E. A new settlement

YES - a far better idea with their own infrastructure. This will alleviate problems for existing smaller towns/villages that will not cope!

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.

Money must be spent to sort this out now before the situation comes to a complete stand still.
I believe a new Garden Village located in the east and served by a new road from the north and west connecting to an existing trunk road would be the best solution.

If you haven't got the money to do this you shouldn't have allowed the houses to be built .

and I live in Hockley. I can be contacted on this email address. I would like to register my objection to any further 'piecemeal' building in the Rochford/Hockley/Rayleigh area. The roads have become intolerable and the general infrastructure simply cannot cope. The only option which should be considered is a completely new village/town with its own infrastructure including approach roads, station, doctors, schools, shops, etc. This is the only way to relieve the pressure on the existing settlements.

We have lived in this village for over 40 years. We have seen many changes, some of them good and now there seems to be a plan to change a nice place to live into an over populated town which will be desperately short of school places, doctor's appointments and just getting in and out of what is at present a village into a place that is difficult to arrive at. At present with the extra unwanted development going on in the village it is near impossible to get to an appointment without being in a traffic queue. We haven't yet seen the impact of impending present development, Bullwood Hall, Folly Grove, Waters and Stanton plot, and all the other single plots being developed into oversized flats.

The amount of pollution created by this increase in stationary traffic will have an adverse affect on our health and it is a very worrying scenario to think of our young people who will be facing health issues due to this increase when there will a shortage of doctors/hospital appointments.

We live in Folly Chase which is under threat of extra unwanted development when we already have the inconvenience of having large heavy lorries speeding on the wrong side of the bends In Folly Lane to get to the development on Pond Chase. This will in turn cause more traffic to arrive at the main road making more congestion. Folly Chase is as the name suggests a private lane, not wide enough for two cars and especially has no pavement. We worked very hard to obtain our property in a nice area and it seems the Council are adamant in ruining our local area. We have only just heard how the extra planned properties on the Pond Chase site was increased at the Council's request and were very annoyed no thought was given to the area or traffic congestion.

I am glad to say our grandchildren will be out of local education by the time this extra development is finished as schools at present are just adequate and we will soon be at the stage where there will be no room for our children to attend their own local school.
We believe ours should be a forward thinking council not one that gives quick fix solutions that will surely cause problems in the areas that they are currently thinking of developing. Thought should be given to look for a site to the east of the district where plans can be made to provide all amenities schools, doctors, services, sufficient roads etc.It could be planned properly from scratch rather than trying to alter an already overcrowded area which will be detrimental to large parts of the community.

We understand Redbridge Council has fought the government to reduce extra development there and suggest this should be a consideration as so many of our residents are angry over this issue and believe some consideration could be given to them.

To summarise, extra unwanted development will cause:
More pollution
More traffic queues
More pressure on present Doctors for appointments
No places for local children at schools
New settlement east of Hockley the best option.

This option is preferable ,alongside increasing density near to town centres and transport hubs . Full use of brown field sites within urban areas as well as well placed previously used sites within the green belt .
Any new settlement should have new infrastructure which should improve the overall access throughout the district. (See transport and access response) . Suggested site for garden village around the Ashingdon Schools area . The land is of poorer quality and large areas had been put forward in the previous Call For Sites .

This would be far more preferable than ruining existing communities and amenities by bulk dumping of housing

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 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.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Regulation 18 version of the Rochford
Local Plan. These representations are submitted on behalf of Rydon Homes which has an
interest in land south of Wellington Road, Rayleigh (site CFS053 in the 2017 SHELAA).
Attached to this representation is a schedule which sets out Rydon's views on the options
presented in the document. Hopefully, this will assist your analysis. However, such a point
by point response can also obscure the Respondent's overall views on the plan and its main
issues. In view of this, this letter brings together the various themes of the Rydon response.
The main points are :
1. The Vision and Strategic Objectives should make it clearer that the plan should seek
to meet local housing needs in full. Many other Local Authorities with high levels of
Green Belt (eg St Albans) have concluded that their housing needs have to be met and
have commissioned a Green Belt Review to identify which land parcels serve the least
Green Belt purposes.
2. The Green Belt Review should be progressed in parallel with an assessment of which
sites would best promote a more sustainable pattern of development and minimise the
use of the car.
3. The plan recognises that Rayleigh is the largest settlement in Rochford District and
has the greatest range of facilities and services, plus public transport. As a
consequence, new housing allocations within and on the edge of Rayleigh have the
greatest chance of minimising the need to use the car in favour of walking, cycling
Sellwood
Planning
Chartered Town Planners
Chartered Surveyors
Stoughton Cross House, Stoughton Cross, Wedmore, Somerset, BS28 4QP
Tel: 01934 712041 Fax: 01934 712118 Mobile: 07801 321162 Email: bob@sellwoodplanning.com
2
and public transport. Whilst it is accepted that the centre of Rayleigh is currently an
Air Quality Management Area, your 2015 Environmental Capacity Study (para 8.2)
recognises that a package of mitigation measures is available.
4. Whilst it is a matter of concern that your Environmental Capacity Study only focusses
on the environmental facet of sustainable development and largely ignores the social
and economic aspects, it is noted that it concludes (para 8.27) that the greatest
capacity for further development lies within and on the edge of the urban areas in the
north and west of the District. When this conclusion is combined with the sustainable
credentials of Rayleigh, it is clear that the evidence base provides the justification for
smaller housing allocations on the periphery of Rayleigh.
5. The Rydon land south of Wellington Road, Rayleigh (CFS053 - see attached plan) is
a strong candidate for allocation since
* It is within walking distance of Rayleigh Town Centre
* It has an existing access on to Wellington Road
* It is close to schools, open space and community facilities
* It is not constrained by environmental or heritage issues
* It is outside the boundary of the Upper Roach Valley (see Figure 07 of the
Environmental Capacity Study)
* The site could be released from the Green Belt with only limited impacts on
the purposes of the Green Belt
* An indicative master plan is attached (No. 2575-A-1004 A) which shows how
the site can be planned to provide up to 80 homes. This master plan forms
part of the 'Site Appraisal and Promotion Document' provided to you on the
18th May 2017. If you would like this resubmitted, please let me know.
Should you feel that a meeting would be useful to discuss this site, perhaps you could suggest
some dates.

Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation
Representations on behalf of Rydon Homes
submitted by Sellwood Planning
1. Vision (para. 5.9) : The Vision should include the objective of fully meeting housing
needs within the Rochford District.
2. Vision (para 5.10) : The 'Our Society' Vision should contain the objective of fully
meeting housing needs with Rochford District.
3. Strategic Objective (para 5.11) : The objective should make it clear that 'sufficient
homes' equates to Objectively Assessed Housing Needs, or such housing figure that
emerges from the 'Right Homes' consultation by DCLG. It is unclear what
'prioritising the use of previously developed land first' means. Given the scale of
housing needs, it is likely that both previously developed land and Green Belt releases
will be needed throughout the plan period.
4. Strategic Priority 1 (para 5.11) : There should be an objective to locate new housing
where it can best deliver the most sustainable pattern of development.
5. Strategic Priority 1 (p38) : The plan should pursue Option A to seek to provide as
much housing as possible within Rochford District.
6. Affordable Housing Threshold (para. 6.31) : Option A should be selected to
maximise the delivery of affordable homes from a wider range of sites.
7. Affordable Housing Percentage (para 6.31) : In order to ensure delivery and viability
the percentage of affordable housing should be retained at 35%.
8. Settlement Hierarchy (p42, Table 5) : The settlement hierarchy is supported as logical
and evidence based.
9. (para 6.45) : Since housing need is likely to require the release of Green Belt land,
the Council should commission a Green Belt Review to assess which sites contribute
least to Green Belt purposes.
10. (para. 6.46) : Greater weight should be given to locations for new housing which
offer the opportunity to use non car based modes of travel.
11. (para. 6.48) : The most appropriate option is one which combines A, B and C.
Options D and E (larger new allocations or a new settlement) conflict with the
conclusion of the Environmental Capacity Study that the preferred options would
entail smaller allocations within and on the edge of the urban areas in the north and
west of the District.
12. Housing Mix (p46, Table 6) : The table should be disaggregated to provide separate
mixes for market and affordable housing. Option A on page 48 is the most
appropriate option.
13. Local Highways (p83) : Given the acknowledged current problems of air quality in
Rayleigh Town Centre, priority should be given to Option C to investigate the
upgrading of Rawreth Lane or Watering Lane to take traffic away from the centre of
Rayleigh.
14. Planning Obligations (p99) : The existing Policy should be retained (Option A).
15. (para. 10.15) : The conclusions of the Environmental Capacity Study that the greatest
potential for development lies within and on the edge of settlements to the north and
west of the District are supported. Given the size of Rayleigh and its range of
services, facilities and public transport, it should be the logical first choice for
sustainable housing allocations. Since recent development in the town has been to the
west, this Local Plan should seek to 'rebalance' the spatial form of Rayleigh by the
allocation of land to the east, such as the land south of Wellington Road.
16. Green Belt (para. 10.16) : It is considered that a Green Belt Review (Option B) will
have to form an essential part of the evidence base for the new Local Plan. This
should be commissioned as soon as possible.

This can be planned for the end of the plan period but the land assembly along will render this option un-viable in the first 10 years of the plan period.

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.

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.

Having recently read your plan of proposed sites I have some objections, as well as improvements for sites, mainly focused around the Hockley area, of which I am familiar. Firstly site CFS064 (the land to the north and east of Folly Chase). When I first heard about this site being proposed for development I thought it was some poor attempt humor, not least because at the time we were sitting a tail back along the High Road, a very common occurrence as anyone who commutes regularly will know. Throwing in around 250 houses (the rumored number than I have heard) into an area where the only road (track) in and out of the site is essentially a single track drive which leads straight out onto a very sharp bend in Folly Lane, then onto the already congested High Road surely really shows abysmal lack of planning. The potential for accidents and even greater tail backs is a serious problem around this area. The development at CFS040 will also enhance this, as will the development adjacent to Bullwood Hall (though I personally feel that development is a feasible one). There are also environmental implications - Folly Chase and the surrounding countryside, north towards the rail bridge, is a beautiful area, peaceful, historic, popular with walkers ect. It would be a great loss to Hockley if this development went ahead, essentially turning Betts Farm, Folly area & this new development into one mass of urban sprawl. Hockley Primary's environment is also under threat, currently nestled within a quite, crime-free area, with ample access to green space. A good example of a school in which you would feel comfortable sending your kids to study at. Dumping a whole new estate directly adjacent to it's grounds could really damage it's outlook. A crying shame. How it would cope with the increase in pupil numbers is also an interesting question.

A site I am on board with is the industrial estate at BFR2, a potentially brilliant site for creating a solid area of housing with good town, school and commuting links. If done effectively this could provide a really healthy community atmosphere, whilst also bringing to life a currently detached and lackluster area of the town. Planning this out to be a green, 'Garden Town' (or at least an estate with decent green areas) would massively enhance Hockley center, both socially and environmentally, minimising the impact of the inevitable increase in pollution in the town center, if these building projects were to go ahead, whilst turning a pretty dire area into an aesthetically pleasing part of town.
The only potential downside is, again, traffic flowing directly out onto Spa Road, an already congested area. Though one could minimise this by limiting development upstream at CFS064.
CFS023 is also a pretty solid area for development, the only site in Hockley with potential for a decent access route which doesn't spill out onto an already congested road. The only thing I will say is that any development backing so close onto Beckney Woods needs to be sympathetically planned, with plenty of greenery (wildlife corridors) within the estate, funneling towards the wood. The developers of Etheldor and Wood estates did this pretty well, by keeping lots of mature trees and planting many more, creating a very pleasant area. Though this could be improved on by the linking of these green spaces together more effectively.
CFS169 and CFS020 would also pose a significant challenge regarding access, with only the small Windsor Gardens? and a tiny piece of access at the far SE of the site leading onto Rectory Road, just prior to the bridge, creating a problem of further bottle necks at this point. Though CFS150, 017 and 093 are good sites with Park and Victor Gardens providing enough access.

All round I think pretty much everyone who has seen these plans or even heard of the number of houses proposed to be built knows this area is unable to cope with such a large en-mass building scheme. Not only do we not have the necessary investment in infrastructure and local resources to cope with the influx, the potential of eventually linking Southend, Rochford, Rayleigh, Ashingdon and Hockley together as one vast mass of urban sprawl is not an idea which anyone desires, but one which if this level of building goes ahead, could become a reality in the near future. One of the overwhelming reasons why this area of Essex is so popular for those wanting to start a family outside of the city is because of Hockley's tranquil setting. Lets not bugger it up completely. Cut the number of houses in half to around 3500 and you might find yourself with a realistic plan.

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: CONSULTATION RESPONSE
LOCAL PLAN: ISSUES & OPTIONS DOCUMENT


PAGE 41: Delivering our Need for Homes

SP1.3 How do we plan for and facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next twenty years within the district?

6.48 What are the realistic options?
Hawkwell Parish Council has always supported the view that new housing to meet our needs should be accommodated on a new settlement in a new settlement in the far west of the District near Battlesbridge or Rawreth. The River Crouch is a natural boundary and access to Chelmsford, Basildon, Thurrock and London is far easier.

There would be less disruption of existing villages and the infrastructure could be provided. Therefore, Hawkwell Parish Council supports Option E.

Hawkwell Parish Council considers that both Hawkwell and Rochford Parishes have had most of the development in the present Local Plan, with another 500 homes to be developed from Oxford Road to The Drive (Rochford). This will equate to 2,000 houses all in a small area on the Ashingdon Road, Hall Road, Rectory Road and Brays Lane. Therefore, Options A to D are not considered viable by Hawkwell Parish Council.


PAGE 46: Good Mix of Homes

SP1.4 How do we plan for and deliver a good mix of homes in the future? What types, sizes and tenures are needed?

6.59 (Pg 49) Bungalows
Hawkwell Parish Council has always campaigned against loss of bungalows and the failure by developers to supply new bungalows on development sites. These are needed to satisfy the needs of the elderly for suitable accommodation to downsize to. Therefore, a combination of Option E and F would be supported.

PAGE 76: Villages and Local Neighbourhood Centres

SP2.2 How do we continue to support local facilities in our village and neighbourhood centres?

7.27 What are the realistic options?
Hawkwell Parish Council would support Option A `Retain existing Core Strategy Policy'. It is important to retain facilities and not allow shops to be turned into housing or other non-retail uses. Without these facilities villages would decline and lack community integration and cohesion.


PAGE 78: Highways Infrastructure

SP3.1 How can we prioritise and deliver improvements to the strategic and local highway network over the next twenty years?

8.20 What are the realistic options? Pg 83
Hawkwell Parish Council would support Option B `Prioritise local highways and junctions between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford (B1013), to support and direct funds to improve the local highway network.

Hawkwell Parish Council would not support Option C. This option would not encourage more use of the route through Rawreth Land, Rayleigh, Hullbridge and Hockley. These are very narrow, winding roads and would be unsuitable for an increase in traffic movements.

PAGE 105: Education and Skills

SP4.3 How do we facilitate the delivery of education improvements and skills development to support our residents and local economy over the next 20 years?

9.29 What are the realistic options? Pg 108
Hawkwell Parish Council would support a combination of Option A and B. It is essential that land allocated for schools must not be allowed to be used for other purposes once set aside.

PAGE 109: Early Years and Childcare Provision

SP4.4 How do we facilitate the delivery of early years and childcare facilities to support our residents and local economy over the next twenty years?

9.36 What are the realistic options? Pg 114
Hawkwell Parish Council would support Option B `Ensure that land is specifically allocated for schools, early years and childcare'. Hawkwell is short of these places after the development of 200 homes in recent years.

PAGE 162: Advertising and Signage

D.P1.13 How to manage advertising and signage across the district in the future?

11.72 What are the realistic options? Pg 163
Hawkwell Parish Council would support Option A but feel it should be strengthened. Over the last few years many advertising boards have appeared on the side of houses and grass verges bearing no relation to an adjacent business. There is an increase in in advertising boards on the pavement; not only are they unsightly but they also obstruct pavements making it difficult for people with poor visibility, users of double buggies and mobility scooters to negotiate them.

Planning for housing now and for the future should be provided by building new Garden Villages, with new schools, shops, surgerys, and new infrastructure. There would be no disruption to existing villages with plant movement, tapping into existing strained infrastructure, roads being left crumbling from the weight of the heavy plant vehicles. The new village could incorporate new rail link, new sub-station, and pumping station for power and for water and sewage. Also it would probably save all these consultations with the public. Along with these new builds each family will have at least two cars adding to emission that eventually will affect our future generations.

1. Infrastructure
The effect on footways must be considered and well as Highways. In rural areas if there is no dedicated footway Pedestrians may be forced to walk in the road. If development increases traffic then consideration must be given to the safety of these pedestrians both within the development and on affected roads. An example of this is Southend Road, Great Wakering there is a "Country Path" from Star Lane roundabout to Oldbury Cottages, this is a section of the verge which I understand has some gravel on it where grass/vegetation grows through. Even when the vegetation is cut this is impassable for people pushing pushchairs/buggies and so young women push their children in pushchairs in the road. With the increase in traffic with the new and planned development this is a disaster waiting to happen.
This section needs making into a permanent footway. I have attempted to use this myself and as you can't see what you are treading on most of the time I felt safer walking in the road and only taking refuge from traffic on the embankment when I had to get out of the way of vehicles. I could have easily stumbled and fallen into the path of a car. Another example is Pointers Lane Great Wakering where most of this has no footway.
2. Development Strategy
What RDC need is a Strategy to serve them for the next 50 years. One way might be to plan a new town which is created in a way that it is extendable, or be forever tacking bits onto existing settlements - at what time does this become impractical?.
A properly planned new town with Doctors, Schools, Shops, roads and planned interface with existing road and rail is far better than piece meal unplanned sprawl.
Accumulated effects of piecemeal development. You cannot keep tacking bits onto an existing settlements and not increase the roads serving the settlement. Also small developments do not attract the same infrastructure eg schools.
3. Section 106 and CIL
Any Section 106 or Cil improvements must be proved to be practical before they are built into the Planning agreement. In Wakering for York Mews there was an agreement to change the kerbs at a bus stop in the High Street, but when they came to do the work it was impractical due to the position of existing crossovers, so the money was lost which could have been put into another nearby project
The Parish Council's opinion should be sought regarding what is needed in the area plus the Local Highways Panels should be consulted to see what improvements have been suggested.
4. Local Wildlife sites and green sites
We are not alone and careful consideration needs to be made before changes are made to the environment. Some orchids need a specific environment and Bee Orchids have been destroyed where someone, without careful consideration, or sheer ignorance, put building rubble on a track, within a Wildlife Site. The Pyamidal Orchids also have not been seen for the past 2 years. It is so simple to destroy an eco-climate.

Response to Local Plan Issues and Options Document

ADDITIONAL ITEM

Response to page 45 6.48 I support option E new settlement.

thanks / regards
Stephen Tellis

Issues and Options Document

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.

Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) - Option A Support

Affordable Homes - Options A and E Support

Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities - Option A Support

Need for Care Homes - Option A Support

Delivering our Need for Homes - Options C and E Support

Good Mix of Homes - Option A Support

Bungalows - Option E Support

Density of Schemes - Option G Support

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople - Option A Support

Houseboats and Liveaboards - Option D Support

Meeting Business Needs - Option E Support

Need for Jobs - Option F Support

London Southend Airport - Option D Support

Supporting Tourism and Rural Diversification - Option B Support

Retail, Leisure and Town Centres - Option A Support

Villages and Local Neighbourhood Centres - Option A Support

Highways Infrastructure - Options A and C Support

Sustainable Travel - Option A Support

Communications Infrastructure - Option B Support

Water and Flood Risk Management - Option B Support

Renewable Energy Generation - Option B Support

Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Option A Support

Health and Well-being - Option D Support

Community Facilities - Option B Support

Education and Skills - Options D and E Support

Early Years and Childcare Provision - Option A Support

Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation - Option D Support

Indoor Sports and Leisure Centres - Option A Support

Facilities for Young People - Option A Support

Play Space Facilities - Option A Support

Green Belt - Option A Support

Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure - Options A, G and H Support

Wallasea Island and the RSPB's Wild Coast Project - Option A Support

Landscape Character - Option C Support

Protecting and Enhancing Heritage and Culture - Option A Support

Good Design and Building Efficiency - Options A and F Support

Air Quality - Options A, B and C Support

Mix of Affordable Homes - Option F Support

Self-Build and Custom-Build Homes - Option A Support

Rural Exception Sites - Option G Support

Annexes, Outbuildings and Independent Homes - Option B Support

Basements - Option A Support

Replacement, Rebuild or Extension of Existing Green Belt Homes - Option B Support

Agricultural, Forestry and Other Occupation Homes - Option A Support

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt - Option A Support

Extension of Domestic Gardens in the Green Belt - Option A Support

Parking Standards and Traffic Management - Option A Support

Homes Businesses - Options A Support

Alterations to Existing Business Premises - Option B Support

Advertising and Signage - Option A Support

Light Pollution - Option B Support

Contaminated Land - Option A Support

Delivering Infrastructure

Underlying Thoughts

There are recognised congestion and capacity issues in the District with key areas of concern found in and around the town centres of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley. The traffic congestion, from Rayleigh Town Centre southbound to the A127, produces levels of NOx that have regularly exceeded EU limits since at least 2006. A designated Air Quality Management Plan is in place to reflect.
Whilst well supported by the A127, A13, A130, the West of the District suffers from bottle necks due to the number of vehicles accessing them. With the River Crouch (N), North Sea (W), and Thames Estuary (S) surrounding the District, its geography contributes to a greater west bound traffic flow.
The A127 is the primary East - West road (linking Rochford District with Southend, Castle Point, and Basildon) and improving this route could increase employment opportunities in the East and at Southend Airport. Recently, £27million was secured by Essex County Council (from the Local Growth Fund) to improve Fairglen Interchange (A127, A130, A1245). Basildon Borough Council's local plan also highlights a potential new link road for A127 - A130 via Pound Lane.
Roads such as the A129, B1013 and Rawreth Lane suffer knock on effects of the main pinch points to become bottle necks of their own. The use of non-strategic highway routes to give access to the North of Essex (e.g. Watery Lane) also contributes to congestion.
Residents have identified 16 pinch points on the local road network including: Rawreth Lane, London Road, Rayleigh Town Centre (Crown Hill, Websters Way, Eastwood Road), and Carpenters Arms Roundabout.
Improving the road network should be a priority before additional large scale housing projects are implemented to avoid making congestion and air quality worse. Unfortunately, the narrow roads found in town centres, along with fast, winding, rural roads present significant challenges to increasing the capacity of current roads and creating new cycle routes along them. Ignoring the problem however will not make it disappear.
The limited transport capacity in our town centres could have a detrimental impact on businesses. To support business and economic growth, surface access to hubs outside of the centres, such as Southend Airport, should be improved.
As well as struggling infrastructure, the District has high levels of car ownership. As a supplement to infrastructure improvements, we should encourage a change in how the infrastructure is used.
Whilst fragmented, the District does contain cycle routes: Ashingdon Road, Hall Road, Cherry Orchard (all Rochford), and Hullbridge Road (between Hullbridge and Rayleigh) and we should look to increase this network.
There are very few electrical vehicle charging points in the District, however the provision of electrical upstands and outlets for recharging vehicles would typically not require planning permission meaning we have an opportunity to increase charging point numbers.

Core Strategy Policy ENV8 requires development plans of >4 homes to secure 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources. Accepting applications for, large scale, solar panel schemes will help ensure we not only reach this target but significantly increase it (such applications have been received in the past, including at Southend Airport).
Equality of infrastructure is a challenge in the rural East where residents suffer from poor Broadband and we should look to modernise policy to include fibre optic capabilities across the District.
Whilst unclear how funds would be allocated out of it, the Council is working to deliver a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on future development schemes. This is a good idea in theory, but we must ensure this doesn't become an excuse for not providing infrastructure as part of housing schemes.

By prioritising local highways and junctions, such as Rawreth Lane, we have an opportunity to modernise them and their junctions with other important roads. We should do this alongside supporting efforts by Essex County Council to improve the strategic highway network such as the A127 & A130.
Congestion on the districts roads has led to levels of NOx pollution higher than EU guidelines in some areas of the district. Alongside rising to the huge challenges of improving the network we could reduce the environmental impact of congestion by encouraging electric vehicles. Introducing policy concerning charging points for electric vehicles would be a good start.
We should support the current policy on public transport and strengthen it to ensure that public transport access is a key consideration for development schemes. This will encourage the modal shift in travel that the council advocates.
Telecommunication infrastructure policy should be amended to include specific reference to improving broadband and mobile coverage, especially fibre-optics, as this will aid desired business growth and place us better to utilise future technological advances.
Currently, schemes can be developed in flood zones if the site is designated as brownfield. Building in flood zones should be avoided, regardless of whether buildings have existed there before. We are better served by allowing flood zones to occasionally flood in order to avoid or mitigate damages to properties around them. We should revise the Core Strategy to remove the brownfield exception.

Delivering Homes
Background

Underlying Thoughts
Reduce House Building until pressures on Infrastructure are reduced
Using a target figure of 240 homes per year, the Environmental Capacity Study 2015 concludes that it is uncertain if our district can accommodate the number of homes targeted. The Council's Core Strategy sets a higher target of 250 homes, until 2025, however has only hit this once. For these reasons, it is time we changed approach, whilst underlying infrastructure problems are addressed.
Whilst Castle Point, Southend & London have constraints that may mean they cannot meet their housing and employment needs, the Environmental Capacity Study 2015 also concludes that it is unlikely that our district can accommodate additional housing needs from other areas.
This isn't to say we should ignore housing building responsibilities, rather move to an approach that truly recognises the mutual dependency between economic, environmental, and social factors. New homes should be accessible through a variety of transport modes and shouldn't increase the burden on the already stretched road network. Filling empty homes should be a priority.
With this in mind, the council should amend current policy that any housing scheme delivered can only mitigate its own impact as opposed to existing deficiencies. Ignoring the challenges of the existing deficiencies will not help solve them; simply exacerbate them. The idea that "development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the... impacts are severe" should also be reviewed.

We should seek to provide as much of the district's housing needs within our own area, as far as possible, given the environmental and other constraints such as infrastructure. Until we can remove these constraints, the mitigating action is to spread additional homes across the district by making small extensions to existing residential areas.
Increasing density within town centres such as Rayleigh should be avoided. Whilst these areas have more infrastructure, it is under too much pressure at this stage. The current density policy (30 homes / hectare) should be maintained.
A non-committal, viability study into the creation of a new garden village should be considered if it can be achieved in parallel to the opening of new access points, such as crossing the river Crouch, to relieve pressure on current road infrastructure.
In response to the increasing housing waiting list and acknowledged issues around affordability the threshold for the provision of 'affordable homes' should be reduced to developments of 13 or more homes and the proportion of them increased to between 40% & 50%.
The current approach to applications for specialist and care homes is to review them on an ad hoc basis using available evidence for need and should be kept moving forward.
The current, flexible and market driven, approach to the types of new homes being built should be retained with the exception of bungalow building where we should introduce a small proportion of them on larger housing schemes.
Reservations about the allocation of Michelins Farm as a Gypsy and Traveller site exist and resident's questions of concern require answers. Whilst the allocation is rightly being questioned, the current criteria based approach to these developments should be retained.
The definition of a 'Houseboat' currently contained in the Development Management Plan should be amended as the current definition is being abused by those who travel up and down the river Crouch for the sole purpose of claiming that the 'primary use' of their boat is travel (as opposed to accommodation).

Delivering Jobs

Supporting sustainable travel and prompting highways improvements will have a positive impact on business growth and employment opportunities. With this in mind, we should look to improve surface access to business estates such as Southend Airport in order to increase the economic opportunities of them, by strengthening current policy on access improvements.
The District's current policies around driving retail opportunities to the identified town centres are working and fit for purpose when supplemented by village and neighbourhood top-up centres. For this reason, protecting those local and neighbourhood shops should continue.
There is an opportunity to diversify business opportunities in the rural parts of the District by introducing policy surrounding the sustainable use of greenbelt land for weddings / events (that might include short term camping), as long as protection criteria were introduced and adhered to.