Option TC3 - Existing Town Centre Boundary

Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4

None of the options are appropriate on the site in West Rochford and I show below my reasons for this statement:


1) The land is prime agricultural land and falls within the category of Best Most Versatile (BMV) land. The authority does not show any evidence of investigating more suitable sites, especially brownfield sites. At a time when there is such a need to feed a growing population this is not best use of this land and as such is not sustainable development.


2) Green Belt. The government has attached great importance to the protection of the metropolitan green belt as outlined in PPG2. The site in question is a gateway into the town of Rochford, close to the conservation area, close to the Cherry Orchard Country park and will not sit well in this surrounding. It will increase urban sprawl especially in view of planned developments as part of the JAAP for the airport. There will be no decent "Green wedge" between Rochford and Hockley as set out in the Local Plan. The authority demonstrated a desire to protect this area as part of the Rochford Conservation Area Report which forms part of LDF.


3) Loss of an Attractive Landscape. This was once part of the Roach Valley Conservation Area and, as such, was noted as a site of beauty and forms a green island between settlements. There is no evidence that the authority has made a landscape impact assessment. The development of 600 dwellings on this site will have a detrimental visual impact. This is especially true when considering this is a gateway for visitors to the Historic Market town of Rochford. Probably the best feature in the district of Rochford. This does not accord with the authority's tourism policies. The West side of Rochford is uniquely different from the Eastern side as being an area of tranquil beauty, the railway forms a natural boundary and land to the west deserves to be protected from development.


4) Transport Issues: Public transport will not be accessible to this site. There is no bus route (and unlikely that a bus company would be persuaded to lay on a service without heavy subsidy and cost to ratepayers), it is a considerable walk to the train station and the road, as it stands, is not "friendly" to pedestrians. No matter what road improvements may be planned, there will always be a bottle neck at the railway bridge for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Commuter cars will funnel on to the A127 and A13 which already have over reached their capacity at peak times (as per the East of England Plan). The building of a school will simply add to the congestion that already exists. Rochford runs the risk of being grid locked at peak travelling times.



5) Economic Development Issues. Proper, planned development in the Rochford area will be good for economic growth. However, this does not fall into the category of properly planned. Because of the lack of public transport, people will use their cars. They are much more likely to take the trip down Cherry Orchard Way for their shopping rather than into the already congested roads surrounding Rochford town. People are very unlikely to walk, (how would they get heavy shopping home) and therefore of very little advantage to the economy of Rochford Town. Pedestrian access is much easier into town from the eastern/northern side.



6) Need for Housing The statistics provided in the Core Strategy consultation did not demonstrate a need for housing on this scale for Rochford. There has been considerable development in the area recently and others planned which should satisfy those seeking housing in this area. The percentage of additional housing on a per capita basis is greater in Rochford than that planned for other settlements. This is not a fair strategy. The same applies to social housing. The numbers planned do not equate with the numbers seeking to live in this area. There are a number of recent new developments that have remained empty for some while. I have not seen any evidence of a proven a need for the number of dwellings planned in Rochford.


7) Ironwell Lane. A protected, ancient By Way which offers a wide variety of amenities for the residents of Rochford and also offers a diverse habitat in terms of flora and fauna. To build so close will seriously harm this habitat. At present it offers a peaceful place for families to walk and cycle as well as horse riders and dog walkers.


DM11 Rural Diversification (Development Management DPD)
Of the five bullet points in this option, this site does not meet the criteria. (i) It would have an undue impact on the openness of the green belt. (ii) It would introduce increased activity on the roads. (iii) It would impact on the sensitivity of the landscape. (iv) It would impact on the agricultural potential of the land. "It is important to protect the District's most valuable agricultural land from undue impact. And It is important to protect the diverse character of the District's Green Belt from undue impact."



This development should not go ahead. There must be many better sites around the district which will cause less harm. It is noted that the site did not appear in the "Call for Sites" initiative.


Option TC3 Existing Town Centre Boundary

I am very concerned about the proposal to change the boundary of the Town Centre. I certainly would not want to see the conservation area made smaller or for the businesses outside the boundary to be disadvantaged in any way. I am especially concerned that the three new proposals all exclude Back Lane Car park. The car park should be within the boundary.

I can see no advantage to the economic development of Rochford by making any changes.

I support keeping the boundary inTC3 as existing.

Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4

None of the options are appropriate on the site in West Rochford and I show below my reasons for this statement:


1) The land is prime agricultural land and falls within the category of Best Most Versatile (BMV) land. The authority does not show any evidence of investigating more suitable sites, especially brownfield sites. At a time when there is such a need to feed a growing population this is not best use of this land and as such is not sustainable development.


2) Green Belt. The government has attached great importance to the protection of the metropolitan green belt as outlined in PPG2. The site in question is a gateway into the town of Rochford, close to the conservation area, close to the Cherry Orchard Country park and will not sit well in this surrounding. It will increase urban sprawl especially in view of planned developments as part of the JAAP for the airport. There will be no decent "Green wedge" between Rochford and Hockley as set out in the Local Plan. The authority demonstrated a desire to protect this area as part of the Rochford Conservation Area Report which forms part of LDF.


3) Loss of an Attractive Landscape. This was once part of the Roach Valley Conservation Area and, as such, was noted as a site of beauty and forms a green island between settlements. There is no evidence that the authority has made a landscape impact assessment. The development of 600 dwellings on this site will have a detrimental visual impact. This is especially true when considering this is a gateway for visitors to the Historic Market town of Rochford. Probably the best feature in the district of Rochford. This does not accord with the authority's tourism policies. The West side of Rochford is uniquely different from the Eastern side as being an area of tranquil beauty, the railway forms a natural boundary and land to the west deserves to be protected from development.


4) Transport Issues: Public transport will not be accessible to this site. There is no bus route (and unlikely that a bus company would be persuaded to lay on a service without heavy subsidy and cost to ratepayers), it is a considerable walk to the train station and the road, as it stands, is not "friendly" to pedestrians. No matter what road improvements may be planned, there will always be a bottle neck at the railway bridge for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Commuter cars will funnel on to the A127 and A13 which already have over reached their capacity at peak times (as per the East of England Plan). The building of a school will simply add to the congestion that already exists. Rochford runs the risk of being grid locked at peak travelling times.



5) Economic Development Issues. Proper, planned development in the Rochford area will be good for economic growth. However, this does not fall into the category of properly planned. Because of the lack of public transport, people will use their cars. They are much more likely to take the trip down Cherry Orchard Way for their shopping rather than into the already congested roads surrounding Rochford town. People are very unlikely to walk, (how would they get heavy shopping home) and therefore of very little advantage to the economy of Rochford Town. Pedestrian access is much easier into town from the eastern/northern side.



6) Need for Housing The statistics provided in the Core Strategy consultation did not demonstrate a need for housing on this scale for Rochford. There has been considerable development in the area recently and others planned which should satisfy those seeking housing in this area. The percentage of additional housing on a per capita basis is greater in Rochford than that planned for other settlements. This is not a fair strategy. The same applies to social housing. The numbers planned do not equate with the numbers seeking to live in this area. There are a number of recent new developments that have remained empty for some while. I have not seen any evidence of a proven a need for the number of dwellings planned in Rochford.


7) Ironwell Lane. A protected, ancient By Way which offers a wide variety of amenities for the residents of Rochford and also offers a diverse habitat in terms of flora and fauna. To build so close will seriously harm this habitat. At present it offers a peaceful place for families to walk and cycle as well as horse riders and dog walkers.


DM11 Rural Diversification (Development Management DPD)
Of the five bullet points in this option, this site does not meet the criteria. (i) It would have an undue impact on the openness of the green belt. (ii) It would introduce increased activity on the roads. (iii) It would impact on the sensitivity of the landscape. (iv) It would impact on the agricultural potential of the land. "It is important to protect the District's most valuable agricultural land from undue impact. And It is important to protect the diverse character of the District's Green Belt from undue impact."



This development should not go ahead. There must be many better sites around the district which will cause less harm. It is noted that the site did not appear in the "Call for Sites" initiative.


Option TC3 Existing Town Centre Boundary

I am very concerned about the proposal to change the boundary of the Town Centre. I certainly would not want to see the conservation area made smaller or for the businesses outside the boundary to be disadvantaged in any way. I am especially concerned that the three new proposals all exclude Back Lane Car park. The car park should be within the boundary.

I can see no advantage to the economic development of Rochford by making any changes.

I support keeping the boundary inTC3 as existing.

Option TC3 - Rochford Town Centre Boundary

We support this option

We certainly do not support change if, by making the boundary smaller, this will put the existing buildings outside of the conservation area.

We maintain that option TC3 should be the basis of any Town Centre Study and that to introduce any change will put constraints on the economic development of Rochford and there should not be any change without proper consultation and the production of a report on the findings of previous consultation.

Is it your intention to publicise the findings of the original consultation?

We see no evidence in this document that responses from the Rochford Area Action Plan Consultation have been taken into account. The Allocations Document should give due consideration to the views of stakeholders in the community.

The Chamber of Trade took part in the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan consultation and consequently do not agree with the proposed boundary changes as it was not an issue raised in this consultation.

The town centre should be an area that consists of the primary shopping area and areas that are predominantly business, leisure and other associated town centre uses. i.e not only retail.

If the boundary was made smaller as in TC4, TC5 and TC6 there is a danger that existing businesses that fall outside of the boundary could be put in jeopardy. For example, the businesses in the lower half of West Street and the Riverside Industrial Estate could be outside the boundary which makes no sense at all. If it is not the case that these businesses are excluded from the protection of the boundary, then we see no merit, advantage or argument for change.

Bradley Way should remain within the boundary.

We do not agree with Back Lane car park being outside the boundary and again can see no merit in this proposal.