Should any of the sites included within Appendix 1 be considered further for allocation?

Regulation 25 Representation on behalf of Mr Douglas Brown

7. Other Issues and Next Steps

Land of the west side of Ashingdon (Call for Sites Allocations 38) owned by our client is no longer being pursued as a strategic site but is put forward for consideration for some additional housing development in association with the management of land as part of a Wildlife Site and adjoining Local Nature Reserve.

An approach will shortly be made to various bodies concerned with the conservation and management of the natural history in this part of the District with a view to exploring if part of the scrubland on the eastern side of the landholding could be released for housing thereby enabling the remainder of the landholding to be an enlarged nature reserve. It is intended that if there is support for this approach, a specific area for further housing will be identified together with the necessary undertakings to protect the remainder of the site from development and securing its future management for its natural history value.

The potential future housing land would be found within the red area on the attached plan with the remainder land and all the land edged blue then being available for possible nature reserve use.

Regulation 25 Representation on behalf of Mr Dudley Ball

7. Other Issues and Next Steps

In the event of Options WH5 not being selected as a strategic site, it is considered that land identified in red on the attached plan should be identified for development in the Allocations DPD. Separate Representations have been submitted advocating that a review of the MGB boundary be undertaken as part of the Allocations DPD process in tandem with the identification of the main new residential and employment allocations. It is considered good practice for the current MGB boundary to be reviewed as a whole rather than individual amendments being promoted to accommodate individual sites in a piecemeal way.

The identified site fronting Church Road currently lies within the MGB but is hemmed in by existing residential development on three sides and by Pond Chase Nurseries on the other. The site makes negligible contribution to the openness of the Green Belt whilst the current line of the MGB is arbitrary on this particular edge of Hockley.

It is also considered important that a review of the MGB boundary be undertaken as part of the process of securing smaller development sites to complement the main new allocations. Accordingly, it is submitted that the objection site, (which was site 38 in the Call for Sites Allocations), be excluded from the MGB such that it is formally recognised as part of the built up area of Hockley. As such, it could accommodate up to 7 dwellings as a contribution to District-wide housing needs.

For further information see paper copy.

Site put forward at Great Wheatleys

See paper copy for further details.

Promoting a significant area of land on the north eastern edge of Rayleigh, including an area of farm land and employment land adjacent to the north eastern boundary of Rayleigh together with equestrian related uses adjacent to Home Farm on the western edge of Hockley.

See paper copy for accompanying report.

We are supportive of development in West Rochford. Development West of Rochford is sensible as it is located close to the town centre and railway. The area is also close to the proposed expansion of employment opportunities at the airport. There are also opportunities to create green links with adjoining areas through Ironwell Lane.

However, we feel that land at Meadowbrook Farm (ref Call for Sites Allocations 128) should be included within option WR1. The site extends to 1.36 hectares of land previously developed with a dwelling and farm buildings. This land is within the area of search identified in the Core Strategy.

By linking option WR1 to this site the proposed development can achieve stronger green links to Rochford and services on the Ashingdon Road through Ironwell Lane and other footpaths.

The site at Meadowbrook Farm is sustainable as it is within 500 metres of Rochford railway station and also within 300 metreso f bus links with Hockley and Southend. Further details of this site are attached on the Additional Detail on Suggested Sites Form submitted.

For more information see paper copy.

Letter requesting land at 'Meala Failta' in Barling Road be iincluded in the Rural Settlement Area.

See paper copy for further details.

Site put forward at Coombes Farm.

For further information and site plan, see paper copy.

On learning of the new planning suggestions for a large development in Hockley I notice no consideration is being given to small plots that happen to be surrounded by housing but within the Green Belt line which was drawn in 1942.

With the intended extending of Southend Airport there are sure to be people who will be taking up positions or receiving promotion or those who are moving on to second homes with finances which will enable them to raise their housing standards and build to their own choice.

It seems a pity that when thee are individual plots of land available - despite being within the green belt line drawn in 1942, inside existing housing - and yet not permitted to be used for individual design and construction in keeping with the local housing rules.

I have repeatedly put forward my particular case in your reports and do so again now. Please will you consider my plot of land at 1, 2 and 3 New Hall Estate at the corner of Trinity Wood Lane and Greensward Lane, Hockley, which has five houses surrounding its border, one each side, one at the back, one opposite and one at top south east corner, other long time homes build up the surrounding area. With the Thames Gateway in hand and permission being granted to Green Belt areas else where squatters have taken up residence. I once again plead my cause.

Suggest a parcel of land east of Sandhill Road, Eastwood for residential use.

Call for sites reference no. 75.

For further details see paper copy.

Re: Future Development of the District - 340 to 370 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh

In response to your letter of 17th March and my telephone conversation with your office I am writing to put forward our comments in respect of the use of land between 340 and 370 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh for development purposes.

Although this piece of land is designated as Green Belt it lies between existing development and is adjacent to a larger area of land which runs adjacent to the A127. 340 to 370 has infrastructure in place in the form of access via The Bartletts. Using these two areas of land together would make available a substantial development site without encroaching on more attractive areas of Green Belt.

With the development already taking place at Shell Haven the use of this site would also be ideally suited to accommodate the extra personnel who will be working in the area.