Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

As I have been unable to comment online, I did try, but there was a web page error. I also found (or did not find) the comment form hard to locate. I did not locate it, hence this letter.

As I have not left myself sufficient time to correlate all facts, I would in the meantime wish to point out that I find the revised Core Strategy no improvement over the previous one.

As you say, I am a person who has previously submitted comments on the future development of the district.

The new Core Strategy does not account for previous objections, particularly in respect of Hullbridge. I see that 590 houses are still envisaged, a sum that is far too excessive for this village.

I think that the revised figures of 3800 at 190 per year even over the extended time period are not taking into account, the fact that the area does not have the infrastructure, even basic infrastructure to support these totals.

I am extremely disappointed that Hullbridge has to account for the percentage shown of the total.

I am of the modest opinion that the Core Strategy needs further adjustment.

One only has to drive through Rochford or Rayleigh, not just at rush hour to see the traffic problems already in place.

Folly Lane in Hockley is now the rat run to end all rat runs.

Lower Road Hullbridge is also now a main artery to the A130 with traffic using Watery Lane as a rat run for Chelmsford.

I do not believe in all honesty that the planned future developments have taken into consideration even the basic alterations needed to roads (do we need to look at the improvements to Southend Vic Circus and Cuckoo Corner?

Southend Hospital cannot cope with the present influx and who wants to go to Basildon?

To end my diatribe, please do not propose an only just watered down Core Strategy as it is now, past the coalition.

I would certainly not vote for it as present.

I am sure you are having much in the way of written objections regarding the above and I am pleased to say straight away that this missive will not be adding weight to this trend.

I appreciate both positions in that new housing is an on-going requirement and also those that have afforded themselves a lesser suburban location would like to protect their relative seclusion as best they can.

I do feel that the right implementation could satisfy both positions. Were Hall Road, from Tilneys say, to the roundabout serving the new road be a dual carriage-way boulevard, similar to that of Thorpe Bay' Thorpe Hall Avenue, then a natural wooded green between the 2 dual carriage-ways would have the effect of seclusion to the existing Hall Road residents to the south of Hall Road. The present ditch separating the road from the fields could be altered into a green with trees and shrubs, succeeding in its purpose not unlike Thorpe Hall Avenue itself.

It never fails to disappoint me when a developer squeezes say 30 houses to a plot with no provision for a children's play area, a small park or even any street benching. How refreshing it would be to see a developer sacrifice one house size plot for such a purpose to serve the community. They would probably able to apportion the loss of one house price across the remaining 29 homes, especially as it would enhance the development.

I do hope that within the plans there is sufficient account for such recreational areas over such a large new development.

I think Rochford has very exciting prospects, what with the rejuvenation of Southend Airport and I'm sure that new housing will be good for existing businesses and encourage new business to our town.

I can well remember as a child growing up in Rochford the number of dilapidated buildings that of recent now have new life, such as the Freight House and the English Heritage support of the old buildings that now serve as a coffee shop among other small shops. The Council are to be much applauded for their return to use.

If you know of any meetings or involvement that local people can access in regards to the proposed development on Hall Road I would be pleased to be informed.

Re proposed future development for Hullbridge. I write to lodge my objection to this proposal. Hullbridge does not have the infrastructure to accommodate this amount of housing.

The roads are already congested at peak times also the local school and medical facilities could not cope with the vast influx of people.

I also object to any green belt being used for development.

Hullbridge is a lovely village we do not want it turned into a town.

No way have you the money or any chance of building more on these green belt areas.

First of all, roads, schools, doctors and the services we have not in line to take these places on then there's the sewerage which at the moment isn't inplace, and have any of you Council Officers tried to get into the local areas when a small amount of drain or road repairs are being carried out? lets take the blinkers off, open your eyes, the roads are grid locked now during early morning and early evening, all the roads must be built up to the 21st century before any change in regards to more vehicles, don't touch anymore of our green belt let some other country take the overspill like we have been doing for years since these M.Ps dumped us into the E.U!

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. There is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, countrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc, public transport links, policing and similar.

Re Development of land East of Ashingdon. The core strategy submission document, appendix H1 page 52 requires land to be made available with a new access road to King Edmund School. To accompany 100 new dwellings. A previous plan for 52 dwellings and access road for this site was put forward, and was turned down in February 2001 by Rochford District Council (Ref 00/00843/FUL) please see refusal recommendation. If this was the case then, what has changed now to warrant double the amount of dwellings and access road.

New Village. I understand that siting of all new required dwellings in one area to create a new village has been discussed by Rochford District Council before, and I feel that it is something that should not be dismissed.

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. There is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, countrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc, public transport links, policing and similar.

Re Development of land East of Ashingdon. The core strategy submission document, appendix H1 page 52 requires land to be made available with a new access road to King Edmund School. To accompany 100 new dwellings. A previous plan for 52 dwellings and access road for this site was put forward, and was turned down in February 2001 by Rochford District Council (Ref 00/00843/FUL) please see refusal recommendation. If this was the case then, what has changed now to warrant double the amount of dwellings and access road.

New Village. I understand that siting of all new required dwellings in one area to create a new village has been discussed by Rochford District Council before, and I feel that it is something that should not be dismissed.

Re: Small area of land in Hawkwell suitable for development but currently designated Green Belt.

We are aware that Rochford District Council must allocate more land for building which may mean some land that is currently designated Green Belt will have to be released for development.

We understnad there needs to be very special circumstances to justify this, but the fact that there is a shortage of land in the area and that the original concept of a 'Green Belt' surrounding a community does not exist due to other houses being built, leaving 'trapped' areas of land which are still designated as Green Belt.

My brother and I are joint owners of our late parents bungalow and land situated at 47 Victor Gardens, Hawkwell, SS5 4DS which we now wish to sell.

Our family have lived there since 1954 and over the years we have been approached by many builders/developers trying to persuade us to sign up to various schemes a long as they get planning permission. Up until now it has not seemed possible that the Green Belt part of our garden and orchard would be released. Having read Rochford Councils Revised Core Strategy we submit that our land would help to meet part of the shortfall in available land for building. As there is no defensible 'Green Belt' on our land it should meet the current requirements and could be redesignated.

Site details and proposed use of site received.

I am writing to you with regards the proposed building in the Hullbridge area.

I strongly oppose the decision to build anymore houses in this area. I have alway understood that our green belt land should be protected from any buildings whatsoever. How can this now be changed when it suits.

I feel that this area is already under a great deal of pressure with the volume of traffic our roads, sewers and general amenities are unable to cope with the population now without adding to it.

We choose to live in our semi rural area through choice, why are the government councils trying to bring us up to London standards. I do not wish to live in the hussle of such a community.

Please please do not do this to us. Save our land do not create more of a concrete jungle so that we all live in suffocation. Save the small open space so that we may be able to breathe. We need your support in this. Do not let us down.

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. Thee is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, contrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon Road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc public transport links, policing and similar.

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. Thee is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, contrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon Road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc public transport links, policing and similar.

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. Thee is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, contrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon Road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc public transport links, policing and similar.

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. Thee is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, contrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon Road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc public transport links, policing and similar.

Rochford district council schedule of changes to core strategy submission

Thank you for a further opportunity to raise concerns in line with the schedule of changes.

Numbers of houses proposed. Thee is no justification/consultation of how the 3,800 homes figure was calculated.

Brownfield sites/other sites. There is little evidence that known Brownfield sites and other land offered initially, (along with those sites the Rochford council show in their strategy) were considered and on what basis, if any they were not considered thereafter.

Against building on green belt. Many local residents choose to live in or moved to Rochford for it is a semi rural aspect and nearby countryside. Any lost greenbelt, and associated wildlife cannot be replaced. Planning legislation requires "exceptional circumstances" before Greenbelt can be used for building and the proposals have not been evaluated, contrary to government policy and alternatives have not been evaluated.

Congestion. No consolidated highways impact has been considered. The suggested phased housing does not show how the increased number of vehicles added to already congested roads to and from the new housing areas will be dealt with with additional congestion in both main roads and side roads. Ashingdon Road is the busiest road in the district already and any additional traffic in Rochford, where initial building is proposed can only also affect access roads to Hawkwell, Hockley, Rawreth, Hullbridge etc.

Drainage. The proposals only consider tidal flood risk and not surface water drainage. Many areas suggested are recognized as flood plain.

Lack of appropriate local infrastructure. The proposals make no mention of developer contribution to additional services ie primary school places, medical facilities including doctors surgeries, hospitals etc public transport links, policing and similar.

We agree that some provision of housing will be required in Hawkwell in future years and welcome the governments proposal to revoke the East of England Plan. This should have given the Council the opportunity to reassess the Core Strategy and the proposed distribution of development across the district. To simply extend the time scale for the provision of 3,800 new homes does not address the problem of siting the majority of the housing in H2 in the centre of the district ie Hawkwell South, West Rochford and East Ashingdon which will add to the congestion already experienced in Ashingdon Road, Main Road, Hall Road and Rectory Road. There is no evidence that the consolidated impact on various developments on the highway network has been assessed and no consideration has been given to mapping highway improvements to the proposed house phasing as with other environmental issues the capacity of the highway network should be formally assessed with regard to the cumulative effect of other developments.

The appraisal of sustainability states that West Rayleigh has the best access to services with good links to London, Chelmsford, Basildon and Thurrock yet no is no proposed housing in Rayleigh until post 2026 HP3.

We welcome the use of windfall sites to reduce the loss of greenbelt but this will be no advantage to sites in HP2, the first phase once the land is developed.

The Core Strategy states very little green belt will be lost as most of the district lies within the greenbelt most of the open space is in Foulness Island, Wallasea Island, Paglesham, Candewdon and Wakering with very little open space in the centre of the centre of the district some 67% of the housing plus employment land in Rayleigh and London Southend Airport are sites within the green belt.

Therefore for all these reasons we consider that the Core Strategy as amended is unsound and wish to appear at the examination in public in the new year.

Some of my objections are as stated below.

The infrastructure for any new homes will not be put in place. The pumping station at Watery Lane cannot cope now although its been up and running for tens of years.

If there is heavy rain it comes back up in the Hullbridge Road. If there's a drier summer than usual we go on a hose pipe ban.

The job situation is not and probably will not improve for the proposed increase in people. In this part of the Rochford area, there is little to do for another potential 1000 people.

The roads cannot cope now in rush hours in the surrounding areas so it would mean more tarmac and concrete and will still be back at square one.

The environment would go down hill - more gangs of youths and trouble in the local area and generally the quality of our life would diminish.

The Councillors, Inspectors and Government do not live here. They should bear that in mind now and in the future.

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 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.

- There is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
- 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 two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- The older component of our population is said by the Council to be a block on the release of 'previously owned homes' but there are 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).

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. This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

- 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?

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 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 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. 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.

- There is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
- 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 two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- The older component of our population is said by the Council to be a block on the release of 'previously owned homes' but there are 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).

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. This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

- 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?

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 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 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. 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.

- There is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
- 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 two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- The older component of our population is said by the Council to be a block on the release of 'previously owned homes' but there are 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).

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. This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

- 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?

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 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 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. 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.

- There is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?
- 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 two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- The older component of our population is said by the Council to be a block on the release of 'previously owned homes' but there are 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).

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. This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

- 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?

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 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 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. 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.

I The Rawreth Parish is classified as having a high probability of flood. Our community knows what is like to have its homes flooded and to live under the constant worry of the continuing threat of further flooding.

Ii Flood risk has been increased to an unacceptable level in recent years as a consequence of large scale building, road and other projects feeding run off water into channels which flow through the village and we have not been able to find any evidence that flood risk calculations were made.

Iii The flood risks of these projects - individually and perhaps more importantly cumulately - have not been appropriately assessed and acted upon by Rochford District Council, Councils in other surrounding districts, Essex County Council or the Environment Agency. The precautions that have been taken to manage run off are inadequate or simply don't work, like the holding lagoons for surface water on the new A130 road venting directly into the river. Local Authorities, the EA and developers have caused and are exacerbating our problems and there is an urgent need to address the risks that their past actions have created before any new projects are agreed.

Iv We are deeply concerned as a community that the already high risk of flooding would be greatly further increased to a potentially critical level if a proposed new development of 550 houses on green belt land in the vicinity of Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh. The development would take place on land in Zone 2, but the run off water would be directed into Zone 3, where we live, with the likelihood of causing further flooding in our village. We understand that part of any planning application is evidence that existing properties are not put at risk by the project.

V There is no evidence that the flood risks of the proposed new development have been appropriately assessed, although Rochford District Council are aware of the dangers having previously given assurances to residents when approving other projects that this land would not be built on. It also provides a buffer zone between Rayleigh and Rawreth. Moreover, the scale, density etc of the proposed development reflects planning guidelines established under the previous administration. The new Secretary of State for Communities was highly critical of these guidelines are indeed took action almost immediately after taking office to sweep them away. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the development doesn't comply with current planning guidelines and the failure to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the additional flood risk it would present, it seems Rochford District Council are intent on approving the plan.

Would they then be responsible/liable for any damage caused to our homes?

We ask the Prime Minister to take a moment or two to reflect on what it must be like to live in a small farming/working community like Rawreth, to see water levels rising around you despite the national picture of low rainfall and water shortages, and to feel that no-one is listening to or responding to your concerns. Indeed, people seem intent on making things worse and we believe we have a RIGHT to live in peace without the threat of flooding whenever there is heavy rain.

We urge him to:

I To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to instruct Rochford District Council to follow the new guidelines he has set out when considering the planning proposal for 550 homes on green belt land on Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh. As part of this, to work with the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Environment Agency and Rochford District Council to ensure that any such application is considered in the light of a comprehensive assessment of the flood risk that it would cause.

Ii To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to instruct Rochford/Essex Council and the Environment Agency to take urgent action to assess and manage the flood risk created by construction projects over the past 5-7 years which feed surface water into channels running through Rawreth Village. This should be undertaken before any similar projects are approved or commenced in future. This should be undertaken before any similar projects are approved or commenced in future. This should include a comprehensive impact assessment of the individual and cumulative effects of the various works that have been undertaken, including looking critically at the effectiveness (or not) of the measures taken to manage the run off water from these projects.

Iii To ask the Secretaries of State for Communities and for the Environment to work together to ensure that in future Local Authorities and the Environment Agency consult with and take account of concerns of those living in areas of High flood probability when considering any new planning proposals which may impact upon them. In doing so, it will be important to include and involve those who may suffer the downstream effects of a development and who may be at some a distance from the development itself.

Re Houses to be built on green belt land between Rawreth Lane and London Road.

This is my response to Rochford Council regarding the concerns of Rawreth Parish Council and its residents.

1. Green Belt

The Government has said that green belt land should not be developed on, that we should grow food on this land as we are vastly over populated, and have to import most of our food. Plans are that in the future buildings would have to be designed to grow crops on them so we should not build on this land.

2. Flood Risk

Despite attending meetings about flooding Rochford Council still do not care if they along with other councils they cause flooding not one of the Councils have any calculations of water discharged into rivers. This is now the responsibility of the Environment Agency, Shaun Scrutton has said in a letter to me that they would avoid any surface water discharge into zone 3 where we live but this will not be the case. I would therefore like to make a presentation at the next meeting held at your offices.

Proposed Changes to Core Strategy Submission Document

The proposed changes make no difference to our strong objection to releasing land from the Green Belt.

We canot see that extending the Plan Period in any way 'protects the Green Belt'. All it does is to postpone the development of Green Belt land to a later date. We therefore wish to maintain our objection to the proposed development in the Green Belt.

We did find the current consultation not very 'user friendly'. Having read the original Core Strategy on line it was difficult to see the proposed changes in conjunction with this. Perhaps a different method of presenting the alterations could be used, if you have to do a similar consultation in the future.

Thank you for your letter dated 18 October 2010 about the proposed changes. I have visited your web site and looked at the Strategy and the Amendments and feel it is all too general to make detailed comments.

However, here are some general comments about some of the proposed changes in land use:-

1) I fail to understand the logic of marking an area to the West of Rayleigh with three symbols to indicate (a) Industrial land to be redeveloped for housing, (b) Green Belt land to be developed for Industrial use and (c) Green belt land to be developed for housing. Why not just allow change of use of the Industrial land for any commercial use and allocate some Green belt land for housing, clearing industrial buildings and removing contamination from their sites ready for new housing is likely to be very expensive.

2) It seems to me that to change the status of farmland that is in active use for farming purposes, (ie producing food for people or animals) to allow any development is wrong, when there are numerous areas of land classified as 'green belt' that were partly developed before the first Town & Country Planning Act was passed and therefore acquired 'existing use' rights. I think the boundary between the 'green belt' and 'developed' land should be straightened out and infilling with new Houses permitted.

3) Finally, I feel that farm land in active production as mentioned above and Parks and other 'green' areas used for leisure, should be the last areas taken for development.