Delivering our Need for Homes

I am encouraged that the Council is developing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Para 1.21 page 5). This is vital to the success of the new Local Plan and addresses the concerns repeatedly raised by residents that the existing infrastructure (roads, schools, health services, etc) are insufficient to cope with further development.
With the 'duty to co-operate' those responsible for providing the infrastructure to support the new plan must provide estimates of the costs, locations and timings required to deliver the necessary infrastructure to support the plan. I would therefore support the following options in the paper:-
* Para 9.11 Page 103 option B - Ensure land is specifically allocated for healthcare
* Para 9.29 Page 108 option B - ensure land is specifically allocated for schools
* Para 9.36 Page 114 option B - Ensure land is specifically allocated for Schools, early years and childcare
I would also include requirements for other elements of infrastructure, in particular roads.
The total of all infrastructure costs will then be able to inform the amount of money needed to deliver the Plan and inform the calculation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (see below). The locations will enable the Plan to designate particular parts of proposed sites for infrastructure. For example, earmarking land alongside existing roads to be used for cycle paths, or land for new schools. The timings will also inform the Council when funding will be needed and whether this can be obtained by the CIL at that time.
2. Community Infrastructure Levy
The paper identifies section 106 agreements as a possible source of provision for infrastructure. Although such agreements can be made there is a belief that Developers are disaggregating developments in an attempt to avoid the costs, thereby leaving local councils to pick up the bill. The CIL, however, can be applied to all new houses and in many ways reflects a fairer way of funding changes caused by developments.
The CIL guidance suggests that Landowners are ultimately responsible for the CIL. It is a fact of life that the value of land increases significantly once planning permission is granted for a development. Even the inclusion in the plan as a preferred site will affect the value of the land. Therefore the Council needs to assess the current value of all land being considered for development so that if necessary a proportion of the 'gain' can be clawed back when development commences. Moreover, having established the total additional cost of infrastructure through the Infrastructure Delivery plan it would be possible to assign to each preferred development site a target contribution to the CIL.
Concerns have been raised that developers could try to avoid their responsibilities by declaring a development 'not viable' because of the costs of the CIL. However, providing the target as part of the local plan will make it clear what costs are involved and these can be addressed in any negotiations between the Landowner and the Developer.
Guidance on the CIL allows for a great deal of flexibility in how the levy is set. For example, it could be based on the overall size of the development or there could be rebates given to encourage provision of social housing. The Council needs to develop a 'Charging Schedule' in consultation with developers and other interested parties and again this will provide advanced notice which will allow Developers to bring forward plans that reflect the aims of the Council and the profitability of the development. To that end the Core Strategy policy CLT1 mention in Para 8.75 9, Page 99 needs to be reviewed
3. Mix and style of housing
The plan proposes a formula for the mix of housing types required and it is important that, particularly the major developments, offer the full range from small flats to large houses. The paper states (para 6.58 page 48) that the current policy (H5) on types of home provides flexibility to respond to market needs. If this is working I see no need for a more prescriptive approach and would therefore reject Option B in para 6.58 and also option E in Para 6.9.
Para 6.14 suggests the demand for residential care homes and sheltered housing is decreasing. At the same time the elderly population is said to be increasing. Given this apparent contradiction it would seem best to ''leave it to the market' to decide where and when such homes are needed. To that extent I would support the option A in para 6.36, page 41 and treat each application on its merits. My only proviso would be to ask (under the duty to co-operate) if the local healthcare providers or Essex County Council planned to provide such facilities in the district.
The Council's current policy on housing density sets a minimum of 30 houses per hectare. This equates to a maximum plot size of 333 M2 . This leaves little outside space for children to play in and provides little privacy for residents. There is a suggestion that this housing density could be increased particularly in existing residential areas. However, I believe the overcrowding and consequent impact on existing infrastructure would be detrimental to the quality of life of local residents and should be resisted. I would therefore strongly object to increasing the minimum density as proposed in options A and B in para 6.48 on page 45.
4. Residential development sites
Table 2 Page 32 and Table 3 page 33 and the maps in Appendix B and C have raised fears of uncontrolled development across the district. The recently circulated FAQs attempt to clarify the position and it may be beneficial for the Council to circulate these FAQs wider. Nevertheless the additional requirement of 4,600 to 5,200 represents a significant increase which will be difficult to absorb. Whilst this may be an 'off policy' number, if it represents the Objectively Assessed Need the Planning Inspector will expect the plan to show how it can be delivered.
The current plan has been unable to achieve its annual target of 250 new homes per year (Para 6.18 page 35). Therefore there must be some doubt as to whether the proposed target around 360 per year can be achieved over the next 20 years. The Council needs to investigate why the target is being missed and what it can (or cannot) do to improve matters.
There is a desire by the Council to focus new development within existing developed areas. However, as noted above, residents are concerned that, in particular, existing road infrastructure is unable to support current demand let alone that implied by the proposed developments. Furthermore, in many cases (for example residential estates) it is simply not possible to make improvements. I would therefore suggest that in considering whether or not to make a site a preferred site the council adopts a policy to 'reject any site with potential for more than say 10 - 15 houses (or 1/3 Hectare) that only has access through residential side streets or narrow lanes'
It is similarly not possible to make improvements to many of the main roads through the district although in general they have a greater capacity than the side roads. It may therefore be possible for 'the Council (subject to other considerations) to include sites for upto say 100 houses (or 3 hectares) which have direct access onto a main road'.
The council should also adopt a policy that 'Sites capable of delivering more than 100 houses should only be included where they are on the fringes of existing developments and have direct access to main roads where traffic would normally be directed away from those developments.
Finally, given the difficulties of making significant improvements to roads in the district I would recommend a policy that no sites should be included that deliver more than 500 houses'.
5. Green Belt
The plan states (Para 3.2 Page 9) that of the 16800 hectares of land covered by the district some 12481 are classified as green belt. It is not clear how much of the remaining land would be available for development but presumably much of it is already developed. It is also noticeable that very few of the proposed sites are not classified as being in the green belt area.
Para 6.38 (page 42) implies that there is already an acceptance that a small amount of green belt land (upto 1%) may need to be sacrificed to meet the need for new housing. Whilst this is regrettable, 1% of 12,481 hectares would yield 124 hectares of land which could accommodate around 3,750 houses. It should be possible, with some careful consideration, to identify a range of areas across the district that could be used. I would therefore support Option B in para 10.16 Page 124 to amend the current green belt policy.
6. Employment provision
Whilst I understand the Council's desire to improve employment opportunities in the district there is limited opportunity for them to achieve some of the aims set out in the paper. A significant proportion of the population commute into London and although the costs are high so are the salaries. Moreover they commute to London because the type of job they desire can only be found in London. Firms based in London do so because they have a large catchment area for staff and would be unlikely to limit this by relocating to Essex.
The Paper recognises the various existing employment areas but seems unsure what should be done with them. There have some thoughts about releasing the land for housing but the example of Star Lane (P64) shows that is not necessarily easy. Moreover, it seems perverse to remove employment space whilst trying to encourage business to set up in the District. Perhaps the problem is not so much with the allocation of land but the type of facilities that are provided and access to the sites.
Mention is made of the Brook Road estate in Rayleigh. This was designed in an era where large manufacturing facilities were required. They are unsuitable for the type of 'high end' businesses that we need to attract and the Council should perhaps be encouraging the property owners to redevelop the various sites to meet the new demands.
Purdey's Way has a number of businesses that use large lorries to collect and deliver to the site. However the surrounding roads were built when lorries were much smaller and it is difficult to see how the roads can be improved to accommodate such vehicles. Perhaps the Council should work with these businesses to find better and more accessible locations for their businesses whilst at the same time discouraging similar businesses from opening where access is difficult.
There is also a recognition of the need to provide 'grow- on' space for business expansion. This important as any business when faced with a need for more space will look at a range of options and may well decide to move out of the area. Again the Council's options are limited and encouraging property owners to redevelop sites to meet the perceived need may be all that can be achieved.

WE OBJECT TO BOTH THE SCALE AND NATURE OF THE OUTLINED PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL 7,500 PROPERTIES WITHIN OUR LOCAL AREA. WE GIVE THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT REASONS

- NO matching funding for a supported infrastructure has been offered and this is essential before anything should be considered.

- NO guarantees that utilities can match extra demands

- NO spare capacity within Health and Social Care Services

- NO let up in the sacrifice of green belt and air quality

- NO long term legacy left for our future generations.


Mr & Mrs B Slemmonds

Having viewed the potential sites for development, I was dismayed at the high level of development in Hullbridge.

We already have a large development in the pipeline at Malyons Farm, which will put a great strain on local amenities. If this new proposal does get the green light traffic will be unbearable into the village.

I am particularly concerned that these proposals will change the whole fabric of the village. In fact it will not be a village, but yet another example of urban town sprawl, and the community spirit and identity that we now enjoy will be lost forever.

Just recently, a 2 page spread in the Echo, identified Hullbridge as being a rare jewel in South Essex. How much longer will it be able to claim that title?

The main area of concern centres around the proposals along the rural Pooles Lane in particular, and those butting the River Crouch itself. Development in these areas would be nothing more than outrageous.

Please consider the impact on what is a village community, especially those developments that are to the north of the village, and which would attract into the village awful traffic problems, that could result in possible accidents where there is a high concentration of elderly folk who live in the caravan parks, and children from the school.

Re proposed site for housing development. Map E, CFS127 Between Now and 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

On behalf of Bartletts residents and myself I would like to make known most strongly my objections to this proposed future development for the following reasons.

This is green belt land dividing Rayleigh with Southend which is also a natural flood plain with I believe a zone 2 flood risk with part of the Prittle Brook running through it East/West to drain water.

There is a sewage pumping station at the bottom of Bartletts to move wast to the North of Eastwood Road.

The only access would be Bartletts, a quiet residential road, as it would not be ideal for access from A127. Sometimes in winter snow it's almost impossible to drive out of Bartletts due to the hill onto Eastwood Road, most residents get together using shovels.

Other reasons are self evident, local infrastructure, Congestion, etc.

CFS 127 EASTWOOD NURSERIES OFF BARTLETTS SS67LN

While I understand & support the need for areas to be developed for additional housing the above area adjacent to where I live in Bartletts is my opinion is unsuitable for
the following reasons :

1. This area which the Prittelewell Brook runs through flooded badly on 24/08/2013 as described in the Evening Echo newspaper dated 27/08/2013.

2. Access is a problem when turning right during busy periods. The top of Bartletts sits on the brow of a hill and there is a blind spot to oncoming traffic approaching from Eastwood.

My wife and I during busy periods can only turn left out the of the close during for safety reasons.

3. I have lived here for over 20 years and we always told by RDC that this area was sensitive green belt buffer zone dividing the Rayleigh area from the Eastwood/Southend
urban sprawl. i.e. If developed there will no green break, just continued housing development.

I hope you consider these points.

Section: Land Availability Ass.
Option: Greenbelt Land
Paragraph: 2

As stated in my previous letter we chose to purchase a house in 'Bartletts' from the 'drawing board' being assured at that time by the then 'Rayleigh' District Council that the land which is a beautiful greenfield to the rear of Bartletts would remain greenbelt. We moved into Bartletts in 1971 and brought up our family of four in these pleasant surroundings. Over the years there have been so many changes in Rayleigh. We lost our cinema and proposed gym to Clements Hall when Rochford Council took over and now have so few facilities for young people.

I am unclear as to the access proposed to site "CES127" but can assure you access onto Eastwood Road from Bartletts at peak times of the day can be so busy!! I worked for many years at Rochford and Southend hospitals and to turn right at the exit from Bartletts was frustrating eleven years ago and must be much worse now!!

We all know what strains we have with regard to existing infrastructure especially doctors and hospitals.

Am now a widow since eleven years and am well aware of the need to house young families. We all benefit from what pleasant open space remains. Please Rochford Council protect what little greenbelt remains.

Subject: Proposed Development - CFS127

Dear Sirs

I respond to your letter. I strongly disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons. I am a local resident (Rayleigh Downs Road):

* This is a vital piece of greenbelt between boundaries of Rayleigh and Southend. It should remain as greenbelt.
* It has poor access. No proposed access points are suitable.
* It is right on A127, and therefore access to this road is dangerous, due to fast moving traffic. Traffic cannot be enterting the A127 from development or Rayleigh Downs Road - deadly.
* The roads are narrow and could not cope.
* Congestion would also occur
* The whole area floods quickly and regularly - a big issue, as low lying flood plane.
* This development would impact greatly on residents of Bartletts and Rayleigh Downs Road.

This is very upsetting news and has impacted residents, many of whom are elderly.

Rochford D Council are well known for taking no notice of residents wishes and opinions so here goes anyway:

A huge majority of residents feel the entire district is already (January 2018) over populated with poorly maintained and vastly inadequate INFRASTRUCTURE. What is the point of concreting over precious farmland and green areas to build houses, without improving the already over strained GP surgeries, schools, hospitals and roads that are often gridlocked now. Road traffic surveys are woefully out of date and inaccurate. If you listened to the residents our option is NO MORE BUILDING at least in the Rochford District at all, at least until all the above is vastly improved, other nearby council districts have their share of the new housing quota.

There is no point to creating a few new jobs, if driving to them on our appalling roads is a nightmare.

I would like to object to any residential development close to the River Crouch under

NEW LOCAL PLAN SITE
CFS099 LAND TO WEST OF HULLBRIDGE

THE AREA IS A VERY LARGE FLOOD PLAIN
THE BOTTOM OF THE FIELD IS WELL BELOW THE HIGH TIDE LEVEL.
SEA DEFENCES, ALONG THIS STRECH OF RIVER ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A MUD HILL FOR HUNDREDS OF YARDS

I HAVE LIVED IN THE ESPLANADE FOR 12 YEARS AND THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY HAVE ISSUED FLOOD WARNINGS
4 TIMES TO RESIDENTS, DUE TO NORTH SEA TIDAL SURGES. . .
AND VERY WORRYINGLY, THE ESPLANADE IS AT AN EVEN HIGHER ELEVATION THAN THE SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT SITE.

GREEN BELT LAND SIMPLY SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED FOR SUCH AN UNSUITABLE PLAN

I FEEL THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD BE BETTER BUILT ELSWHERE.
THIS AREA HAS POOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND THOSE ROADS CLOSE TO THE SUGGESTED SITE ARE NOTORIOUS FOR FLOODING.
THERE ARE NO SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE VACINITY FOR SO MANY HOUSES TO BE BUILT
AND NO TRAIN STATION WITHIN WALKABLE DISTANCE NEARBY.

I WOULD THEREFORE LIKE TO STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS INAPPROPRIATE POSSIBLE DEVEOPMENT

To whom it may concern:
I've tried to access your online opinions form to no success. So decided to email my views across to you.
The amount of proposed housing developments is shocking. I fully understand houses being needed, but the amount of sites that have been declared will destroy the whole village.
The community will suffer as the roads in and out will struggle with the machinery, building works and additional residents.
Poynters Lane will suffer with congestion.
My garden backs on to the proposed site of:
CFS065
Not only would it make us feel more congested down my end of the village, but you will be loosing the character of what we moved for. Being rural in the countryside being able to go for a walk and not hear traffic, machines. Hearing nature giving my children life experiences that can not be replicated. Respecting the nature around them and the life they have.
What is being declared as possible sites will ruin yet another wonderful part of the United Kingdom's countryside, if we continue to destroy these beautiful places by squeezing 30 houses on to an hectare then children of the future won't even know what the countryside is and there will be none left to show them. Surely moving with the times is enabling residents now and future to be able to have time away from the busy modern hustle bustle city days and escape to somewhere as peaceful and quite as Wakering.

OBJECTION: REF CFS024 MAP G, 119. To the land north of Merryfeilds Avenue being offered for consideration as a proposed building site.
I am writing to you to express my concerns over this area being considered in your Development Plan, as an area for possible development. I live in Brackendale Close and so my garden borders onto this land. I have lived here for 11 years and so I am able to comment on the abundance of wildlife that exists. The animals, birds, insects and reptiles that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into land and provides a peaceful nesting site for them. In my garden I have witnessed a multitude of birds, including birds of prey, and various reptiles such as, grass snakes, slow worms, toads and salamanders. In the summer months bats (a protected species) can be most evenings circling in the gardens. Any development of this land would have a drastic effect on the wildlife living there, as it would disturb their natural habitats and nesting areas.
Alongside this I am also concerned about the effect that the building of more houses would have on the prospect of flooding. In heavy rain my garage is constantly flooded and I feel at risk of my house being also flooded. The garden and woodland are used as a natural soakaway. In the flooding in Hockley of August 2013, with the bone-dry earth in my garden, approximately two feet of water collected at the bottom of my land and was only able to disperse through the woodland. Without this drainage I would almost certainly have experienced flooding throughout my ground floor.
This estate is a small, quiet, residential area and the access to the proposed site is very limited. This will undoubtedly cause traffic problems and pose risks to the families that live here. Development would cause tremendous disruption and the onset of heavy vehicles in a small confined area is extremely dangerous. Please could you consider the alarming impact that development of the site will cause both the wildlife and residents of the area.

I am writing to you to express my concerns over this area being considered in your Development Plan, as an area for possible development. I live in Brackendale Close and so my garden borders onto this land. I have lived here for 23 years and so I am able to comment on the abundance of wildlife that exists. The animals, birds, insects and reptiles that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into land and provides a peaceful nesting site for them. In my garden I have witnessed a multitude of birds, including birds of prey, and various reptiles such as, grass snakes, slow worms, toads and salamanders. In the summer months bats (a protected species) can be seen most evenings circling in the gardens. Any development of this land would have a drastic effect on the wildlife living there, as it would disturb their natural habitats and nesting areas.
Alongside this, I am also concerned about the effect that the building of more houses would have on the prospect of flooding. In heavy rain my drive is constantly flooded and I feel at risk of my house being also flooded.
We lost the whole contents of our house due to the flood of 2013 and this has left me feeling so worried every time we have heavy rain. The garden and woodland are used as a natural soakaway. In the flooding in Hockley of August 2013, with the bone-dry earth in my garden, approximately two feet of water collected at the bottom of my land which was only able to disperse through the woodland. Without this drainage I would undoubtedly be flooded again.
This estate is a small, quiet, residential area and the access to the proposed site is very limited. This will undoubtedly cause traffic problems and pose risks to the families that live here. Development would cause tremendous disruption and the onset of heavy vehicles in a small confined area is extremely dangerous. Please could you consider the alarming impact that development of the site will cause both the wildlife and residents of the area.

I am sure that most residents in the rochford catchment are aware that we need new housing for our children and great childrchildren ,but i cannot understand why we are going down the route of disruption in many locations causing all sorts of misery .

Why have we not persued a new garden city as we are surrounded by several farms who would willingly sell their land .

This would keep all of the conctruction works in one location instead of several sites

I would like to comment on the proposed plans to build houses in Hockley, Hulllbridge and Ashingdon.
None of these areas have the space to take any part of the 9,000 houses proposed. Anyone attempting to travel by road in any of these areas in peak time (school, rush hour) find themselves subject to long delays. How can you add to this!

We are on the approach road to Westerings School and plan our journeys not to coincide with the school run as trying to access our drive at these times is impossible and often results in friction.

Thus: more houses equals more people equals more motorised vehicles equals more hold-ups and more difficulty in moving around the above areas.

We do appreciate the District Council is being pressurised by the Government but a reduction in the above numbers has to be seriously considered. One final point is how much more growth is required to turn Hockley 'village' into an over populated town.

Dear Sir or Madam
I am mailing in relation the the above consultation. I would have much preferred to make my comments in a drop-in session but Hullbridge was denied this facility.

I am a Hullbridge resident and have been in the Village (soon to be a small town I fear) for 20 years.

I am actually quite supportive of some growth within Hullbridge, but this should all be sustainable. Beyond the current 500 homes recently approved I do feel that the infrastructure in and around the Village will struggle to accommodate more homes.

Watery Lane is woefully inadequate currently and this will only get worse if more homes come - I understand that parts of this thoroughfare are under the control of a different council - regardless of this, any developer getting the benefit of building and profiting greatly from building hundreds of houses they should contribute to improving infrastructure coming into Hullbridge regardless of the council that would benefit from the road investment.

Of particular concern to me are the plots reference CFS 099 and CFS 149 - they are simply massive! On top of the 500 homes I do feel that any further growth to Hullbridge should be far smaller - not increasing the number of houses by well over 20%.

I also believe that a significant part of CFS099 is on land at severe flood risk. We currently suffer from a lot of surface water running across our property down to the river and are concerned that any raising of land on the northern perimeter of CFS099 would increase the flood risk of our own property - I would be interested to know how any increased insurance premiums would be subsidised by the Developers should the plan be approved, or worse still what legal recourse I would have should my property become un-insurable.

I wish to register my comments as part of the public consultation.
I understand that the local plan is for a total of 7,500 properties in Rochford District, which is in addition to those that already have planning permission granted. My general view is as follows:-

1. That 7,500 is far too many houses in an area that has already had a large number of houses recently built or due to be built. I believe that the total number should be, say, around 3,000 spread evenly at a rate of 150 per annum.
2. House numbers for individual sites should be restricted to no more than 20 per site to enable local builders to complete these and keep investment in the local area. Small developments will reduce the impact on each area avoiding the sudden large increase in population that can have a massive negative effect in an existing residential area.
3. No new sites should be granted planning permission for more than, say, four properties until all existing sites with planning have been completed.
4. Before any site allocations or planning permissions are granted as part of the new local plan, there should be a thorough review in order to accurately identify: a) What type of properties are required b) In which locations are they required c) What services are available to cater for the new occupants and the expected impact on those services
5. Given that the Rochford District is already so built-up and congested, there is no scope for additional arterial roads to get new occupants away to centres of employment, therefore impact of traffic from each new development needs serious consideration and should be a major deciding factor in determining whether a site(or combination of sites) is acceptable.
6. Although dependent on the review mentioned in 4 above, there appears to be a general acceptance that there is a real need for starter homes. Therefore there should be a greater emphasis on building one and two bedroom units. Rather than a site only needing, say, 30% allocation of units built to be affordable, the 30% should apply to the number of bedrooms(NOT residential units) being built on that site.
7. Although dependent on the review in 4 above, consideration should be made for building properties suitable for those aged over 50 eg two bedroom properties with good-sized living accommodation, to encourage them to move out of their 3/4/5 bedroom properties.
8. Sustainability should be at the forefront of any new sites so all properties should have solar panels/tiles, heat pumps and maximum heat insulation wherever feasible.

With regard to specific sites I would comment as follows:-
- there should be no development on Belchamps Scout camp as that is a valuable local/regional amenity that should not be lost. In addition, any development there would negatively impact on the ancient woodland( Hockley Woods).
- the farmland adjacent to Mount Bovers Lane should not be built on as it has a special landscape
appearance and is a natural buffer around that part of Hawkwell.
- there should be no new development on Hall Road or Cherry Orchard Lane as that will add to the massive traffic increase(ie major congestion) and strain on local amenities, that is an inevitable consequence from the current site on Hall Road( as well as the already completed Christmas Tree Farm site) especially impacting the main road through Hockley and Hawkwell. Cherry Orchard Way was built as a relief road and it defeats the purpose if housing is built on that road.
- there can be no benefit to the respective high streets if the car parks in Hockley or Rayleigh were turned over to development.
- there should be no further large developments, ie over 20 properties, along/ accessing Ashingdon Road as that road can not cope with the current traffic levels, nor can the schools cope.
- there should be no development at Meadowbrook Farm as that is a natural green space around the edge of Rochford ie should remain as greenbelt.

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 object to both the scale and the 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 & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

I think your plan is over ambitious and you seriously need to think about the impact on the infrastructure and green belt land to the proposals you are putting forward.

Site address: Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood, SS9 5.

Access to this site via Sandhill Road is not suitable as this road is far too narrow to accommodate through traffic plus the fact there are no footpaths. Also, if access was via Tudor Close it would cause chaos with traffic entering Gravel Road especially at school times. The surrounding roads cannot cope with any more traffic. For these reasons we feel this site is unsuitable for development.

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

Map Q

I am against any further development in this area - we already have several areas under development, either already being built or scheduled to do so.

Reasons for my objections:
1. No indication regarding future school facilities - present junior one needs extra space, plus the extra cost to transport children to the senior school in Rochford.

2. No indication regarding future health facilities - present health centre is running to full capacity. Appointments are hard to make and I have actually joined a queue before opening time to ensure I can get an appointment to see my doctor.

3. There have been problems in the past with sewerage unable to cope - no indication that this is being addressed.

4. Roads already congested - this can only get worse with future development.

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.

Dear Sir/Madam

Rochford local plan - Issues and Options

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your issues and options document produced as part of your new local plan. We have provided comments related to our remit.

Section 6 - Delivery homes and jobs

We welcome option A, supporting the effective use of brown sites, provided they are not of high environmental value. The justification for such a policy should set out how the local authority will deal with any contamination issues to ensure the protection of human health, ecological systems, property and the environment. The policy should refer to a tired approach to the development of contaminated land which meets good practice (CLR 11). We suggest the policy which outlines the steps to be taken for dealing with contamination, as detailed below

 A preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) which has identied all previous uses and contaminants associated with those uses. A conceptual model of the site identifying sources, pathways and receptors and any unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

 A site investigation and detailed assessment of risk to all potential receptors both on and off the site.
 An options appraisal and remediation strategy giving details of remediation measures proposed and how they will be undertaken.
 A verification report demonstrating completion of the remedial works.

Section 6.6.1.- Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

We feel this section should include the flood risk posed to pitches that maybe occupied by Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use are classed as Highly Vulnerable. 'Highly vulnerable' development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3 and the Exception Test is required in Flood Zone 2. If users of the development function as residents rather than holiday makers, in the event of a flood, they may have no other place of residence available and could lose all of their possessions. You should consider the flood zone 'compatibility' in accordance with Table 3 of the PPG.

Section 6.79 - Houseboats and Liveaboards

We feel that the houseboat section should include information in regards to flood
risk.
Although boats are water compatible, if the use of the boat is to be residential we
would then classify the development use as 'More Vulnerable'. Table 3 of the PPG
makes clear that this type of development is not compatible with Flood Zone 3b and
should not therefore be permitted. However if LPA confirmed they would classify
houseboats as 'water compatible' we would review our position.

We feel this section should also consider the pollution potential of houseboats. Our
main concern with the use of houseboats is the potential for waste water (including
but not limited to sewage) being discharged from boats into the environment. The
nutrients therein have the potential to cause deterioration of the water quality and
have a knock-on impact on the ecology and wildlife. We therefore ask that any policy on houseboats seeks to ensure that waste water is disposed of by a method other than direct discharge, and that it is passed through appropriate treatment before discharge to the environment. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas are identified within the plan but it should be noted that the Crouch and Roach estuaries are used for shellfish cultivation which is reliant on good water quality. A
deterioration in water quality could impact on this business and so houseboats in
these locations could have a particular impact.

Section 8 - Delivering Infrastructure - Waste Water

We feel that the plan should include recognition of the importance of waste water
infrastructure. We would recommend liaison with water companies and ourselves
throughout the plan period to ensure adequate capacity is available. Water
resources; security of supply in this zone remains at 100% according to the latest
update to Essex and Suffolk Waters WRMP. However, a new WRMP is currently at
draft stage, and plans should be checked against this document as soon as it
becomes available.

Southend and Rayleigh East Water Recycling Centres (WRC) are over capacity with
regards to their permit. Rayleigh West and Rochford have considerable capacity
remaining, so it is recommended that, in the short term, development be planned to
go to these two WRC. In the longer term we would strongly suggest remaining in
regular touch with Anglian Water regarding the preferred locations for development
and the possibility of upgrade works at Rayleigh East and Southend. The LPA
should be aware that Anglian Water are reluctant to commit to upgrades until there is development firmly planned, but that can take up to 10 years.

Section 8 - Water and Flood Risk Management

We welcome the reference to the Thames Gateway South Essex Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) and the South Essex SWMP. These are useful supporting
documents to understand the potential impacts on the flood risk management
infrastructure.
The DEFRA document "Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding - DEFRA
policy statement on an outcome-focused, partnership approach to funding flood and
coastal erosion risk management" is another useful document to support evidence
base with regard to funding deliverability of new and replacement flood defence
infrastructure. This document could be used to enhance the flood risk management
policy.
We continue working in partnership with Rochford Distric Council and the local Flood
Risk Management Authorities (RMA's) including and the local communities on
developing flood alleviation schemes for both fluvial and surface water flooding in
Rochford. These are discussed at the District Council led Rochford Flood Forum and
the Community Action Group meetings. Any additional partnership funding that could be generated from new development will help to enhance and accelerate their
delivery.

The proposed new development allocations should ensure that where possible
development does not impact on the Main Rivers of Crouch, Roach and their
associated tributaries and their modelled floodplains. As highlighted in the new Local
Plan development in areas should be located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) less
than 1 in 1000 year (<0.1%) of fluvial flooding. This ensures that development is
sustainable and compliant with the principles of National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). It should contribute and minimise the risk of river flooding and flood
inundation to existing and future development in major conurbations in Rochford
District.
For all new development proposals there must be a robust application of the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) Sequential Test to avoid development in areas of flood risk wherever possible and to maintain the function of these land areas for natural processes. Any new proposals relating to flood defence schemes should draw on the guidelines highlighted in the attached documents.
Any development allocations highlighted in Local Development Plan should be
appropriately located according to the requirements of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and any proposals in Flood Zone 3 highlighted blue on the
attached plan will be required to pass the Exception Test in the NPPF.
Any works associated with the development in, over, under or within 8m byelaw
distance of the "Main Rivers" may need our formal permit.

We believe the water and flood risk management section should also consider the
following points which are relevant to all proposed developments and whose
inclusion would enhance policy.

General Flood Risk Comments

All development proposals within the Flood Zone (which includes Flood Zones 2 and
3,as defined by the Environment Agency) shown on the Policies Map and Local
Maps, or elsewhere involving sites of 1ha or more, must be accompanied by a Flood
Risk Assessment.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

The Local Plan should apply the sequential test and use a risk based approach to
the location of development. The plan should be supported by a Strategic Flood risk
Assessment (SFRA) and should use the NPPF Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
The PPG advises how planning can take account of the risks associated with
flooding and coastal change in plan-making and the planning application process.
The following advice could be considered when compiling the Local Plan to ensure
potential development is sequentially sited or if at flood risk it is designed to be safe
and sustainable into the future.

Sequential Approach

The sequential approach should be applied within specific sites in order to direct
development to the areas of lowest flood risk. If it isn't possible to locate all of the
development in Flood Zone 1, then the most vulnerable elements of the development should be located in the lowest risk parts of the site. If the whole site is at high risk (Flood Zone 3), an FRA should assess the flood characteristics across the site and direct development towards those areas where the risk is lowest.

Finished Floor Levels

We strongly advise that proposals for "more vulnerable" development should include
floor levels set no lower than 300 millimetres above the level of any flooding that
would occur in a 1% (1 in 100) / 0.5% (1 in 200) Annual Exceedence Probability
(AEP) flood event (including allowances for climate change). We are likely to raise
an objection where this is not achieved in line with Paragraphs 060 of the NPPF's
Planning Practice Guidance which advises that there should be no internal flooding
in more vulnerable developments from a design flood.
We recommend "less vulnerable" development also meet this requirement to
minimise disruption and costs in a flood event. If this is not achievable then it is
recommended that a place of refuge is provided above the 0.1% AEP flood level.

Safe Access

During a flood, the journey to safe, dry areas completely outside the 1% (1 in 100) /
0.5% (1 in 200) AEP flood event, including allowances for climate change, should not involve crossing areas of potentially fast flowing water. Those venturing out on foot in areas where flooding exceeds 100 millimetres or so would be at risk from a wide range of hazards, including, for example; unmarked drops, or access chambers
where the cover has been swept away. Safe access and egress routes should be
assessed in accordance with the guidance document 'FD2320 (Flood Risk
Assessment Guidance for New Developments)'. We would recommend that you
refer your SFRA which has produced hazard maps following a breach/overtopping of
the defences?

Emergency Flood Plan

Where safe access cannot be achieved, or if the development would be at residual
risk of flooding in a breach, an emergency flood plan that deals with matters of
evacuation and refuge should demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood
hazards. The emergency flood plan should be submitted as part of a FRA and will
need to be agreed with yourselves. As stated above refuge should ideally be located
300mm above the 0.1% AEP flood level including allowances for climate change. If
you do produce a flood safety framework as mentioned above, it will be important to
ensure emergency planning considerations and requirements are used to inform it.

Flood Resilience / Resistance Measures

To minimise the disruption and cost implications of a flood event we encourage
development to incorporate flood resilience/resistance measures up to the extreme
0.1% AEP climate change flood level. Information on preparing property for flooding
can be found in the documents 'Improving the Flood performance of new buildings'
and 'Prepare your property for flooding'.

Betterment

Every effort should be made by development to improve the flood risk to the local
area, especially if there are known flooding issues. Opportunities should also be
taken to provide environmental enhancements as part of the design, for example
naturalising any rivers on the site with a buffer zone on both sides.

Increases in Built Footprint (excluding open coast situations)

When developing in areas at risk of flooding consideration should be given to
preventing the loss of floodplain storage. Any increase in built footprint within the 1% AEP, including allowances for climate change, flood extent will need to be directly compensated for to prevent a loss of floodplain storage. If there are no available areas for compensation above the design flood level and compensation will not be possible then a calculation of the offsite flood risk impacts will need to be
undertaken. If this shows significant offsite impacts then no increases in built
footprint will be allowed. Further guidance on the provision of compensatory flood
storage is provided in section A3.3.10 of the CIRIA document C624.

Climate Change

The Environment Agency guidance 'Flood risk assessments: climate change
allowances' should be used to inform the spatial distribution of growth and the
requirements of Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) for individual applications.
The National Planning Practice Guidance provides advice on what is considered to
be the lifetime of the development in the context of flood risk and coastal change.
The 'Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances' guidance provides
allowances for future sea level rise, wave height and wind speed to help planners,
developers and their advisors to understand likely impact of climate change on
coastal flood risk. It also provides peak river flow and peak rainfall intensity
allowances to help planners understand likely impact of climate change on river and
surface water flood risk. For some development types and locations, it is important to assess a range of risk using more than one allowance. Please refer to this guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances.
This advice updates previous climate change allowances to support NPPF and may
result in flood extents being greater than they have been in the past. This does not
mean out flood map for planning has changed, as these maps do not consider
climate change, but fluvial flood maps that may have been produced as part of
SFRAs and other flood risk studies may be out of date. FRAs submitted in support
of new development will need to consider the latest climate change allowances.

Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities

An environmental permit for flood risk activities may be required for work in, under,
over or within 8 metres (m) from a fluvial main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert or 16m from a tidal main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert.
Application forms and further information can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits. Anyone
carrying out these activities without a permit where one is required, is breaking the
law.
The Local Plan should consider this when allocating development sites adjacent to a
'main river'. A permit may be required and restrictions imposed upon the work as a
result in order to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact upon
the environment and flood risk.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

We agree with the promotion of the use of SUDS within the policy on all
developments where geological conditions permit. However in order to ensure the
protection of the water environment, we feel any development must incorporate
appropriate pollution prevention measures and a suitable number of SUDS treatment
train components in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SUDS Manual.

Policy 10 - Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

We welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 19: To protect, maintain and
enhance our district's natural environment, geology and biodiversity, including our
open spaces, recreational areas and our extensive coastline, as well as support
wildlife, to create habitat networks and reduce fragmentation.
We also welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 22: To mitigate and adapt to
the forecasted impacts of climate change, including the water environment, air
quality, biodiversity and flooding, support more efficient use of energy and natural
resources and facilitate an increase in the use of renewable and low carbon energy
facilities. We hope that innovative solutions to the issue of climate change be found,
including the use of natural flood management techniques.
Whilst we broadly support the policy protecting and enhancing the environment, but
feel more importance should be given to the water environment. The policy needs to
refer to the Water Framework Directive and all development need to show that it will
not have a negative impact on water bodies. We feel this is important in regards to
the proposed marina development at Wallasea Island. This could cause serious
impacts on the protected estuarine habitat and birdlife as well as a deterioration in
the WFD status of the Crouch and Roach Estuaries.
We welcome the importance given to green infrastructure and the benefits it can
provide to human health and the environment. We feel the policy could also promote
the enhancements developments could provide for overall biodiversity. Setting a
requirement that all new development must create a new priority habitat would
support Local Planning Authoritys duty under the Natural Environments Rural
Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Priority habitats include new wetlands created as
part of SuDs schemes, deciduous woodlands and wildflower meadows.

Section 10 - Air Quality

Whilst we have no direct comments in regards to the air quality policy it is worth
noting that any new development of within 250-500m of a site permitted by the us
could result in the proposed development being exposed to impacts, e.g. odour,
noise, dust and pest impacts. The severity of these impacts will depend on local
factors such as the size of the facility, the nature of the activities and the prevailing
weather conditions. If the operator can demonstrate that they have taken all
reasonable precautions to mitigate these impacts, the facility and community will coexist, with some residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern, and there are limits to the mitigation the operator can apply. Only in very exceptional circumstances would we revoke the operators permit. These factors should be considered when identifying areas suitable for development. The locations of waste sites can be found on our public register at
https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-all
We trust the advice we have given is useful and will contribute to the soundness of
the emerging local plan. We will continue to provide further advice and comments at
future statutory stages of the emerging local plan. Should you wish us to review any draft policies and text as well as technical documents and background studies, such
as strategic flood risk assessments or water cycle studies which may be used to
support your plan, we can offer this as part of our planning advice service.

This service will ensure that your evidence documents fully support the local plan
and ensure that environmental issues are addressed in an effective and timely way
contributing to sustainable development. As part of the planning advice service we
will provide you with a single point of contact who will co-ordinate access to our
technical specialists who will be able to provide bespoke advice and help you
prepare any supporting documents. We will be pleased to provide you with an
estimated cost for any work we would undertake as part of the service.

NEW LOCAL PLAN my views

We are being overwhelmed with new-build houses. The selling price of these houses is beyond the reach of nearly all constituents of Rochford District and their relatives and friends.

As a result of this over-building, our environment is suffering gross pollution (not only from cars): I myself suffer from a lung infection and my only way of preventing further decline in health is to move away from the area. I chose to move to Hawkwell in 1963 when I could walk across the main road (B1013) without even looking; this remained the case for about 15 years when I moved away to live in South Woodham Ferrers.

Subsequently I moved back to Hawkwell in 1999 to find Hawkwell had changed only a little but this was to change radically in the next 12 years. In the past 5 years, traffic and pollution have increased 4-fold. It sometimes takes 10 minutes to pull out of my driveway onto the road due to traffic, a lot of which is only 'passing through' and should properly be using the A127! The road congestion cannot be avoided and with it comes pollution.

Councils are being blackmailed by Parliament to build regardless of the cost to our health and well-being. Our MPs are failing us. They have not stood together and said: "stop", they must now do so.

About 6 years ago, in response to the request of Hawkwell Parish Council and in conjunction with other concerned parishioners, we produced the Hawkwell Parish Plan (copies were handed to Rochford District Council members) showing what it was that Hawkwell parishioners wanted; to get a good idea of what was need in 2012 and beyond, it is necessary to read the conclusions of the plan. It was not necessary to build very many houses - the need was for hundreds and not the thousands of houses which are being built now: all this latter does is to encourage people to move out of London to live in Rochford District, it does not improve or even maintain the lot of our existing parishioners.

It is my view that those elected to serve the community are failing us badly in all aspects of local life here; this applies at government, county and district levels.

I offer the following objections regarding the draft Local Plan proposals published by Rochford District Council in particular to the site COL38.

Objection 1 - Public Inquiry support for the Open Play Space.

I live adjacent to the open play space (site COL38) which has pedestrian access between my property No 43 Malvern Road and my neighbour Mr Dell at No 45. In 2013 I was contacted by Essex County Council and subsequently by Rochford District Council to support their objection to a proposed bridleway - Definitive Map Modification No.553 (Bridleway 44 Ashingdon, Rochford) Order 2013 ref: FPS/Z1585/7/77. In 2014, I met with RDC`s legal team and appointed barrister on several occasions prior to the Public Inquiry which commenced in May 2014. I was called as a witness on behalf of RDC at the Inquiry. Having spent so much energy, time and money defending it as an open space It is with some surprise to learn that RDC now wish to develop this land. When concluding his report in December 2014, Inspector Martin Elliott made specific reference (para 38 & 39) to the level of concern expressed by all objectors including RDC that the play space should not be developed.

Objection 2 - Wider community Impact.

Although not the remit of the Inquiry, the level of use by pedestrians and cyclists across the open space was recorded in the final report. This route enables a number of local residents to access Beckney Woods and beyond and is a facility enjoyed by many. If development was permitted it would have a wider detrimental impact upon the local community who currently enjoy its use.

Objection 3 - Subsidence to existing property.

I moved to Malvern Road in 1994. As part of a grounds maintenance programme during a period between 2008-10, RDC planted a number of trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the open space. The result of this work can clearly be seen using google maps/photographs. In 2010 a large crack developed across my garage floor together with increasing incidents of water ingress due to the structural failure of my garage. I contacted RDC who redirected me to Zurich Insurance. Ultimately, I contacted my own insurance company who established from bore holes and monitoring that the subsidence was caused by the vegetation planted by RDC. In 2014 a new garage was built. I informed my insurance company of my communications with RDC but unaware if they had tried to reclaim their losses. I was required to pay an excess of £1,000 and have been unable to date to recoup my losses. Given my experience, I fear that any development on the open space would have a negative impact upon my property.

Objection 4 - Poor Site conditions and increasing potential flooding risk.

COL 38 is a steeply sloping site which is a quagmire during wet winters and baked hard with large open cracks in summer. The development of up to four properties would cover the area with impermeable surfaces increasing run surface runoff and creating a potential flood risk to properties such as mine which sit below. Even now, during periods of heavy rain, water runs as a stream from the open space across the road. Creating a greater impermeable surface area with little natural infiltration would put even more pressure on our surface water drainage increasing the risk of flooding.

Objection 5 - Privacy.

My fifth objection is regarding the potential reduction of any privacy currently enjoyed. Due to the elevation of the site, even a single storey building would allow its occupants to have an unrestricted view of my entire garden preventing me to have any privacy currently enjoyed. This would have a negative impact upon the value of my property and I fear it would become very difficult to sell. I would not be able to follow the usual practice of putting up a higher fence (its already six foot) or plant a conifer screen for fear of increasing the risk of subsidence.
In conclusion, COL38 is a site which has restricted access, is steeply sloping, poorly drained and used by many locals to access footpaths and woodland areas. Any development would not only have a negative impact upon the value of the surrounding properties but also on the wider local community.

I trust you will take into consideration my objections to the development of COL 38 when formulating your final plan.

Issues and Options Document - Consultation
We wish to respond to two specific aspects of the RDC Strategic Housing and
Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 - COL38 and CFS023

COL38

This is a green play area that was originally gifted by the developers of Malvern Road for the enjoyment of local residents. It is effectively a small park, now owned and managed by Rochford District Council and used regularly by local children. In the past week it has been a very popular sledging run.
In addition there is a footpath through this play area connecting Malvern Road to
Branksome Avenue and the public footpath leading to Beckney Wood. This is used by dozens of people each day mainly to allow access to walk dogs in the wonderful Beckney Wood.

The loss of this beneficial amenity would have a significant effect on the quality of life of local residents and we therefore feel that it should not be further proposed for
development.

CFS023

This pasture land provides a buffer between Beckney Wood and current housing
development which helps protect this ancient woodland and its wildlife.
Some properties in Malvern Road suffer from surface water flooding at times of high
rainfall. The addition of paved areas on the pasture will reduce the ability for the land to absorb rainfall and worsen flooding in the existing gardens. The likelihood that climate change will increase incidents of extreme weather will exacerbate this problem.
Further development in this particular area will have a detrimental effect on the already crowded roads, in particular congestion in The Spa area of Hockley.
Development on this high area will put an additional burden on the water supply network that is already stretched to supply other elevated, modern developments such as Etheldore Avenue and Ashingdon Heights. Some properties in Malvern Road already suffer periodic reductions in water pressure, probably at times of highest demand when the network cannot satisfactorily cope.

The likely access to the land through Harrogate Drive will destroy the extensive
hedgerows which are an important wildlife habitat.

Dear Sir I am very concerned about all the other green spaces in Hullbridge listed for development.The 500 at Watery Lane are bad enough,particularly as over 90% of existing villagers thought it a bad idea,but we shall have no green spaces left,the village needs it's lungs.Children need fields to play in,dog walkers need places to let their dogs run.Hullbridge will be a "concrete jungle" if all these plans go ahead.Also with more homes come more cars and all of them will have to exit the village onto Lower Road,a narrow ,twisty ,busy,and badly lit road.Please think again and have some regard for those of us who already live in Hullbridge.

Dear Sirs,

I write as a resident of Little Wakering with observations of the latest batch of planning proposals for building housing on agricultural land between Shoeburyness and Wakering.

I have read some of the consideration points as well.

Firstly from a personal point, the local amenities schools, doctors, etc are already at stretching point.

Secondly the issue of travel from the eastern points of this borough are already horrendous. I travel for work when needed, if leaving home at 8 -9am it takes almost an hour to get to Rayleigh Weir....10 miles.

The road network is not capable of sustaining further increase.

There isn't a local requirement for employees so all new housing will only be sustainable by residents commuting to work. Thus putting even greater delays on travel...environmentally unfriendly.

All the areas marked as proposed are agricultural land and very close to sea level...with rising sea levels perhaps not the best option.

There are still many brown field sites within south east Essex that could be better used.

I can see no argument for building on any green field until all brown field has been utilised properly...and to just keep building larger distribution sites near motorways doesn't help at all.

I wish to object to the areas outlined in and around Hullbridge for possible consideration for further development of housing.
Hullbridge was a small community which will be blighted by the 500 houses already given permission, and to impose more would be irresponsible.
The infrastructure is not in place to allow development on this scale.

To whom it may concern
I wish to object to the building of new houses on site Ref. CFS057.
My main objections are as follows:-
The infra structure is not large enough to cope. It is a struggle to get an appointment at the Doctors; the school will not be able to cope with the influx of new children. I cant believe that the Taylor Wimpey development off Star Lane, does not have footpaths for pedestrians to walk on, in Kiln Way. So safety of pedestrians has not been taken into account.
Additionally, it will have an effect on my lifestyle, non flowing traffic will cause congestion and emission levels will rise. The local flood plain will not be able to cope, the lighting down Star Lane just stops and it is very dark to walk down in an evening