Policy SER7 - South Canewdon

New houses in the proposed area will seriously block the view of Canewdon church from the south and also when approaching the village from the west. The church is a landmark for miles around and has been so for hundreds of years. Destroying this view would destroy the character of the village. In addition, the churchyard is a place of serenity from which the view southwards would also be interrupted

This proposed site will totally spoil the open area of the ancient church and the view of it which attracts many visitors from all over the world! We need to protect these sites. It will also be on the flood plain which is liable to flooding. The whole character of our lovely village will be destroyed for ever!

This will be an awful blow to our beautiful village. There is already enough housing in the area and to put more in will ruin the area. The increased traffic on the country lanes will cause chaos and the local shops and amenities will not be able to cope. Why turn our village into a town??? And furthermore isn't this green belt land???

It will spoil the outstanding view of and from the church. This was not the preferred choice of site agreed by residents at a public consultation meeting held by the council (Rochford/Rayleigh?) in Canewdon village hall. Residents of the proposed site will use the churchyard as a short cut to the village centre and vandalism is likely to occur at the church. There is already insufficient infrastructure in the village, particularly drainage/sewage.

We believe that this allocations document has been very robustly produced, with this site justified after numerous consultations and assessments. This land, particularly to the East of Church Lane was the only site considered, where the boundary is fully defensible, it is a brown field, in that it already contains two residences and is located adjacent to the existing residential estate. The Local Authority have included the area to the West of Church Lane, to ensure a density of properties in keeping with the local area, and to accommodate additional play and green areas. The site is located outside the Church conservation area, some distance from the listed buildings, and on significantly lower ground, ensuring with sensitive design minimal effect on views of or from the church. The proposal for 60 dwellings up to 2021 allows scope for upgrading of local transportation, cycling routes, play spaces together with financial support for schools and general infrastructure improvements; all of which have been assured within the allocations document, and something which could not be achieved with a smaller or piecemeal development. This also allows for a mixture of integrated social housing, including key worker homes etc. Finally the allocations document ensures that this will be a sustainable development, requiring compliance with the Code for sustainable homes, 10% renewable energies, a sustainable drainage system, and lifetime homes.
We therefore believe that with good design this will enhance the area rather than cause harm, as suggested by other consultees.

This development would change the character of the village for the worse, would put more strain on services and the school, extra traffic on the country lanes etc.

The creation of extra homes will cause further problem that already exist in the village. Presumably these houses will be built with families in mind or young people that will ultimately start families. Our school cannot take more pupil's without expansion which is not viable in the current climate. The village already suffers due to the lack of facilities and activities for young children leading to increased vandalism and crime.
There are the obvious infrastructure issues which although the planning details suggest will be addressed this will not be proven until after the houses are completed i.e. to late.

This allocation relates to a small scale addition (60 dwellings), which is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the existing settlement and assist in supporting existing services and facilities.

ROCHFORD SITE ALLOCATIONS SUBMISSION DOCUMENT

Thank you for your letter dated 29 November 2012 consulting English Heritage on above documents.

We note that you propose to continue to prepare several development plan documents (DPDs) and these will combine to form your Local Plan. The Area Action Plans for the three main centres and for Southend Airport will be brought forward separately, and we look forward to consultations on those in due course. A consultation on your Development Management Policies DPD is due shortly. All of these will sit within the recently adopted Core Strategy. With the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it will be important that all the documents taken together provide the appropriate policy coverage. In this context, we would like to make some general comments regarding the NPPF policy approach to the historic environment.

General Comments

The NPPF provides greater clarity than previous national policy guidance regarding the place of the historic environment among issues that contribute to sustainable development. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Framework are especially relevant. The identification of the historic environment within the core planning principles (paragraph 17) underpinning plan-making and decision-taking further underlines the importance of heritage considerations.

In the context of the NPPF, it would be appropriate to consider if there is a need to reflect the historic environment strand more strongly in the DPDs that take forward the adopted Core Strategy. The Core Strategy contains some important references to the historic environment in the objectives for Chapter 5 Character of Place, and Chapter 8 Environmental Issues. The evidence base for the historic environment referred to in the Core Strategy in terms of the Historic Environment Characterisation report, Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Pans is helpful. However, the policies relating to the historic environment are not as detailed as they could be, to take forward the positive approach to the historic environment that the NPPF recommends (paragraph 126). The emphasis on 'heritage at risk' in paragraph 126 is also a matter we would hope to see taken forward in local plan policies for Rochford.

We hope that the Council will consider how the historic environment can be promoted in all the development plan documents that are now coming forward, to reflect the approach set out in national policy.

Site Allocations DPD

I attach a schedule of detailed comments on the specific aspects of the Site Allocations DPD. Where we have expressed concern, we would like the comments to be treated as a formal objection to the soundness of the plan in terms of consistency with national guidance for the historic environment. We hope, however, that we will be able to discuss these concerns with you, with a view to agreeing modifications to the plan.

General matters

There are some points that arise throughout the plan text which we have some concerns about. These are as follows:

1. Archaeology
There are no references to the archaeological interest, or potential interest, in the policies and text for the individual site allocations. To take forward Core Strategy policy ENV1, and to be in line with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), we recommend that the allocations are reviewed for their sensitivity.

If it has not already been obtained, advice should be sought from the county archaeologist. Where evaluation of sites reveals significant archaeological interest, revisions to the plan should be made in accordance with the significance of the remains. We would expect additional requirements to be added to the parameters for development set out in the individual site allocation policies, as appropriate.

2. Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs)
We understand the need for the plan to make provision for SUDs in the individual development sites. A standard set of words is used, for instance in paras 3.94, 3.281, and 5.48. It should, however, be noted, perhaps in the introductory sections of the plan, that balancing ponds, swales, changes to the water table and so on can, like other forms of development, have significant impacts on below ground archaeology, and these will need to be taken into account.

3. Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring, section 10
This section does not refer to any risks associated with sites that contain heritage assets, or below ground archaeology. While we do not make this a point of objection, the plan should seek opportunities for positive enhancement of the historic environment in appropriate circumstances, perhaps in the form of compensatory gains.

4. The setting of heritage assets
We note that in the case of several proposed site allocations that the need to protect the setting of heritage assets on adjoining land has been recognised. We welcome this. English Heritage's guidance may be of assistance in considering this matter.

Knight Developments and Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance support the Allocations Submission Document and specifically Policy SER7 which shows RDC's intention to allocate land for residential use in the village of Canewdon.

Please see supporting documents for further information.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
RESPONSE TO ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL ALLOCATIONS SUBMISSION DOCUMENT (NOVEMBER 2012)

Essex County Council welcomes the production of an Allocations DPD by Rochford District Council. The setting out of site specific allocations for development at the general locations identified within the Core Strategy will positively assist realisation of the Core Strategy and the Vision for the District. The inclusion of allocations not just for residential and business development but also for community facilities and environmental designations is particularly supported as providing a firm basis for the holistic and sustainable approach to the future of the District.

The County Council generally supports the proposed content of the document whilst suggesting some amendments to the text to assist clarity on future requirements and to provide contextual information that should assist delivery and implementation.

This response is structured as,
* Specific Highway and Transport comment on Policy NEL2 and Policy GT1
* Comments on topics and themes
* Site specific comments
* Annex on Historic environment considerations on individual sites

1. Specific Highway and Transport comment on Policy NEL2 and Policy GT1

a) Policy NEL2: West of the A1245, Rayleigh
The content of paragraph 5.35 and subsequent paragraphs 5.36 to 5.39 relating to highways and transport requirements and considerations for development of this site is noted. Access to the proposed allocation at this location would be contrary to a number of current Highways Development Management Policies. Given the location of the site at a key strategic junction lack of design compliant access points would contribute to an increase in congestion and safety concerns. The County Council is unaware of any studies or evidence to indicate that access/egress on and off the site can be secured in a design compliant manner. In these circumstances the highway authority is unable to support allocation of the site for the proposed employment uses.

b) Policy GT1: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
The site access/egress to the proposed allocation would contribute to congestion and safety concerns at this strategic junction and be contrary to a number of current Highways Development Management Policies. Nevertheless, it may be possible to cater for the traffic movements arising from not more than 15 gypsy and traveller pitches in a manner that has minimum impact on existing levels of traffic movement and safety. Accordingly, the local highway authority would wish to further discuss with the district council the potential traffic implications of this proposed allocation.

2. Comments on topics and themes

a) Flood Risk and Water Management
* Essex County Council, as a Lead Local Flood Authority, now has a strategic role to oversee the management of local flood risk. This covers the risk of flooding from surface water runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses that occurs as a result of heavy rainfall. The County Council has produced a number of inter-related Flood and Water Management documents which seek to improve understanding of surface water flood risk with the ultimate aim of reducing that risk wherever possible. The following documents should be added to the Evidence Base listed in paragraph 1.29,
o Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) - is a requirement under the Flood Risk Regulations (2009). The PFRA is a high level, county-wide analysis which considers past flooding and possible future flooding from,
 Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy - to be published Feb/March 2013 meets responsibilities under the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). This strategy looks at ways to tackle local flood risk in a co-ordinated way. It will identify some strategic actions needing to occur over the next two years and the underlying principles upon which to base future decisions.
 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP) - these are plans which outline the preferred surface water management strategy for a given location. A SWMP will establish a long-term action plan to manage surface water in an area and should influence future capital investment, drainage maintenance, public engagement and understanding, land-use planning, emergency planning and future developments.

* On Page 11, fifth bullet, 'Surface Water Management Plan 2011' should read 'South Essex Surface Water Management Plan 2012'.

* The County Council welcomes the promotion of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) within the Concept Statements for each site allocation. However, the existing text should be amended to include reference to,
o the involvement of the Environment Agency - Essex County Council is not expected to become the SuDS Approving Body until at least April 2014 and therefore cannot officially comment/determine SuDS proposals until then.
o The need for a site specific flood risk assessment - any site drainage strategy for a site will be informed by and need to address issues arising from a specific flood risk assessment.
o The inclusion of source control as part of the SuDS proposals - source control, i.e. the control of runoff or pollution at or near its source, will be needed as well as attenuation measures to ensure an acceptable sustainable drainage system.

The relevant text should be amended to read as follows and included as a paragraph in the Concept Statement of each proposed site allocation,
"Attenuation and source control Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) of a size proportionate to the development should be used such as balancing ponds, swales, detention basins and green roofs. This could be incorporated into the greenspace provided on-site. Appropriate SUDS should be determined in consultation with Essex County Council and the Environment Agency. A site specific flood risk assessment incorporating a surface water drainage strategy should be prepared for the site."

b) Minerals and Waste
* The Minerals and Waste Local Plans produced by Essex County Council are part of the Development Plan for Rochford District and regard must be had to relevant policies in those documents in determination of the future development of the District. The section of the document entitled 'Relationship with other LDF Documents' should be amended to include appropriate and relevant reference to the status of the Minerals and Waste Local Plans.

* The National Planning Policy Framework requires Minerals Planning Authorities to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas within their Local Plans so that known locations of specific minerals are not needlessly sterilised by other forms of development, whilst not creating a presumption that the defined resources will ever be worked. The County Council has done this through Policy S8 (Safeguarding mineral resources and mineral reserves) in the Replacement Minerals Plan Pre-Submission Draft January 2013. It is necessary to safeguard existing mineral workings and Preferred Sites to prevent the possibility of new incompatible neighbours being established and ultimately restricting extraction activities. Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) apply to the safeguarded site itself and extend for a distance of 250 metres outwards from the site boundary of each of these safeguarded sites. The following proposed allocation sites fall within a Mineral Safeguarding Area:
o Policy SER2 West Rochford
o Policy SER5 East Ashingdon
o Policy SER8 South East Ashingdon
o Policy SER9 West Great Wakering
o Policy NEL3 South of Great Wakering
o Policy NEL4 North of London Southend Airport
o Policy EDU3 King Edmund School

To ensure compatibility and consistency between the Allocations Document and the Minerals Local Plan the following text should be added to the Concept Statement for each of the seven (7) sites listed above,
'The site is within a Minerals Safeguarding Area and therefore consultation on the proposed development of the site with Essex County Council is required'

* It should be noted that the Replacement Minerals Plan Pre-Submission Draft safeguards the following two sites in Rochford District,
o the Strategic Aggregate Recycling Site (SARS) at Purdey's Industrial Estate is safeguarded under Policy S5 'Creating a network of aggregate recycling facilities';
o the coated stone plant at Suttons Wharf is considered to be of 'strategic importance' in policy terms and is safeguarded under Policy S9 'Safeguarding mineral transhipment sites and secondary processing facilities'.

c) Historic Environment
Essex County Council is pleased at the identification of the Historic Environment within the Document and the specific mention of the Historic Environment Characterisation Report for the District. An annex to this response sets out additional detailed information on a site-specific basis that could usefully be added to the Document to ensure awareness of the key historic environment features and requirements associated with development of proposed allocations.

d) Biodiversity
* The Concept Statements for most proposed development sites include reference to green buffers, site boundary treatment, tree/hedge planting or habitat mitigation. For clarity and to make a positive contribution to local ecology the concept statement for each site should use, or adapt, as appropriate the statement in paragraph 5.58 which states: "landscaped green buffers should be provided in the form of publicly accessible green space, with conditions attached to ensure that it has ecological value".

* Potential development proposals should be prepared in accordance with the Institute of Ecological and Environmental Management (IEEM) guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) which require,
o applications for development over 0.1ha to be accompanied by an ecological statement, which should include a Phase 1 habitat survey, a data search for records of designated sites and protected species within 2km of the site, and an assessment of habitat suitability for European Protected Species.
o for major developments (10 or more dwellings, or creation of more than 1000 square meters), a full Ecological Impact Assessment, prepared in accordance with the IEEM guidelines for EcIA, will be required (http://www.ieem.net/ecia-guidelines-terrestrial-freshwater-and-coastal-).

* Policy ELA1 should require completion of the Management Plans that will be drawn up for Local Wildlife Sites and that they be taken into account, as appropriate, during design and construction phases and that their disturbance is avoided. Development sites subject to Policy SER8 (South East Ashingdon), Policy SER9 (West Great Wakering), and Policy NEL3 (South of Great Wakering) should contain a similar specific requirement.

* Several sites show potential to support European Protected Species, namely,
o Policy SER4 - South Hawkwell
o Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge
o Policy SER9 - West Great Wakering
o Policy NEL1 - South of London Road, Rayleigh

e) Urban Design
* Generally, the vision for each of the allocation should be developed further as .the concept statements provide limited evaluation of the sites and their infrastructure requirements. A solution could be for a master plan or design brief to be required, prior to the submission of a planning application, for all sites of a certain size or sensitivity setting out the vision for future development with design codes for larger sites where development will be phased (as supported by Paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework). A landscape strategy promoting green links and biodiversity corridors for each site should also be required.

* The document could also be improved with more visual content. Simple diagrams illustrating the principles/objectives referred to in the text would add clarity, particularly where connections are required between different sites or parts of a site that may be developed at different stages or post 2021, for example, between the land allocations for employment South of Great Wakering (NEL3), Star Lane Industrial Estate Great Wakering (BFR1) and land south of the High St (SER9b).

3. Site specific comments

a) Policy BFR1: Star Lane Industrial Estate, Great Wakering
* This is one of the few industrial estates in the District where there are relatively few environmental impediments to the establishment of a future waste treatment facility. Provision of housing on the site will introduce a sensitive use and make the estate potentially incompatible for waste uses. 'Guidance for local planning authorities on implementing planning requirements of the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)' (December 2012) is relevant to this issue. The Guidance expects those local planning authorities which do not deal directly with waste planning applications to contribute to delivery of the waste hierarchy. This includes working constructively with waste planning authorities to identify and protect those sites needed for waste management facilities and considering, where relevant, the likely impact of proposed, non-waste related development on existing waste management sites and on sites and areas allocated for waste management. Planning authorities should ensure that any such proposal does not prejudice the implementation of the waste strategy set out in the local Waste Plan. The County Council, as waste planning authority, would welcome discussion with the District Council to identify an alternative suitable industrial site within the District to accommodate waste treatment facilities that could have been established on this estate.
* In paragraph 2.34 the words 'Transport Impact Assessment' should be amended to read 'Transport Assessment'. Equivalent amendments should be made where a similar reference is made throughout the document.

b) Policy SER1: North of London Road, Rayleigh
* In paragraph 3.17, first bullet, the text should be extended to include the words 'with commensurate early years and childcare provision' to reflect the full requirement for provision of education facilities on the site.
* Figure 7 should be deleted as being a matter more appropriate for inclusion in a masterplan or design brief where possible highway and transport links can be directly related and integrated with green links, biodiversity corridors and relationship to adjacent development. Consequent to the above comment, paragraph 3.27 should be amended to simply note that the means access and scope of transport assessment should be explored with Essex County Council Highways, to include the site being served by public transport and designed to ensure that it is not used as a through route for private traffic.

c) Policy SER2: West Rochford
The precise site boundary of the proposed education facilities on the site has been agreed through a s106 agreement and could be indicated on Figure 8.

d) Policy SER5: East Ashingdon
Paragraph 3.141 should specifically identify the proposed improved access/egress to King Edmund School, which is the subject of a s106 agreement, and show the precise site boundary of the proposed new bus/car park for King Edmund School on Figure 11 (p53).

e) Policy SER6: South West Hullbridge
Paragraph 3.178 should be amended to note that highway improvements would focus on the strategic network, which includes the junction of Hullbridge Road/ Watery Lane. Watery Lane is not part of the strategic network and the reference to improvements should be deleted.

f) Policy SER8: South East Ashingdon
* In paragraph 3.218 the word 'access' should be amended to read 'accesses' because the proposed development is a minimum of 500 dwellings for which a single access is insufficient.
* Paragraph 3.240 should be extended to state that 'All internal layout options should be considered in line with the Essex Design Guide'.
* Paragraph 3.242, second sentence, should be amended to read 'Pedestrian and cycle routes to south of site.....'.

g) Policy SER9: West Great Wakering
Paragraph 3.277 should be amended to read 'Pedestrian and cycle routes to the north...'.

h) Policy EDU1: North of London Road, Rayleigh
The criteria listed in paragraph 7.5 are not exhaustive and omit some of the most key characteristics. Accordingly, the text of the paragraph should be deleted and replaced by cross reference to the full list provided in the Developers' Guide Education Supplement (Appendix D).

i) Policy EDU2: West Rochford
The criteria listed in paragraph 7.9 are not exhaustive and omit some of the most key characteristics. Accordingly, the text of each paragraph should be deleted and replaced by cross reference to the full list provided in the Developers' Guide Education Supplement (Appendix D).

j) Policy EDU3: King Edmund School
For ease of reference Figure 27 (p104) should also show the land south of Bray's Lane that has been secured by King Edmund for a new bus/car park.

k) Policy EDU4: Existing Primary and Secondary Schools
As Local Education Authority, the County Council welcomes acknowledgement in paragraph 7.15 that schools change and expand over time in order to meet local need. However, the proposals in paragraph 7.15 are potentially confusing and unduly restrictive because in most cases school expansion and/or re-modelling will extend beyond the existing built footprint on school sites. Retaining Green Belt status for school playing fields in their entirety would not offer sufficient flexibility to attain the policy intent due to some school expansion proposals necessarily straddling the Green Belt boundary.


ANNEX TO
ESEX COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE TO ROCHFORD ALLOCATIONS SUBMISSION DOCUMENT (NOVEMBER 2012)

Key Historic Environment Features and Requirements

This annex to the County Council response sets out additional detailed information on a site-specific basis that could usefully be added to the Document to ensure awareness of the key historic environment features and requirements associated with development of proposed sites. Reference to Historic Environment Zones (HECZ) within this Annex is taken from the Historic Characterisation Study for Rochford District.

A. Brownfield Residential land allocations

Policy BFR1 - Star Lane, Industrial Estate, Great Wakering.
The southern section is currently a disused brickworks. Although the site has now been cleared of all upstanding structures, without a historic building record being undertaken, the site still retains considerable archaeological potential for the study of the countys' industrial archaeology and in particular the development of brick making within the region (EHER 15369). Records depict this development from the use of brick clamps in the early post war period to oil fired down draught kilns by the 1970s and gas fired kilns by the 1990s. Whilst brickworks are not necessarily considered significant in purely architectural or aesthetic terms they represent an increasingly rare site and structure type which have been identified in the regional research agendas as being of particular interest. Any redevelopment should be preceded by archaeological desk-based research and investigation of surviving underground deposits.

Policy BFR3 - Stambridge Mills, Rochford
Stambridge Mill survives as a complex multi-period site comprising a wide range of buildings, structures and earthworks which together chart the development of an historic milling site dating from the 18th century or earlier. A building record of all surviving structures has been completed with no further archaeological conditions required.

Policy BFR4 - Rawreth Industrial Estate
A number of brick-built World War II accommodation huts survive at the southern end of the industrial estate. These were associated with the heavy anti-aircraft gunsite TN4 'Rayleigh' (EHER 20133) sited here during World War II and are a rare survival. Where possible these buildings should be retained within any development. However if this proves impossible to achieve they will require a historic building survey to record the complex prior to any demolition.

B. Settlement Extension Residential Allocations

Policy SER1 - North of London Road Rayleigh
A pre-determination assessment (by fieldwalking and geophysical survey) of the archaeology on-site is currently ongoing. Any future large scale housing development would require an agreed programme of work, depending on the present evaluation and any future trial trenching to ensure that the historic environment assets are either protected in situ or preserved by excavation.

Policy SER2 - West Rochford
A pre-determination assessment (by trenching) of the archaeology on-site has been completed. The results are expected shortly and will be used to ensure that there is appropriate management and/or a mitigation strategy agreed to protect the historic environment assets that will be impacted.

Policy SER3 - West Hockley
For those parts of the site not previously developed, a programme of archaeological evaluation should be undertaken to ensure that the Historic Environment is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered. Consideration should also be given to the landscape character of the area and the woodland setting.

Policy SER4 - South Hawkwell
The proposed development south of Hawkwell lies within Historic Environment Characterisation Zone 26 (HECZ 26: Land between Hockley and Ashingdon). This area of predominantly rural landscape, sloping down to the Crouch Estuary between Hawkwell and Ashingdon, is noted for its dispersed settlement and the number of find spots, particularly of prehistoric material, and its potential for archaeological sites despite little formal investigation having been carried out. Any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the historic environment is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge
The Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ 36) for land west of Hullbridge states that whilst archaeological deposits are rare, prehistoric sites are present within the inter tidal zone and in general the area has potential for deposits to survive. Two known undated earthworks at Maylons and South of Maylons lie within the proposed development area while a medieval moated site is located close by. A programme of archaeological evaluation would be required to ensure that the historic environment is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

Policy SER7 - South Canewdon
The Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ 12) shows that Canewdon is an example of a late Saxon/early Medieval settlement focused on the church hall complex but surrounded by a wider dispersed pattern of manors. By comparison with similar settlements it is reasonable to assume that archaeological remains survive within, and in the proximity of, the historic settlement, particularly those historic assets associated with the coast and historic core. A programme of archaeological evaluation would be required to ensure that the historic environment is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

Policy SER8 - South East Ashingdon
The site lies within Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ 13) characterised by its landscape of dispersed and poly-focal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies nearby while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm are in close proximity. Roman material has also been identified to the west of Doggetts Farm. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. A programme of archaeological evaluation would be required to ensure that the historic environment is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

Policy SER9 - West Great Wakering
Options for West Great Wakering lie within Historic Environment Character Zone (HECZ 7) an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying. For those areas not quarried there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the historic environment is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

C. New Employment Land Allocations

Policy NEL1 - South of London Road
The Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that the options for land West of Rayleigh lie within an area characterised by historic dispersed settlement retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HECZ 34). Any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the historic environment potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

Policy NEL2 - West of the A1245
The Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that the options for land West of Rayleigh lie within an area characterised by historic dispersed settlement retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HECZ 34). Any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the historic environment potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

Policy NEL3 - South of Great Wakering
Although the proposed development area has been subject to some quarrying, there is still potential that some archaeological features remain in situ. The Essex Historic Environment Record (EHER) lists a number of archaeological sites in the vicinity: cropmarks of a linear feature and a rectangular enclosure (EHER 11157) and find spots including a Bronze Age vessel (EHER 11085). A programme of archaeological evaluation would be required to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

POLICY NEL4 - North of London Southend Airport
This area has a large amount of historic environment assets recorded on the EHER. Excavations to the east of Cherry Orchard Farmhouse identified the remains of a medieval or post medieval kiln (EHER 9744) during salvage excavations on the birckearth quarry. This kiln is clearly a precursor of the later Cherry Orchard Brickworks which continued production in to the early 21st century. The brickworks has now been demolished although there is potential for surviving deposits relating to the industry surviving beneath the ground. Cherry Orchard Farmhouse is a listed 17th century timber framed farmhouse which is nationally designated as a grade II listed building. Archaeological evaluation at Westbarrow Hall Farm (EHER17441) has recorded extensive multi-period archaeological deposits over a wide area. A number of military monuments relating to the defence of Southend Airport during World War II survive (including two examples of rare cantilever pillboxes). Detailed discussion will be required to produce a development proposal which protects the most significant deposits and provides for a mitigation strategy including excavation for any remains that cannot be preserved.

I think the land on the western side of Church Hill is church land and should not be built on. I also believe that the Council are looking at a car park at the top of Church Hill. I can see no reference in the LDF document to car park. I think this should be looked at. I also believe that a farmer in Scotts Hall Road was prepared to sell land for development and that he would provide various amenities for the people of Canewdon at a cost of something like £250,000 to be found out of monies he would receive for his land. This would seem to be a better option than the site proposed.

The DPD is unsound becuase the whole village was unaware that the Council had made a decision and we were in a consultatoin period.

Lack of infrastructure for that land designated too many houses per acre - bad drainage because of gradiant. Lack of increase infrastructure. Heavy farm traffic up Church Lane will spoil our village - will destroy approach to village.

The DPD is unsound because the whole village was unaware that the Council had made the decision and we were in a consultation period.

Bad drainage because of gradient.

Working farm at end of lane with heavy farm traffic using it.

It will spoil our village.