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

We wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:

1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?

2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?

4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.

5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.

7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.

I would like to list below my objections to the proposals in the "Rochford Core Strategy Plan" for the building on houses to the North of Hall Road:

1/ Why are you proposing to build 600 plus houses when Rochford does not have a housing problem and the Government has scrapped its plans for imposing targets?

2/ The proposed site is prime agricultural land which will be needed in the future for our food supply.

3/ The infrastructure is totally inadequate as anyone who has tried to use the local road system will testify.

4/ There are "Brown Field" sites and "infilling" that can be considered before any consideration should be given to a scheme of this size and impact on our area.

5/ I also believe, from my local knowledge, that the proposed area is in a "Flood Plain" with the risk of flooding once in every 100 years and with the concerns over "Climate Warming" this situation can only get worse.

I hope you will take onboard my objections and I know there is a lot of residents who share the views I have made above. Please don't spoil our lovely village for both us and future generations.

Please provide dates for Public Hearings. I wish to participate in said Public Hearings. In your general assessment have you considered all the Risk assessments in respect to Environment, Infrastructure, Flood, drainage and sewerage, main utility services, roads, transport, health, transport, council services, health & safety, housing, commercial, industrial, employment issues and economic issues. For housing I am interested to know who the occupants are likely to be and where from. With respect to the gypsy sites, what and how were these assessments made and who will sup[port the financial burden in all cases.

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.

Whilst the housing numbers have been revised down there is no information of any substance that explains how the new numbers have been arrived at.
Given that:
- Mr Pickles instruction to local authories to ignore the previous targets set has been found to be illegal.
- The governments intent to introduce the new Localisim legislation this term

is it not suitable to suspend setting the strategic plan in stone until more clarity with regards these is available?

If RDC fail to do this their core strategy plan will be out of date shortly after it is implemented and local council tax payers will be expected to fund yet another, expensive and meaningless revision of a plan based on shaky data.
RDC appears to assume that it is acceptable to pluck figures on housing out of the air without providing the public with any evidence to support those numbers. Without this data public scrutiny is meaningless and real scrutiny is impossible.

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 in, for example, Para 1, not agreeable, 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.

Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010

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

1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?

2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?

4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.

5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.

7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.

Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010

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

1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?

2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?

4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.

5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.

7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.

It is acknowledge that even with the reduced delivery of housing in the new proposed changes there is still a requirement in the District to release Green Belt land to provide sufficient housing for the extended plan period. It is stated in Policy H1 that additional housing that cannot be provided through redevelopment of previously developed sites will be met through extensions to the residential envelope which is supported.

It is considered that the strategy is unsound as there has been insufficient consideration of opportunities for extension to the residential envelope of Rayleigh. Despite being the largest area of population and also being an area having the largest demand for growth very few housing have been allocated to this area of the District.

It is considered that there are options for extensions south of Rayleigh where the landscape impact will be considerably less than open agricultural land proposed in other areas. The poor quality landscape on the southern boundary of Rayleigh should be considered as alternative development site.

It is strongly felt that too little consideration has been given to the allocation of smaller housing sites on fringe locations. Whilst it is acknowledge that larger sites can provide additional infrastructure medium sized developments can be accommodated within existing infrastructure and offer additional support to that infrastructure. Medium sized sites also have a lesser impact in terms landscape loss than larger green field locations.

Land at Eastwood Nurseries (Call for Sites Allocations site 146) is a medium sized site which offers a development site with existing infrastructure in place. In relation to this site within the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan in 2006 the Inspector noted that the site "adjoins two established communities likely to be able to accept further additions of population" and that "the local infrastructure would be sufficient to absorb further development". The reason the site was not included at that time was there was no requirement to release Green Belt land. It is not considered that the Council has fully explored the potential to extend the boundary south of Rayleigh and as such the Stratergy is unsound as it has not beenjustified.

This site at Eastwood Nurseries is preferable to larger scale green field sites proposed for the following reasons;

* Offers residential development close to expanding employment opportunities at Southend airport and associated employment areas and is also close to Southend Hospital.
* Rayleigh Station is within 2 miles of this site and there are already established bus links into Rayleigh town adjoining the site.
* Local infrastructure could absorb additional development in this location. It is noted within the SHLAA the site is acknowledged to have 'fair access to services'. It is in proximity to existing leisure facilities and schools and has good links to the highway network.
* Development of this site can include provision of a welfare centre for this area of Rayleigh supporting the recognised increasing elderly population. The landowner of this site is happy to put forward land for community purposes such as a medical/welfare centre or school if required.
* The site is an area of unattractive Green Belt which is subdivided and provides a very limited landscape and environmental benefit. Development with good design and effective landscaping would enhance this area and its extensive views from the A127.
* Cycle connectivity with both Rayleigh Station and the many employment centers along the A127and towards the airport exist and can be enhanced as part of this development. This will reduce the reliance on car traffic in this already congested area.
* Green Connectivity from this site can be enhanced providing access to nearby Cherry Orchard Country Park and also open space opposite the site in Castle Point Borough.

Appendix CSSC2
North of London Road, Rayleigh Dwellings 2021-2026 = 400 new dwellings

Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010

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

1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?

2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?

4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.

5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.

7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.

Core Strategy Consultation Oct/Nov 2010

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

1. The Core Strategy is unsound because proposals to build on the Green Belt have not been properly evaluated and are contrary to government policy. There is no sufficient justification for this variance from government policy.
- Para 4.23 of the published Core Strategy states that the Council will prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites to minimise green belt release. This is still not the case in the amended proposals under consultation, which results in 67% of new dwellings being sited on greenbelt land and any windfall sites will be too late to save green belt that has already been built on.
- The older component of our population is said in the Council Paper to be a block on the release of "previously owned homes" and yet the Council has no proposals to release the blockage by requiring the provision of smaller homes in developments like Coachman's Court (Rochford, Sheltered/wardened Flats for over 55′s). If this were part of the Core Strategy then much less green belt would need to be released.
- The two proposed new industrial sites will also be on Green Belt land.
- There is no actual evidence that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and detailed (in planning terms) comparative assessment of the impact of the CS Locations, in that they are identified for places of housing growth, in terms of the impact on green belt, the effect on the landscape and highways. Were the alternatives put forward under the "Call for Sites" properly evaluated and evidenced?

2. No justification or consultation regarding how the proposed total of 3,800 new homes has been calculated. The council turned down a motion from two members in this regard.
- There is now no proposed development proposed for Rayleigh over the first 15 years yet, according to the published Core Strategy (para 2.38 page 30), the greatest demand for housing is in Rayleigh at 44.4% of the District's total. There is something wrong here.
- Have the alternatives been properly evaluated and evidenced?
This lack of consultation and inconsistency means the proposals are unsound.

3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure and distributed approach negates economies of scale. Existing 'back of a fag packet' [RDC/ECC quote] estimates of £50-75M are unsubstantiated (and could increase) but still equate to £14/21K standard charges per dwelling. Is this viable, particularly for "Affordable Housing" and the plan sustainable?

4. Development proposals for the first phase are concentrated in the centre of the district where the infrastructure, based on historical country lanes, cannot cope with existing traffic - there are a number of bottlenecks across this part of the District and being systemic in nature will not be improved by the relatively small improvements provided by the developments proposed.
* There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of all the various developments on highways has been assessed.
* Proposed phasing will focus initial developments in the centre of the district (Hockley/Ashingdon/ Hawkwell/Rochford) but delay access road improvements in West of district until end of programme resulting in road chaos for years.
* No consideration appears to have been given to mapping highways improvements to the housing phasing. As with other environmental issues, the capacity of the highways network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects of other developments. The highways plan is unsound and not sustainable.

5. The Core Strategy only takes into account Flood risk identified by the Enviromental Agency which is flovial based (tidal) and does not take into account Surface Water flooding risk. This is despite the fact that majority of flooding in the area has been caused by the latter and a combination of both.
* Aviva Insurance were not content with the Environmental Agencies evaluation they conducted their own that included Surface Water and number of claims for an area. This was because flooding was and still is a major concern to their revenue stream so they needed to identify properly all types of flooding risks.
* An additional point that is not captured by either the Environmental Agency or Aviva is there is no need to report flooding occuring reguarly in a field, only local people know about this. It is wrong for the Core Strategy to only consider Flovial flood risk.
The Core Strategy is therefore unsound.

6. Gypsy sites - the proposals provide for 14 pitches by 2014 but no indication is given of where these should be sited. This issue has caused a lot of concern to many residents who favour a single, manageable site in a location with good road access and all appropriate services and the proposals are unsound and, probably, unsustainable.
* Gypsy/Traveller sites must be positioned in locations that have the best access to transport links and services. It is essential that any gypsy/traveller site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as established road networks, water / gas / electric supply, mains sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, and access to healthcare and schools.
* The choice of a suitable site(s) must ensure that such communities can be appropriately integrated, and promote the right level of community cohesion for these people. Inappropriate location of Gypsies and Travellers would not bring about desired cohesion, and if a poor choice is made by the Council this could lead to exactly the opposite and disharmonious relationships between communities and the local community would transpire.
* In the light of the above, and in line with previous recommendations, if it is decided that Gypsies and Travellers must be accommodated on 'official' sites, then such sites are best suited to the west of the district. Any loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley is considered unacceptable when there are known alternative locations that would be better suit mutual Council and Traveller needs.

7. The last consultation on the DPD Allocations was in April and is believed to have 'attracted' a record level of responses but has not even been considered by the council 6 months later. This reflects the generally inadequate consultation during the entire process and means the Core Strategy is undemocratic and consequently the proposals are unsound.

I appreciated receiving your letter of 18 October explaining the activities regarding developments in the area.

With the new goernment's reduction in funding, it seems strange to have so many plans in mind which, so far as I can see, would not enhance the current suburban atmosphere of Hockley. With so many people paving their front gardens to facilitate parking, the few remaining trees need to be preserved in streets, like Hamilton Gardens, and the pavements better maintained.

We need the small, specialist shops remaining and I hope this can be encouraged. We also need to preserve the few remaining open spaces and woodland.

The cyling fraternity need teaching the highway code, as do many drivers parking opposite entrances to roads. Schools should teach road manners. Good luck in preserving what is good now in Hockley.

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.

We are replying to your correspondence regarding the future development of Rochford District and proposed changes to the Core Strategy.

We set out in our letter of 3rd April 2010 (copy enclosed) how we feel that NO Development on Green Belt Land should be considered. It seems to us the council wants to ignore the wishes of the people of Rochford and certainly of those of Hullbridge, are we therefore about to witness campaign of small alterations every few months so that we get to a stage that keep writing becomes a chore so eventually like the European treaty the response is so small the council deems it a yes vote.

Nothing has changed since our previous letter, the infra structure of Rochford and Hullbridge to accommodate this development has to change, new improved supply roads, schools, medical facilities, sewage etc. if implemented would drive up costs and reduce capacity for affordable homes, and certainly could not be undertaken in the current financial climate and necessary restraints.

In our original letter we pointed out Essex is the largest non-metropolitan county in the counctry in terms of population, we are at bursting point, whilst driving round the district is bad enough now, if the plans are implemented then driving will become a nightmare.

As the coalition states councils need to listen carefully to what their residents think:

"Revoking Regional Strategies....The new planning system will be clear, efficient and will put greater power in the heands of local people, rather than regional bodies...and to deliver sustainable development in a way that allows them to control the way in which their villages, towns and cities change."
The RT Hon Eric Pickles MP, 6 July 2010

Rochford Council needs to listen carefully to what residents think, and Hullbridge say no more development on Green Belt Land.

I can not believe that as a responsible council you could contemplate building 500 houses on a flood plain and Green Belt Land.

The Hullbridge road floods from the Lords Golf Course to Watery Lane and the two fields adjacent to Watery Lane flooded every time we have heavy rain. As shown in the national Press and on Television News.

We have only ONE through road to our village and we get traffic from Rochford Ashingdon and Hockley etc all using it mornings and evenings as a cut through to Chelmsford Woodham Ferrers etc Rawreth Lane is also heavily congested with traffic not only from Hullbridge but other neighbouring districts in mornings and evenings what would it be like with another 1000 cars from 500 houses plus an extra 500 or so children trying to get into school at Rayleigh by car and buses as we have no senior school in Hullbridge as Park school site in Rawreth was sold for houses.

Has anybody thought of doing a traffic census one census box could be placed in Lower Rd near the allotment this would give traffic coming into the village and leaving a second box could be placed in Ferry Road to give traffic coming into and leaving the village a third box down Watery Lane and a fourth box in Rawreth Lane with this data the traffic flow could be found and the predicted traffic flow from the new development be added to see if the B roads were able to handle the new amount of traffic.

I was of the understanding that Green Belt meant we always have areas of green land to stop neighbouring districts joining each other. Also if we build on our farm land how will future generation be able to grow their food. WE NEED OUR FARM LAND.

The infrastructure is inadequate are we going back to days where raw sewerage being put in to the River Crouch like before.

Is the electricity supply going back to when we kept getting power cuts because it could not cope?

Our mains water pressure is very poor as it has to come from the other side of the river crouch and due to the expansion of Woodham Ferrers.

Will these houses get insurance when the insurers find they are build on land that was always flooding or will it be down to council tax payer to pay for damage that will occur.

As I have been given to understand the first phase of development is for affordable houses could you please tell me what is meant by affordable houses does it mean £100,000, £2000,000? and with the economic future as it is will people be able to afford them any way.

What provision would there be for getting children to senior school for the new families as our old school was demolished for new development last time and now they have to go to Rayleigh and the schools in Rayleigh are already full.

I also feel that Rochford District Council have not handled this whole matter in a proper way from the start.

A RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES
TO THE CORE STRATEGY FOR ROCHFORD DISTRICT

SUMMARY

The following comments to the proposed changes are made with particular relevance
to part of the Allocations Development Plan Document Preferred Option SWH4 at
South West Hullbridge; being land on the south east corner of the junction of Hullbridge
Road and Lower Road.

ROCHFORD CORE STRATEGY-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

(Dated 14th October 2010. ITEM 3 ) .

RESPONSES

Page 3.1, Item 3.2.

The Hanover Land Trust considers the proposals to reduce the annual housing quota from 250 to 190 and to extend the Core Strategy from a 10 -15 year period to one of twenty years, will be less positive for the district in terms of economic vivacity and future sustainability, bearing in mind the proposals already activated for the expansion and redevelopment of Southend/London airport and other regional locations of investment.

Rochford Core Strategy Schedule of Changes
Page 3.7. Appendix 1. Item 4.6 and Page 3.8 Item 4.16.

The Hanover Land Trust (H LT) fully supports these proposals, but it is considered that more dwellings, (particularly the proportional quota of affordable housing) will be needed earlier than the 500 units scheduled here for 2026 to 2031 and that an earlier phasing would be beneficial for the locality and district in general.

Page 3.9 Item 4.24. The HLT site within Preferred Option SWH4 is immediately deliverable, unlike many of the sites elsewhere in the district scheduled for earlier phasing.

Item 4.25. Due to various factors windfall sites often cannot be relied upon to come forward
as required as opposed to the above proposed site within Preferred Option SWH4. We therefore consider that less emphasis should be given to such in town sites in the probability that they will not fulfil what may be expected of them.

Item 4.26. The above site does conform to the other policies within the CS.

Item 4.27. HLT fully supports this statement.

Page 3.12. Item (H3 the 4th column second paragraph onwards). HLT fully supports this statement.
Item (GB1 the 4th column) HLT fully supports this statement.

Page 3.13. Policy H1-The efficient use of land for housing.
Item Paragraph 2. HLT fully supports this statement as part of the above site is already
developed and contains a portion of previously developed white land.

Page 3.15. Policy H3 Extension to residential envelopes post-2026.
HLT generally supports Policy H3 except that the above site could be brought forward
within Preferred Option SWH4 or in isolation, in conjunction with the present and urgent
need for the redesign and improvement of the infra-structure at the busy three-way junction
of Hullbridge Road, Watery Lane and Lower Road.

Page 3.42. Appendix 2. Topic Paper 3 - Sustainable Housing Allocation for Rochford
District.
2. Revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Option 1 ' Figures.
Item 2.5. The proposed figure of 190 dwellings per annum is considered insufficient and
incompatible with good sustainability for the district, particularly with regard to the proposed plan being extended to 2031.

Page 3.50. Demand for Affordable Housing. Items 3.25 to 3.28.

These proposals, based on out of date figures, support our proposal for more affordable
housing to be implemented earlier in the CS plan period, considering the backlog referred to by Councillor Lucas -Gill earlier this year in the attached press cutting. We place particular emphasis on the current and future government budget cuts, which will affect both private and public sector service worker jobs, mortgages and pensions in tandem with increasingly more expensive private rentals due to anticipated additional demand. We believe the proposed changes will establish a too limited supply of dwellings over an unnecessarily extended time period.

Page 3.51. 4. Environmental and Physical Constraints within Rochford District.
Item 4.1
The HLT fully supports this statement as the above site is a mixture of existing development
within the Hullbridge town planning envelope, previously used White land and a lapsed planning consent fronting Lower Road. The whole site is self contained and is part of the south west corner of the Council's Preferred Option area SWH4.
Item 4.5 and 4.6 Development of the above site would not impact on the European
sites in and around the Rochford District and would not coalesce with neighbouring
settlements.

Page 3.55. 6. Infrastructure. Item 6.1
The HLT fully supports this statement as it would be prepared to work in conjunction
with service and infra-structure providers. The above site is the most suitable site for
. earlier release within SWH4 and adjacent to existing services, unlike much of Preferred
Options SWH1, SWHZ, and SWH3. For the various foregoing reasons, we believe this
site should be implemented in the earlier phasing of the CS plan period. Not least due
to the present urgent need for an improved drainage scheme to the west of the busy 3-
way road junction entrance into Hullbridge town.

Page 3.56
7. Overview of Implications of the Revocation of the East of England Plan.

Page 3.57. Item 7.10 and 7.11. Windfall sites have been dealt with in our response to
Item 4.25 and HLT considers these two proposals will impact negatively for the
Rochford District.

Page 3.58.
8- Conclusions. Items 8.1 to 8.5.
Except for the proposed numbers of units, HLT generally supports these statements.

Item 8.6. HLT contests this viewpoint which states the "section of population most
likely to form new households, (20-34 year olds) will shrink. " In the general sense
Rochford District is one of the most desireable places to live in this part of Essex and
this age group is only the core of the overall age group who aspire to live in the
Rochford District via new affordable housing schemes. There is also the 34-55 year
age group who througn a variety of circumstances need this form of accommodation.
In addition there is the 55-70 years age group similarly affected as the former category,
who wish to retire here having relatives in the district, but cannot afford to do so without
the assistance of a housing association. We therefore believe demand will actually increase
above the norm when the economy improves. Notwithstanding this prospect,
there is an increasing social tendency for existing younger family sub-division, which
will inevitably, use up the number of dwelling units proposed at an increased rate. On
this basis we question whether the Council's new proposals will be sufficient for the
ongoing sustainability required for the future population of the Rochford district.

Item 8.7. With reference to the foregoing points we disagree with this statement and
propose that additional/earlier new housing supplemented by more light industrial/office provision would stimulate an increase of sustainability in Rochford District. An
example being that the former Eastern Electricity offices in London Road, Rayleigh
should be retained for it's existing use for commerce and employment as there appears
to be sufficient housing land allocated in west Rayleigh.

Item 8.8 The above responses, along with the District's geographical location and
burgeoning new business ventures (p Ius anticipated demand) would indicate that the Rochford District is a growth area up to a point, and as stated in Item 8.8, "new market
housing is definitely required in the District" which HLT supports to enable the District
to capitalise on and maintain it's sustainability, when or as the economy improves.

Appendix 3

Page 3.59. Topic Paper 4-Revision to the Green Belt Boundary.
2. Exceptional Circumstances.

Item 2.1 to 2.6. In the hope of avoiding undue repetition of detail, HLT believes that exceptional
circumstances apply to the above site for the following reasons:
HLT believes the above site is the best individual site within Preferred Option SWH4 as
the site is already partly developed. The site also contains a section of unused White
Land lying within the existing development envelope of South West Hullbridge. A significant
section of the site also obtained a planning consent since lapsed. It was also
recently proposed by Essex County Council to construct an important cycleway on the
northern and western perimeter of the site. HLT supported this project, but County
funding was not forthcoming and might possibly be best left installed in conjunction
with the new development and infra-structure improvements so badly needed at the
present time in this location. Should this small portion of the above land needed, to accommodate this project be released from the Green Belt as outlined above, the proposed
cycleway could easily be accommodated for the benefit of users travelling between Hullbridge to Rayleigh at no land cost. To include this remaining green belt area of approximately 3 acres (51/2 acre site in total ) for release would be an appropriate use of the above site and dispose of the current aesthetically displeasing appearance of the area and would at the same time contribute to easing pressure on better quality green belt land in the locality.

Page 3.60. The Allocation of Land for Employment Uses.
Item 2.9. The former Eastern Electricity site is not deemed to be a "bad neighbour"
and part of this site includes the conveniently located Bright Sparks children's day nursery a valuable facility for employees and families in the locality.

Page 3.61. Conclusion., Item 3.1
HLT generally supports the Conclusion statement except to question that the limited
and sometimes mythical development opportunities predicted to come from inside the
existing town envelope, will ever happen. Also bearing in mind that it is against Council
policy to create undesireable "town cramming". Over the recent past the District
Council has conducted an exemplary exercise in limiting and negating Council Tax increases
without significant cuts in services. However, the Council must maintain sufficient
Council Tax income to help keep the District viable and sustainable for the period
of Core Strategy future planning (2011-2031 ) and create a sound foundation for further
sustainability for the period beyond. HLT considers that development of the above
site would assist in this precept. With all the multitudinous and variable factors involved
in the distillation of the best future plan for the Rochford District, we do question
whether there will be sufficient new land released for; 1. The required amount of future
housing and, 2. New business opportunity and employment?

Having submitted our comments above, regarding the Rochford Core Strategy-
Proposed Amendments, we trust the content may be of some assistance to the Council
and the Planning Policy Team for the Inspector's forthcoming Examination. (Please
see attached aerographic view of the above site) .

Finally, with the number of submissions made over the Core Strategy programme period,
we apologise for any necessary repetition of detail.