D. Build on the existing healthcare policy to address wider health and well-being issues

Option D

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 I think this is a bit out of date.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.

Please find below the Comments that Rawreth Parish Council wish to submit with regards to the Issue and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal)


Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) page 38
Section 6.30
A combination of both Option A & C. Seek to provide as much of the Districts housing need within out District given our environmental and other constraints, giving a percentage of new homes to residents to purchase on a first come first served basis for a limited period of time, bearing in mind we need to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.

Affordable Homes page 39
Section 6.31
A combination of A & C. Reduce the threshold for the provision of affordable homes in line with emerging residential policy.

Section 6.32
A combination of D & E. need to maximise the provision so wherever possible increase above the 35% but, this should be the minimum on all sites.

Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities
Section 6.33
Support integration within new developments to provide for various needs.

Section 6.36
Support option B.

Delivering our Need for Homes
Section 6.37
In order of preference support Options A, B, E, C, D. Density should be increased near to Town Centres and Transport hubs. Large extension to existing residential areas are becoming too remote from Town hubs, eg Hall Road, Ashingdon Road and Land to the North of London Road. Hence the possibility of a new settlement South West of Rayleigh, East of Hullbridge around Lower Road, north of Ashingdon but only if infrastructure is improved with national investment (we have responded separately on this point under Transport and Access)

Section 6.59
Support Options B & F. We need to preserve our existing stock of bungalows and restrict permitted development rights to enable the increasing elderly population to remain in independent living. To monitor the need for new bungalows in proposed mixed developments.

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Section 6.78
Support Option B combined with Option E. We support the Michelins Farm site provided it is in the District Council's control and strictly monitored with provisions for very limited natural expansion as the needs arise.

Paragraph 6.74 States that unauthorised sites are pursued through enforcement powers, there is no evidence to this in the case of the Cherry Hill Site on the A1245 which continues to increase in numbers.

Houseboats and Liveaboards
Section 6.86
Support Option c to safeguard the open apsects of the shoreline of the River Crouch and the River Roach.


Meeting Business Needs
Section 6.96
Support Option C. Paragraph 6.95 states that "the local road network also needs investment to improve accessibility", there needs to be connectivity with the national network to attract new business, as the imbalance between available employment and outflow to other areas needs urgently addressing.

Need for Jobs
Section 6.111.
Support a combination of Options A, C, E F with option B being worth of consideration . Paragraph 6.109. The increasing leisure use on some industrial sites makes these sites unattractive to further business use it also suggests that there was a surplus or business premises, possibly because of the inaccessibility of some sites due to congestion or poor roads, eg Brook Road, Eldon Way and Purdeys Way.





Tourism
Section 6.128
Support Option A. Paragraph 6.120 & 6.121 why does the "Crouch Coastal Community Team" not include the river up to the bridging point at Battllesbridge? Chelmsford City Council, Rawreth Parish Council and Rettendon Parish Council need to be involved.

Commercial Development
Section 7.20
Support Option A. Parking issues ie cost and accessibility restrict the enjoyment of facilities in the Town Centres, the draw of free parking at out of Town shopping centres, A127, Lakeside and Southend Airport divert resources away from small independent shops to large national chains. The Government promised that a levy on free parking was to be introduced this should help subsidise local centres, this needs addressing by National action.

Highways Infrastructure
Section 8.20
Object to Option C, Support Option B. Paragraph 8.4 note that 14,000 commute out of the District daily, 63% by car which puts pressure on the road network. The need to attract inward employment could reduce pressure on the system. The A127/A130 junction improvements are due to be operational 2022/23. The District is a peninsula therefore there is only one way out, westwards if the Government insists on expansion in Rochford, Southend and Castle Point then Central Government should invest in our future by alieving the congestion by a river crossing between Hulllbridge and Fambridge to link with the Burnham Road to bypass South Woodham Ferrers dual carriageway to the Turnpike/A130. The whole road should go through to the Tesco's roundabout on the A127, this could be linked to a new settlement as previously mentioned and relieve congestion around South Woodham Ferrers.

Sustainable Travel
Section 8.37
Support Option A, C and E. Paragraph 8.32, Green Grid strategy was promised in the Core Strategy for the Land North of London Road Rawreth, however it seems to have disappeared in the Countryside plans. There is a need for joined up pedestrian/cycle ways to provide a meaningful and safe network. The subtrans national cycle route via Beeches Road/Watery Lane seems have disappeared, its unsafe because of the volume of traffic. Buses need to be convenient and cost effective alternatives to private vehicles.

Water and Flood Risk Management
Section 8.58
Support Options A & C which should be combined. Paragraph 8.45 Zone 2 and 3 areas of Rawreth are at risk from development upstream of the Brook system which drains Rayleigh, Thundersley, Bowers Gifford; Basildon and Wickford, all areas with development pressures. We need to co-operate with each authority to minimise risk in Rawreth and the River Crouch. Some areas of Rawreth are protected by sea defences which need upgrading to match the height of the North Bank. Because of the geology of the area in exceptionally wet years the impermeable clay can become saturated and ground water becomes an issue. The Rayleigh ridge is of mainly permeable Bagshot beds sitting on a clay base which gives rise to ground water. Flood risk from Highways improvements have to be properly modelled, for example the Fairglen interchange. Paragraph 8.49 the Water Cycle Study 2015 recommendation needs updating to take account of new future housing.

Health and Wellbeing
Section 9.11.
Support Option D with land allocation support.

Education
Section 9.29
Support Option A, B D and E Paragraph 9.26 stated that 800 new homes would generate a need for a new Primary School. Land to the North of London Road will generate 550 homes but this is not enough to generate a new school. St Nicholas School Rawreth was designed to be expanded to 210 pupils, it is currently half that, will expansion be an option?
Each new development should be treated individually to ensure adequate land is set aside for school sites if the demand can be shown. The Secondary School provision for age 16 to 19 years needs to be considered and addressed.

Open Space and Outdoor Sports Recreation
Section 9.42
Paragraph 9.39 "Depending on their size and scale these are considered appropriate in certain circumstances taking into account the impact on the Green Belt" So do the pitches in Old London Road Rawreth fit that criteria? In the SA Report it is stated that there were only about 30 pitches in Rochford District. There should be a re-appraisal and a comprehensive census of all sports facilities in Rochford. Why are most Council owned facilities underused and of poor quality? If private landowners can make a profit on pitches then the Council should review their facilities and invest in improvements to attract profitable use.

Green Belt
Section 10.16
Paragraph 10.6, Does this mean that the Green Belt can be expanded as well as reduced to facilitate development. Paragraph 10.7 there should be a sixth principle in food production and encouragement of locally produced sustainable food. Paragraph 10.15 the western boundary and strips of Green Belt are becoming too narrow as Basildon District, Shotgate expansion is built almost to the Rochford boundary. Is the land to the west of the western boundary of the land to the North of London Road still classified as Green Belt?

Air Quality
Section 10.72
Support Option B. We need to improve air quality by encouraging sustainable travel, also clean non polluting renewable energy. All new housing must incorporate PV panels or tiles on the roof.

Rural Exception Sites.
Section 11.19
Recognise the need for affordable housing in rural areas by small well designed sites in villages to retain the generations of families in their environment who can be supportive as a family unit, relieving pressure on social and health care services and reducing travel. Continue need for agricultural workers where new demand appears. Developments could be instigated by Parish Councils (see page 4&5 section on Community Led Planning)

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt
Section 11.49
In the guidance notes it was suggested that derelict agricultural/forestry areas should be excluded from the definition of Brownfield. Each site should be judged on its merits. In the case of Hambro Nurseries Rawreth where there are several hectares of un-used and underused greenhouses as well as areas of scrub and concrete, it should be looked at as on its own advantages it would be a development adjoining an existing residential area as was stated in the previous Core Strategy this Parish Council would support this area to consolidate and create a meaningful hub for the Village of Rawreth, the disadvantages put forward by the District Council were grossly exaggerated.


Contaminated Land
Section 11.81
Paragraph 11.80 it is stated that Rochford District Council don't have any formally declared contaminated land, what then is Michelins Farm?

Rochford Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on this Document and whilst fully supporting the Strategic Priorities and Objectives of the Vision wonder whether the vision is, in its own right, rather long.

The council would support the following options which the document identifies.

6.30 C
6.31 B
6.32 D
6.33 B
6.36 B
6.48 E
6.58 C
6.59 F
6.60 H
6.78 B
6.86 B
6.96 B & C
6.111 A & F
6.117 A & D
6.128 A & B
7.20 C
7.27 A & B
8.20 B (Councillors have concerns that option C would be unable to accommodate significant increases in traffic flow without a major infrastructure investment.
8.21 A
8.37 B & C
8.44 B
8.58 C
8.66 B
8.75 A
9.11 D
9.15 B
9.29 A, B, D & E
9.36 B
9.42 A, B, C & D
9.50 A
9.61 A
10.16 B
10.27 A
10.28 G
10.29 H
10.34 B
10.44 C & D
10.52 A
10.62 C
10.63 J
10.72 B
11.5 G
11.12 B
11.19 B
11.27 A
11.36 A
11.40 B
11.44 A
11.49 A
11.53 B
11.57 A & B
11.61 C
11.65 B
11.72 A (Councillors would like to see this strengthened especially in relation to advertising on residential property.
11.76 B
11.81 A

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.