Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26440
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: Southern and Regional Developments Ltd
Agent: Carter Jonas
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Various issues raised regarding land put forward at South West Hullbridge.
Response regarding land put forward at South West Hullbridge.
Full response can be viewed via Rochford District Council website.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26441
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: Environment Agency
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Submission Schedule of Changes
Thank you for consulting us on the schedule of proposed changes to the Core Strategy Submission document.
We note that the key changes proposed are the reduction in numbers of dwellings to be provided per annum and the extension in the time period of the plan. We originally made a number of representations on the Submission document, dated 6th November 2009; and 20th April 2010 & 27th May 2010 (both in the form of letters to the Planning Inspectorate). These remain unaffected by the proposed changes.
However, given the proposed reduction in dwellings to be provided, you may wish to consider whether the PPS25 Sequential Test (Topic Paper 1), should now be updated to ensure an effective evidence base.
Core Strategy Submission Schedule of Changes
Thank you for consulting us on the schedule of proposed changes to the Core Strategy Submission document.
We note that the key changes proposed are the reduction in numbers of dwellings to be provided per annum and the extension in the time period of the plan. We originally made a number of representations on the Submission document, dated 6th November 2009; and 20th April 2010 & 27th May 2010 (both in the form of letters to the Planning Inspectorate). These remain unaffected by the proposed changes.
However, given the proposed reduction in dwellings to be provided, you may wish to consider whether the PPS25 Sequential Test (Topic Paper 1), should now be updated to ensure an effective evidence base.
Support
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26442
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: Historic England
We note the recent legal decision confirming that the Regional Spatial Strategy remains part of the development plan, and that this may affect how you proceed. We do not have any further comments to make in respect of this consultation.
As you will know, PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment was published in March 2010. While we do not consider this calls for a radically different approach in your Core Strategy, the PPS is more explicit in several areas on how the historic environment should be addressed and valued. The Government's objectives in para 7 of PPS5 promote recognition of the positive contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place, and the integration of the historic environment into planning policies relating to place-shaping.
Thank you for consulting English Heritage on proposed changes to the Core Strategy.
We note the recent legal decision confirming that the Regional Spatial Strategy remains part of the development plan, and that this may affect how you proceed. We do not have any further comments to make in respect of this consultation.
As you will know, PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment was published in March 2010. While we do not consider this calls for a radically different approach in your Core Strategy, the PPS is more explicit in several areas on how the historic environment should be addressed and valued. The Government's objectives in para 7 of PPS5 promote recognition of the positive contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place, and the integration of the historic environment into planning policies relating to place-shaping.
We would be pleased to discuss any minor changes to the Core Strategy to reflect the new PPS if you would find it useful.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26443
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: Mr G Marshall
Agent: Generis Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
RESPONSE ON PROPOSED CHANGES
Within the context of the above, we are further concerned at the Proposed Changes in respect of the suggested reduction in housing numbers. These appear to be based on the justification that the RSS no longer forms part of the Development Plan, and all reference to the RSS has been deleted. It is proposed to reduce the RSS figure of 250 dwelling completions per year to 190.
Given both the CALA decision, and at the time of writing, the block that has been placed by the Courts on the Government's subsequent statement, it is clear that the RSS is once again part of the Development Plan. As a consequence, the consultation on the CS Proposed Changes is premature, and indeed discords with the RSS. The East of England Plan remains as a document that at present the Core Strategy needs to accord with in line with PPS12 para 4.50. The Proposed Changes would therefore discord with the RSS and make the CSS unsound.
In the event that this is ignored, and without prejudice to this fundamental failing of the Proposed Changes, our detailed comments are as follows:
* The reduction in numbers is not justified by the use of option 1 figures, which the Council misquote, nor the suggested environmental constraints which are no different to any other south Essex district;
* The reduction in housing numbers will both fail to meet the current shortfall, and accentuate this during the CS Plan period. The extension of the Plan to 2031 is welcomed, but objection raised to the housing figures not being subject to a consequent enhancement;
* Urgent housing needs in the district will not be met, in particular affordable housing needs. Topic Paper 3 acknowledges a shortfall of affordable housing in the district, with only 154 units being built between 2001 and 2009, against a need of 1048. The Topic Paper also states that only around a third of the projected need of 196 dwellings per year will be met.
INTRODUCTION
The following is prepared on behalf of Mr G Marshall, and responds to the Proposed
Changes to the Rochford Core Strategy Submission Draft. In our response to the Core
Strategy Submission (CSS), we identified that the assumptions upon which my client's
land at Peggle Meadow were rejected were fundamentally flawed, and the Council
had therefore not produced a draft Core Strategy that is sound, for the following
reasons:
* The strategy has not properly considered a reasonable and more sustainable
alternative to the site proposed in the Core Strategy, and therefore does not
provide the most appropriate strategy when considered against this reasonable alternatives;
* Our client's site was rejected for reasons that do not bear scrutiny, such as flood risk which the Council have been aware of for some considerable time. As such the Core Strategy does not have a robust and credible evidence
base;
* The strategy relies on a limited number of development sites, and is based on a significant redevelopment of existing employment land, risking the delivery of housing in the District. It is therefore not effective, in that it is not demonstrably deliverable or flexible;
* The Strategy ignores more sustainable options for housing growth such as our client's land, and is therefore discordant with the advice contained within for example PPS3.
A key element was therefore that that the delivery of housing to 2021 in Rochford
was wholly reliant on a small number of allocations such as the 600 houses proposed
on the land to the west of Rochford and therefore failed the test of soundness that
the DPD was not flexible enough to respond to a variety of, or unexpected changes
in, circumstances.
As a consequence, the Inspector was urged to recognise that the land at Peggle Meadow has no insuperable constraints, and can be delivered within a short period of time; that she should reduce or delete the allocation at west Rochford together with the allocation at Ashingdon; and allocate our client's land accordingly.
RESPONSE ON PROPOSED CHANGES
Within the context of the above, we are further concerned at the Proposed Changes in respect of the suggested reduction in housing numbers. These appear to be based on the justification that the RSS no longer forms part of the Development Plan, and all reference to the RSS has been deleted. It is proposed to reduce the RSS figure of 250 dwelling completions per year to 190.
Given both the CALA decision, and at the time of writing, the block that has been placed by the Courts on the Government's subsequent statement, it is clear that the RSS is once again part of the Development Plan. As a consequence, the consultation on the CS Proposed Changes is premature, and indeed discords with the RSS. The East of England Plan remains as a document that at present the Core Strategy needs to accord with in line with PPS12 para 4.50. The Proposed Changes would therefore discord with the RSS and make the CSS unsound.
As a consequence, the Council should withdraw the Proposed Changes, and revert
to the Core Strategy Submission document, amended to include the land at Peggle
Meadow.
In the event that this is ignored, and without prejudice to this fundamental failing of
the Proposed Changes, our detailed comments are as follows:
* The reduction in numbers is not justified by the use of option 1 figures, which
the Council misquote, nor the suggested environmental constraints which are no different to any other south Essex district;
* The reduction in housing numbers will both fail to meet the current shortfall,
and accentuate this during the CS Plan period. The extension of the Plan to 2031 is welcomed, but objection raised to the housing figures not being subject to a consequent enhancement;
* Urgent housing needs in the district will not be met, in particular affordable housing needs. Topic Paper 3 acknowledges a shortfall of affordable housing in the district, with only 154 units being built between 2001 and 2009, against a need of 1048. The Topic Paper also states that only around a third of the
projected need of 196 dwellings per year will be met.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26444
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Peter Johnson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policies H1 - H3 - Housing:
(i) OBJECT: I note that the Schedule of Changes observes that residents of the District greatly value the Green Belt and yet the Council proposes further housing deveopment which relies more on Green Belt than previously developed land. The Core Strategy should reduce the planned increase in housing on Green Belt accordingly. At least the proposed building till 2026 should be reduced to take account of building already completed under the East of England Plan against the previous target in the period between 2001 and the present, amounting it appears to approximately 1400 houses - the total planned build would then be 3,200 and not 3,800. This reduction could reduce some pressure on the Green Belt.
(ii) In all new housing developments existing wildlife corridors such as hedgrows, streams and copses should be maintained and enhanced. Green corridors should be established through new housing developments to link such features. These corridors can be integrated with footpaths and cycleways. This kind of approach would minimise damage to the biodiversity of the area.
Policies H1 - H3 - Housing:
(i) OBJECT: I note that the Schedule of Changes observes that residents of the District greatly value the Green Belt and yet the Council proposes further housing deveopment which relies more on Green Belt than previously developed land. The Core Strategy should reduce the planned increase in housing on Green Belt accordingly. At least the proposed building till 2026 should be reduced to take account of building already completed under the East of England Plan against the previous target in the period between 2001 and the present, amounting it appears to approximately 1400 houses - the total planned build would then be 3,200 and not 3,800. This reduction could reduce some pressure on the Green Belt.
(ii) In all new housing developments existing wildlife corridors such as hedgrows, streams and copses should be maintained and enhanced. Green corridors should be established through new housing developments to link such features. These corridors can be integrated with footpaths and cycleways. This kind of approach would minimise damage to the biodiversity of the area.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26445
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: mr ian beatwell
Agent: mr ian beatwell
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
My clients have instructed me to continue their objections to the core strategy on the following grounds:
The need for housing is required district wide with Rayleigh being a ideal location by virtue of schools, shops and transport, ie good road network, rail links into London.
There is a shortage of housing within Rayleigh and to delay release of green belt will only add to the problem.
The site to the north of 206 London road Rayleigh which is situated within part residential allocation and part green belt, would be a sensible release by virtue of having no adverse effects on neighbours, correcting a green belt line which was set in error, following no firm boundary or defensible demarcation. Please local plan inspectors report 1995!
The natural boundaries of the site are defensible and my clients urge the planning authority to bring forward the date of release to 2011, to bring about correction and defensible green belt boundaries and much needed Development.
Re Representation number 18262.
I refer to the above representations which were made prior to the latest consultations.
My clients have instructed me to continue their objections to the core strategy on the following grounds:
The need for housing is required district wide with Rayleigh being a ideal location by virtue of schools, shops and transport, ie good road network, rail links into London.
There is a shortage of housing within Rayleigh and to delay release of green belt will only add to the problem.
The site to the north of 206 London road Rayleigh which is situated within part residential allocation and part green belt, would be a sensible release by virtue of having no adverse effects on neighbours, correcting a green belt line which was set in error, following no firm boundary or defensible demarcation. Please local plan inspectors report 1995!
The natural boundaries of the site are defensible and my clients urge the planning authority to bring forward the date of release to 2011, to bring about correction and defensible green belt boundaries and much needed Development.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26446
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: J F Spencer & Son Ltd
Agent: RW Land & Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Representations submitted with reference to land put forward off Folly Chase, Hockley.
representations available online.
Re: Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Please find enclosed representations submitted on behalf of J F Spencer & Sons Ltd.
The submission advocates the need for a Green Belt review in order to maintain the housing numbers proposed, but questions the reliance on Brownfield sites including the relocation of employment sites.
In particular, we feel that land at Folly Chase, Hockley (plan attached) is an appropriate and sustainable location for an urban extension, all within walking distance of existing facilities, services and public transport routes.
Constructive discussions have taken place with the neighbouring Hockley Primary School with regard to providing the principal vehicular and pedestrian access route via Chevening Gardens and the school playing field. The entrance to the school would require remodelling and any development would replace land taken up by the new access road with a new playing field.
With this new deliverable access in mind and the potential benefits to Hockley Primary School, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet and discuss the development of this site.
I look forward to written acknowledgement that you have received this submission in good time and order.
Full representations can be viewed online.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26447
Received: 24/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Collin Staines
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26448
Received: 24/11/2010
Respondent: Mr J O Gillies & Mrs R J Hudson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26449
Received: 24/11/2010
Respondent: Mrs Anne Ockelford
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26450
Received: 24/11/2010
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Lixenfield
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26451
Received: 24/11/2010
Respondent: Miss Lisa Heath
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26452
Received: 24/11/2010
Respondent: Mr P Heath
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26453
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mrs Maria Goater
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26454
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Lee Smith
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26455
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Stacie Collins
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26457
Received: 23/11/2010
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Johnson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Proposed building in Hall Road
We find it incredible that this Grade A farmland, Green Belt site is still being considered above others, and do not think alternative sites can have been properly considered.
As with our objection when planning permission was originally sought - we see the congestion every morning and evening outside our house...that is awful with the current traffic!
I also have to negotiate the narrow path on each side of the railway bridge which on one side is actually hazardous (especially when I have a pushchair). It is absurd that you are thinking of allowing more family accommodation which will have to come this way in order to get to the town.
I gather that a very large percentage of people waiting for accommodation want to live in Rayleigh - why is our proposed development ahead of any in that town? It makes no sense.
Proposed building in Hall Road
We find it incredible that this Grade A farmland, Green Belt site is still being considered above others, and do not think alternative sites can have been properly considered.
As with our objection when planning permission was originally sought - we see the congestion every morning and evening outside our house...that is awful with the current traffic!
I also have to negotiate the narrow path on each side of the railway bridge which on one side is actually hazardous (especially when I have a pushchair). It is absurd that you are thinking of allowing more family accommodation which will have to come this way in order to get to the town.
I gather that a very large percentage of people waiting for accommodation want to live in Rayleigh - why is our proposed development ahead of any in that town? It makes no sense.
Finally a heartfelt plea to stop this proposal on our beautiful town of Rochford - we need our open spaces for quality of life for all - to walk and for the farmer to grow much needed crops.
Sent with great concern.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26458
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mr G Shaddock
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26459
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mrs Vicki Stanesby
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26460
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: J L T Mackay
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/November 2010
We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/November 2010
We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26461
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mr J Adams
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
I have viewed your proposals at Hullbridge library on your website and would add further to my original comments that I sent to Rochford District Council by letter on the 19th of April 2010 (a copy of which is attached for information), where all of my comments then are still valid after viewing your new proposals, and I summarise them again so that I make myself clear.
529 houses will seriously overload current services, such as schools, doctors and healthcare generally.
Vast increases in traffic in Hullbridge will be inevitable, notwithstanding your other development plans for Rawreth Industrial Estate, which will increase traffic along both Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane.
Regular flooding at the junction of Watery Lane, Hullbridge Road and Lower Road when we have heavy and continuous rain.
No proposed infrastructure changes (eg roads, drains, lighting etc etc) for any of these proposals.
I notice fro Topic Paper 4 - Revision to the Green Belt boundary.
You stat in
1.2 - The Green Belt in Rochford District is recognized for its' importance in maintaining the open, rural character of the area etc etc...
You then go on to say in
1.3 - However, the Core Strategy Submission Document proposes that a small proportion of the District's Green Belt be allocated for development etc, etc..
Your statements in 1.2 and 1.3 are totally at odds with each other! I stated in my original letter that I believed that Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct; I haven't changed my stance on that.
I would appreciate, please, answers to the following.
As the East of England's targets have now been revoked, to whom do your revised plans seek to satisfy as they do not represent the views of local people in Hullbridge (bearing in mind that you have revised upwards from 500 to 529 dwellings, albeit over a longer term)?
Are you still planning to include gypsy/travelers sites in the District? If so, why, how many, and where (see the last paragraph of my original letter)?
Why have the illegal gypsy/travelers sites to the south of Rawreth Lane at its intersection with the old A130 been allowed to stay?
Thank you for your recent letter of the 18th October regarding the future development of Rochford District, and the proposed changes to the Core Strategy, and for keeping me up to date with these proposals.
I have viewed your proposals at Hullbridge library on your website and would add further to my original comments that I sent to Rochford District Council by letter on the 19th of April 2010 (a copy of which is attached for information), where all of my comments then are still valid after viewing your new proposals, and I summarise them again so that I make myself clear.
529 houses will seriously overload current services, such as schools, doctors and healthcare generally.
Vast increases in traffic in Hullbridge will be inevitable, notwithstanding your other development plans for Rawreth Industrial Estate, which will increase traffic along both Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane.
Regular flooding at the junction of Watery Lane, Hullbridge Road and Lower Road when we have heavy and continuous rain.
No proposed infrastructure changes (eg roads, drains, lighting etc etc) for any of these proposals.
I notice fro Topic Paper 4 - Revision to the Green Belt boundary.
You stat in
1.2 - The Green Belt in Rochford District is recognized for its' importance in maintaining the open, rural character of the area etc etc...
You then go on to say in
1.3 - However, the Core Strategy Submission Document proposes that a small proportion of the District's Green Belt be allocated for development etc, etc..
Your statements in 1.2 and 1.3 are totally at odds with each other! I stated in my original letter that I believed that Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct; I haven't changed my stance on that.
I would appreciate, please, answers to the following.
As the East of England's targets have now been revoked, to whom do your revised plans seek to satisfy as they do not represent the views of local people in Hullbridge (bearing in mind that you have revised upwards from 500 to 529 dwellings, albeit over a longer term)?
Are you still planning to include gypsy/travelers sites in the District? If so, why, how many, and where (see the last paragraph of my original letter)?
Why have the illegal gypsy/travelers sites to the south of Rawreth Lane at its intersection with the old A130 been allowed to stay?
May I hope that I will receive answers to these questions, as I never received any comments from my original letter?
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26463
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mr J Bridge
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26464
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mrs D Cornhill
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26465
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Lee Heath
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26466
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Hawkwell Residents Association
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26467
Received: 25/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Graham Bloomfield
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26468
Received: 26/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Stephen Edgington
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26469
Received: 26/11/2010
Respondent: Mrs J Cartwright
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26470
Received: 26/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Alan West
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation October/ November 2010
I/We wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.
1. No justification of or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2031. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
- There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38, p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.
2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
- There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
- As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.
3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
- At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
- The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.
4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousands standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?
5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.
6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
- one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
- A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
- If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.
7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ignored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.
Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26471
Received: 26/11/2010
Respondent: Mr R.E. Matthews
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.
Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:
1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?
4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.
5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.
6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.
7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.