a need for 50 dwellings in this area at least 14 have already been built reducing the required number to 36 (and that's without other developments that have taken place along the B1013 in West Hockley where single properties have been demolished to be replaced by 2 or 3 new ones). So it is difficult to justify squeezing any more properties in this area, particularly as significant development in this area takes no account of the poor road access (Folly Lane is often congested and Fountain Lane is one-way) and will also increase traffic onto the B1013, where it is not unusual to have tailbacks from the Spa to Folly Lane. Congestion problems are often exacerbated by horse riders travelling between the stables beyond Church Road and the Hockley Woods Bridle Way. Option WFH4 also makes no mention of the impact this will have on either the small woodland nor pupils at Hockley Primary School as lessons are disrupted by ongoing building works.



Pg 28 South Hawkwell SH3, as with Rochford there is a danger of the merger of two distinct areas Rochford and Hawkwell



Hullbridge and Canewdon - Both areas have particularly poor public transport links and are low lying - has the reality of this been properly considered? Council are apparently committed to getting people using public transport to cut down carbon emissions etc and to be located near their places of work, but, particularly with 500 properties in Hullbridge, this would clearly run contrary to this policy. Nationally recommendations are being made to avoid development of flood plains and yet construction appears to be welcomed on areas below 10m



West Gt Wakering WGW3 & 4 - As with many of the above points the potential merger of areas and use of low lying land with poor public transport.





Overall preference should be given to redevelopment of industrial sites which have closed. The danger is however that RDC's pursuit of Brownfield sites leads us to situations where agricultural land is used for something like a Christmas Tree farm and is then able to be classed as a Brownfield site (see Hawkwell) or worse a company decides to shut a perfectly good functioning site in order to sell the land for housing (Eon call centre in Rayleigh - significantly another site that hasn't apparently been taken into account since a number of properties have already been built in that location).



Gypsy and Traveller sites pg 62 - Again no explanation as to how these figures have been arrived at; or indeed, why.



The following questions also need to be answered:-



Why can't Travellers use commercial pitches like everyone else?



What would happen if the Council didn't allocate any additional pitches?


Where are the existing pitches?



How are Travellers allowed to exploit planning laws on illegal pitches and have access to public utilities (surely the council should be able to prevent the Utility companies from providing such services without planning permission)?



What fees does the council obtain from Travellers using pitches - e.g. Council Tax ?



How have the sites listed been selected? GT4 is particularly close to an historic site and



Why hasn't consideration been given to the strip of land beside the airport, identified in the JAAP as having little use and already fulfilling the function of serving a travelling community being the site of the circus every year?





Office space - pgs 81-88. Again not apparent how these figures are arrived at, there seems to be a fair amount of vacant sites including office space around the district. On the one hand seem to be saying that Eldon Way in Hockley is under pressure for alternative use because sites can't be let and on the other that you need to build more sites - can only be one or the other not both. Also don't believe that this takes account of Eon closure - if you refuse planning permission for the site then there is clearly a large amount of vacant office space in Rayleigh!





Pg 90 - Southend Airport - We refer to our previous objections to development of this site attached





4 pg 98 - what is "minimum" development - undefined and irrelevant term - refer to my previous comments on the Core Strategy (attached)



Pg 108 Upper Roach Valley - Certainly the area without development should be as wide as possible. However given the proximity of other woodland e.g. Betts Wood and Folly Wood - can they not be incorporated? Is it not possible to extend the area bordering Hockley and Rayleigh across the farmland to the Railway line or indeed the east side of Hockley to ensure that buffers are maintained between Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh to the West and Rochford to the East?



Pg 111 - interesting selection for a school given that Southend Council have agreed that as many flights as possible should take off in this direction. As objectors to airport expansion we would support a school being sited here if this would prevent airport expansion and aircraft being directed over residential areas of Hawkwell and Hockley as seems to happen at present



Pg 111-115 - Whilst not knowing any of these areas in any great detail concern would be that expansion of the schools and access would lead to pressure to develop other adjacent sites , which were previously inaccessible, putting further strain on Green Belt.



Pg 116 - 125 - Not sure what the document is driving at here. If the suggestion is that none of these education sites should be used for anything other than the existing function and not be sold off then this is of course sensible. Although, this overlooks the fact that many of them are locked in residential areas and cannot expand. Indeed spare land adjacent to Fitzwimarc School was sold some while back and the front playground has now been lost to car parking. It would be more sensible therefore for the council to propose protection of the areas immediately adjacent to schools to enable them to expand if and when necessary rather than use existing space for non-educational purposes e.g. car parking. The current proposals are just a continuation of the lack of foresight that has seen school sites developed and then pressure to build new ones or expand existing sites e.g. loss of Park School in Rayleigh.





Pg 125-127 - Have to question what the protection actually offers - there doesn't seem to be a great deal of protection offered by Green Belt status and we would welcome additional protection. The map however makes it almost impossible to see the full extent (or limitation) of the proposals. From the areas known to us would suggest that Land South of Nelson Gardens, Hockley Woods and Turret House Open Space should all link up and provide a buffer stretching from rear of Wellington Road where it adjoins B1013 right over to Albert Road and all the way up to and beyond Hockley Woods, but this isn't apparent from the map.



Would also question why so little consideration is given to area between Hockley and Hullbridge, around Betts Wood, Folly Lane etc, all open land and part of public footpath network and currently affording good views across open land. Similarly Gusted Hall area?, Belchamps? Etc all omitted



Pg 130 Leisure Facilities - Less than 7% population within 20 minutes of 3 different leisure facilities. Although no definitions are given of "leisure facilities" I'd really question the accuracy of this statement. Leaving aside "fringe" activities such as snooker; bowling and fishing there are least 3 Sports Centres in Rayleigh, Hawkwell, Wakering, (plus just outside district Thundersley; Eastwood etc) offering a variety of activities and most of the population live within 10 minutes drive of these. There are numerous footpaths and cycleways, local gyms and dance studios, football pitches and children's play areas in every town (including adjacent to the sports centres) and a number of community and church halls offering leisure activities for adults and children e.g. Judo





Pg 135 - As with above these need to form part of the leisure strategy - certainly our local community centre (Hockley) is under-utilised and from knowledge of Grange that too wasn't used enough. But why are other sites omitted? Why are the sites listed given preference over many other community sites e.g. Hockley Public Hall; Castle Road Hall and why isn't more consideration given to encouraging schools to use their facilities outside of school hours/term?



With or without protection the fear is that the Council will offload these to "Developers" as with Clements Hall and the real likelihood is that sites such as Grange and Hockley Community Centre will then be deemed "uncommercial" and closed by any developer before being redeveloped as housing



Pg 136 Town Centres - There appears to be a lack of recognition that traditional town centres are declining anyway and therefore if there is housing pressure this could be accommodated by contracting the retail area.



Incidentally with regard to Rayleigh and Rochford there was a recent article in the Evening Standard that referred to studies demonstrating that one-way systems exacerbate the decline of town centres as drivers pass through too quickly and are discouraged from stopping.



For Hockley - again contraction of the area to the West needs to be considered, this area has suffered in every recession and shops here have stood unoccupied for years (e.g. Old Post Office Bathroom Store and could provide housing. However other business are (hopefully surviving). One of the main problems in the centre is lack of parking (the car park is located too far from the shopping area and now that there are good leisure facilities (e.g. bowling alley in Eldon Way access from the High St could be easier (many of the stores have parking to the rear and with the loss of Alldays there is an opportunity for another access point). Foundry contains many vacant office sites that could be better utilised, particularly if there is housing pressure. Full consideration should be given to reallocating it as a District Centre, but this shouldn't mean that it is neglected.



We've previously commented on HAAP and Rayleigh development and would repeat those comments for town centre development.

Objection to additional employment land at West of Rayleigh. See paper copy.

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 E13,E14,E15,E16 and E17. See paper copy for details.

Comments made on North of London Road and West of Rayleigh

Objection to Employment Land. See paper copy for details.

Object to the proposed development of land between London Road and Rawreth Lane.

Proposed Industrial site on London Road would also be unsuitable because of additional heavy traffic. The only suitable site in my opinion would be at the junction of the A1245 and A127, this site already has the road network in place.

Regarding the traveller sites, why not legalize the existing site on the A1245.

We consider that the Employment Land west of Rayleigh should be allocated South of London Road but feel it should be located closer to the urban fringe of Rayleigh to avoid loss of Green Belt.

As the broad locations indicated in the Core Strategy have not yet been confirmed as sound by independent examination it is considered premature to provide definitive allocations. The area of search for employment land in this location could therefore be broadened to include land South of London Road opposite Lower Barn Farm.

We would suggest that Land south of London Road opposite Lower Barn Farm and incorporating the Call for Sites Allocations ref 126 should be allocated for employment land.

Unlike the proposed sites in E13-E16 this site is not productive agricultural land. The land is poor quality plot land and offers no really benefit in landscape terms. There would be no loss of productive agricultural land. Furthermore unlike the proposed sites there are no pylons restricting development on the site.

It is considered that redevelopment of the plot land area opposite Lower Barn Farm will offer a greater improvement in terms of landscape impact in this location. This site would also be closer to the existing residential settlement and Rayleigh Station.

Land incorporating Call for Sites Allocations 126 should be included in a proposed development area in this location.

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.