Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

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.

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.

Local Development Framework Core Strategy Amended Submission

Although the amended version of the Core Strategy spreads the number of dwellings over a twenty year period at a rate of 190 per year compared with the previous rate of 250 per year, the proposal is unacceptable as follows:

Objection - Need for 3800 additional dwellings

No evidence is provided and no consultation has taken place on how the total of 3800 additional dwellings has been calculated, and hence the proposal is unsound.

Objection - Loss of greenbelt and open spaces

The Hockley Parish Plan states that due to a shortage of available building land, housing development in Hockley and the surrounding areas should be minimal, with no loss of greenbelt or open spaces. It is essential that the countryside in and around Hockley is preserved 100%.
The amended Core Strategy submission shows that 67% of the new dwellings will be sited on greenbelt land. Proposed greenbelt development in the first 10 years (2011-2021) is concentrated 100% in the central region of Rochford District, with no greenbelt development in the outer regions of Rayleigh, Hullbridge and Great Wakering. The development plan has not been evaluated with any clear logical reasoning by the Planning Department, and is not sustainable. Furthermore, two new Industrial Estates, planned to replace four current Industrial Estates to allow brownfield housing development for 708 dwellings, will also be sited on greenbelt land.

Objection - Inadequate Highways Infrastructure

Proposed greenbelt development in the first 10 years (2011-2021) is concentrated 100% in the central region of Rochford District which has narrow roads, country lanes, and railway bridges which cannot be widened, inherited from times when traffic numbers were significantly lower, and barely copes with current traffic levels. Proposed housing development at Stambridge Mills and Eldon Way Industrial Estates is also planned during this period.
As the majority of overall housing development is planned to the east of Hockley, the impact has not been fully assessed and the plan is not sustainable in the Hockley to Rochford region due to insufficient highway network infrastructure proposals to support additional population numbers and traffic volumes, especially at bottleneck junctions such as the Spa roundabout in Hockley and the railway bridges at Hockley, Hawkwell and Rochford. Roads through Hockley and Hawkwell already suffer from major congestion issues, and no plans are evident in the core strategy to offset current, and more importantly, eliminate future traffic problems, which will be further enhanced following the approval of Southend Airport expansion. There is no inexpensive alternative solution to the growing traffic problem in the central region.

Objection - Loss of village character due to proposed development of 150 dwellings in Central Hockley (Eldon Way)

Based on the Hockley Parish Plan published in October 2007 and a Resident Survey completed in October 2009, the proposal for 150 dwellings in Central Hockley (Eldon Way) is unacceptable to Hockley residents. It is imperative that any town centre development must maintain the village character of Hockley. It is recognised by residents as a village and must not change into a small town. The Hockley Parish Plan states that housing development in Hockley should be minimal, and any enforced housing development must not include large housing estates, as proposed for Eldon Way. Current infrastructure in terms of highways, schools, healthcare, community services and leisure facilities, cannot support additional population levels. In the Resident Survey, on the subject of Hockley Village Centre Redevelopment, only 13% of residents supported redevelopment of Eldon Way Industrial Estate, and if major redevelopment was enforced in the area, the least favoured type of development was shown to be residential units with only just over 1% of response support. There is already traffic congestion through Hockley, and additional vehicles from 150 new dwellings in the centre would further increase the traffic problem brought about by Core Strategy and Airport expansion proposals.
The Core Strategy includes the redevelopment of Hockley Town Centre prior to completion of a properly conducted public consultation with the residents, and although the District Council has apologised for the previous poorly prepared town centre development options paper, which led to major unrest amongst residents, they are still proposing to destroy the village life that currently exists.

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.

Thank you for your letter dated 18 October 2010 regarding the views of the Town Council on proposed amendments to the Rochford District Core Strategy.

Whilst the Town Council has no comments to make on this consultation we would be grateful if you could keep us informed of any further developments.

Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the public consultation on Core Strategy Schedule of Changes. I'm not sure whether a reply is required, but just in case it is - this is my opinion of the new proposals:-

Naturally any scheme that reduces the amount of homes to be built in Hullbridge from the original proposal has to be a good thing, and spread over a longer time span makes it easier for the residents to accept, but at the end of the day, the same arguments have to be made regarding infrastructure of services that everyone agreed were necessary, before even one new footing was laid.

Watery Lane remains a problem area. Only one main road through the village between Rayleigh, Hockley and Ashingdon already causes congestion at peak times, an ageing drainage system, inadequate policing - the list is endless. Now with the current cut-backs and financial situation the Country is experiencing, where is the money to be found to implement these improvements before new homes can even start to be built?

I believe you have a copy of my original letter of the 13th April 2010, but if you should need another copy I would be only too pleased to supply you with another.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 east 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.

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.

I am writing about the future of development in Rochford District. In my opinion there should not be any development at all in Rochford District, the whole area is too congested now; I dread to think when the other runway is finished at the airport, it will be more congested than ever which I was fully against it any way.

I am writing as a local resident to object to the above application.

I am greatly concerned about the proposal to build at Brays Lane and the alleged improvement of King Edmond School; if it goes ahead it will have significant detrimental effects on the environment and the local community. As a local resident this is a matter of concern which affects me and other local residents.

The applications should be rejected on the following grounds.


Building new homes will not improve Rochford in any way it will only cause our Town to become more congested and further traffic generation in this area would be a major problem. It would cause a major strain on the one access road in to and out of Rochford, which is already under great pressure.


The area is home to animals and bird's which is a conservation area .The development will harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties by virtue of its size and massing, and will not respect or enhance the surrounding area at all.

Perhaps instead of building houses and improving King Edward School we should build new schools in these areas from where we are transporting pupils in to Rochford, using heavy commercial vehicles down small roads restricting residents parking and inconvenicing the residents in this area.


The building in this area will affect our privacy and the noise swearing and shouting already from the 5 foot ball pitches till late at night is already a great problem.

Rochford has a village feel although it is a town and the people who live in Rochford would say the same. Rochford has had its fair share of new builds and to build even more housing here would put a strain on facilities shops, doctors and nursery schools.

I moved to Rochford five years ago and I took a great deal of time to find the right place to live and to have this disrupted and destroyed is not right, just because the government needs to build housing

I have worked hard to achieve the home that I have and do not want it to be devalued in this way by people who do not even live here this is my home and my future.

Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010

I 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.
§ 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? Is there sufficient justification for this variance from government policy?

2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes 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 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.

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.

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.

It is difficult to see in the Core Strategy the justification for the level of proposed housing. There is no growth in the local population forecast except in the 65+ age group, but additional retirement homes are not planned. The new jobs are intended to be occupied by the local pupulace. It is assumed that the main driver is the extra council tax needed to plug the imminent gap of falling reserves and rising costs.

The strategy does not comply with the Governments policy on reducing carbon emissions.

The background to my objections are

1) I currently live in Hockley and have done so for the past nine years. During that time it has become increasingly more congested .We make a point ,whenever possible, of not travelling by car in and around Hockley during the morning and evening rush hours.

2) I am very pleased with the surrounding green belt and think that this is so important to our quality of life. There must be no reduction

I object to the number of new houses that is being suggested and would like this figure to be substantially reduced. The current plan to build 3800 houses by 2026 would put an undue stress on the existing infrastructure as well as the residents.

The actual phasing of these new homes with some 1245 of these built in the Hockley/Rochford area needs a total rethink. There does not appear to be a plan for a by pass at Hockley or indeed any plan for any meaningful road improvements in and around Hockley. Hockley would thus become a big traffic jam for most of the day. Please don't forget not only will the majority of these houses have at least one car but the new dwellings in Rochford/Ashingdon etc will also have cars coming through Hockley on their way to Rayleigh etc. There is also the Airport traffic to consider when the new runway is complete.

With all these new houses in the area , schools,shops,doctors etc will all come under pressure and again no meaningful solution has been proposed.I believe the first duty of the Council should be to the residents and these plans appear to lower the quality of live for the majority of people currently living in the area


In the plan the reduction in the green belt is said to be minimal. My contention is that any building on green belt land is the beginning of the end. There is no way in the future we are going to recover this lost land and if we concede on this point it is only a question of time before more green belt is taken.

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.

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.

Changes to Core Strategy

South Canewdon Location SC3

Following the reduction in units to be built over a longer time scale in your new plan and the 50% cut in Social Housing Budget, would it not be better to have fewer units on the above site (if chosen) with larger gardens thereby reducing the need for a play area for swings etc.

This would then not require the green belt farm land to the west of Chruch Lane only the "BROWN" built on "GREEN BELT" land of Birch Lodge & Three Acres in Anchor Lane, a 3.6 acre site which is joined to the existing built up area of Canewdon.

The owners of Birch Lodge and Three Acres would be agreeable to any advance in the development of this site to help Rochford DC meet the need for new homes.

Changes to Core Strategy

South Canewdon Location SC3

Following the reduction in units to be built over a longer time scale in your new plan and the 50% cut in Social Housing Budget, would it not be better to have fewer units on the above site (if chosen) with larger gardens thereby reducing the need for a play area for swings etc.

This would then not require the green belt farm land to the west of Chruch Lane only the "BROWN" built on "GREEN BELT" land of Birch Lodge & Three Acres in Anchor Lane, a 3.6 acre site which is joined to the existing built up area of Canewdon.

The owners of Birch Lodge and Three Acres would be agreeable to any advance in the development of this site to help Rochford DC meet the need for new homes.

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.