Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

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. 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.

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 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.

If anything not agreeable, may be in Para 1, suggest delete it

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.

If anything not agreeable, such as in Para 1, suggest delete it.

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.

Further to your letter of 18th October I wish to assert that my strong objection to the Strategic Plan is better expressed in the submissions of the West Rochford Action Group. It is quite unbelievable that you could contemplate building on prime agricultural land such as exists on the north side of Hall Road. To attempt to assuage the opponents of this proposal by declaring that only one percent of green belt is likely to be affected ignores the distinction between green belt land which may have no agricultural value and agricultural land, in this case prime.

The chaos caused by the development would make Hall Road almost impassable over several years.

The proper criteria for new houses is that of local need and the present proposals in the requirement of numbers is massively in excess of that need.

2000 of the proposed 3800 new homes will be built in the central region of the district in the first 15 years and its worth highlighting to The Inspector the 3 roads they will impact on.
The central region of Rochford has a road from Rayleigh to Rochford the B1013. At the Spa roundabout in Hockley is the start of a second road to Rochford. This road goes to the East of the region to Rochford. The only link road between these two roads is Rectory Road. These two roads are classified as minor roads.

You have at any given time on these roads traffic flow delay due to unco-ordinated roadworks, mini roundabout bottlenecks, following the refuse collectors as they slowly go about their work, and zebra crossing delays.5 schools with the school run traffic and Rochford District Council's sports centre which serves all the district and beyond, impact on these 3 roads.

I Believe the proposed local highway capacity and infrastructure road improvements for these 3 roads includes more zebra crossings, mini roundabouts and traffic lights.The service providers may tell you these are improvements, the vast majority of residents will say they will be a further brake on the traffic flow with the added conjestion of 2000 new homes vehicles.

Rochford District Council are happy to announce they are using less than 1% of green belt land for the 9 proposed locations but unfortunately for the residents of this area 6 of the proposed locations impact on these 3 roads.

The service providers views on page 14 of topic paper 3 says the required road infrastructure to support the levels of development can be provided, yet Essex County Council commissioned Planning Consultants "Tribal" and "Tym & Partners" to carry out a sustainability study as part of their evidence base to East of England Regional Assembly the result of which is unequivical. They said "With respect to the Regional Spatial Strategy Scenario, the sub area would struggle to deliver this, the problems would therefore only increase for the NHPAU range". Risk of flooding, risk of coalesence,heavy peak time conjestion on the rail lines, there are no sustainable transport options for any level of growth, even at Regional Spatial Strategy.Although EERA and RSS are now revoked, nothing has changed to my knowledge to refute this study by the experts, and is at odds with what the service providers are saying in the proposed amendments.

I ask The Inspector when reviewing Rochford District Council's Core Strategy - Proposed Amendments to consider the third party in the trio, not the landowners, or the developers but the residents.

An amendment to my previous submission. I would like to state my objection to the figure of 190 new dwellings (on average) per annum being built within the Rochford District between 2011 and 2031. I believe this figure to be entirely unrealistic and it does not reflect the true need for new dwellings. In recent years every single large property which has been purchased in my road has been purchased by property builders and two properties built there. Surely this doubling of properties goes a long way to serve the needs of any increasing population. The infrastructure in Hawkwell i.e. schools, doctors, dentists, ROADS etc. could not possibly cope with an additional 175 new dwellings within the village. The use of green belt land for building new dwellings is completely unacceptable.

RDC have not examined all other options. In 2009 RDC initiated a call for sites exercise, requesting landowners to submit potential sites for consideration. I submitted my site which is situated on the edge of Rayleigh. The site is part of the built environment on two of its four sides, has all services to the site, has a fully made up road to the frontage along it (176ft). The site contributes little, if anything to the 5 stated green belt objectives, yet RDC have selected to build on green belt that is prone to flooding, will cost millions in preparatory work (like removing pylons, and laying infrastructure), will result in massive expension of the existing built area in a single place, will likely result in a merging of one settlement with another (Rayleigh and Rawreth), will replace productive agricultural land with concrete forever.
RDC did not even visit my site until after the public consultation on the submitted core strategy had started, so it was not considered. In the allocations document, my site was detailed (site 207) but they failed to get even the basics correct such are correctly showing the boundary correctly. Also unsubstantiated negative comments had been made against the site like "will require significant investment in access and public walkways" remain unsubstantiated by RDC, (they have refused to do this to date). I have schools, shops, busses, dentists, doctors, playing fields all close at hand.
The fact is that RDC dont like my site because it is small. It could cater for up to 15 houses, but RDC do not wish to consider this size of plot properly because "it is of limited strategic value" in the view of Mr Scrutton. I believe this means it would take too much effort to examine sites of this size. Instead they have preffered to consider sides which are huge, and address a high proportion of the number of dwellings to be built in one go. This prefference for larger sites comes with hidden costs, as follows:
- Large sites will require a greater investment in infrastructure before a single dwellinghouse is provided.
- Coalescence of communities (like Rawreth and Rayleigh) are more likely with large sites.
- Large sites will result in massive increases in the built area, with the resulting chaos in traffic etc)
- Large sites have a big impact in one area, whereas by selecting more numerous smaller sites the impact is distributed.
- Replacing productive agricultural land with concrete.
- Large sites contribute more to the 5 greenbelt objectives, especially the most important one "openness".
- Preffered areas are prone to flooding.
- Large sites do not integrate as well as more numerous smaller sites into their surrounding areas.
RDC have not provided adequate evidence as to why they preffer the locations detailed in their core strategy, in comparision with other locations that were available for them to consider.
RDC have not detailed at all their prefference for selecting large sites over more numerous smaller sites.
This is not the best plan that could be adopted for Rochford, it is the easiest for the planning department to produce.

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 should not be provided in Hawkwel
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 October/November 2010

I wish to register the following objections regarding the above consultation: The Core Strategy is unsound for the following reasons.

1. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3800 new homes has been calculated. Some councils have abandoned extensive redevelopment plans. The Council turned down some Members' proposal to review housing needs over time, instead of fixing these to 2030. Lack of consultation and inconsistency means Council's proposed housing numbers are unsound.
* There is now no proposed development for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para.2.38,p.30) Rayleigh has the greatest demand for housing at 44.4% of District total. There is something wrong here.

2. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic: there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and, being systemic in nature, will not be improved by relatively small improvements provided by proposed developments.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed and no consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. Access road improvements in the west have been delayed until end of programme, resulting in road chaos for years.
* As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments.
The highways plan is unsound and unsustainable.

3. Proposals to build on Greenbelt have not been properly evaluated: there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the impact of Core Strategy locations. Amended proposals still result in 67% of new build being on Greenbelt.
* At 4.9, Tier Settlements, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon are joined at Tier 1 with Rayleigh, always an urban settlement, with Rochford second. But Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon are separated by Greenbelt. Numbers in H2 suggest a proportion of this will be eradicated and above 3 village settlements become a conurbation. There is no justification for this variance from government Greenbelt policy.
* The 2 proposed new industrial sites will also be on Greenbelt.

4. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing estimates of £50-75 million are not substantiated and might even increase, but anyway equate to £14/21 thousand standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for 'affordable' housing and sustainable?

5. The Core Strategy takes into account Environmental Agency estimate of Tidal flood risk, ignoring Surface Water flood risk. The majority of flooding in the area is caused by the latter, or combination of both. So Core Strategy is unsound.

6. Gypsy, Traveller sites: Core Strategy proposes 14 pitches by 2014, but no defined sites. Residents prefer:
* one site with good infrastructure: road, water, gas, electricity, sewerage, refuse/recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
* A suitable site must promote community cohesion for these people, or there will be inharmonious relations between them and the local community.
* If 'official' sites are proposed, following earlier recommendations, sites should be to west of the district. Loss of countryside, greenbelt, open spaces in/around Hockley is rejected, when known locations to suit both Council and Traveller needs are available.

7. The April 2010 DPD Allocations consultation is believed to have 'attracted' record responses, but has been ingnored by the Council 6 months later. Revised proposals on the DPD are now made, but repeatedly rejected plans for Hockley Village Centre are still included. This shows the inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently its proposals are unsound.

Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010

I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:

1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- 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.

Further to your letter dated the 18th October I have now seen the said document at the Hullbridge Library and would like to make a few comments.

While I appreciate the reduction in the number of dwellings to be built from 250 to 190 per year, the extended time frame until 2031 and indeed the emphasis on using brownfield land where possible it does seem extremely foolish to build 500 dwellings on this particular site. Over the years both Lower Road and Watery have been flooded and impassable with traffic diverted through Rawreth Lane causing considerable congestion. Even as recently as February this year Watery Lane was closed because of flooding and the actual field of Maylons was saturated causing local flooding of gardens and garages albeit to a lesser extent. Employment will remain static and therefore the demand for housing should be about the same as today which may suggest that this development is unnecessary.

The proposed highway improvement linking Lower Road/Watery Lane to the Chelmsford Road A130 is a good idea with or without the housing development and the only downside could be a dramatic increase in heavy traffic through the village to Baltic Wharf or Southend Airport.