Need for Market, Affordable and Specialist Homes

The Central Government will determine the amount of new homes to be built in Rochford District irrespective of the wishes and sensitivities of the local residents. The only power reposed in the Rochford District Council is where the homes are to be built.

The initial Government requirement is that 7500 new homes in Rochford District are to be built from 2017 to 2037 (375 homes a year). Those homes will be put largely on Green Belt and Greenfield sites.

Rochford District has neither the infrastructure nor the public services to sustain those homes. (The Government says that 45% is required by immigration).

Our roads in Rochford District are in disrepair; There are difficulties in getting a Doctor's appointment; First choice schools are becoming unavailable; the traffic is appalling; hospitals are incapable of dealing with the pressure of population growth; the price of homes(affordable homes as well as social housing) is beyond the reach of our youngsters; Developers want inevitably to build expensive properties to make most profit.

Our countryside and Greenfield amenities are being destroyed by concreting over our District. The UK Government is £2.2 trillion in debt and has no money for corresponding infrastructure or public services. This madness of building homes on Green Belt with no corresponding infrastructure or public services must stop.

Are there any building plans to build retirement homes for the over 60s as there is a growing need for this type of accommodation . With communial type housing with one & two bedroom apartments.

Please find below the comments from Hockley Parish Council relating to the Issues and Options Document.

1. Infrastructure: There is little provision for improvement which must be given priority as the district cannot sustain the existing level of development.
2. Affordable Housing: Insufficient affordable or suitable housing for first time buyers.
3. Empty Houses: These should be brought back into use before allowing more new development.
4. Air Pollution: There is evidence that this has reached a dangerous level in many local areas which will only increase with more traffic on already over-congested roads.
5. Local Services: Hospitals, doctors, social services schools etc are struggling and there is serious concern that further increases in housing and the proposed merger of hospitals in Southend, Basildon and Colchester will add to the pressures on both providers and communities.

Having read through most of the plan, I have some real concerns.

The first is that although there is a lot of talk about "affordable homes", most of these are clearly not affordable to the majority of young people. Plus they are becoming exponentially less affordable as time passes. Therefore what is needed are family homes at an affordable rent, and this area is woefully short of these!

The second concern, I have is that our roads are already hopelessly congested and whilst we continue to build numerous houses without improving road space, we are adding to an already appalling problem. This is also having a detrimental effect on air quality and no consideration seems to have been given to the future health of our children and future generations.

It is not only road space which needs expanding, but doctors' surgeries, schools, hospitals and all of the other services essential to our community.

Large proportion of people commute to London from this area, so will the current rail system cope with a large increase in population.

In conclusion although it is obvious that we are in desperate need of more housing, we must have the infra structure to support the resultant increase in population if we are to maintain the character of this area and, more importantly, the quality of life of the residents.

Best. Regards - David Mullen (Hawkwell resident)

p.s. Why has Hawkwell not been included as a district particularly as it has a higher population than Hockley?

2 roads: Infrastructure - no money for this. So how can more housing be built? Air Quality?
Schools are full. Hospitals are on black alert. Care in the community is stretched now. Affordable housing in 200 thousands. Flood plains to consider. Green Belt: Badgers/Bats/Foxes/Roe Deer. Urban sprawl - Eastwood joined to Rayleigh joined to Hockley Hawkwell etc.

Many young people employed locally cannot afford to even rent let alone buy.

My opinions on The New Local Plan.
Whilst I am fully aware of the need for new homes, the number proposed vastly exceeds any infrastructure we currently have or are likely to get in the foreseeable future.
A) Roads. The A127, A129 and Rawreth Lane are already well above capacity at peak times of 4:30-6:00pm with traffic queueing for up to 30 minutes belching out polluting fumes. Tackling this issue with a congestion charge which has been mooted would be an unsatisfactory solution as there is no alternative. We cannot park then use an "underground" like London. The B1013 on which I live, moves either at snails pace at peak times or traffic exceeds the speed limit on blind bends, an accident risk which will be worse with the new developments on Folly Lane and Bullwood Hall.
The number of cars for 7500 houses will probably add at least 10000 extra cars to our already congested roads.
B) Doctors. The local surgeries are currently difficult to get appointments and doctors are leaving the NHS and can't be easily replaced. Who will care for the new residents?
C) Schools. The schools are mainly already oversubscribed. New schools will have to be built to educate new children.
D) Hospital and community care. Southend University Hospital is under threat of being downgraded and acute patients transferred to Basildon and Chelmsford. Apart from disagreeing with this for our current population, it will be even worse with more residents and times for transfer will increase due to the extra congestion on the roads.
Some of the proposed new sites affect places where the local care homes are. It is essential to plan not just for new homes but also new high quality care homes. It is not just the elderly that need care. Young and middle aged adults also need good quality care. For an exemplary style of care for disabled adults please see "Scotts Project Trust" https://www.scottsproject.org.uk in Kent which is no more expensive than other places.
It is essential that the council puts the horse before the cart, not the other way round and puts in infrastructure and new roads BEFORE any further new homes.
General Strategic Planning:
The green belt is essential and as little of it as possible should be used for new development. It is the lungs of our society and not only improves physical health but also mental health of residents. I believe firmly also that sunshine and access to nature promotes mental wellbeing which goes on to improve physical health and the follow on of less pressure on health resources. Thus I feel that the planners must consider light, shade and views when arranging new housing. It seems that the present developments are creating tiny gardens in the shade of neighbours. Wherever possible as many south facing gardens should be planned. It is not only good for the residents' health and plant growth, but solar panels can be added inconspicuously to roofs on the non-dominant aspect of the home.
Also, I don't think the Rochford area caters well to the "better off" older people. The assumption that a very small garden is desired and a small home is untrue. There are many in my position who would like a slightly smaller garden than they have, but a more accessible home that could cater for a wheel chair as time goes on. Therefore having new homes with space left for a domestic lift and fully flat floors would be desirable. This would be more flexible and not necessitate someone moving as they became less mobile.

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal as follows.

1 No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure.

2 No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3 No spare capacity within Health and Care Services.

4 No let up in the sacrifice of the green belt and air quality
.
5 No long term Legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVELS.

Dear Sirs

For the past 27 years, I have lived in Great Wakering and I would like to register my comments on the Rochford District Council's New Local Plan (and sustainability appraisal)
I strongly object to the continued loss of green belt (which I believe should be protected at all costs for us and future generations) and the amount of new housing already been approved and the possibility of even more houses in Great Wakering. The village is changing beyond all recognition and not in any ways that benefit existing residents. The increase in population is at the expense of those who already live in the village as no real investment or contribution to our village has been made by way of schools, doctors or roads etc, to name just a few (i.e. the infrastructure).

All of the legitimate concerns which residents raised before the Star lane estate and the estate behind the high street were approved, (which were ignored) are now even more critical as more population are sharing the existing infrastructure which has not been improved or enhanced. This is having a detrimental effect to the standards of living of residents.

I also refer to the "call for land" and the submission of CFS153 on Map P, the land west of the Common. I believe this land is the highest level of flood plan (Zone 3) and that the Governments recommendation that this should only ever be built on as a last resort. If this was to proceed, it would mean more traffic having to navigate very narrow streets, past a historic church, through a conservation area and past village assets of the Duck pond and the Common. I also believe that part of this plot is within the Rochford District Council's Wildlife site (which covers both sides of Common Road). Therefore any more housing so close to this area and the Common would have an effect on the local wildlife. For full transparency I declare that I am the Chairman of the trustees of the registered charity the "Friends of Wakering Common". Therefore can you kindly confirm that this area will not even be put forward for consideration.

I accept there is a need for housing, but looking at most of the properties in the Star lane these appear not to seem to contribute to the need for "affordable housing" as the asking prices are higher than many of the existing houses for sale in Wakering, therefore these properties would have been sold if affordability was the issue.

The road network from Great Wakering across through Rochford and Southend is often completely blocked and Sutton road into Rochford is almost unusable in the rush hour and more housing this side of the district would make thing much worse.

The High Street in Great Wakering is a historic and very narrow road in the conservation area and struggles with the existing traffic at the church end. Where it is narrows buses (let alone emergency services) often cannot get past the Co-op due to the amount of cars. Therefore to approve any further building to the east of the village of Great Wakering would result in more traffic through this area and exasperate the problem. This would ruin what is a very attractive focal point of the village, which should be protected. The traffic will also effect the primary school, preschools, numerous old people's homes, all of whom are vulnerable to the dangers of increased traffic.

I believe that any future housing plans should respect the wishes of local residents and look to minimise disruption and negative effects on existing residents. If development is to happen it should enhance and bring benefits to all of the residents not lower their standard of living by saturating the services and infrastructure until they break.
As elected local and district councillors I believe that the councils should be looking putting the interests of those who elected you and live here before those who wish to come to the area to live.

I am writing this email to express my concern about the proposed New Local plan and in particular CFS074 (adjoining Mount Bovers Lane).

This particular site is not only of outstanding beauty and enjoyed by many of the local people it would significantly add to the already congested roads in the immediate area (eg Potash roundabout and Spar roundabout) during peak travel times.

Overall the number of different sites/houses being proposed is very concerning as I understand there are no plans to provide additional roads and infrastructure. Therefore I would urge the council to reduce their overall target to something that is more sustainable to the area.

Thank you for your consideration.

In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:
Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not. If they have not been completed, do not say so.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously and I shall submit it again as an appendix to this document.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do not look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Air quality now has increased importance. The EU is threatening to fine our government because its plans to improve air quality in a large number of cities and towns are inadequate. Just waiting and hoping that things get better will not do!

If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

I refer you again to the plan that I append to this document to significantly reduce congestion and improve air quality in Rayleigh town centre. This could be achieved in much less time than waiting for all the existing vehicles to be replaced.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.




Appendix

A proposal for the reduction of traffic congestion in central Rayleigh and consequent improvement of air quality

Air pollution is an acknowledged problem in central Rayleigh and just today the high court have ruled that the government must do more to reduce it, particularly NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. A major cause of air pollution in Rayleigh is traffic queuing on Crown Hill and creeping forward one vehicle at a time - engines continually running and repeated hill starts which are particularly bad for NOx emissions. Many recent cars and buses have automatic engine stop when stationary so that if traffic is held at a red light emissions will be significantly reduced. This feature will become commonplace over the next few years.

The pedestrian crossing at the top of Crown Hill and the mini roundabout at its junction with the High Street must be eliminated in order to cure this problem. This proposal achieves that and improves traffic flow in Websters Way as well as eliminating most traffic from the central part of the High Street.

1. Close the High Street to traffic between the Crown and Half Moon/ Church. Allow access for taxis to the existing taxi lagoon only. Allow access for delivery vehicles but perhaps only at specified times. This will be a shared space and so 10 MPH speed limit.
2. Block off access from Bellingham Lane and Church Street to the High Street.
3. Replace the mini roundabout at the Crown Hill / High Street junction with a swept bend with limited access to and from the High Street (see 1) with give way lines on the outside of the bend.
4. Replace mini roundabouts at the High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road/ Websters Way junctions with traffic lights.
5. Replace the zebra crossing at the top of Crown Hill with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
6. Remove the pedestrian crossing outside the Spread Eagle. This is no longer needed as people can cross from The Crown to the taxi lagoon.
7. Replace the zebra crossing across Eastwood Road outside Marks and Spencer with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
8. Replace the zebra crossing across Websters Way near to Eastwood Road with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
9. Arrange for coordinated control of the two new sets of traffic lights, and the four light controlled pedestrian crossings (Crown Hill, Websters Way, and two in Eastwood Road). *
10. Remove the pedestrian crossing in the centre of the High Street as it is no longer needed.
11. Remove the traffic lights at the Junction of Websters Way and High Street and the pedestrian crossing across the High Street as they are no longer needed. Retain the pedestrian crossing across Websters Way. This junction becomes a swept bend and will be free flowing for traffic except when pedestrians are crossing.
12. Access for wedding cars and hearses to the church will be unaffected except that they will have to use London Hill instead of Bellingham Lane to/from Church Street.
13. Access to the Mill Hall and its car parks will be via London Hill and Bellingham Lane. A new exit will be required from the windmill car park to London Hill adjacent to Simpsons solicitors. **
14. Provide parking for disabled people in Bellingham Lane between the Mill hall and its previous junction with the High Street. Create a small turning circle where the junction used to be.
15. Create a layby in Websters Way for buses heading for Hockley or Bull Lane.
16. The loading bay outside Wimpy will become the bus stop for the No 9 bus.
17. The No 1 bus is a problem as it will no longer be able to stop in the High Street or Websters Way and the first stop in the High Road is too far from the town centre. A new bus layby will be needed outside Pizza Express. ***
18. Install traffic lights at the junction of Downhall Road and London Road, incorporating the existing light controlled pedestrian crossing.
19. Install traffic lights at the junction of London Hill and London Road / Station Road. Traffic lights will not be needed at the junction of The Approach and London Road if the lights either side of this junction are phased correctly.

* There are potentially some problems which arise because there will be traffic lights at junctions where the limited space available prohibits the use of a right turn lane or a left filter lane and there are pedestrian crossings nearby. The traffic lights at High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road / Websters Way will each need to have a phase when traffic from all three directions is stopped and both the adjacent pedestrian crossings are open for pedestrians. This phase will only need to occur when a pedestrian has requested it at either of the adjacent crossings. When there is a lot of pedestrian traffic it will be necessary to synchronise both junctions so that the "all traffic stopped" phase occurs at both junctions at the same time.

** Some drivers will complain that in order to get to the Mill Hall they have to go down Crown Hill and up London Hill, although they could park in Websters Way car park or the market car park and walk. However, people approaching Rayleigh along the London Road will have easier access to the Mill Hall car parks and will not enter the town centre at all, reducing congestion and pollution.

*** Considering traffic coming up Crown Hill, it will be advantageous to arrange that when the pedestrian crossing on Crown Hill goes red to stop traffic there is a delay of several seconds before the light at the High Street/ Eastwood Road junction and the Eastwood Road pedestrian crossing turn red. This should empty this section of road and allow a bus in the layby to pull out without disrupting the traffic flow up Crown Hill.

In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:
Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not. If they have not been completed, do not say so.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously and I shall submit it again as an appendix to this document.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do not look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Air quality now has increased importance. The EU is threatening to fine our government because its plans to improve air quality in a large number of cities and towns are inadequate. Just waiting and hoping that things get better will not do!

If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

I refer you again to the plan that I append to this document to significantly reduce congestion and improve air quality in Rayleigh town centre. This could be achieved in much less time than waiting for all the existing vehicles to be replaced.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.




Appendix

A proposal for the reduction of traffic congestion in central Rayleigh and consequent improvement of air quality

Air pollution is an acknowledged problem in central Rayleigh and just today the high court have ruled that the government must do more to reduce it, particularly NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. A major cause of air pollution in Rayleigh is traffic queuing on Crown Hill and creeping forward one vehicle at a time - engines continually running and repeated hill starts which are particularly bad for NOx emissions. Many recent cars and buses have automatic engine stop when stationary so that if traffic is held at a red light emissions will be significantly reduced. This feature will become commonplace over the next few years.

The pedestrian crossing at the top of Crown Hill and the mini roundabout at its junction with the High Street must be eliminated in order to cure this problem. This proposal achieves that and improves traffic flow in Websters Way as well as eliminating most traffic from the central part of the High Street.

1. Close the High Street to traffic between the Crown and Half Moon/ Church. Allow access for taxis to the existing taxi lagoon only. Allow access for delivery vehicles but perhaps only at specified times. This will be a shared space and so 10 MPH speed limit.
2. Block off access from Bellingham Lane and Church Street to the High Street.
3. Replace the mini roundabout at the Crown Hill / High Street junction with a swept bend with limited access to and from the High Street (see 1) with give way lines on the outside of the bend.
4. Replace mini roundabouts at the High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road/ Websters Way junctions with traffic lights.
5. Replace the zebra crossing at the top of Crown Hill with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
6. Remove the pedestrian crossing outside the Spread Eagle. This is no longer needed as people can cross from The Crown to the taxi lagoon.
7. Replace the zebra crossing across Eastwood Road outside Marks and Spencer with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
8. Replace the zebra crossing across Websters Way near to Eastwood Road with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
9. Arrange for coordinated control of the two new sets of traffic lights, and the four light controlled pedestrian crossings (Crown Hill, Websters Way, and two in Eastwood Road). *
10. Remove the pedestrian crossing in the centre of the High Street as it is no longer needed.
11. Remove the traffic lights at the Junction of Websters Way and High Street and the pedestrian crossing across the High Street as they are no longer needed. Retain the pedestrian crossing across Websters Way. This junction becomes a swept bend and will be free flowing for traffic except when pedestrians are crossing.
12. Access for wedding cars and hearses to the church will be unaffected except that they will have to use London Hill instead of Bellingham Lane to/from Church Street.
13. Access to the Mill Hall and its car parks will be via London Hill and Bellingham Lane. A new exit will be required from the windmill car park to London Hill adjacent to Simpsons solicitors. **
14. Provide parking for disabled people in Bellingham Lane between the Mill hall and its previous junction with the High Street. Create a small turning circle where the junction used to be.
15. Create a layby in Websters Way for buses heading for Hockley or Bull Lane.
16. The loading bay outside Wimpy will become the bus stop for the No 9 bus.
17. The No 1 bus is a problem as it will no longer be able to stop in the High Street or Websters Way and the first stop in the High Road is too far from the town centre. A new bus layby will be needed outside Pizza Express. ***
18. Install traffic lights at the junction of Downhall Road and London Road, incorporating the existing light controlled pedestrian crossing.
19. Install traffic lights at the junction of London Hill and London Road / Station Road. Traffic lights will not be needed at the junction of The Approach and London Road if the lights either side of this junction are phased correctly.

* There are potentially some problems which arise because there will be traffic lights at junctions where the limited space available prohibits the use of a right turn lane or a left filter lane and there are pedestrian crossings nearby. The traffic lights at High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road / Websters Way will each need to have a phase when traffic from all three directions is stopped and both the adjacent pedestrian crossings are open for pedestrians. This phase will only need to occur when a pedestrian has requested it at either of the adjacent crossings. When there is a lot of pedestrian traffic it will be necessary to synchronise both junctions so that the "all traffic stopped" phase occurs at both junctions at the same time.

** Some drivers will complain that in order to get to the Mill Hall they have to go down Crown Hill and up London Hill, although they could park in Websters Way car park or the market car park and walk. However, people approaching Rayleigh along the London Road will have easier access to the Mill Hall car parks and will not enter the town centre at all, reducing congestion and pollution.

*** Considering traffic coming up Crown Hill, it will be advantageous to arrange that when the pedestrian crossing on Crown Hill goes red to stop traffic there is a delay of several seconds before the light at the High Street/ Eastwood Road junction and the Eastwood Road pedestrian crossing turn red. This should empty this section of road and allow a bus in the layby to pull out without disrupting the traffic flow up Crown Hill.

I write to voice my objection to the proposed urbanisation of Hullbridge which would result if land put forward by local landowners was developed under the new local Plan.

The amount of development suggested is unsustainable as this part of Essex is already highly congested and traffic flow is a major issue.

Although, perhaps, there is a case to be made for a small amount of affordable properties to be built for first time buyers in Hullbridge, the majority of the developments proposed will not be in this category as this type of property is not profitable to developers.

Dear Sirs/Madam
I write with much concern over the proposed New Local Plan for up to 7500 houses in this area! I believe the building that is currently going on in this area is far greater than the infrastructure can cope with!
I realise there is a need for more housing but with some of the affordable housing being around £350,000 how is this going to help our young people? If affordable housing is necessary why are houses worth up to a million pounds being built in this area particularly in Hall Road? I also believe that many of the houses being built in Hall Road are for a London Borough which I find completely unacceptable as we are grinding to a halt locally if this is so why are we committing to other boroughs? Surely common sense tells us that with all the traffic jams and problems in the area at the moment we cannot carry on building at this rate and also house people from London Boroughs! I believe the large building projects should be taken away from the South East altogether! This area of the country is simply FULL UP!!
We also have the huge industrial estate being built at the airport at the moment and goodness only knows how much extra traffic that will bring into the area aside from the delivery lorries which this site will bring there will be thousands of workers and customers! New jobs to the area you say - well that is if we can actually drive on our roads to reach it - perhaps drones are the answer!!!
If you happen to live in this area you will be aware of the chaos that is caused by even the refuge collections every week! Simply vans delivering to the local businesses in Hockley, which cannot park, can cause several miles of traffic queueing back in all directions! Road works of course are a necessity but can cause absolute chaos especially at time when it has been decided to dig up all surrounding roads at the same time!! It is not unusual to take an hour to drive from Rayleigh to Ashingdon which is of course before this housing phase is complete!
I also understand that all the various infills of flats and houses don't get counted in the big scheme of things? Is this correct and why are they not??
I would also be interested in knowing how the infrastructure would be improved because apart from knocking down half the houses on the main roads I fail to see what can be done! Local flooding can also be a problem and will not be helped by continued building on such a scale!
I am fed up with being told about Government policy - I don't believe anyone in the local planning office could actually justify what is about to be thrust upon us!
Our local hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools are not coping now so how on earth will they cope with everything that is proposed in this phase so I believe the allocation for the next phase should be dramatically cut and certainly avoid any further building directly adjacent to the Rayleigh to Hockley main road and also the main Ashingdon Road!!

Figure 9 demonstrates the inconsistent and decaying delivery rates of housing in the district area. It also shows that whilst the previous local plan, based on the Core Strategy of 250 dwellings per years only been met at one point, 2013-2014. However, it should be noted that this figure demonstrates that a figure of 450 homes has been achievable in the past (2006-2007) and this should be made clear in the policy discussion within the Issues and Options Draft.

I would first like to say I don't to believe in consultations as they do not represents public opinion due to the lack of response from residents. This is mainly caused by making the online method too complicated with too many questions. The drop in presentation that were provided by RDC were pathetic with just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do?

I would like to object to building any more homes on green belt land that joins existing villages an towns in Rochford District. The current building programme that runs until 2025 is already causing serious traffic jams on the existing roads with the resulting air pollution, even though building work has only just started. It has been stated that drivers in our area spend 30 hours per year in rush hour jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year.

I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already and not just roads but services like electrics, gas, water, sewers and the health system, including the hospital, GP surgeries and dentists. RDC have indicated that they will include additional infrastructure this time but they have a very poor record on this so far, as the current increase in housing has produced practically none at all. I realise the reason for this is that additional housing comes from RDC and the infrastructure from Essex County Council (ECC) who provide the funds but so far this has not happened, as there aren't any.

We do need additional homes for our children to buy but unfortunately most are unaffordable and many end up being used to relocate people from London councils to relatively cheaper homes in our area. We also need retirement home developments in our area that would free up existing larger homes.

We live on a peninsular surrounded on three side by water, if we really have to have an additional 7,500 new houses in our district, I believe a new Garden Village could be located near South Fambridge and served by a new road from the north connecting to the B1012 would be the best solution. This road could cross the River Crouch near Fambridge linking to North Fambridge railway station.

If RDC allow more homes to be built adjacent to the existing B1013 and all the other already clogged up roads in our area, it will make the lives of our residents a misery and I believe they will not put up with it any more.

Forming the first stage of the Local Plan review, the Issues and Options Document identifies a series of strategic priorities and objectives to support the draft vision for the future of Rochford District. These are supported by key planning issues that have been identified for a number of themes, and potential options to deal with these issues.

Document Page, Policy and/or Paragraph Number

Comments

Our Vision and Strategic Objectives

5. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives 5.8

Maldon Council supports a number of key ideas and themes
that have come from paragraph 5.8. Improving the strategic
infrastructure network is a shared objective for both authorities;
the Southminster branch line holds a significant relationship with
the Southend train line, which must be safeguarded and
enhanced.

Delivering Homes and Jobs

Pg. 32. Para. 6.9 The revised OAN now expresses a range of between 331 and
361 homes per year. To effectively meet the revised OAN, all
possible options must be considered including a review of
Green Belt land. With the current pressures on housing need as
a national issue, there needs a balance between serving
strategic housing allocations and mitigating the consequences,
such as loss of greenfield land.

Pg. 39. Para. 6.31 Provided the national threshold for affordable housing is 10
units or 1000sqm, which has been widely adopted by most local
authorities, it would seem appropriate to use this threshold as
local policy given the pressures on affordable housing as a
national issue.

Pg. 56. Para. 6.86 Retention of or amendments to strengthen the existing policy
would be supported by the Council. Any amendments which
would be detrimental to the landscape, ecology and/or
biodiversity of the River Crouch would be objected to.

Pg. 58. Para. 6.91 With a revised OAN of 6620-7220 homes from 2017-2037, the
assessed need of up to 16 hectares of 'new' employment land between 2016-2036 would need to be appropriately situated to align with a vision that seeks increased provisions for sustainable transport and sustainable communities.

Delivering Infrastructure

Pg. 85. Para. 8.26 Although there are limitations on the level of influence local
planning authorities have on the level of provision with regard to public transport, the level of provision is based on the use of services. When identifying strategic housing allocations within the district, this must be taken into consideration. Protecting and Enhancing our Environment

Pg. 127. Para. 10.26 It should be emphasised that there will be a close working
relationship between all contributing authorities in the preparation and production of the Essex Coastal Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and that there must be a Duty to Cooperate.

Pg. 127. Para. 10.27 Retaining or amending policy ENV1 to strengthen the current policy is supported.

Forming the first stage of the Local Plan review, the Issues and Options Document identifies a series of strategic priorities and objectives to support the draft vision for the future of Rochford District. These are supported by key planning issues that have been identified for a number of themes, and potential options to deal with these issues.

Document Page, Policy and/or Paragraph Number

Comments

Our Vision and Strategic Objectives

5. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives 5.8

Maldon Council supports a number of key ideas and themes
that have come from paragraph 5.8. Improving the strategic
infrastructure network is a shared objective for both authorities;
the Southminster branch line holds a significant relationship with
the Southend train line, which must be safeguarded and
enhanced.

Delivering Homes and Jobs

Pg. 32. Para. 6.9 The revised OAN now expresses a range of between 331 and
361 homes per year. To effectively meet the revised OAN, all
possible options must be considered including a review of
Green Belt land. With the current pressures on housing need as
a national issue, there needs a balance between serving
strategic housing allocations and mitigating the consequences,
such as loss of greenfield land.

Pg. 39. Para. 6.31 Provided the national threshold for affordable housing is 10
units or 1000sqm, which has been widely adopted by most local
authorities, it would seem appropriate to use this threshold as
local policy given the pressures on affordable housing as a
national issue.

Pg. 56. Para. 6.86 Retention of or amendments to strengthen the existing policy
would be supported by the Council. Any amendments which
would be detrimental to the landscape, ecology and/or
biodiversity of the River Crouch would be objected to.

Pg. 58. Para. 6.91 With a revised OAN of 6620-7220 homes from 2017-2037, the
assessed need of up to 16 hectares of 'new' employment land between 2016-2036 would need to be appropriately situated to align with a vision that seeks increased provisions for sustainable transport and sustainable communities.

Delivering Infrastructure

Pg. 85. Para. 8.26 Although there are limitations on the level of influence local
planning authorities have on the level of provision with regard to public transport, the level of provision is based on the use of services. When identifying strategic housing allocations within the district, this must be taken into consideration. Protecting and Enhancing our Environment

Pg. 127. Para. 10.26 It should be emphasised that there will be a close working
relationship between all contributing authorities in the preparation and production of the Essex Coastal Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and that there must be a Duty to Cooperate.

Pg. 127. Para. 10.27 Retaining or amending policy ENV1 to strengthen the current policy is supported.

To whom it may concern:

I wish to state my strong objection to the proposed future housing development in Little & Great Wakering and I refer in particular to the areas shown as site reference CFS115 - Land to the west of Little Wakering Road and the various areas depicted on Map Q.

At a rough estimate it would appear that the village will be increased in size by at least 30%. A more worrying aspect of the entire proposal is that no where is there any reference to the ancilliary services; I refer in particular to the disposal of sewerage which has already created problems from the former brickfield site in Star Lane.

I note with interest and amazement that the suitability assessment states that educational, transport links, and healthcare facilities are 'good'. This belies the fact that the school is at full capacity, the doctor's surgery is working to full capacity and is often inaccessible in terms of appointment availability and contact. Secondary school children are still being taken to King Edmund school from the village by coach. What is proposed to alleviate these very crucial and critical problems which should be addressed before any further agreement on development is concluded?

Rail links to London Fenchurch Street from Shoeburyness are good, however, there are few parking facilities available and parking permits have been introduced in Shoeburyness to attempt to alleviate this problem which will only increase with further housing development.

Employment opportunities in Southend and the surrounding areas are virtually non existent with London Southend Airport being quoted at all times as a magic source of employment for the new residents of the proposed housing. I raise this with reference to the parking issues at the closest mainline station to Southend, Basildon and London.

During the severe weather we have suffered powercuts on two occassions as the grid in this area is already at full capacity. Indeed, during the recent construction of flats and houses at Mason Way cables were unable to take the extra load of power supplies.

Finally, I am aware that there is a high pressure gas pipeline to the west of site CFS115 and I believe that British Gas require development to be situated at least 40 feet either side of the location of the main. Has this been taken into consideration?

I request constructive answers to the issues raised above, and seek clarity as to how it is conceivable for planning to be proposed under such circumstances.

I would like to comment on the Issues and Options document as follows:

1) As Rayleigh is already at breaking point on the roads for most of the day, expanding it would be detrimental to the existing residents. Would it not be more beneficial to create a new town/village (or several), rather like the garden cities that have been hugely successful? This would enable you to create the roads/drainage/sewerage/open spaces that would compliment the housing that would be built and be able to sustain it. These could have their own character and be designed with people in mind. There could be areas for business, leisure, clubs, create cycle paths, space for allotments, and you could use renewable energy schemes throughout. This new area (s) would need to be somewhere where Rayleigh wasn't the only access to it. Building this type of scheme would reduce the increase in pollutants that would occur should any increase in building were to take place in Rayleigh. You must ensure that there is adequate greenbelt borders to stop urban sprawl. You also need to make available various entrance/exit routes to avoid bottlenecks and rat runs.

2) Any new houses built should have ample parking. New builds now days tend to build garages that are not big enough for a modern day car. You also seem to stick to the minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling, even when it is a 4-6 bedroom house. You then push parking onto the road network. This can be avoided if you implement rules into your documents.

3) Reduce the building of 4-6 bedroom houses. You only make an area exclusive when this is all you offer. The building companies favour this size house and only offer up 1-2 bedroom flats in their "affordable" range. What we need are 1, 2 & 3 bedroom houses for families (and your homeless department state that there are a shortage of 2 bedroom houses). The young CANNOT move out of the family home as the houses are NOT affordable for them, even with Government schemes. If they are lucky, they may be able to find somewhere miles away from their family and support networks. We need a mix of house sizes and this should be enforceable.

4) Many building companies create "boxes" that are fairly generic. We need to have houses that have character, otherwise we will be looking back and comparing what we are being given now like we do with the concrete monstrosities of the 1970's building estates.

5) The infrastructure of Rayleigh will be unable to cope with the amount of housing that you are obliged to provide. The road networks are almost at collapse, many with poor surfaces and pot holes (the criteria to repair them being amended all the time to the detriment of the road users). Who thought it was correct to cover a concrete road with tarmac? We now have roads that have both surfaces, the tarmac reducing all the time from the concrete (which does not adhere well together). Building in Rayleigh means that more traffic will pass through (or try to). Maybe you should be considering building a ring road around Rayleigh or another road that will link the A1245 to Hullbridge? More houses means more people, meaning that we will need more school places to be provided from nursery to 6th Form. How will this be achieved? What about GP's? We cannot get an appointment when we are ill now. More people on the Doctors list means longer waiting times. I suppose that eventually, people will in fact die from waiting to see their GP. That will reduce the population in Rayleigh!!! Cynical maybe. We need investment into GP's or Medical/Heath Centres, Schools, etc.

6)We need areas of provision for our residents who become homeless and we also need to provide smaller accommodation especially for our elderly residents who wish to downsize. There is a shortage of these type of properties. By having these available, the elderly can release their bigger houses into the market (reducing the need to build large houses) and move into these specially adapted dwellings. You would need a covenant on them to stop any of them being extended, and be purely for the "over 60's/70's etc.

7) Our car parks do not have the capacity now for residents at busy periods. how will they cope when there are thousands more houses?

8) The recycling centre in Castle Road cannot cope now so how will it be able to provide a service with even more households using it? It opens too late for people to use it on their way to work and it closes several times during the day in order to change over containers, thus causing long, road blocking queues (and pollution).

9) I noticed that our bordering Councils may not be able to meet their requirements and may request that some of their need be taken on by their neighbours. WE CANNOT take on the housing quotas for Southend and Castle Point. We have our own problems. We can also NOT be able to provide even more sites for travellers, we have several illegal sites now. We do not want another Crays Hill! If we compare the needs of these site residents, wanting to keep their expanding communities together, we must ask why they have not settled like the rest? My children cannot buy in Rayleigh. One has had to go to Basildon, the others are at home with no chance of affording to rent, never mind buy. We are all people. Why be treated differently? Could you provide my family somewhere they can live near me? No! But this is a requirement for other communities, which is discrimination.

Yours sincerely,

I would like to comment on the Issues and Options document as follows:

1) As Rayleigh is already at breaking point on the roads for most of the day, expanding it would be detrimental to the existing residents. Would it not be more beneficial to create a new town/village (or several), rather like the garden cities that have been hugely successful? This would enable you to create the roads/drainage/sewerage/open spaces that would compliment the housing that would be built and be able to sustain it. These could have their own character and be designed with people in mind. There could be areas for business, leisure, clubs, create cycle paths, space for allotments, and you could use renewable energy schemes throughout. This new area (s) would need to be somewhere where Rayleigh wasn't the only access to it. Building this type of scheme would reduce the increase in pollutants that would occur should any increase in building were to take place in Rayleigh. You must ensure that there is adequate greenbelt borders to stop urban sprawl. You also need to make available various entrance/exit routes to avoid bottlenecks and rat runs.

2) Any new houses built should have ample parking. New builds now days tend to build garages that are not big enough for a modern day car. You also seem to stick to the minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling, even when it is a 4-6 bedroom house. You then push parking onto the road network. This can be avoided if you implement rules into your documents.

3) Reduce the building of 4-6 bedroom houses. You only make an area exclusive when this is all you offer. The building companies favour this size house and only offer up 1-2 bedroom flats in their "affordable" range. What we need are 1, 2 & 3 bedroom houses for families (and your homeless department state that there are a shortage of 2 bedroom houses). The young CANNOT move out of the family home as the houses are NOT affordable for them, even with Government schemes. If they are lucky, they may be able to find somewhere miles away from their family and support networks. We need a mix of house sizes and this should be enforceable.

4) Many building companies create "boxes" that are fairly generic. We need to have houses that have character, otherwise we will be looking back and comparing what we are being given now like we do with the concrete monstrosities of the 1970's building estates.

5) The infrastructure of Rayleigh will be unable to cope with the amount of housing that you are obliged to provide. The road networks are almost at collapse, many with poor surfaces and pot holes (the criteria to repair them being amended all the time to the detriment of the road users). Who thought it was correct to cover a concrete road with tarmac? We now have roads that have both surfaces, the tarmac reducing all the time from the concrete (which does not adhere well together). Building in Rayleigh means that more traffic will pass through (or try to). Maybe you should be considering building a ring road around Rayleigh or another road that will link the A1245 to Hullbridge? More houses means more people, meaning that we will need more school places to be provided from nursery to 6th Form. How will this be achieved? What about GP's? We cannot get an appointment when we are ill now. More people on the Doctors list means longer waiting times. I suppose that eventually, people will in fact die from waiting to see their GP. That will reduce the population in Rayleigh!!! Cynical maybe. We need investment into GP's or Medical/Heath Centres, Schools, etc.

6)We need areas of provision for our residents who become homeless and we also need to provide smaller accommodation especially for our elderly residents who wish to downsize. There is a shortage of these type of properties. By having these available, the elderly can release their bigger houses into the market (reducing the need to build large houses) and move into these specially adapted dwellings. You would need a covenant on them to stop any of them being extended, and be purely for the "over 60's/70's etc.

7) Our car parks do not have the capacity now for residents at busy periods. how will they cope when there are thousands more houses?

8) The recycling centre in Castle Road cannot cope now so how will it be able to provide a service with even more households using it? It opens too late for people to use it on their way to work and it closes several times during the day in order to change over containers, thus causing long, road blocking queues (and pollution).

9) I noticed that our bordering Councils may not be able to meet their requirements and may request that some of their need be taken on by their neighbours. WE CANNOT take on the housing quotas for Southend and Castle Point. We have our own problems. We can also NOT be able to provide even more sites for travellers, we have several illegal sites now. We do not want another Crays Hill! If we compare the needs of these site residents, wanting to keep their expanding communities together, we must ask why they have not settled like the rest? My children cannot buy in Rayleigh. One has had to go to Basildon, the others are at home with no chance of affording to rent, never mind buy. We are all people. Why be treated differently? Could you provide my family somewhere they can live near me? No! But this is a requirement for other communities, which is discrimination.

Yours sincerely,

NEW LOCAL PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS DOCUMENT
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THAT DOCUMENT.
This is a response to the expensively produced document of approximately 800 pages which outlines proposals for the development of Rochford District post 2025.
I wish to state that I consider the prospect of building a possible unconstrained additional 7500 dwellings is UNSUSTAINABLE in every way imaginable. My reasons are summarised briefly below.
There will be an expansion on these issues further in this document.
Housing
Traffic / Roads / public transport trains & bus capacity
Flooding
Health provision / hospitals / doctors / care provision
Schools / Education
Environment
Air Quality
Greenbelt protection
Housing demand
There is a need for housing to meet the natural growth in our district. The percentages of house building requirements do not match the current objective need. The actual objective is to provide for London overspill because of the mass influx of people that have arrived in our capital city in the past ten years. To suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous.
The natural growth of the district can be met by RDC actively seeking out brownfield sites for development, small infill developments, use of degraded greenfield, the return of the use of flats over shops, in order to keep our towns and villages alive and active, and finally the conversion of properties into larger units. All these measures will prevent the proposed maximum attack on our greenbelt and valuable farmland.
I will cite the following examples of fairly recent developments:-
Gunn Close London Road (One bungalow morphed into 14 four bed houses)
Eon site London Road (one industrial site became 101 homes)
London Road / Station Approach (small scrubland site developed into numerous apartments). Lakeside Downhall Road (back land development of multiple apartments).
I could continue to discuss developments throughout this particular small part of the Rayleigh and surrounding areas, especially Hullbridge, that are NOT included in the figures, to meet some central Government target, that should serve to meet the generic need for the area without mass building projects. Add to this the regular conversion of bungalows into 4/5 bed houses and the proposals to create cul-de-sacs from single dwelling plots, the capacity to house our increasing population could be met. The figures for generic growth in our district do not support by the kind of mass development envisaged.
It is claimed that developers, having secured planning permission, have been using a loop hole in the 'affordable housing' requirement by subsequently claiming the projects don't might the 20% profit threshold required. Thus very few houses are being build that are affordable for local people.
The maps of the areas to be suggested for development show a huge number to be built in the town of Rayleigh and the village of Hullbridge. It identifies enough land to build a minimum of 6000 suggested for Downhall and Rawreth Ward in the west of the district. This is in addition to the 700 not yet built as a result of the 2010 Local Plan (SER1) in the same location.
Traffic and Road network
This western part of the district is unfortunate to suffer an almost daily gridlock on our roads.
London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane are the arteries that feed most of the villages and small towns to the east. They are all regularly at a standstill. 7500 extra dwellings will result in at least 15,000 more vehicles.
The increase in traffic on our roads will be UNSUSTAINABLE if this plan is implemented.
Promises of the 'jam tomorrow' of roundabouts and traffic improvements have no prospect of delivery due to the piecemeal nature of the developments already approved.
There have been suggestions from other objectors that a substantial upgraded road be developed towards the east of the district. Taking a route whereby Watery Lane / Lower Road are fed by vehicles, directly via the A130, bypassing Rayleigh. We cannot support this idea because it will serve to open up much of our remaining greenbelt to further development to the detriment of the villages further east in our district. We cannot agree to make the situation worse for our neighbouring villages.
70,000 vehicles pass through the A127 Fairglen Interchange daily, serving Rochford, Southend, South Benfleet and beyond, making it the busiest junction in South East Essex. To increase the volume of vehicles by 15,000, in this area alone, is not sustainable.
Essex County Council have a serious shortfall in funding. It will result in no major improvements in the road network for the foreseeable future in this district. Refer to addendum 1 showing ECC Summary of infrastructure project costs and funding gaps.(2016-2036)
Public Transport
There is limited opportunity to increase the train capacity on the Greater Anglia line at peak times because of the terminus at Liverpool Street is currently at its' peak capacity. Trains are overcrowded now so how can they accommodate more passengers.
Bus transport is somewhat irregular and completely unavailable in many parts of the district.
Cycle. The distances and the terrain preclude the use of cycles except for those who are able. Plus there has been no sustained efforts to create safe cycle paths for cycle users.
Walking
Due to the distances covered it is impractical to expect residents to walk for most of their daily requirements. For instance, the elderly and families will not be able to walk from Hullbridge to Rayleigh and carry necessary groceries, a distance of 3 miles plus. It is simply not practical and to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous fantasy.
Families use cars. That is a fact of life for almost every activity i.e. shopping, travel to work/school (many youngsters have to be ferried to and from school due to the distances involved) and for the opportunity to even use the somewhat remote leisure facilities.
Flooding
Where are the measures to tackle the flood risk to many of our riverside communities? Extreme weather is becoming a norm and the building of huge estates with piecemeal flood alleviation measures is unsustainable. Evidence is readily available to the RDC that clearly identifies pinch points in the flood defences of this area.
Air Quality
Rayleigh town centre, as acknowledged in the report, has a dismal record on AIR POLLUTION. Being at consistently illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. This is damaging our children's health and well being and with a possible link to dementia. Increasing the traffic will exacerbate this problem.
Health Provision
Residents have difficulties accessing their doctors in a timely manner. It is routine at the moment for the local surgeries to offer appointments three weeks after they are requested.
Our three hospital Southend , Basildon, and Broomfield have all issued notices that they are on 'black alert' over the past year. Indicating they have NO BEDS available. There is no provision made in the proposals to increasing the capacity in our health service to meet the increased demand.
The gap in funding for adult social care is not addressed in this proposed plan.
Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).
Schools
Evidence is available that Rayleigh Primary Schools are over-subscribed. Rayleigh Primary and Glebe School state they have no capacity at present. Some parents are face with travelling across the district to different schools to educate their children.
As discussed in a Guardian newspaper article developers have managed to wriggle out of providing planned schools, after securing their planning permission, by persuading authorities that the development would be made 'unviable'.
I cite the situation on the Hall Road Development where a school was promised and now is not to be provided. Also the planning for the site North of London Road was recently given the go ahead by the District Councillors and the school was left as a 'pending' provision with no firm promise of it being built. The education of our children should not be left to a chance that a developer MIGHT provide the facilities.
Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).
Greenbelt
There is no possibility of delivering the number of dwellings proposed without the destruction of vast swathes of our remaining greenbelt which is against the policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF. Our Prime Minister and Minister for Housing has stated repeatedly 'there should be no building on greenbelt until every other opportunity has been explored'.
To Summarise.
Due to the evident unsustainable nature of the present Issues and Options document I would make a request to consider the following :-
I propose a compete rethink of the document and would ask the Members of Rochford District Council and Members of Parliament representing constituencies in South East Essex namely:-
Mark Francois MP mark.francois.mp@parliament.uk
Rebecca Harris MP rebecca.harris.mp@parliament.uk
Sir David Amess MP amessd@parliament.uk
Stephen Metcalfe MP stephen.metcalfe.mp@parliament.uk
John Barron MP baronj@parliament.uk
James Dudderidge MP james@jamesdudderidge.com
To support these objections and comments.
In addition i request that the above listed representatives call for a scheme to build a new Garden City on the Dengie Peninsular with a road and rail bridge over the River Crouch linking Southend to the north of the county. Links could be provided to provide further development in future. This would help to preserve the semi-rural nature of South East Essex and prevent the total URBANISATION of our part of Essex. They could call on the new proposed Infrastructure Policy, announced recently by the the Government, to help fund the roads and bridge.
Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the Cambridge to Oxford corridor and those serving Kent constituencies have secured such funding for Garden Cities with all the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospital, schools etc. This is in order to protect their residents. I call on all our local Members of Parliament to step up and try to protect our people in the same manner. A copy of this objection will be distributed to the Parliamentary members named for their attention.
Regards
Chris Hennessy

The proposed over development in the Rochford area for 7,000 additional homes is absolutely ridiculous
We have lived in the Hockley area for the past 12 years and seen the volume of traffic on the local roads increase to an intolerable level with virtually no road improvements in that time
There would have to be a very substantial amount of infrastructure needed to cope with the additional proposed housing and for new roads put in as well as existing main roads upgraded
To avoid total gridlock and air pollution I suggest RDC should abandon the consultation now and not waste any further tax payers money with its crazy plans for our already overcrowded villages

I have taken the opportunity to have a look through the local plan which you currently have on your website. I would like to make some general comments and observations based mainly on the sustainability document and the proposed sites for development. it is mentioned that existing greenbelt and ancient woodland will be a consideration when making final decisions, but when viewing your maps it seems like most of the proposed sites are indeed on greenbelt, including area of woodland.

As an example of one of the greenbelt sites proposed I'd like to make points on the one that is closest to where I live. This would be the end of Victor gardens where I often walk my dog round Clements Hall itself and round to the playing fields beyond. I note that Greenacres and Meadowlands have put up their properties for development as well as the woodland to the left as you walk down the lane towards Clements Hall. This is, of course, a bridleway, so, firstly, how will the traffic created from such a development be conducive to the riders using this bridleway? Bridleways by definition are there to keep horses and riders away from the roads, so any development of the size proposed in this area will cause problems not only for the horses as the volume of traffic will be an issue for the whole of Victor Gardens - it's already a job for cars to negotiate their way up the
road because it is already full of parked cars and any further development will only create a bottleneck. My main concern, however, would be the removal of woodland that exists in this part of Victor Gardens. The survival of all our remaining woodland has to be a priority. Although this particular piece of woodland is privately owned , the very fact that people are not entering it allows the wildlife to exist as they should. On occasion I have heard owls in there and these little pockets or oasis's of woodland must be allowed to survive. It will be to our detriment if we don't look after it. I know that this part of Victor Gardens has had various planning applications put forward in the past and all have been rejected. These were based on far fewer houses than the current proposal, so if these were rejected how can this huge development plan be considered.

My overall observations on the developments we have had in the Rockford area so far is that the majority of the houses built are priced at the high end - where or, indeed, what is affordable housing? These houses are only accessible to high earners commuting to London or people moving out of London, Ilford, Romford etc. who can afford the very high prices being demanded for these properties. I see no chance for local people, who work locally being able to get anywhere near affording these properties. The people who benefit are the landowners and the developers, who obviously make a lot of money out of there developments. All we are doing is turning our greenbelt and communities into another superb of London. Sad but true.
Your document mentions a mix of houses to suit the needs of all sectors of the community. Well most of the developments I've seen - Beckley woods, the Christmas Tree Farm and Hall road a few examples - so very little evidence of this.

The Sustainability document goes on to mention the need for infrastructure requirements. The need to improve the local road network, to introduce new doctors surgery and schools. This is pretty obvious, but how can the local road system be improved? To my mind, and many others, it simply can't be improved. For example, Aldermans Hill and Hockley road is number to number every weekday evening from 4pm for a couple of hours at least. Road works with random traffic lights pop up everywhere and cause untold delays. In short, the local roads struggle to cope now - I see no way to avoid and escalation of this over the years.
We know doctors surgery are struggling to cope everywhere and I imagine existing schools will not be able to manage the intake of new pupils easily. I know there is a commitment to improved infrastructure, but there has been scant evidence of this in the developments we have had so far (Hall Road is a good example I believe) and I really wonder where the money for all this will come from. The developers? They have proved that they will do what they can to avoid this. The government? - nowhere near enough. Essex Count Council? - Again, nowhere near enough.

If anything, a village like development where schools, doctors and roads can be planned in conjunction with the building of the houses would be the most sensible approach, placing it in the most accessible location in the area. Brown field sites ( mostly old nurseries etc.) could also be developed. This will,obviously, always fall short of the 7,500 houses planned, but I think it's also obvious that the Rockford area can't sustain 7,500 houses, even if it is planned to take place over 20 years.

I know the council is just putting it out there and no sites have been confirmed, however, my conclusion is that the local plan appears to be no plan at all, and therefore I would like you to note my objection to this consultation at this stage.

Re. Future Housing Development.
I did not attend the recent Public Meeting but did attend a similar meeting last year ? I wish to comment as follows:-
In talking to Councillors I found their attitude towards New Housing Development in Wakering to be very negative i.e. " Wakering has not got the infrastructure to support new housing etc. etc. " My view Wakering could only benefit from new housing, " Where is the money to come from ? " , answer; From the new housing development and subsequent council tax. " new housing would only bring problems " Answer neighbouring Thorpe Bay for instance far outweighs Wakering in its housing density but it's a most sort after and desirable place to live.
Wakering needs to wake up from the " dark ages " ; recent snow and Shoebury Road (from Poynters Lane ) into Wakering was impassable... Poynters Lane itself is a disgrace, pedestrians, young children on bikes on their way home from school at dusk on what is not much better than an " unlit farm track ". The turn off into Poynters Lane from Star Lane on a very sharp almost blind bend has a faded turn right positional arrow painted on the road I shudder to think any body would dare position themselves as such. And to top it all this unlit Poynters Lane seems subject to flooding at the mere sight of rain.
Modernise Wakering with new Housing Projects ; Infrastructure will follow together with a new more vibrant community and economy, a better transport system and a better way of living. That's what New housing Development would bring to Wakering.
Are we a "nimby " council ? Please show we are not.

para 1.1 future 'of' our district.
par 1.3 'Silent' is ambiguous and subjective. How long is silent... a day... a month... a year...? How long is it before a local plan is deemed to be silent and therefore, could be ignored?
footnote 2 p1 typo
para 1.13 This is subjective. I'm sure what is valued by myself may not necessarily be valued by the council. Needs to consider emotional needs of landscape and not those of someone walking around with a clipboard.
para 1.14 Who does the Planning Inspector work for?
para 1.21 What happens if that fund is insufficient to meet the baseline infrastructure requirements?
para 3.2 Is there a map available of these designated areas?
para 3.3 The area 'is' home...
para 3.3 Contradicts with the characteristics of our district that have just been described. How can a district with very low unemployment and deprivation levels be a target area for improvement and regeneration? Why is our district not an exception within South Essex?
para 3.12 What plans and which schools? These need to be included or referred to in the document if not already done so.
para 3.14 We should be trying to keep it that way. This statement contradicts with the desire to build 7.5K houses.
para 3.14 This is a positive. Nothing wrong with this.
para 3.15 What are these actions and are they considerate with the desire to build 7.5k houses in the district?
para 3.16 Seems to contradict with the desire to build 7.5 houses
Our Communities p14 Re point 3, building more 4/5 bed houses does not address the concern of affordability, the new builds along Hall Road being a case in point - This is not sustainable development
para 3.22 Agreed. The developments at Hall Road and Folly Lane have not helped this trend.
para 4.4 I consider this a dangerous approach to take. It suggests that housing needs are being put before all other needs. I get the idea of 'policy off' and the requirement to identify housing need but this cannot be done in isolation. All needs must be considered, as a whole, if this is to work.
para 4.4 Again, has to be affordable and sustainable. No point in building 4/5 bed properties for 500k as will not meet objectives and will just add to an ageing population.
Challenge before para 4.6 The challenge will be delivering business that can afford to pay wages that allow residents to live in the district. This comes back to affordable housing. Your figures show that most residents commute to London; that is where the higher wages are paid.
para 4.6 Typo : Need to need to.
para 4.6 It is also critical if 7.5k homes are going to be built. They go hand in hand. Can't have one without the other which is what we're starting to see at Hall Road and Folly Lane where additional infrastructure is not being provided.
Challenge before para 4.7 It has to be long term strategic thinking, not short term for a short term quick hit win. Pride and self gain have to be put to one side and everyone needs to buy in to the long term vision, including developers, builders and land owners. This cannot be about personal gain and profit. If this isn't sustainable and the infrastructure isn't in place, we will have a post war planning disaster on our hands, which future generations will be left to deal with, by which time it will be too late.
Challenge before 4.8 Depends on who the neighbours are, and how similar the issues and challenges they face, are to those of our district. I would always encourage communication, collaboration and idea sharing but it has to be meaningful and strategic and not just doing it for the sake of it.
para 4.9 What is a sub-regional housing market area?
para 4.10 What about utilities infrastructure (energy) and education?
para 4.13 What does this mean in real terms? Does the burden fall on our district to meet the shortfall e.g. 7.5 k becomes 8k?
para 4.15 Typo... 'its'
Our Draft Vision before para 5.10 I support the Vision. However, the Vision should refer to affordable homes.
Strategic Objective 7I would like to see more support for local start ups instead of being swamped by more super brands like Sainsburys and Costas, to the detriment of local businesses.
p29 Tell Us More: I'm supportive of all the objectives but it is a balancing act between them.
People have to work in London because that is where most of the jobs are and which pay the wages to pay for the cost of an average size house in our district.
Creating jobs in the region that can pay equivalent wages is always going to be a challenge unless housing becomes more affordable for future generations.
I'm supportive of more play spaces. These are disappearing or access to them being removed.
Building 7.5k houses is in contradiction with the environmental objectives to a degree.
Tell Us More SP1.1 Everyone involved in this process needs to be mindful that this isn't about profit. It cannot be solely about profit if it is to be sustainable.
It needs a complete change of mindset from developers, builders and architects that this isn't about personal gain but about the future of our district.
I struggle to see, that in the current economic climate, a global development corporation would buy in to this ethos.
Figure 9: What region is this for? Our district or the East of England?
What is the scale along the y axis?
para 6.6 Excessive market level housing will drive up the cost of affordable housing, to the point where what was once affordable housing, no longer is.
para 6.7 Type : in 'for' the form
Table 2 What size are the homes? 10 bedroom mansions or one bed flats?
para 6.10 Not sure I understand what this statement is saying. What happens if the 'need' and 'target' differ significantly?
para 6.12 Not a sustainable approach.
para 6.13 Feels like a get out clause so that affordable housing can be conveniently ignored.

Issues and Options Document - Planning Committees Response
19th February 2018


The Planning Committee propose the following to be submitted as the Town Council's response to the Issues and Options Document. The review of the document was conducted by Cllrs Mrs D Mercer and R Shorter.

General Response

Rayleigh Town Council's Planning Committee suggest that the following items should be considered in relation to new plan. These are not given in any particular order

1) A new town/s should be considered within the District (or several new villages) on areas away from existing towns/villages. This would enable the planners to create something special (like the garden towns), with minimal disturbance/upheaval to the existing residents in the district. This would be easier on the road network by not clogging up already grid locked roads in the towns that you are considering expanding, reducing the emissions from stationary vehicles.

2) Any new dwellings created should have ample parking to omit the need to park on the road. The current rules allow only 2 parking spaces for above a 2 bed dwelling. In a smaller dwelling, this is usually fine. In a 5/6 bedroom dwelling this is not enough, and extra cars block the roads.

3) Garages on new builds are frequently being created smaller than adequate to house a modern vehicle. These "garages" are then promptly created into habitable rooms.

4) Affordable homes - or rather, homes that suit the needs of the smaller family. There has been a steady rise in the number of 4/5/6 bedroom dwellings being built and the "affordable" homes being mainly a block of 1 or 2 bed flats. Very few 1, 2 & 3 bed roomed houses are offered (apparently due to profit margins). Maybe this should be looked at in the way of subsidies if it cannot be enforced. We also need to allow local people to be able to live in the town they grew up in and not have to move miles away from their support network. The young also need to be able to move out of their family homes in order to grow into the adults they are.

5) More school places need to be created (pre-school to 6th Form), to accommodate the population growth anticipated from the creation of new estates.

6) New dwellings should have character, not be "generic boxes," to fill in the spaces with as many as possible, and should have ample gardens to avoid feeling 'closed in', improving mental health and wellbeing.

7) Facilities need to be provided regarding GP surgeries, Health/Medical Centres & Dentists. Investment in local hospitals.

8) Shopping facilities (areas that can be utilised for a small parade of outlets to facilitate retail shops such as; newsagent, convenience store, etc.)

9) Any new towns created should have cycle paths/bridleways, recreational grounds with possible sports facilities/buildings to facilitate clubs like Scouts/keep fit, etc. Areas that provide parks/skate parks/BMX tracks etc. for the youth . New estates should also provide cycle paths and allotment plots.

10) New dwellings should facilitate the use of solar in its design as well as other types of renewable energy schemes.

11) Existing road networks need to be improved for free flowing traffic, which will reduce the pollution of CO2 and Nitrate gasses. New roads, by-passes, improvements like widening of Arterial roads should be considered, with pressure put on the departments responsible.

12) An overhaul of the drainage networks (water/sewerage) so that they can accommodate new builds.

13) Retaining of a good border of Green belt between built up areas.

14) We need to provide more temporary accommodation for those made homeless.

15) We need to provide smaller units so that the elderly are able to 'downsize'. They would be in areas that is designated for them, and their houses would then be able to go into the housing stock (reducing the need for so many large houses to be built).

16) All development should be made to contribute to the infrastructure of the area in which it is being built (ie S106).

17) Create space for the building of nursing homes to deal with the increasing elderly population who need care (thus releasing homes to the open market).

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

19) Car parking facilities. There are simply not enough if existing towns are enlarged. New towns make it easier to create this

20) A larger and improved recycling facility to accommodate the increase in need.

21) Rawreth Lane is the only access road for Down Hall Park Way and, with an additional 3-400 houses, it is necessary to consider the provision of a second access road to ensure there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It was mentioned that a campaign for a new road had been conducted many years ago, however, this was rejected by Essex County Council. It is understood that the new housing estate will have an access road.

22) Essex County Council should ensure that all streets within new housing developments are adopted immediately on completion to allow traffic regulations to be introduced as necessary and street lighting adopted.
23) A new relief road should be built from the A130 to Shoeburyness in order to reduce congestion in Rayleigh town centre. It was noted that this scheme has been considered many years ago and rejected due to cost.









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:

Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do no look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.
If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference. I previously submitted a much more comprehensive plan for traffic management in the centre of Rayleigh which does address the congestion and air quality hot spots.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A
Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.

Issues and Options Document - Planning Committees Response
19th February 2018


The Planning Committee propose the following to be submitted as the Town Council's response to the Issues and Options Document. The review of the document was conducted by Cllrs Mrs D Mercer and R Shorter.

General Response

Rayleigh Town Council's Planning Committee suggest that the following items should be considered in relation to new plan. These are not given in any particular order

1) A new town/s should be considered within the District (or several new villages) on areas away from existing towns/villages. This would enable the planners to create something special (like the garden towns), with minimal disturbance/upheaval to the existing residents in the district. This would be easier on the road network by not clogging up already grid locked roads in the towns that you are considering expanding, reducing the emissions from stationary vehicles.

2) Any new dwellings created should have ample parking to omit the need to park on the road. The current rules allow only 2 parking spaces for above a 2 bed dwelling. In a smaller dwelling, this is usually fine. In a 5/6 bedroom dwelling this is not enough, and extra cars block the roads.

3) Garages on new builds are frequently being created smaller than adequate to house a modern vehicle. These "garages" are then promptly created into habitable rooms.

4) Affordable homes - or rather, homes that suit the needs of the smaller family. There has been a steady rise in the number of 4/5/6 bedroom dwellings being built and the "affordable" homes being mainly a block of 1 or 2 bed flats. Very few 1, 2 & 3 bed roomed houses are offered (apparently due to profit margins). Maybe this should be looked at in the way of subsidies if it cannot be enforced. We also need to allow local people to be able to live in the town they grew up in and not have to move miles away from their support network. The young also need to be able to move out of their family homes in order to grow into the adults they are.

5) More school places need to be created (pre-school to 6th Form), to accommodate the population growth anticipated from the creation of new estates.

6) New dwellings should have character, not be "generic boxes," to fill in the spaces with as many as possible, and should have ample gardens to avoid feeling 'closed in', improving mental health and wellbeing.

7) Facilities need to be provided regarding GP surgeries, Health/Medical Centres & Dentists. Investment in local hospitals.

8) Shopping facilities (areas that can be utilised for a small parade of outlets to facilitate retail shops such as; newsagent, convenience store, etc.)

9) Any new towns created should have cycle paths/bridleways, recreational grounds with possible sports facilities/buildings to facilitate clubs like Scouts/keep fit, etc. Areas that provide parks/skate parks/BMX tracks etc. for the youth . New estates should also provide cycle paths and allotment plots.

10) New dwellings should facilitate the use of solar in its design as well as other types of renewable energy schemes.

11) Existing road networks need to be improved for free flowing traffic, which will reduce the pollution of CO2 and Nitrate gasses. New roads, by-passes, improvements like widening of Arterial roads should be considered, with pressure put on the departments responsible.

12) An overhaul of the drainage networks (water/sewerage) so that they can accommodate new builds.

13) Retaining of a good border of Green belt between built up areas.

14) We need to provide more temporary accommodation for those made homeless.

15) We need to provide smaller units so that the elderly are able to 'downsize'. They would be in areas that is designated for them, and their houses would then be able to go into the housing stock (reducing the need for so many large houses to be built).

16) All development should be made to contribute to the infrastructure of the area in which it is being built (ie S106).

17) Create space for the building of nursing homes to deal with the increasing elderly population who need care (thus releasing homes to the open market).

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

19) Car parking facilities. There are simply not enough if existing towns are enlarged. New towns make it easier to create this

20) A larger and improved recycling facility to accommodate the increase in need.

21) Rawreth Lane is the only access road for Down Hall Park Way and, with an additional 3-400 houses, it is necessary to consider the provision of a second access road to ensure there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It was mentioned that a campaign for a new road had been conducted many years ago, however, this was rejected by Essex County Council. It is understood that the new housing estate will have an access road.

22) Essex County Council should ensure that all streets within new housing developments are adopted immediately on completion to allow traffic regulations to be introduced as necessary and street lighting adopted.
23) A new relief road should be built from the A130 to Shoeburyness in order to reduce congestion in Rayleigh town centre. It was noted that this scheme has been considered many years ago and rejected due to cost.









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:

Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do no look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.
If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference. I previously submitted a much more comprehensive plan for traffic management in the centre of Rayleigh which does address the congestion and air quality hot spots.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A
Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.

Issues and Options Document - Planning Committees Response
19th February 2018


The Planning Committee propose the following to be submitted as the Town Council's response to the Issues and Options Document. The review of the document was conducted by Cllrs Mrs D Mercer and R Shorter.

General Response

Rayleigh Town Council's Planning Committee suggest that the following items should be considered in relation to new plan. These are not given in any particular order

1) A new town/s should be considered within the District (or several new villages) on areas away from existing towns/villages. This would enable the planners to create something special (like the garden towns), with minimal disturbance/upheaval to the existing residents in the district. This would be easier on the road network by not clogging up already grid locked roads in the towns that you are considering expanding, reducing the emissions from stationary vehicles.

2) Any new dwellings created should have ample parking to omit the need to park on the road. The current rules allow only 2 parking spaces for above a 2 bed dwelling. In a smaller dwelling, this is usually fine. In a 5/6 bedroom dwelling this is not enough, and extra cars block the roads.

3) Garages on new builds are frequently being created smaller than adequate to house a modern vehicle. These "garages" are then promptly created into habitable rooms.

4) Affordable homes - or rather, homes that suit the needs of the smaller family. There has been a steady rise in the number of 4/5/6 bedroom dwellings being built and the "affordable" homes being mainly a block of 1 or 2 bed flats. Very few 1, 2 & 3 bed roomed houses are offered (apparently due to profit margins). Maybe this should be looked at in the way of subsidies if it cannot be enforced. We also need to allow local people to be able to live in the town they grew up in and not have to move miles away from their support network. The young also need to be able to move out of their family homes in order to grow into the adults they are.

5) More school places need to be created (pre-school to 6th Form), to accommodate the population growth anticipated from the creation of new estates.

6) New dwellings should have character, not be "generic boxes," to fill in the spaces with as many as possible, and should have ample gardens to avoid feeling 'closed in', improving mental health and wellbeing.

7) Facilities need to be provided regarding GP surgeries, Health/Medical Centres & Dentists. Investment in local hospitals.

8) Shopping facilities (areas that can be utilised for a small parade of outlets to facilitate retail shops such as; newsagent, convenience store, etc.)

9) Any new towns created should have cycle paths/bridleways, recreational grounds with possible sports facilities/buildings to facilitate clubs like Scouts/keep fit, etc. Areas that provide parks/skate parks/BMX tracks etc. for the youth . New estates should also provide cycle paths and allotment plots.

10) New dwellings should facilitate the use of solar in its design as well as other types of renewable energy schemes.

11) Existing road networks need to be improved for free flowing traffic, which will reduce the pollution of CO2 and Nitrate gasses. New roads, by-passes, improvements like widening of Arterial roads should be considered, with pressure put on the departments responsible.

12) An overhaul of the drainage networks (water/sewerage) so that they can accommodate new builds.

13) Retaining of a good border of Green belt between built up areas.

14) We need to provide more temporary accommodation for those made homeless.

15) We need to provide smaller units so that the elderly are able to 'downsize'. They would be in areas that is designated for them, and their houses would then be able to go into the housing stock (reducing the need for so many large houses to be built).

16) All development should be made to contribute to the infrastructure of the area in which it is being built (ie S106).

17) Create space for the building of nursing homes to deal with the increasing elderly population who need care (thus releasing homes to the open market).

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

19) Car parking facilities. There are simply not enough if existing towns are enlarged. New towns make it easier to create this

20) A larger and improved recycling facility to accommodate the increase in need.

21) Rawreth Lane is the only access road for Down Hall Park Way and, with an additional 3-400 houses, it is necessary to consider the provision of a second access road to ensure there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It was mentioned that a campaign for a new road had been conducted many years ago, however, this was rejected by Essex County Council. It is understood that the new housing estate will have an access road.

22) Essex County Council should ensure that all streets within new housing developments are adopted immediately on completion to allow traffic regulations to be introduced as necessary and street lighting adopted.
23) A new relief road should be built from the A130 to Shoeburyness in order to reduce congestion in Rayleigh town centre. It was noted that this scheme has been considered many years ago and rejected due to cost.









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:

Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do no look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.
If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference. I previously submitted a much more comprehensive plan for traffic management in the centre of Rayleigh which does address the congestion and air quality hot spots.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A
Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 - APP. B, MAP Q
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF:-
FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - GT. WAKERING
1. Gt. Wakering is once again in the spotlight for new housing developments. The Star Lane Brickworks site is more or less complete. There are 2 more sites in the pipeline. The next will be land south of the High Street adjacent to the Star Lane Development. SER9b. After this SER9a - Land west of the Little Wakering Road.
2. Any new housing development will put additional pressures on the local amenities & infrastructure.
3. All developments in Gt. Wakering will make demands on its schools/medical facilities/transport/roads.
4. All statements on the latest documentation state that Amenities are either Excellent or Good
5. Already the parents of the rising 5's are being refused the local school of their choice. There are no obvious choices for alternatives in the catchment area. Local research on the Star Lane site has revealed that parents have in the main chosen to keep their children at their previous schools. It has to be said that many of these new arrivals are former Rochford residents, so for the time being the problem has not been identified.
6. The medical facilities whilst reasonable at the moment are under daily pressures. This will not ease even if the local developments are limited to the current 3 approved sites.
7. The development of the Garrison Site in Shoeburyness has vastly increased the traffic using the cross country roads from the Anne Boleyn Pub on the Rochford Road, Sutton Road, Shopland Road, to the Rose Inn Pub at Silchester Corner. Traffic then turns left onto the Southend Road, onto Star Lane, Poynters Lane to Wakering Road & the Garrison Site.
8. NO NEW ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE AREA TO ALLEVIATE THE INCREASING TRAFFIC FLOW DURING THIS EXPANSION PROGRAMME!
9. Neither Gt. Wakering nor Shoebury have benefitted in any significant way. The land from the old school 'Hinguar', has been turned into a 'Housing Development'. The new school was a necessity not a luxury!
10. Access & Egress for residents of Gt. Wakering all converge on the High Street/Shoebury Road and also now Star Lane. The residents of Alexandra Road already suffer daily chaos with Street Parking which was acutely aggravated by the development at its Southern End - Meeson Meadows.
11. Sufficient new housing needs to be available & affordable for local people. Two bedroom properties might improve the 'statistics' but do nothing for parents with 2 children of different sexes. The prices of the 2 bedroom properties on Star Lane, £300k towards the end of the development, will only attract well paid London workers! Again, a windfall for the developers but demoralising for local people. The consultation which took place in the village in the 1980's made a point of saying it wanted more affordable housing. It hasn't happened!
(1)
RDC STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 APP B
SPECIFIC COMMENTS RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Planning ref. CFS 153 - Land between Common Road & Chapel Lane
* This site is on the Dept. Of Environment's Flood Plain Map. We have been residents at this property for 40yrs. Over the past 5years it has become an increasing problem to obtain Household Insurance (Buildings & Contents). In fact many Insurers will not even quote!

* The proposed site is bordered on the Chapel Lane side by a 'Foul Water ditch'. This ditch takes the run off from the High Street.

* Although by law the land owner is required to maintain this ditch no attempt has been made to support a free running flow of water.

* In 2016 Anglian Water had to create a new run-off from properties in Newstead Road where rear gardens were flooding on a regular basis . This new pipeline enters the Foul Water ditch opposite our property.

* Heavy rainfall already causes localised flooding on Chapel Lane. By building on this land the current problem is likely to be exacerbated because of the loss of natural drainage.

* We would not support the development of this site!

2 .Planning refs. CFS 070, CFS 065, CFS 011,GF 03
* These sites all fall within the existing recognised boundaries of the village of Gt. Wakering.
* CFS 065 quite possibly falls within the Dept of the Environment's Flood Plain Map. Therefore householders will experience problems in obtaining Household Insurance, This is already a problem for householders on the most recent development off Seaview Drive.

* The same problems with regards to Infrastructure/Medical facilities/Schools & Transport will apply to these developments if granted Planning Permission.

3.Planning ref. CFS 057

* This site appears to encompass all the remaining land bounded by Star Lane, Poynters Lane & Alexandra Road & includes the Wild Life Site.

* Substantial improvements to the Access & Egress appear to be vital. However, In the past, Rochford District Council has always maintained that it was against any Access /Egress onto Poynters Lane as it would effectively join Gt. Wakering to Southend on Sea. Will this Policy change? If so, at what cost to the residents?
(2)
4. Planning refs. CFS 097, CFS 034, CFS 056

* All 3 of these proposed Housing Development sites lie to the South of Poynters Lane. Although technically within the Rochford District boundaries they will greatly increase the urbanisation of the existing Shoebury Housing Estates.

* Potentially creating problems for Southend on Sea, Unitary Authority as stated above.

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

The current planned developments under SER9b will add 400 new housing units to a village of approximately 2500 dwellings. This Community does not have access to a User FriendlyTransport system. There is no public transport to Shoeburyness Station for commuters. The existing bus routes now take much longer to reach Southend Central Bus Station due to re-routing. The last bus during the week does not support shift workers with evening & night shifts. Several hundred more vehicles (from the current developments) will be added to the already inadequate road structure. There appears to be a tendency when evaluating the local amenities (as per this latest plan) to assess them as being Excellent or Good. Even Good is stretching it a bit. This latest proposal would clearly see new units in excess of 1000 being added to the already saturated area. Just because it is a Greenfield shouldn't mean it's an easy target for Developers & Councils alike!
It will not be possible to support any of these proposals without a substantial investment in the local infrastructure.