Community Facilities

1) As a resident of Rochford, I would prefer to cycle, or walk not drive to local areas. We are lucky that the airport retail park, co op, Hockley centre and even tesco on a127 are within cycling reach, however the route from Ashingdon to Hall road where the main cycle route starts is not consistent all along the Ashingdon road and therefore more cyclists use the roads.

2) The level of traffic on Ashingdon road at peak times is heavy - maybe a "walk instead of drive" promotion if the district with volunteers guiding people on ways to use their legs or bikes for local journeys would be good? If people see others role modelling the behaviours they would be more encouraged to do it themselves.

3) like the bus pass for elderly free travel to support yongsters hanging around Rochford offer local travel incentives to support unrowdy behaviour eg- free trips 8-11pm- for under 18's - This would mean they get home safe, and don't hang about as they are more likely to want to get home free ! It is worrying the level of young people who are about at Rochford square due to lack of money to go anywhere / buses expensive etc so this may also help. I

3) Ashingdon is lovely and peaceful and very safe. However can feel a little cut off due to the level of traffic if you want to go to Rayleigh- Its difficult trying to go anywhere near Rayleigh centre due to level of traffic- also traffic build up the other way along to the airport past Rochford is very congested near Sainsbury's on the weekends. Again offering alternatives such as cycling and better routes would be good to help as a lot of people drive locally.

4) level of Parking in residential roads rather than on drives- a key example of this was recently in Alexandra Road, an ambulance had its ramp done in the road supporting a patient. The problem was the level of cars down both sides of the street blocking the other side which meant a 1 hour wait at the bottom of the road to get up it. I have to "slalam" to get up my road due to the amount of road parking by residents- I feel if residents have too many cars to fit their drive they should have to have a permit and pay for the privilege, or if they don't have a drive get a permitted space for their car which allows them the right to parks outside (an example is a off road monster truck parked in the road which takes up 3 spaces in Alexandra Road ....) this may deter people from parking. A worry would be due to double parking what about if fire service needed to get up the road a fire truck would not fit. I use an example where this method works well- ( heritage way)

5) more community events for use at Ashingdon Hall, I went to a murder mystery there in summer and it was great fun, met some new residents - definitely a call for residents to be more involved in local fetes/ farmers markets there etc If could be arranged to get community together and make more use of it. Maybe marketing a monthly "what's on" newsletter more related to social events / health groups in the Rochford magazine? ( would call out to think of social events of the younger people - 50 and under- we don't all want crochet or bridge club!)

6) Better use of twitter/ social media to get the community connected- the caring about Rochford Facebook group page is a great example there is a clear want for this from residents but it does need to be moderated.

7) Make use of skills of residents -eg retired people / pet lovers / etc would happily offer their gardening/ dog walking services etc which will help elderly / vulnerable people who maybe can't afford this but there is a need.

8) Encouraging people to get more involved in local initiatives willl build a sense of community pride - "try it out" free sessions/ subsidise - maybe partnering with Clements hall to offer free walking club or fitness classes for residents who bike instead of drive to prevent traffic etc - "ditch the car " free class" "walking mums club "- free coffee at xxx for encouraging mums to walk their kids to school rather than drive...building healthy residents.

1) As a resident of Rochford, I would prefer to cycle, or walk not drive to local areas. We are lucky that the airport retail park, co op, Hockley centre and even tesco on a127 are within cycling reach, however the route from Ashingdon to Hall road where the main cycle route starts is not consistent all along the Ashingdon road and therefore more cyclists use the roads.

2) The level of traffic on Ashingdon road at peak times is heavy - maybe a "walk instead of drive" promotion if the district with volunteers guiding people on ways to use their legs or bikes for local journeys would be good? If people see others role modelling the behaviours they would be more encouraged to do it themselves.

3) like the bus pass for elderly free travel to support yongsters hanging around Rochford offer local travel incentives to support unrowdy behaviour eg- free trips 8-11pm- for under 18's - This would mean they get home safe, and don't hang about as they are more likely to want to get home free ! It is worrying the level of young people who are about at Rochford square due to lack of money to go anywhere / buses expensive etc so this may also help. I

3) Ashingdon is lovely and peaceful and very safe. However can feel a little cut off due to the level of traffic if you want to go to Rayleigh- Its difficult trying to go anywhere near Rayleigh centre due to level of traffic- also traffic build up the other way along to the airport past Rochford is very congested near Sainsbury's on the weekends. Again offering alternatives such as cycling and better routes would be good to help as a lot of people drive locally.

4) level of Parking in residential roads rather than on drives- a key example of this was recently in Alexandra Road, an ambulance had its ramp done in the road supporting a patient. The problem was the level of cars down both sides of the street blocking the other side which meant a 1 hour wait at the bottom of the road to get up it. I have to "slalam" to get up my road due to the amount of road parking by residents- I feel if residents have too many cars to fit their drive they should have to have a permit and pay for the privilege, or if they don't have a drive get a permitted space for their car which allows them the right to parks outside (an example is a off road monster truck parked in the road which takes up 3 spaces in Alexandra Road ....) this may deter people from parking. A worry would be due to double parking what about if fire service needed to get up the road a fire truck would not fit. I use an example where this method works well- ( heritage way)

5) more community events for use at Ashingdon Hall, I went to a murder mystery there in summer and it was great fun, met some new residents - definitely a call for residents to be more involved in local fetes/ farmers markets there etc If could be arranged to get community together and make more use of it. Maybe marketing a monthly "what's on" newsletter more related to social events / health groups in the Rochford magazine? ( would call out to think of social events of the younger people - 50 and under- we don't all want crochet or bridge club!)

6) Better use of twitter/ social media to get the community connected- the caring about Rochford Facebook group page is a great example there is a clear want for this from residents but it does need to be moderated.

7) Make use of skills of residents -eg retired people / pet lovers / etc would happily offer their gardening/ dog walking services etc which will help elderly / vulnerable people who maybe can't afford this but there is a need.

8) Encouraging people to get more involved in local initiatives willl build a sense of community pride - "try it out" free sessions/ subsidise - maybe partnering with Clements hall to offer free walking club or fitness classes for residents who bike instead of drive to prevent traffic etc - "ditch the car " free class" "walking mums club "- free coffee at xxx for encouraging mums to walk their kids to school rather than drive...building healthy residents.

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

The levels of house building in in Rochford District in recent years has started to escalate at an alarming rate. The new plans outlined in your leaflet indicate a plan which is disastrous to the local semi-rural lifestyle that we currently enjoy.
The building project in Hall Road is still under way, but already we experience increased traffic especially at the roundabout at Bradley Way / Ashingdon Road / Hall Road. This will become very severe once the Hall road project is complete. The proposed building projects near Mount Bovers lane, Nursey Corner and Cherry Orchard Way will cause a serious loss of open green belt as well as jamming our country lanes such as Hall Road, main Road (Hockley) and Rectory Road.
The recent developments in Brays Lane has noticeably added to delays in Ashingdon Road, and if another 1,182 to 1,382 houses were to be built it would be a disaster in terms of loss good, open farmland, massive congestion in the whole area between Rochford and Rayleigh and an overload on other resources such as parking at local shops. Three and four bedroom houses usually have between two and four cars per house, these would need to be parked off street; are sufficient spaces designed into the projects for this? Once these cars are mobile and going to work, school runs, shops, social trips etc, the journey times will be horrific. Emergency services will experience unacceptable journey times with lives put at risk.
On the subject of emergency services, we have all been aware of the demise of Rochford Police Station. Increased Police presence ought to be incorporated into any housing plan on a pro - rata basis of new houses; also Fire and Medical services. Yet the NHS have apparently merged Southend, Basildon and Broomfield (Chelmsford) Hospitals with a view to transferring injured and ill patients between hospitals; the road congestion already makes this a slow process. The New Local Plan makes it inevitable that more people would suffer more and an increased death rate is bound to occur.
Essex has the lowest rainfall of any county in the UK, with Great Wakering being the driest village of all. So, the strain on water supplies would be very great and with massive housing projects springing up all over Essex, (Rochford, Witham, Bealieu near Chelmsford, Braintree etc etc) the water supply is not going to support all these proposed houses.
In summary, I am appalled by the proposed New Local Plan for Rochford District, and hope that our responsible local democratic councillors can bring sense to the rest of RDC and minimise these plans by a massive percentage, or stop them outright.

Your Sincerely,
John Chapman

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

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

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

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

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

Our first objection is to the strip of beautiful woodland at the end of Marylands Avenue, running behind Merryfields Avenue and adjacent to the Nature Reserve in Hockley, being offered up as a possible site to build houses on.

The reasons being:

1. This is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed inappropriately. This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.
2. The concern over the close proximity to the Nature reserve and the detrimental effect this will have on wildlife in this area. This land is teaming with wildlife and supports the nature reserve itself as it is undisturbed by humans and provides ideal nesting sites. Bats, a protected species, can often be seen circling around in the summer months. We have seen badgers in our garden on two occasions. My neighbour spotted a Muntjac deer, that she reported to yourselves. You said that you had seen footprints nearby in the Nature reserve. My neighbour also spotted a protected species of bird, a type of bullfinch, which is on the red danger list, near to extinction.
3. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order by yourselves, the council, we have been told by another neighbour.
4. Flooding: During heavy rain, excessive amounts of water streams down the hill and congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue which the gulleys cannot cope with. The woodland provides a natural soakaway.
5. Access to this site is too narrow by far. Marylands Avenue itself is a quiet, residential family orientated street and to have heavy traffic weaving it's way up and down this road is extremely dangerous and quite unthinkable and would impact on all residents lives.
Objection to 7500 houses being built in our area over the next 20 years, including using green belt land.

1. Funding/Infrastructure: Infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of underfunding (by a 2016 report issued by the ECC.)
2. Utilites: The privately operated Utility companies have not proven their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting the extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,00 new homes - (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle.)
3. Greenbelt law: The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status, a housing project of this size can only be achieved by sacrificing the GB principals, quote - "...to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another."
4. Civic Amenities: The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity programme has eroded civic amenities and services to the point of crisis (health and care services.) This same situation is now starting to impact Education and Emergency services due to lack of capacity - the plus 30% loading is just not feasible or sustainable.
5. Commuting: Commuting out and into the District is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines that the existing housing to local workplace ratio is out of balance. Obviating the need to long-distance commute by the generation of local employment must be one of the main drivers for a project of this nature and should limit the scale accordingly.
We, as residents like living in our semi rural area. A project of this size would change our living environment to one that we did not choose, when we decided to live here. We like the feeling of open space and we enjoy driving through the countryside to get to one place or the other. We like to see trees and fields, hear birds sing, see horses in fields. We like feeling safe and knowing that we live in a settled, long standing community. A project like this would inevitably cause a lot of people to feel stressed, unsettled. A lot of people would move away. It would not be such a pleasant place to live anymore. The current resident's quality of life needs to be considered. The wildlife, nature, character of our district needs to be considered.
There simply isn't enough room, there isn't the infrastructure, amenities or utilities to consider a project of this scale. A few more houses may need to be built, but not to the detriment of the people already living here.

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

I trust you will take into consideration my feelings on this subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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


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

General Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

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

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

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

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









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.33 Option: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

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

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

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

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

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

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

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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

The current pressure from Government on Local Authorities to build thousands of houses in rural areas and particularly on green-belt/fields is unacceptable and knee jerk reaction due to different sucessive Governments failure to plan strategically or forecast needs and exascerbated when Council Housing stock was sold off at excessively reduced cost under the "Right to Buy" knowing they did not have funding for building programmes to replace let alone increase the stock.

Rather than spreading the housing across the Country the focus is to build closer to London and other Cities and Towns where there are higher levels of employment therefore need. However, housing is limited and becomes more expensive due to demand from the increase of internal migration and imirgration, whether driven by social, family, economics, asylum or humanitarian. Inner City Authorities are already sending people to this area for emergency housing paying private landlords excessive amounts. In many areas including Hockley and its local towns and villages the infrastructure, in particular transport/healthcare/schools/social care/utilities, is currently not sufficient for existing residents let alone the recent and current medium/large building developments already passed by the Planning Department.

Having reviewed the Issues and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal) and Rochford District Council - Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017-Appendix C - Site Assessment Forms, I have the following General Objections for the overall Plan and @ TABLE 2 - Objections to Specific Site Assessments identified for proposed development.

General Objections:

No Cohesive Plan:

Reading the Site Assessments the sections headed Infrastructure Assessment indicate that other than 3 sites, there is no significant investment needed for utilities and no sites require significant investment for transport. Taken individually this might be the case but when 15 sites have the potential to accommodate 500+ dwellings @30 per Ha, it would seem to be a serious oversight by the Assessor. In any event this is a wider plan for the District and taken as a whole the number of proposed sites would indicate significant investments would be required and the following MUST be improved before any further development plans are passed or built in to the planning agreements, with no options to default.

Inadequate Transport Network

Road - The road system can barely accommodate the current population let alone the new developoments currently under construction, particularly those in Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell. Rochford District has 1 designated Orange Secondary Road which joins Rayleigh-Hockley-Hawkwell-Southend and this has already been highlighted in Local Authority Reports as needing urgent improvements/widening due to volume of traffic-we are still waiting for a feasible solution! All other roads are designated Yellow-less than 4 metres or White-Other Road drive-track. The location of the River Crouch, it's tributaries and marsh lands, to the north of the district means any expansion of road systems is restricted to existing populated areas. Even if it was possible it would impact Maldon District which also has a poor road network. Planning must also take account of the commercial vehicles-cars, which have increased with more online purchasing not just the domestic vehicles approx. 1-2 per household for current population and proposed from current and future developments.

The road networks, with recognised pinch points, Rochford/Ashingdon/Hockley railway bridges; Spa roundabout; Rawreth mini roundabout; Rayleigh one way system, are just a few, to the wider road system. There are only 4 A roads A127; A130; A13; A12, all of which are already congested and access to the A13 & A12 is via the A127 & A130. This impacts journeys to local jobs/schools as well as those travelling further to the M25, all junctions of which are congested on a daily basis during rush hours. The development and growth of Southend Airport although beneficial to Commerce has brought more traffic in to the area too.
The development plans identify sites adjacent to many of the existing roads so if they are built before the road sysetm is improved how can they be widened or land made available for new roads [not just access roads and ornate roundabouts to the sites].

Even if the local road system was improved the increase in local traffic to the already congested A Roads which could not cope. The Plans indicate working with other Government and Highways Departments to improve the wider infrastructure but there is nothing concrete and overall austerity and poor road conditions, pothole epedemic would indicate these Plans are not realistic. During normal road conditions vehicles queue to access most junctions on the A roads and during rush hours and/or bad conditions they queue to get on and off at junctions from Wickford to Southend.

Inadequate Rail Services - trains are already very busy and on the Southend to Liverpool Street Line people who pay thousands of pounds per year normally have to stand from Billericay. The C2C Line is a little better but the increase in housing will increase passengers from the start of each line meaning more people will be standing unless Rochford Concil can confirm the Railways have the ability to invest at the same time in order to accommodate the expected numbers by adding trains or carriages. Again how realistic is this, schedules are already tightly timed and there is limited ability to add trains especialy where lines converge at Shenfield, Wickford, Romford, Stratford etc., extra carriages may be limited by the current length of platforms and in many cases there is no potential to expand because of lack of land/access.

Inadequate Bus Services - routes and timetables are limited leading to many people using private vehicles.

Supply of Utilities [water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle] - privately operated companies have not proven their ability or commitment to meeting extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,000 new homes. The land in this area consists of waterways, marshland and prone to flooding. Over development will place additional pressure on the waterways, sewage, drains which cannot cope with the resulting runoff, struggling now.

Inadequate Civic Amenities - to date austerity programmes and historic lack of investments for schools, health, transport, roads and maintenance have eroded Civic Amenities and Services, in particular Health and Care Services to the point of crisis. Outsourcing and so called partnerships with private companies such as Carillion failing catetrophically leading to tax payers having to fund losses to keep essential services being delivered. Local Authrites current plans are to reduce/cost save and merge in line with the lack of funding not to increase, impove which would be needed to prepare for this radical Plan. This is not scaremongering but supported by the intended merger of Basildon, Southend and Broomfield Hospitals. Identifying Car Parks, Police Stations, Council Offices and Land for development to residential when the need for these will increase with the proposed increase in population. How can Planners think an increase in housing and resulting population needs can be met when Government and Local Authorities do not have a cohesive plan, most only have 3-5 year plans anticipating changes in governments and local authorities which result in different priorities, back-tracking and ultimately wasting money, time and resources.

Land Identification & Development

Table 1 below is a breakdown by location and site. There are a total of 226 sites identified which allocate approximately 1084 hectres and calculating properties @30 per Ha totals over 32519, which is much higher than the 7500 required. This means that not all the sites will be required.

Table 1 Breakdown of the Site Assessments
Location Ashingdon Canewdon Great Stambridge/ Stambridge Wakerings [Great/Little] Hawkwell Hockley Hullbridge Leigh/ Southend Rawreth Rayleigh/Eastwood Rochford Wickford
# Sites Identified 16 10 4 17 14 22 22 4 11 55 49 2
Ha Identified 49.6 38.4 11.28 121.79 67.1 64.7 87 9.26 103 252 275 5.76
Proposed No @30 per Ha 1487 1151 338 3654 2013 1941 2601 278 3093 7555 8235 173

I object to any sites being adopted that will not provide the housing required by Government/Local Authority Quotas to provide social/affordable housing due to the size of the site and/or impacting the green-belt/field land, in particular woodland/vacant/open/grassland and historic land/buildings and placing additional burden on the existing poor road networks and civic communities.
Those sites designated as Woodlands, most of which have ancient relevance in this area and particuarly Hockley, ancient/listed buildings, open spaces, community buildings, car parks and any land where the development would impact a public/official right of way, footpath; bridlepath as well as any adopted one's should be removed from consideration. In fact they should be ring fenced from future plans and maintained or invested in for the use and enjoyment of the current and expected increase in population.

Land Identified as Gypsy & Traveller's Sites

I object to the proposed sites for Gypsy & Traveller's. The 10 sites account for 16.5 hectres which for normal housing allocation would equate to 495. This is excessive for the area when there are only 12 authorised sites in Essex - 1 in Basildon @25 plots; 2 chelmsford @ 22 plots & 2 Maldon @ 26 plots, not including the current 3 unauthroised plots in Leigh and Rawreth. Locating sites adjacent to agricultural/open land could encourage unauthorised spread and the traditional trades/work they do could lead to build up of and unlawful disposal of scrap metal, hazardous high risk waste, rubble and other construction waste & materials, which will adversely impact wildlife, land, waterways and the environment generally.

Objections to Specific Site Assessments
TABLE 2 - Objections to Specific Site Assessments
Ref Address Designation Ha Dwellings @30pHa
CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AL Woodland 1.25 38
The land is a long thin strip behind a residential area and to the other side the Marylands Nature Reserve with open land tracks and footpaths recreational areas beyond that. This is a small development which would have a very poor access/layout and not benefit the government quotas for social/affordable housing. The Woodland area supports and protects the existing Nature Reserve from the negative impact of the existing domestic dwellings. Nature does not stop at the current boundary of the Nature Reserve and has naturally spread to the woodland. Development would severely impact the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat in this area and those from the Nature Reserve which benefit from the woodland, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks. The development has an awkward, sloped, narrow access through narrow congested roads to reach Plumberow Avenue. The Woodland is currently providing a natural soak away but there is still a build up during heavy rainfall at the end of Marylands Avenue, where the access would be, because of the poor drainage system. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure.

GF01 Land north west of Hockley Station, Hockley, SS5 5AE - Railway embankment Vacant-wooded area 0.37 11
This land has no current vehicular access and is part of the railway embankment made up of a long thin strip. Access could only be achieved from a section of Mount Crescent which is a narrow access road to a small development of semi-detached bungalows. The specific section only has a footpath on the opposite side to the site and sharp bends to both ends which could cause pedestrian and vehicular hazards. Although the dimensions of the site are not clear the size would only accommodate 11 or less individual dwellings if the proposed development was in keeping with the current housing stock. The land size and proximity to the railway does not afford itself to this type of housing stock but flats would not be in keeping with the current housing stock and overlook existing dwellings living accommodation impacting their privacy as the majority have extended their living accommodation and bedrooms in to their loft. Looking at buildings along the existing railway track in the vicinity there are none that are built as close as this proposed development and I assume there is a reason for this, whether from the point of view of residents who would be on top of the railway and affected by noise/vibration of the busy train services from Southend to London Liverpool Street, which will have to increase. Or the need for the railway provider to maintain the railway and a sufficient boundary to expand or protect the line from anything that could impact it i.e. building fire. The wooded area although not designated as part of the ancients woods is linked to Marylands Wood to one side thereby supporting and protecting the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies, voles etc. and their food sources including vegetation, insects in this area and those from the nearby Nature Reserve benefiting which benefit from the wooded area, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks. The wooded area currently provides a natural soak away for the existing houses protecting the railway, which will be lost and the new development and runoff could adversely impact the railway. As a small development it will not contribute to the goal of the government quotas to increase social housing stock nor will it have to contribute to the local infrastructure, therefore, as part of the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure.

CFS019 Land adjacent to Newhall Road and Lower Road, Hockley, SS5 5JU Woodland/Vacant 1 30
The land is behind a current residence and adjacent to a well-used track accessing walks and open spaces. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would not be in keeping with existing land use or residence and could lead to a precedence to use other vacant/woodland adjoining to be developed. The development would have to join a country road with limited lighting near a bend. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS023 Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley, SS5 5JA Grass Field/Track 5.6 168
The land is adjacent to a residential area on one side but the majority would be adjacent to Beckney Woods and open land tracks and footpaths with very few dwellings. These open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connect the existing ancient woods from Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would begin to box in the Woods which will severely impact the access the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects. The development would have to join a minor road with limited lighting and at the bottom or an existing hill. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS030 Creek View, Beckney Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5NR - Vacant/Woodland 0.18 5
The land is adjacent woodland on all sides adjacent to Beckney Woods with no dwellings. These woods lead to adjacent open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connecting the existing ancient woods from Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. Such a small development will have little benefit to the focus of the Government quotas for social housing but will severely impact the access to the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, bats, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat. The development would have to join a track with limited lighting with one access to road system joining Plumberow Avenue which is already congested. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS040 Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley SS5 4SS Residential 1.3 39
The land is already residential but backs on to open land and opposite/near two new developments under construction. This is a minor road which is a cut through for traffic trying to avoid Rayleigh/Rawreth and is already very busy and current developments increasing use of these minor roads. It passes some very old properties and church has limited access under railway bridge and one way system to reach the access road at a difficult point on Aldermans Hill. The stables and other horse-riders use these back roads to access the bridleways in Hockley/Hullbridge. Such a small development will have little benefit to the focus of the Government quotas for social housing but will severely impact the access roads and further impact on local wildlife and habitat. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS039 Plots 1/2/3 New Hall Estate, Greensward Lane, Hockley, SS5 5J Trinity Wood House Woodland 0.18 5
CFS064 Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley, SS5 4SF - Agricultural/Vacant/Residential/Woodland 9.03 271
CFS074 Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley SS5 4J Agricultural 22 660
CFS150 Land on the north side of Victor Gardens, Hockley SS5 4DY Woodland/Vacant 2.02 61
CFS160 Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ Farm 5.94 178
CFS161 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ Dwelling 1.6 48
CFS169 Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY Residential with Large Garden 5.15 155
COL96 Grass SLA, Appleyard Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AY Vacant-woodland-Council 0.07 2
EXP09 Land Opposite Maryon House, Bullwood Hall Lane, Hockley SS5 4TD Agricultural 0.16 5
The above proposed sites have similar reasons for not being adopted within the Plan. They are adjacent to Ancient Woods/Open Spaces/Listed or Ancient Buildings/Monuments some have TPOs. These open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connect the existing ancient woods from Hullbridge, Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would begin to box in the Woods and open spaces which will severely impact the access the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, bats, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat. The developments are close to new medium/large developments some still under construction off of Hall Road, Rectory Road, Main Road, and full impact on local infrastructure and roads yet to be assessed. The developments would have to join already busy, poorly maintained yellow designated roads or minor roads which feed in to yellow designated roads some of which would create awkward junctions either at top/bottom of existing hills. The small developments would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan they should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure. I am not aware of the requirements for medium developments to contribute to the social/affordable housing stock but it would be minimal. Although I as many would prefer no development the overall Development Plan should look at potential sites which will provide the housing required whilst impacting the least woodland/vacant/open/grassland and historic land/buildings in our green belt/field land and impact on road and civic communities. That means larger sites outside of the existing villages/towns with the potential to meet the government/local authority quotas, address the need for social housing, contribute to improving the infrastructure, civic amenities, utilities and incorporate an appropriate road network and more access roads to the existing road, which may also have tolerance around to widen roads with least impact during and after construction i.e. CFS097/CFS121.

CFS156 Lime Court and Poplar Court, Greensward Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 5HB & SS5 5JB Residential Care Home 0.6 18
This is a care home in the village and valued by many people. How would reducing care facilities within the village benefit the overall Plan? Renovation and improvements should mean that it can remain in use without significant cost or impact on the community.

BFR2 Eldon Way Land next to station - close to railway line, where will industry go to if all changed to residential Industrial/Leisure 4.6 138
This is an existing industrial estate with mechanics, physiotherapist, chiropodists; tyre dealer, upholsterer etc. There are very few local mechanics to take vehicles to this is close to the station so beneficial for those dropping off vehicles. Although there are some unused buildings they should be completed and current site renovated with local industry in mind. Many cannot relocate to high street because the type of business is not retail or they cannot afford to relocate to the high street. The local businesses need to remain. Making this residential will increase vehicular and pedestrian access to an already busy cul-de-sac, which joins the access road at an awkward and busy junction. The number of houses would not benefit the overall Plan and aim for social housing.

COL22 Public Car Park, Southend Road, Hockley, SS5 4PZ Public Car Park 0.24 7
This is the only car park in Hockley and used by many to access local shops, library, doctors, pharmacist and other essential amenities. Local minor roads are narrow and although they have various parking restrictions they are normally for 1 or 2 hours within the day therefore people will choose the times they shop and any parking will cause congestion. The main road is the only designated secondary road through Hockley and parking on the main route will cause unnecessary congestion.

EXP14 Warren House 10-20 Main Road, Hockley SS5 4QS - Retail/Offices 0.03 1
This is an existing retail and residential building. The High Street is dying already because of high rates and little help for small businesses changing this to residential would not seem to benefit the goal of the government quotas for social housing or help the local community. Hockley High Street needs support and funding to improve the shopping experience, encourage new business, to bring in money and commerce. Development will severely impact the only main road through Hockley. This site should not be developed.

General Comments

With regards to the planned developments the lack of funding from Government and Local Authorities in housing has led to the need for "Partnerships" with private developers. Historically this has proven to be less beneficial to the community if not managed and audited by relevant authorities. Realistically developers are there to make profit and now the need has aligned with a boyant housing market they are using this to pressurise local authorities to agree planning on a signifcant amount of land some of which has been stockpiled for years during the recession. Although these developments include some social/affordablel housing the majority will be for sale and the people who need the housing i.e. low paid, homeless, emergency housed or private landlords receiving benefits, elderly, disabled, key personnel, will not be able to afford them outright or access funds thereby not reducing the population the local authority will still be obliged to house through emergency/private landlords.

There should be an open and transparent review of the recent developments Planning have passed and balance the real value to the Community and whether the quotas have reduced pressure for housing on the local authorities:
* How many homeless/registered council tennants/emergency housed have or will be accommodated
* What contribution did they make:
o No of Schools or monetary contributions
o No of Healthcare centres or monetary contributions
o No of Road widening/improvement to existing or monetary contributions to highways
o No of improvements to existing utilities/drainage/sewage or monetary contributions to providers
before passing any future planning.
Also whether they made the most of the land to reduce the need for future developments, not just focussing on the profit. The "partnership" between private and local authorities must be more focussed on benefiting both parties not loaded towards the developers and shareholders, fair profit margins and more social/affordable housing is essential. Also focus on designs that make the most of the land available not the developers preferred "detached family homes" because it is not suitable for today's diverse families or sustainable. We are an Island and will run out of land eventually and those requiring homes do not fit mum, dad and 2.1 children. Local Authorities should be making developers focus on developing properties that benefit the people that need social/affordable housing and capitalize on the space including utilizing basements for parking or additional accommdation; apartments for 1st time buyers, 1 parent familities and GF accommodation for elderly and disabled to encourage more community living, play areas, retail, health care, schools etc. We cannot continue to canabalise the green belt and agricultural land. Local Authorities should be valuing open spaces for the future environment and support farmers to use the agriculture land to benefit the community and increase productivity at reasonable prices rather than importing the majority of food stuffs we could grow.

That means that first choice should be brown-belt, then larger green-belt/field sites to meet the quotas, but outside of the existing villages/towns, with the potential to include the requirement for social housing and affordable housing, contribute to improving the infrastructure, civic amenities, utilities and incorporate an appropriate road network during construction as well as increasing access roads to the existing road, which may also have tolerance around to widen roads using land from the new site as well as having the least impact during and after construction i.e. CFS097/CFS121. Any developments that will be adjacent to a greenbelt/greenfield designated land should have an enforced 3 metres boundary to reduce the impact on any wildlife, plants and habitat that exists.

May I first say that I have tried to use the website to leave this feedback but found the site too complicated for an average user to navigate and therefore contribute to this consultation, this has led me to leave this e-mail of which I hope you read and include. My name is Alan Pomroy and I reside at *redacted*
I am, as a resident, very frustrated with the policy of repeated development of the area that I live in and the surrounding towns that I travel through for work and social reasons. The south east of Essex has such a dense population of people due to employment opportunities that the infrastructure cannot cope at this time let alone with the future population growth that would occur with the proposed developments. In brief the points that deeply concern me are:
* Traffic issues. The main roads cannot cope with the current volumes of traffic without the increase due to development. This is so much in evidence that the introduction of tolls along the A127 to try and alleviate the congestion are being considered. Local pollution levels are on the increase due to the industrial demand and the road traffic issues causing health concerns.
* Water demands in the area. Hanningfield reservoir is a popular fishing resort I frequent. During the summer months and especially toward the end of summer the reservoir is regularly depleted of its resources thus causing the necessity to drain local rivers to supplement the demand. An increase in demand is simply not sustainable.
* Education. The schooling in the local area is insufficient at all levels if development continues. At primary level the local school has a 2 form entry that simply cannot cope. There is nothing on option locally for secondary school education other than to travel to surrounding schools placing demand on transport resources and the local population to those schools. Shortage of placements will impact on all adjacent areas and children will not necessarily gain their desired or nearest place of education. Schools are therefore regularly closed for extended periods during winter months due to adverse weather as the risks of travelling to these schools fails any risk assessments made thus leading to lost time in education.
* Health issues. The local doctors surgeries are already at capacity. Getting an appointment is almost an impossible task leading to people to attend the A & E at Southend hospital. A hospital already overloaded with demand and also a hospital that has exceeded its budget regularly and has been scrutinised for closure/partial closure to redeploy to other medical sites. This would be devastating for the area as it stands without further development. The demands on Southend Hospital are already too great and further demand on this institution should be unthinkable.
* Great Wakering is/was a village of which all local infrastructure and amenities represent. Due to constant demand for development the village is/has lost its identity as a village but these amenities and infrastructure has not changed. Great Wakering cannot take further development. The main high street consists of a number of listed buildings meaning updates/development of the road is impossible. The High street is barely passable at times for busses let alone this increase in local traffic. The surrounding areas suggested for development are based on flood risk sites, areas containing natural resources or areas of conservation.
* Recycling centres. The areas waste production is already out of control with increased demand to establish new local landfill sites ( another demand nobody wants on their doorstep ). Great Wakering recycling centre is miles away at Rayleigh although Southend is SO much closer. I am led to believe that plans are being considered to relocate this recycling centre even further from these local residents. This could lead to an increase in fly tipping or attempts to use the more local centre of Southend adding to their issues.
* Crime and policing. With an increase in population an increase in policing demands would naturally be required. This would impact on an already stretched law enforcement institution.
Taking all the above in account and the responsibilities we have to maintain the green and great British land I believe that this proposal should be rejected in all counts. I respect the need for increased housing that would align with an improvement for all amenities and local infrastructure but I strongly believe that there is enough evidence already to show and prove that the area cannot cope with the proposed increase in housing and therefore population.

NEW LOCAL PLAN - Rochford District Council 2018 - Issues and Options

3. OUR CHARACTERISTICS

Our Economy

3.3 "South Essex.. a national priority for growth and regeneration". I object. We have employment sources eg London Southend Airport (but people commute in from elsewhere for jobs and rent locally, thus using up jobs and housing. We have local businesses, industrial parks, shops. Many commute to London. But S. Essex is overcrowded and there is some unemployment. Though we are served by Greater Anglia and C2C rail lines to London, other areas, Kent, Sussex etc, are served by main line termini, so we don't need more population here.

3.13-3.16 As you well illustrate, circa two thirds of Rochford district is agricultural, flood risk, so difficult of access and of limited population, the bulk of which is in much smaller west. Consequences are clear.

Schools are overcrowded and measures are being sought, with difficulty, to extend them. Examples:- developers of new 600 estate in Hall Road promised a new primary school. Then, then with excuse that 2 developers involved, only 300 each, they opted out of S106 agreement, so no school.

Hospitals are at risk, surgeries are overcrowded - and it isn't just the old problem.

Traffic, on most accesses, including B1013, now of rush hour size all day, characterised by mile long traffic jams. Road works may contribute, including A127 at Kent Elms, but all noticeably worse since autumn 2016 due to Hall Road, Clements Hall, Christmas Tree Farm and other large developments in the west. Wholesale demolition of residences for redevelopment, including historic ones in eg Hockley that would have been listed elsewhere.

3.18 Note historic Rochford and Rayleigh, plus Conservation areas, of high historic value. "400 listed buildings.. a number of heritage assets not listed nationally, but of local historic importance". But in Hockley, a considerable number of historic buildings have been demolished that elsewhere would have been listed. Reference is made to Local List - one iconic, historic building on the hill entering Hockley was on Local List. So Rochford council abolished its Local List "Government now frowns on Local Lists", until after demolition, when list was renewed. Building was replaced by flats. Hockley has always been the poor relation in this respect. Meanwhile much public money was being spent on preservation is Rayleigh and Rochford, council saying money mustn't be wasted on preservation of iconic building in Hockley.

3.20 "higher proportion of older residents". For a while, but recently an increasing number of younger people in Hockley, so don't target older people for eviction.

3.22 "long term worsening in affordability" and 893 households on Housing Waiting List. One major cause - Government policy of mass selling off of Council housing cheaply during 1980s, councils not allowed to use resultant sums to build more council homes or care for what remained. Council houses had 2 purposes:- one, for families need to save up with cheap rent till they could buy own home; two, for families who could never afford to buy.

4 Our spatial challenges

4.4 I object. Under the National Planning Policy Framework Local Planning Authorities are to work out how many houses they need and plan positively how to meet need in full or if they need help from neighbours - presumably Duty to Cooperate - this is unrealistic.

4.13, 15, 18 I object. If Castle Point, Southend, London are unable to meet all their need for new homes, as you demonstrated in paras 4.13, 15, 16, Rochford will be unable to fulfil their surplus needs under Duty to Cooperate.

5. OUR VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

5.11 Drafting our Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objective 2 this doesn't work... Affordability - developers of schemes above a certain size are required to set 35% as affordable. Information is at least one developer sold off the Waiting List percentage to another borough for its Waiting List. What about Rochford's Waiting List of over 900?

Strategic objective 10 Doesn't work. ".. to work with other authorities and Essex County Council to deliver meaningful improvements to highway network". The ECC 2016 fund for this showed a £4.4 billion gap not matched by Government investment.

Strategic Objective 14 "To work with ECC and health care providers to ensure residents have.. quality social and health services. Doesn't work. Local health arrangements are struggling and too many people are pouring down from London and elsewhere to live here. Hospital under threat and Government heavy charges for care at home.

Strategic Objective 17 Doesn't work. On 4.2.18 Government announced change to plan law to permit extending buildings by 1-3 storeys - how can you cope with that?

Strategic Objective 18 I object. "to support.. delivery of.. primary, secondary etc education facilities".. see my earlier comment re a developer promising S106 agreement for a primary school, then when plan consent given, he opted out as 2 developers involved - 300 homes each. What can you do about that except getting law changed?

6 Delivering Homes/Jobs

6.2 I object. "Delivering.. of new homes.. market, affordable etc". "Any new homes.. supported by suitable infrastructure.. so does not impose unnecessary burden on capacity of existing infrastructure". As I commented under earlier headings, local population has been added to by others coming down from London and elsewhere. Local settlements were agricultural villages and 2 market towns, so local main roads were narrow, winding country lanes, now tarmacked over for motorised traffic, which cannot be changed to motorways, particularly as they are now fully developed either side and beyond.

Also as I said earlier, in 2016 Essex County Council has a £4.4 billion fund gap for highways infrastructure.

6.9 6.10 This sums it up - realisation that environment capacity and availability, viability, infrastructure etc limits what is possible re housing need.

The only possible solution - a new garden settlement to take more population, obviously in Green Belt some of which is flood plain. A by-road would be needed which would also help with traffic density elsewhere. This would need to be carefully planned.

6.19 Affordability a significant issue in Rochford. Re market houses - London people are selling up for good prices and can buy in Rochford district for lower price, though still expensive apparently and local people cannot afford. Re the 921 people on Rochford Waiting List, information is that another council bought out the required percentage of social homes in one development. I think such cases should be taken into account in the Duty to Cooperate.

There are local families who want gardens for their children - even homes they could afford are snapped up by developers. Estates are built with houses packed together, for profit naturally - builders need a living - so no gardens.

6.20 I agree what you say re private rent and Waiting List. As before - 1980s Government had council houses sold off - rest assigned to housing associations. Until law changes re council housing - nil you can do.

6.25 Re Duty to Cooperate, it is already clear you cannot contribute to other districts, without driving locals out of their homes.

6.29 It is clear to you also you cannot deliver the target given by S. Essex HMA, so you cannot aid other councils under Duty to Cooperate.

6.30 I agree Option C seems the most practical.

6.30 and 31 Problem seems insoluble.

6.33 Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities Don't forget many older people are able to manage in own homes. Some are suggesting they be removed to make room for younger people. In fact, if removed, only the bulldozer would move in to provide expensive executive dwellings for rich people moving down from London and elsewhere.

7 Supporting Commercial Development

7.12 Retail/Leisure/Town Centres

Re Cinema - "Scope for small independent niche cinema" - you had the Regal cinema in Rayleigh, very successful, but demolished to accommodate the Mill Hall.

"Catering.. priority need for Class A3 restaurant/café in Hockley - I object - there are no less than 7 in the centre already. Hockley well provided for retail, except that since supermarket arrived, basic needs - grocers, butchers, greengrocers with which Hockley was well furnished and are needed, have all gone.

8 Delivering Infrastructure

8.4 "high level of car ownership" - naturally, nowadays. Hence that militates against largescale developments.

8.6 Object. CIL and S.106 agreements won't solve anything. Firstly, they are only for developers to mitigate immediate vicinity traffic problems in relation to their application. In Rochford and elsewhere traffic problem is widespread. Secondly, it is notorious that developers enter S.106 agreements to get plan consent, then they find excuses to opt out of them.

8.8 This is the nub. Your propose eg 7,500 new homes, needing vast changes to traffic facilities, costing huge sums. As previously, Essex County Council noted in 2016 a £4.4 billion fund gap in their infrastructure needs, not matched by Government investment.

8.13 "lack of resilience on local highway network" eg "large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions" - this is just what you get with huge new development estates - each home having 2+ cars.

8.14 The B1013 via Rayleigh, Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford "large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions" is just what you had in morning/evening rush hours. Now, since autumn 2016, you have it all day, often 7 days/week, precisely due to vast new development estates in the vicinity. A new settlement is needed, probably in Green Belt.

8.19 " it's important to acknowledge.. there are limited funds available.. to deliver improvements to the local highway network" - exactly as noted before regarding ECC highways funds - this militates against large development whatever Government is reputed to demand.

8.20 Options

B CIL, like S.106 agreements, as before, is doubtful and individual cases of improvement would not solve B1013 problem. It's now almost as busy with commercial traffic as A127.

Only answer is new motorway through S E Essex, also serving new settlement.
8.22 Sustainable Travel

Idea of increasing public transport is great. Only problem is bus services are privatised. Due to many of those working age in some areas having cars, the bulk of bus passengers there are free passers and Arriva naturally doesn't want them - they claim full sum is not paid to them via Government. Once said "we are not running a service, but a business". This is why some services are drastically cut. I can't think of a solution.

What are the identified issues?

8.33 You note cycle paths are badly needed. Problems of safety occur in Hockley for lack of them. Problem is there is no transit area available for them in Hockley.

You propose amendments to bus routes in Rochford, presumably via Bradley Way - fair enough. There is a rumour of re-routing No8 through Hall Road and Cherry Orchard Way, presumably to serve new 600 estate and new business park. If true, hard luck for those in Rectory Road, Hawkwell. Also, unlike rest of Rectory Road, new stops either side serving new Christmas Tree Farm estate are hardly ever used. Won't the same apply to Hall Road estate whose occupants will undoubtedly be car owners, likewise users of the business park?

Free bus service for Hullbridge secondary school children a good idea.

8.37 What are the realistic options? Option C seems the most practical.

Water and Flood Risk Management

What are the realistic options?

8.58 Option A Retain existing flood risk policy for coastal flooding - forbid development with exception of brownfield - most likely but still doubtful - even if previously developed, still at flood risk.

Planning obligations and standard charges

8.67 Problem with S.106 agreements (payments or mitigating additional works by developers) as before, they enter agreements to get plan consent, then find plausible excuses to opt out.

8.69 Planning conditions - also opted out if they want something else.

8.70 As before one developer promised a primary school, then claimed 2 builders involved, each with half the houses, so escaped obligation. A developer reputedly sold his percentage of social housing to another council for their Waiting List. I hope you can succeed with Community Infrastructure Levy.

9 Supporting Health, Community an Culture

9.7 to 9.10 What are the identified issues
With inevitable Government cuts to NHS provision for the hospital and surgeries and ever greater numbers pouring down into S E Essex from London and elsewhere, problem is insoluble.

9.11 What are the realistic options?

I cannot think of a solution. Money and land needed not available.

Community Facilities

What are the identified issues?

9.14 "facilities.. under threat.. to be developed for other uses" not only shops, pubs etc, also public libraries - eg Hockley one admitted by a County Councillor an a Leader of RDC councillors to be so.

Options

Option B definitely a good idea ".. to resist conversion of community facilities to residential". In fact "prevent" would be better word than "resist".

Education and Skills

I am informed some London 11+ passers are bussed to our nearby grammar schools - Southend and Westcliff, thus reducing places for local children.

Re local villages - some primary schools have closed due to reduced population, but middle class parents so resident drive their children to preparatory schools in Southend, while those of other social classes are left out.

9.28 Option E I support Promoting apprenticeships through cooperation with businesses in offering same and further education a good idea.

10 Protecting an Enhancing our Environment

10.15 I agree with the Environmental Capacity Study 2015 that "it is uncertain whether the district could accommodate additional growth, and unlikely t9o be able to accommodate needs from other areas".

10.16 Options

Option B is sinister - "an assessment of the Green Belt as a whole would need to be taken into consideration". I admit I said a new settlement would possibly be unavoidable, but wholesale change is not on. There would be a solid wall of development from London to the coast.

10.26 Habitats I agree Natural England's need to develop an Essex-wide strategy to identify how potential impacts of .. disturbance resulting from delivering new homes in the country may be mitigated against. The fact is a number of home gardens in somewhat developed areas have habitats of protected creatures which are potentially threatened by developers, not just SPAs, SACs and Ramsars.

10.40 I disagree - Environmental Capacity Study 2015 re grades of agricultural land, Study recommends distinction between 3a and 3b to identify possibilities for smallscale housing development - ? is that how 600 were built in Hall road outside Rochford, mostly sold to Londoners for £650,000?

10.48 How to overcome the Local List - typical - 1 Southend Road Hockley - iconic building, up for development and on Local List - so Rochford council abolished their Local List - "government now frowns on Local Lists", until I =t was demolished. Then Local List was restored as government now approved Lists. (Other councils denied knowledge of such order and had no intention of abolishing theirs.

10.50 conservation Areas - such designation does not prevent adverse changes apparently - so why bother?

10.52 Options

Option A - Action Plans for Rochford and Rayleigh in particular, due to their historic significance are heavily focussed on protecting the character o town centres, unlike Hockley where many historic and iconic buildings have ben demolished. Incidentally circa half of Rayleigh centre was demolished in 1960s, now obviously replaced with typical 1960s buildings. See my comment at 10.48 re one iconic building in Hockley, where in fact many such buildings, which would have been protected elsewhere have gone.

10.54 "good design" to prevent further erosion of area's character - where Hockley is concerned - don't make me laugh at the consequences.

11 Detailed Policy considerations

11.2 35% affordable, of which 80% should be social, to provide homes for those on Rochford Waiting List - fine, but how come we are informed of a case this percentage was bought out by another council for their waiting list?

11.4 "If definition changes we would still need to ensure we seek to meet needs of our residents as far as we can" throws some doubt on your powers in 11.2 in face of above and government and the House Builders Federation.

11.5 This seems to confirm my doubts about the Waiting List in view of government policy and above federation.





Light Pollution

11.73-11.76
11.74 "Identification of environmental zones to dictate the permitted lighting threshold that can be reached" is nonsense. It doesn't matter whether urban, countryside, whatever, if a neighbour light can be seen from one's home, but does not penetrate one's home same, that is permissible. But if the light does penetrate one's home, that is not permissible.

Rochford Local Plan: Issues and Options (and draft Sustainability Appraisal)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document. The following comments are submitted by NHS Property Services (NHSPS).
Foreword
NHSPS manages, maintains and improves NHS properties and facilities, working in partnership with NHS organisations to create safe, efficient, sustainable and modern healthcare and working environments. NHSPS has a clear mandate to provide a quality service to its tenants and minimise the cost of the NHS estate to those organisations using it. Any savings made are passed back to the NHS.
Community Facilities (Policy CLT6)
Whilst Paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 states that planning policies and decisions should 'guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services', the overarching objective of this same paragraph is to ensure the delivery of facilities and services for the community.
It is prudent to note that this policy wording is also fully retained in paragraph 93c of the Draft NPPF consultation document (2018), which under paragraph 93b also states that "planning policies and decisions should... take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all sections of the community".
Restrictive policies that prevent the loss or change of use of 'community facilities' and include healthcare facilities within this definition can prevent or delay required investment in alternative facilities and work against the Council's aim of providing essential services for the community. It is important to note that there are separate, rigorous testing and approval processes employed by NHS commissioners to identify unneeded and unsuitable healthcare facilities. These must be satisfied prior to any property being declared surplus and put up for disposal.
An essential element of supporting the wider transformation of NHS services and the health estate is to ensure that surplus and vacant NHS sites are not strategically constrained by local planning policies, particularly for providing alternative uses (principally housing).

Much surplus NHS property is outdated and no longer suitable for modern healthcare or other C2 or D1 uses without significant investment. Where NHS commissioners can demonstrate that healthcare facilities are no longer required for the provision of services, there should be a presumption that such sites are suitable for housing (or other appropriate uses), and should not be subject to restrictive policies or periods of marketing, which would serve to delay the process of delivering the NHS estate regeneration programme and lead to unnecessary cost to the NHS.

New Healthcare Provision

When planning for new settlements, the Council should continue to work with NHS commissioners and providers to ensure that adequate healthcare infrastructure is provided to support new residential development.
Healthcare facilities are essential infrastructure and where new facilities are required, they should be delivered alongside additional housing units to mitigate the impact of population growth on existing infrastructure. The Council should therefore work with NHS commissioners and providers to consider the quantum and location of healthcare facilities that will be required to ensure that new settlements are sustainable.
Where extended or relocated health facilities are required to mitigate the impact of new development, health commissioners would require Section 106 / CIL funding towards the capital cost of delivering this infrastructure. An assessment of the appropriate mechanisms for delivering the required funding will need to be undertaken at an early stage in collaboration with the Council.

These changes would ensure that the NHS is able to effectively manage its estate, disposing of unneeded and unsuitable properties where necessary, to enable healthcare needs to be met.

1. INTRODUCTION

Rochford District Council (RDC) is currently consulting on the Draft New Local Plan Issues and Options (the Draft Local Plan) Regulation 18 document. This consultation represents the first stage in preparing a new Local Plan for the District of Rochford. Once prepared, the Local Plan will include the required strategies, policies and proposals to guide future planning across the District; and will replace the current suite of Adopted Development Plans (up to 2025).

Essex County Council (ECC) supports the preparation of a new Local Plan for RDC and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Issues and Options consultation. A Local Plan by setting out a specific vision and policies for the long-term planning and development of the District can provide a platform from which to secure a sustainable economic, social and environmental future to the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors.

A robust long-term strategy will provide a reliable basis on which RDC, ECC and its partners may plan and provide future service provision and required community infrastructure for which they are responsible. ECC will also use its best endeavours to assist on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty to cooperate, including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance.

2. ECC Interest in the Issues and Options Consultation

ECC aims to ensure that local policies and related strategies provide the greatest benefit to deliver a buoyant economy for the existing and future population that live, work, visit and invest in Essex. As a result ECC is keen to understand, inform, support and help refine the formulation of any development strategy and policies delivered by Local Planning Authorities. Involvement is necessary and beneficial because of ECC's roles as:
a. a key partner within Greater Essex, the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and, Opportunity South Essex Partnership (OSE); promoting economic growth, regeneration, infrastructure delivery and sustainable new development;
b. major provider and commissioner of a wide range of local government services throughout the county;
c. the strategic highway and transport authority, including responsibility for the delivery of the Essex Local Transport Plan; Local Education Authority including early years and childcare; Minerals and Waste Planning Authority; Lead Local Flood Authority; lead advisors on public health; and adult social care in relation to the securing the right housing mix which takes account of the housing needs of older people; and d. as an infrastructure funding partner, that seeks to ensure that the proposals are realistic and do not place an unnecessary (or unacceptable) cost burden on ECC's Capital Programme.

3. DUTY TO CO-OPERATE

The duty to cooperate (the Duty) was introduced by the Localism Act in November 2011. The Act inserted a new Section 33A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This placed a legal duty on all local authorities and public bodies (defined in regulations) to 'engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis' to maximise the effectiveness of local and marine plan preparation relating to strategic cross boundary matters, and in particular with County Councils on strategic matters.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides detail on how strategic planning matters should be addressed in local plans (paragraphs 178-181). Local planning authorities are expected to work 'collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local authority boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual local plans' (paragraph 179). 'Strategic priorities' to which local planning authorities should have particular regard are set out in paragraph 156 of the NPPF.

Specific guidance on how the Duty should be applied is included in the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). This makes it clear that the Duty requires a proactive, ongoing and focussed approach to strategic matters. Constructive cooperation must be an integral part of plan preparation and result in clear policy outcomes which can be demonstrated through the examination process.

The PPG makes it clear that the Duty requires cooperation in two tier local planning authority areas and states 'Close cooperation between district local planning authorities and county councils in two tier local planning authority areas will be critical to ensure that both tiers are effective when planning for strategic matters such as minerals, waste, transport and education.
ECC will use its best endeavours to assist RDC on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty, including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance e.g. Highways England. In accordance with the Duty, ECC will contribute cooperatively to the preparation of a new Rochford Local Plan, particularly within the following broad subject areas,
 ECC assets and services. Where relevant, advice on the current status of assets and services and the likely impact and implications of proposals in emerging Local Plans for the future operation and delivery of ECC services.
 Evidence base. Guidance with assembly and interpretation of the evidence base both for strategic/cross-boundary projects, for example, education provision and transport studies and modelling.
 Sub-regional and broader context. Assistance with identification of relevant information and its fit with broader strategic initiatives, and assessments of how emerging proposals for the District may impact on areas beyond and vice-versa.
 Policy development. Contributions on the relationship of the evidence base with the structure and content of emerging policies and proposals.
 Inter-relationship between Local Plans. Including the Essex Minerals Local Plan Adopted 2014 and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan Adopted 2017.

ECC acknowledges and supports the production of a new Local Plan by RDC ensuring an up-to-date Local Plan. This can facilitate new job opportunities, attract investment in new and improved infrastructure, protect the environment and ensure new homes meet the needs of a growing population, which are sustainably located, and achieve the right standards of quality and design.

RDC has already undertaken work with ECC under the Duty to Co-operate during the past year, in addition to the joint and regular meetings established with the South Essex authorities, including RDC and ECC, through specific South Essex Strategic Planning DTC Groups for Members and Officers respectively to explore cross boundary matters.

The on-going duty to co-operate work that RDC has undertaken with ECC to date is acknowledged and this consultation provides the first opportunity for ECC to review the emerging issues and options in their entirety. ECC shall continue to work with RDC and provide as appropriate the latest ECC strategies and evidence to inform and shape the draft Local Plan, which will require further changes as the spatial strategy emerges and the site allocations are considered and assessed both individually and cumulatively, to test and establish the infrastructure requirements. This includes but is not limited to ECC service areas such as Highways; Infrastructure Planning; Education and Early Years and Child Care provision; Independent Living; Flood and Water Management; Public Health; and Minerals and Waste Planning. ECC will continue to work with RDC in respect of the evidence base to contribute cooperatively with RDC in the preparation of the new Local Plan through to examination.

4. ECC RESPONSE TO DRAFT NEW LOCAL PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION DOCUMENT (DECEMBER 2017)

ECC's response to the draft Plan Issues and Options consultation document is set out below and corresponds to the format and chapters within the consultation document, however this is preceded by a summary of the key issues.

4A Summary

 Duty to co-operate. In accordance with provisions of the Localism Act 2011, ECC will contribute cooperatively with RDC in preparation of the new Local Plan. This will primarily cover an assessment of the impact on the transport and highway network (as Local Highway Authority), the need to ensure additional school places (as Education Authority), consideration of surface water management (as Lead Local Flood Authority), and links to minerals and waste planning (as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority) as well as advice on Public Health as the Lead advisor.
ECC notes that the Issues and Options consultation is primarily thematic and does not present options covering spatial proposals or site allocations. In moving forward the focus will need to be on the further assessment of the spatial options and emerging spatial strategy, which will vary according to the location, nature and mix of new developments being considered. ECC wish to be proactively engaged with the assessment of the spatial options and site allocations, given the importance of infrastructure provision and funding to the Draft Plan, which will vary for each spatial option and site allocations, given their respective individual and cumulative infrastructure requirements, generating their own, individual and cumulative impacts and opportunities on the delivery of ECC service areas. This will be essential to enable ECC to continue to inform and identify the issues and opportunities for ECC services, to ensure the Local Plan is deliverable, in accordance with the tests of Soundness and that the right infrastructure is in place at the right time.
A particular focus will be the impacts of any proposed new large urban extensions or new settlements to assist RDC determine an appropriate strategy if those options progress as part of its preferred growth and development strategy.
In addition to the above ECC will continue to contribute co-operatively with RDC through the wider collective South Essex arrangements, to address cross boundary strategic planning and infrastructure matters, through the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA), and the emerging South Essex 2050 vision associated work streams, and preparation of a South Essex Joint Strategic/Spatial Plan (JSP);and through the South Essex Transport Board and the Opportunity South Essex Partnership (OSE). With the exception of the formation of ASELA and the preparation of a JSP, the majority of the issues and options identified have regard to this wider engagement.
 Housing provision. ECC acknowledges RDC is seeking to meet housing needs in full over the plan period. However, ECC acknowledges highway and transportation constraints, and in its role as Highway Authority will provide the necessary assessments to determine impacts (including cross boundary impacts) and mitigation measures, as RDC seeks to adopt a preferred growth and development strategy. The new Local Plan should also emphasise the need to provide infrastructure (secured through developer funding) as part of any new housing proposals. ECC welcomes the importance and consideration given to the provision of adult social care and extra care (encompassing aged and vulnerable people), within ECC's Independent Living programme.
 Infrastructure Provision and Funding. ECC agrees that Infrastructure is critical to support sustainable growth and it will be essential to ensure RDC has the right infrastructure, at the right time, to accommodate the new jobs and homes needed in the future. We welcome the acknowledgement of ECC's role in the provision of Local and Strategic infrastructure. Further comments are provided on the spatial strategy and on the implications for ECC services and infrastructure, ranging from large urban extensions to less growth at settlements lower in the settlement hierarchy

ECC will take a pro-active position to engage with RDC to ensure the delivery of new homes and employment is at the right location and of an appropriate scale to identify and deliver the necessary level of infrastructure investment, as part of a viable and deliverable plan. ECC seeks clarification on the size of residential sites / extensions being considered when compared to large residential urban extensions / new settlements.

ECC wish to explore and understand the potential implications of the nature and scale of developments on financial contributions, given the pooling of contributions under the CIL Regulations and hence potential viability and delivery issues which will be very different for each of the spatial options being considered. As outlined in 4.6 above, the new Local Plan should emphasise the need to provide infrastructure (secured through developer funding) as part of any new development proposals, to ensure the new plan is both viable and deliverable. Given the importance of infrastructure provision and funding for the new Local Plan, ECC wishes to work with RDC to ensure the necessary infrastructure funding (including all funding streams) and delivery evidence is fully considered as part of the assessment of all the spatial options. This is to ensure the preferred strategy is viable, deliverable and sound.
 Transport and highways. ECC, will work with RDC (in consultation with Southend on Sea and the South Essex authorities) to enable further transport and highway impact assessments to be undertaken to inform the preparation of the RDC Local Plan and in accordance with the ASELA workstreams and JSP.
There is overall support for proposals promoting the importance and need for improvements to the A127 Strategic Road Network, however greater emphasis should be placed on the role and importance of sustainable travel as part of a long term integrated transport solution, including walking, cycling, bus and rail. Adequate transport and highway provision will need to be evidenced including transparency of funding, viability and deliverability to unlock sustainable growth in new homes and employment, at a scale necessary to bring forward the level of investment needed to provide significant improvement to the highway and transport infrastructure.
In respect of the A127/A130 Fairglen Interchange, ECC would not support any new development and employment allocations (beyond the current adopted Local Plan employment allocations) until the proposed long term transport scheme for the junction is implemented. ECC supports the need for a range of highways and sustainable transport improvements to existing employment areas including, London Southend Airport and the airport business park and will continue to seek funding through bids to Central Government, SELEP and S106 contributions.
 Sustainable transport. ECC recommend greater emphasis is placed on sustainable transport including passenger transport as part of a wider sustainable growth strategy to underpin future development opportunities and to ensure an integrated transport package of solutions are developed for the District and in respect of its relationship and connectivity to Southend, South Essex, Essex and London.
 Minerals and Waste Planning. ECC will engage with RDC in the site assessment process to ensure new allocations appropriately address the minerals and waste safeguarding policy requirements within the adopted Essex Minerals Local Plan and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan. ECC wishes to draw attention to the dual requirements of these Local Plans concerning minerals and waste safeguarding, operations, sustainable use of minerals in construction, and the location of waste management uses within employment areas.
 Flood and Water Management. ECC wish to work with RDC to provide points of clarification and to ensure the most up to date evidence is used to underpin the preparation of the Local Plan including the strategy and site assessments. This will include reference to the Environment Agency's revised climate change allowances and the subsequent revisions to the South Essex Surface Water Management Plans, due to be published in 2018.
 Economic Growth. ECC welcomes proposals to ensure the protection and provision of suitable employment land and appropriate uses within the District, with the pre-eminent importance of London Southend Airport to the economy whilst seeking opportunities for rural diversification, tourism, retail, leisure, and town centres, to meet the life cycle needs of business including "Grow on Space" and development of skills and training opportunities.
ECC welcomes and supports the importance and economic role played by London Southend Airport as an international gateway, and the A127 corridor and London-Southend Victoria railway line for connectivity with South Essex, the rest of Essex and London. A key priority will be to enable investment in infrastructure and economic growth, including, for example, the A127 including passenger transport and ultrafast broadband, as well as developing options to support the alignment of skill provision to meet the local needs in accordance with the Economic Plan for Essex (2014) and the National Industrial Strategy The provision of jobs and infrastructure to support economic growth will be essential, including the need to provide social, physical and green infrastructure and are also being explored by ASELA through the Industrial Strategy workstream and the JSP.
 Superfast Broadband ECC recommend upgrading all broadband references to "ultrafast broadband" to promote the Governments next broadband programme; and refer to the BT Open Reach policy for providing FTTP connections on new development of houses of 30+units, free of charge to the developer https://www.ournetwork.openreach.co.uk/property-developers/site-registration.aspx
 Education ECC Support the use of ECC Planning School information and recommend a number of updates to reflect ECC's change in policy and standards (minimum size of new schools and use of ECC model infrastructure delivery policy). ECC wishes to engage with RDC as the new Local Plan progresses to preferred options stage to enable appropriate "scenario testing" of the preferred options for education requirements.
ECC will continue to work with RDC to ensure education needs are appropriate and adequately assessed as preparation of the new Local Plan continues. ECC will undertake a further assessment of the potential delivery and resource requirements for accommodating anticipated pupil change through "scenario testing" as and when RDC confirms its preferred spatial option for growth and development and the specific sites.
In respect of Special Education Needs, this should be acknowledged in the new Local Plan, and sites allocated specifically provision for children/young people with Special Educational Needs either within the existing school provision or the wider community. ECC wish to engage with RDC to identify requirements and opportunities.
 Early Years and Childcare. In addition to the above, support the use of the ECC evidence, however recommend a number of changes to explicitly refer to "Early Years and Childcare provision" and for consistency in approach. There will be a need to update the EYCC information to ECC
 Skills. ECC will engage with RDC and can provide advice and updates, including on the full range of post 16 education and training provision and on the revisions to the ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions, to include the need for large scale developments to adopt an Employment and Skills Plan; and reference to the new Essex Employment and Skills Board's 2017-18 as an evidence base and the seven priority sectors. ECC wish to work with RDC to identify and promote opportunities for skills and training development to align skills with jobs.
 Public Health. ECC welcome and are supportive of the links and inclusion of health and well-being throughout the Issues and Options Report; and offer support to assist the preparation of the Local Plan, for example the development of the health and well-being policy, greater involvement with employment opportunities for local residents; support for skills, training, education and employment opportunities; improvements to air quality.
ECC support and welcomes consideration on phasing and release of affordable housing; use and application of the revised Essex Design Guide, including key concepts for inclusive and adaptable housing (e.g.. dementia friendly principles and social cohesion); housing mix, provision for older people (including care homes) and active design principles including active and sustainable travel principles.
ECC recommend use and reference to the revised Essex Design Guide within the new Local Plan design policies and the supporting text.
ECC wish to work with RDC to provide support and advice in respect of the Health and Well-being policy; policies on "fast food" outlets; Education, Skills and Employment policies and the Good Design policies.
 Independent Living Support the general approach and inclusion of and reference to ECC's Independent Living Programme for Older People and Adults with Disabilities.
 Environment (natural, built and historic), ECC welcomes the broad approaches to protect and enhance the environment, and recommends a more holistic approach and links to the wider objectives of promoting growth and healthy communities, which can be provided through the natural environment, be it green infrastructure for climate change mitigation and adaption, building design and efficiency, creation and accessibility to open spaces, green spaces (including greenways and green corridors). ECC wishes to explore these opportunities and cross benefits further as incorporated within the revised Essex Design Guide (2018) and to ensure the biodiversity and geodiversity evidence base is up to date and consistent with the NPPF.
In respect of the Historic environment further consideration and assessment is required on conservation areas and listed buildings and the archaeological and historic records of designated and non- designated sites. ECC welcomes the opportunity to explore this further with RDC to ensure the evidence base is up to date and consistent with the NPPF.
 Sustainability Appraisal ECC considers the SA to be a good example of an initial Regulation 18 'Issues and Options' appraisal, exploring the sustainability considerations of a wide range of strategic options and assessing them to the same level of detail. However, ECC recommends that a number of the options within the SA/SEA are expanded to reflect the ranges in the Issues and Options consultation Report.

4B ECC Detailed Response to the Issues and Options Consultation

INTRODUCTION (SECTION 1)

Paragraph 1.5 ECC recommend that this paragraph is amended to clearly recognise that the Essex Minerals Local Plan 2014 (MLP) and Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan 2017 (WLP) form part of the statutory development plan for Rochford District. The Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (MWPA) is pleased to note that the mineral and waste plans are appropriately referenced further into the plan at relevant sections and shown to have relevance to Rochford, but it may be beneficial to qualify the extent of the Development Plan at the outset.

Paragraph 1.12 ECC welcomes and supports the preparation of a Draft Habitat Regulations Assessment to inform and accompany the preparation of the draft Local Plan

TELL US YOUR VIEWS (SECTION 2)

Next Steps

ECC service areas and functions would wish to work with RDC in the preparation of the Local Plan as it progresses to assess the suggested sites and the selection of preferred sites, with regards to the impact and opportunities on ECC services and infrastructure, to ensure sites selected are sustainable. Details on this are set out in Section 2A above and throughout the response below.
ECC as the MWPA is keen to enter into engagement with RDC with regard to proposed site allocations considered through the Local Plan process. This is to ensure that any future site allocations made by RDC appropriately address mineral and waste safeguarding matters in line with adopted policies. ECC recommend early engagement within the site assessment process, for effective collaboration and consistency across the wider Development Plan. Further details of the policy requirements are set out in the Essex Minerals Local Plan Adopted 2014 and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan Adopted 2017 For the avoidance of doubt, the considerations that may arise from the MWPA in relation to these sites would be as informatives only; there is no intention to influence the site assessment process and/or any scoring mechanism designed by RDC.

OUR CHARACTERISTICS (SECTION 3)

Figure 1 ECC recommends that the content of this map is reviewed to ensure it clearly presents the local and strategic context and characteristics of the district. For example greater use of graphics and annotations including:
 Annotations for the strategic road network (A127, A130 and A13), with specific emphasis on the A127 as the key strategic highway route for Rochford will demonstrate its importance within the local highway network 9
 The London - Victoria Railway line and stations should be clearly annotated, as well as inclusion of the wider network for context, for example the C2C line from Southend to London Fenchurch Street.
 Inclusion / indication of the existing bus networks and connectivity with surrounding areas, to demonstrate the passenger transport services within the area.
The above provides background and context for the Highway and Transportation network (including Sustainable travel) within the district and wider connectivity, including strengths and areas for improvement, and the need for the provision of sustainable access. This would also provide context for the national and local pictures presented in section 4 and the relationship with London (and the rest of Essex).

Our Economy

Paragraph 3.8 ECC recommend that reference is made to the wider rail network and specifically Cross Rail, which connects to the London - Victoria Line at Shenfield and will link to the wider London, and west of London, area.
Paragraphs ECC considers greater emphasis should be placed on the relationship
3.7 - 3.8 and connectivity between the District, Southend, South Essex, Essex and London, including the 2011 data presented in Figures 2 and 3. Whilst the data is of assistance, it is recommended that the mode of transport used to make journeys is also presented. This additional information would be required to inform the base assumptions for likely future modal choice that would arise as a consequence of further development. Equally this could help to demonstrate where the more significant concentration of improvements may be required to promote suitable sustainable cross boundary transport provision, which could affect the levels of car journeys undertaken by encouraging modal shift.
Paragraph 3.12 ECC consider that there is an opportunity to promote the potential benefits / outcomes for the local economy arising from improvements to the transport network, for example greater connectivity for residents and businesses, or an increase in flight destinations served by London Southend Airport.
Paragraph 3.14 ECC recommends the inclusion and reference to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA list of European sites.

Our Communities

Paragraph 3.23 ECC notes that this paragraph seeks to set out the Education provision across the district however there is no reference to either Early Years and Childcare (EYCC) or Special Education Needs (SEN) provision. ECC recommends that EYCC is incorporated and set out in Strategic Priority 4.4 and paragraphs 9.30 to 9.36 and SEN is referred to in Strategic Priority 4.3 and paragraphs 9.17 - 9.29.

Key Community Characteristics
ECC recommends greater recognition is given to the role and contribution of Passenger Transport, in respect of both existing and new provision of services to support the ageing population. ECC wish to explore this further with RDC in the preparation of the Local Plan, to promote an inclusive strategy for existing and new residents.
OUR SPATIAL CHALLENGES (SECTION 4)
ECC General Comment
ECC notes that this section sets out the National and South Essex picture and relationship to London, however it is recommended that this is expanded to provide a specific "county policy context." ECC welcomes the reference to ECC services throughout the document, however the inclusion of a wider "County Policy Context" would provide a clear and strategic policy framework, reflecting two tier context and delivery of ECC services and functions. ECC can provide appropriate supporting text links to relevant ECC policies and strategies. It is also recommended that within the wider context reference is also made to the adjoining Essex authorities outside the "South Essex" area including Maldon DC given the importance of the River Crouch.
ECC recommends that the following ECC policies and strategies are included and referred to within a new "county policy" context and delivery proposals:
 Essex Vision and Priorities 2017/21
 Essex Organisation Strategy, 2017 - 2021
 Economic Plan for Essex (2014)
 Children in Essex get the best start in life 2014-2018.
 People in Essex enjoy good health and wellbeing 2014-2018
 People in Essex have aspirations and achieve their ambitions through education, training and life-long learning 2014-2018
 People in Essex can live independently and exercise choice and control over their lives 2014-2018.
 Essex Transport Strategy, the Local Transport Plan for Essex (June 2011)
 ECC's Passenger Transport Strategy - Getting Around In Essex 2015.
 A127 Corridor for Growth - An Economic Plan 2014
 Essex children and Young People's Strategic Plan 2016 Onwards (2016)
 Essex Early Years and Childcare Strategy 2015-2018
 Commissioning school places in Essex 2017-2022
 Essex County Council Local and Neighbourhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation
 ECC Independent-Living-Programme-Position-Statement October 2016
 ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016)
 Essex Minerals Local Plan Adopted 2014
 Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan Adopted 2017
 ECC Sustainable Urban Drainage Design Guide 2016
 Greater Essex Growth & Infrastructure Framework (2016)
 Superfast Essex Broadband

National Picture

Paragraph 4.3 ECC advises that the SELEP Strategic Economic Plan is now due to be completed during 2018.

Paragraph 4.5 ECC welcomes and is supportive of increasing employment opportunities for the District and would wish to engage with RDC to explore these opportunities further. This is consistent with ECC's Essex Outcomes Framework, through the development of the Essex Economic Growth Strategy and, the Economic Plan for Essex, including South Essex as one of four growth corridor. These corridors collectively form the locations for housing and employment, to secure future growth. These roles are based on location characteristics, local economic history and linkages to surrounding areas. Critically, these corridors will provide a mix of housing, which will allow new and existing residents to stay and develop in the District / County. ECC is a partner of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA), which extends beyond the SELEP federated area of South Essex, to include Brentwood BC. ECC supports the emerging 'South Essex 2050 Ambition' for the area and the commencement of a Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) to provide a framework for the future growth ambitions of the area. ECC recommend that the role of ASELA and the emergent JSP is taken into account in the preparation of the Local Plan

ECC can provide additional information on the Essex Growth Commission Report (2017), ECC's Grow on Space study, as well as the specific economic strategies and engagement being developed by ECC and with partners, including OSE, promoting economic growth, regeneration, infrastructure delivery and sustainable new development, and having regard to the National Industrial Strategy.
ECC would welcome the opportunity to provide additional information in respect of the health profiles for the District, to assist with the identification of skills, training and employment opportunities, as well as the development of a health impact assessment process for developments.

ECC also considers there to be an opportunity to explore and promote opportunities in the area for employees and residents, with greater emphasis placed on accessibility and promotion of passenger transport as part of a wider package of transport solutions, and to optimise and improve the current passenger transport accessibility to the area.

Paragraph 4.6 ECC welcomes the reference that "infrastructure is critical to support sustainable economic growth" and the recognition of the need to work with partners, including ECC, under the duty to co-operate, to deliver Strategic and Local infrastructure.

ECC has provided further information throughout this response to inform the preparation of the new Local Plan, as it relates to ECC services and functions, to ensure are appropriately considered within the Local Plan. ECC recognises the need for essential infrastructure to be identified, to support the level of proposed growth within the Issues and Options consultation. ECC has and will continue to work with RDC to identify the appropriate infrastructure requirements and mitigation measures which need to be developed, including the preparation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, before the plan progresses to the Preferred Options stage,. This is explored further within the respective strategic priorities, themes and options below.

ECC recommends that RDC refer to the "ECC's Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions" (2016), for details of the necessary contributions required from new development for the provision of essential infrastructure, to inform the ongoing evidence base and the delivery and viability assessments.

Paragraph 4.10 ECC welcomes the reference to minerals and waste as a strategic, cross boundary matter subject to the Duty and ECC is keen to enter into engagement with RDC with regard to proposed site allocations considered through the Local Plan process and that this is undertaken at the site assessment stage of the Local Plan, as referred to above under "Tell Us Your Views".

Paragraph 4.17 ECC recommends that the "Challenge" on how to deliver infrastructure to support new homes should also seek to incorporate new open space Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG) as part of new residential developments to avoid recreational impacts on European sites in accordance with the Habitat Regulations. Further details on this aspect are incorporated within the revisions to the Essex Design Guide (revised EDG) to be published February 2018.
Please also refer to ECC comments in respect of paragraph 9.42 (options for Open space and outdoor recreation) and paragraph 10.29 (options for Greenways)

OUR VISION AND OBJECTIVES (SECTION 5)

Draft Vision

Paragraph 5.9 ECC is supportive of the emerging draft vision which is considered in accordance with the NPPF and the three dimensions for sustainable development; and ECC welcomes the inclusion and reference to health.

Strategic priorities

1. The homes and jobs needed in the area
2. Provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development
3. Provision of infrastructure, including transport, digital, flood risk, coastal management, minerals and energy
4. Provision of Health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities, including EYCC, Education and Youth Facilities
5. Climate Change and Environmental protection and mitigation

It is noted that the Strategic Objectives in support of Strategic Priorities 1, 2, 4 and 5, do not refer to or recognise the role of sustainable transport to deliver these Strategic Priorities. ECC recommends further consideration is given to incorporate the principles of sustainable transport and travel within the new Local Plan in accordance with the Essex Local Transport Plan.

Strategic Objectives

SP1 The homes and jobs needed in the area

SO1 ECC support the objective to facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes, combined with SO6 for all homes and commercial buildings to be built to the highest attainable quality, design and sustainability standards.
SO3 ECC welcomes the positive move towards supporting sustainable travel, however this only refers to improvements for new developments, whereas opportunities should be sought to overcoming existing shortfalls in sustainable connectivity.
SO5 ECC is supportive to the inclusion of skills, training, education and employment, and ECC Public Health would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to explore the employment opportunities for residents. ECC considers that this could be included and assessed as part of the Health Impact Assessment process for developments, skills, training and employment opportunities.
ECC recommends this Strategic Objective amended to specifically refer to EYCC provision alongside the provision of good schools.
SO6 ECC support the objective for all homes and commercial buildings to be built to the highest attainable quality, design and sustainability standards in combination with SO1.
ECC recommends ECC recommends that these strategic objectives should also include consideration for new housing and commercial development to have reasonable access to green spaces. ECC can provide examples, where distance standards have been applied to protect and promote an accessible network of green space, including for example the Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy 2008, with walking distance/ time to parks and green space. https://www.bristol.gov.uk/policies-plans-strategies/bristol-parks-and-green-space-strategy .
This would provide a cross over benefit between a number of the Strategic Priorities including SP1 (SO1 and 6); SP3 (SO 9 and 11), and SP4 (SO15 and 16).

SP 2 Provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development

SO 8 ECC suggest the objective should include accessibility to services and green spaces.

SP3 Provision of infrastructure, including transport, digital, flood risk, coastal management, minerals and energy

SO 9 ECC recommends that the reference to "broadband" is replaced by "Ultrafast Broadband". ECC acknowledges the current rollout programme is "Superfast Broadband", however it is recommended that the draft new Local Plan should refer to "Ultrafast Broadband" to reflect the Government's next roll out initiative, thereby providing longevity to Local Plan policy and distinguishing new provision from the "standard broadband" which is not considered fast enough. This should be applied throughout the document

SO 9 & 11 ECC recommends that these strategic objectives should also include consideration for new housing and commercial development to have reasonable access to green spaces. Please refer to ECC's comments to SO6 above and the Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy example.

SO11 ECC support this Strategic Objective which also supports "air quality".

SO12 ECC welcomes the reference to 'encouraging adherence to the waste hierarchy' and making 'best use of mineral deposits' but considers that these statements could be afforded slightly more clarity. Supporting the waste hierarchy and ensuring a sustainable use of minerals requires that existing facilities and infrastructure are safeguarded to ensure that they are able to continue to make their planned contribution to the mineral and waste strategies operating in the County. Whilst already covered by MLP Policy S8 and WLP Policy 2, it is considered beneficial for this to be incorporated into the Rochford LP objectives. ECC suggests amendments to SO12 as follows:

"SO12: To plan for effective waste management by encouraging adherence to the waste hierarchy, working with Essex County Council to make best use of mineral deposits resources and mineral and waste facilities, including safeguarding resources and infrastructure, supporting renewable energy generation and energy efficiency as part of all new homes and commercial premises developed, as well as supporting efficient water use."

The requirement to safeguard mineral development is recognised in paragraph 10.21 and therefore the proposed modification is in accordance with that recognition. There is however no similar recognition for waste facilities, which the proposed modification to Strategic Objective 12 would then cover.

SO13 ECC can advise that any new plans for coastal change management should also involve the other partners of the Essex Coastal Forum, given that the Forum has the responsibility for policy changes to the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan

SP4 Provision of Health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities, including EYCC, Education and Youth Facilities

SO15 ECC supports this strategy, which is supportive of the England Coast Path being created by Natural England, to be subsequently implemented by Essex Highways, for the economic and health benefits of the community and is consistent with the other Strategic Objectives.

SO 15 ECC support this strategy which would also support air quality, but should be amended to specifically include reference to "air quality".

SO 15 & 16 ECC recommends that these strategic objectives should also include consideration for new housing and commercial development to have reasonable access to green spaces. Please refer to ECC's comments to SO6 above and the Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy example.

SP5 Climate Change and Environmental protection and mitigation

SO19 ECC supports the inclusion of this objective and strategic priorities for conservation and enhancements for the natural environment which is considered to be in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 156), however ECC recommends that the objectives should be further amended, to include policies which seek to minimise the impacts to biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 117 of the NPPF. Please refer to ECC in paragraph 10.1 below for further details on this matter.

SO22 ECC welcomes the objective, however recommend that "Green (and Blue) Infrastructure" is specifically referenced within the objective to read as follows:
"To mitigate and adapt to the forecasted impacts of climate change, including the water environment, air quality, biodiversity, flooding and green and blue infrastructure, support more efficient use of energy and natural resources and facilitate an increase in the use of renewable and low carbon energy facilities."
This is considered necessary to recognise the important role of this infrastructure for climate change mitigation and adaption, through micro-climate control, water management (SUDS), air quality, carbon sequestration and reduce biodiversity loss, which in turn strengthens communities through improved health and wellbeing and building resilience.

DELIVERING HOMES & JOBS (SECTION 6)

ECC General Comments

ECC recommend all references to the provision and requirements for future broadband are prefaced by "Ultrafast". ECC acknowledges the current rollout programme is "Superfast Broadband", however it is recommended that the draft new Local Plan should refer to "Ultrafast Broadband" to reflect the Government's next roll out initiative, thereby providing longevity to Local Plan policy and distinguishing new provision from the "standard broadband" which is not considered fast enough, this also applies to paragraph 6.127.

Paragraph 6.4 ECC notes that Green infrastructure is only mentioned in its wider District context. However, due to the rural nature of the district ECC would recommend that localised Green Infrastructure (GI) design principles are incorporated as part of a proposed housing development, specifically large developments such as Garden Communities and Urban Extensions. The would be in accordance with the NPPF and the Core Planning Principles on conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including the following statement in Paragraph 114 that Local Planning Authorities should "Set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure."
ECC recommends that this principle is also incorporated within Strategic Priority SP5.2 to protect, manage and enhance important habitats, nature conservation areas, geo-diversity and greenways

SP1.1 Need for Market, Affordable and Specialist Homes

Paragraph 6.30 Options on how to meet Objectively Assessed Need for housing:
A. Seek to provide as much for the district as possible, subject to environmental constraints;
B. Work with neighbouring authorities to ensure housing need across the South Essex strategic housing market is effectively met; or
C. Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be available to residents on a first come basis first-served basis for a limited period of time

ECC Comments

Options A-C: ECC does not consider these options as presented to be mutually exclusive and would expect RDC to explore all options (and combinations) when planning to meet housing need. ECC would anticipate that RDC would seek to comply with the "Mechanism for the Consideration of Unmet Housing Need", as endorsed by the Essex Planning Officers Associations in September 2017, which comprises all Local Planning authorities within Greater Essex (including RDC)

Affordable Homes

Paragraph 6.31 Options for the affordable housing threshold:
A. Reduce the threshold for provision a part of a scheme (potentially in line with emerging national policy);
B. Retain the current threshold for the provision of affordable homes as part of a development scheme;
C. Do not have a policy threshold for the provision of affordable homes (potentially rely on emerging national policy and guidance to set the minimum threshold)

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider Options A and B, as presented to be mutually exclusive and would expect a combination of options to support the delivery of affordable housing within the district. ECC considers that additional sensitivity analysis of the thresholds would be appropriate to ensure they are effective and viable.
ECC recommend that consideration is given to the phasing and release of affordable homes on new development sites. This would enable the affordable homes provision to be both inclusive and adaptable throughout the life-course and further details are incorporated within the revised EDG. This is a key concept within the EDG to incorporate wider design feature such as dementia friendly principles (as promoted by the RTPI) and ECC's Independent Living Programme both of which should be considered. Furthermore the location of properties within new developments should seek to ensure social cohesion within the communities, including the reduction of social isolation (in accordance with NPPF paragraph 50).

ECC recommend that further consideration is given to locational "accessibility" in the provision of affordable housing. For example, to ensure the affordable housing provision is located with good passenger transport and a range of sustainable travel modes, to ensure social inclusion. This is to minimise the risk of a broad spread of affordable housing in low numbers located in relatively inaccessible areas, with limited to no potential to secure improvements in passenger transport provision. Further details are available within ECC's "Passenger Transport Strategy - Getting Around In Essex" (2015).

In respect of identification of "key worker homes" and supporting the needs of healthcare providers ECC considers that this could also be addressed via within the provision of affordable homes. .ECC recommends RDC engage with healthcare employers on their current workforce strategies so as to support recruitment and retention of healthcare staff. ECC would welcome the opportunity to assist with this stakeholder engagement.

ECC does not support Option C for the reasons stated within the justification, it is considered contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 50, third bullet 3) where authorities are required to set policies, where there is an identified need for affordable housing and the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the draft Local Plan, for example SO2 "To plan for the mix of homes needed to support our current and future residences, in particular viably addressing affordability issues and supporting our again population "
Paragraph 6.32 Options for the proportion of affordable homes to be provided:
D. Retain the current affordable homes requirement of 35% where a scheme meets the threshold, subject to viability;
E. Increase the proportion of homes that we require developers to provide as affordable housing, subject to viability

ECC Comments

Options D-E: ECC does not consider these options as presented to be mutually exclusive and would expect a consistent approach to be developed in principle, to support the delivery of the appropriate proportion of affordable housing, based on robust evidence ECC consider additional sensitivity analysis of the thresholds would be appropriate to ensure they are effective and viable.

Please refer to ECC's comments to paragraphs 6.30-6.31 above, which equally apply to these options. For example ECC recommend that consideration is given to the phasing and release of affordable homes on new development sites. This would enable the affordable homes provision to be socially inclusive and adaptable, as set out in the revised EDG, which now includes wider design features such as dementia friendly principles, to ensure social cohesion within the communities, including the reduction of social isolation for specialist housing, and including independent living units for older people and adults with disabilities.

ECC consider the provision of specialist housing including ECC's Independent Living Programme for Older People and Adults with Disabilities, to be within the definition of "affordable housing" and it should be included within the appropriate housing mix (see paragraph 6.33 below).

Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities

Paragraph 6.33 Options for the Provision of Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities:
A. Continue the current approach to applications for specialist homes - on an ad hoc basis as applications are received based on available evidence
B. Include a policy on housing mix which requires the provision of specialist homes, such as wheelchair accessibility (part M Category 3), independent living units, sheltered and extra-care housing, over a certain threshold.

ECC Comments

ECC welcomes the acknowledgement of and reference to ECC's Independent Living (IL) Programmes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities to support the provision of specialist housing, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and national policy.

ECC supports a revised version of Option B, to ensure the positive provision of specialist housing to meet the needs of residents, in accordance with ECC's strategies, guidance and evidence including:
 ECC's IL Programmes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities , for the respective demand and need for units across Essex by district, for example the IL Position Statement for Older People (2016) identified a shortfall of 129 units (19 rental and 110 ownership) required in the District for the period 2015 and 2020
 ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016) (for securing the appropriate funds) and regard to the revised EDG for appropriate locational and design guidance

ECC can provide updates on the demand and need for IL units for both Older People and Adults with Disabilities, and would welcome the opportunity to engage with RDC, on an ongoing basis to ensure the most up to date information is available to inform and shape the preparation of the Local Plan.

SP1.2 Care Homes

Paragraph 6.35 ECC welcomes the reference to and ongoing engagement with ECC and would wish to maintain this engagement to inform the requirements and provision within the preparation of the Local Plan

Paragraph 6.36 Options for providing care homes in the district:
A. Continue the current approach to applications for specialist homes - on an ad hoc basis as applications are received based on available evidence.
B. Include a policy on housing mix which requires the provision of specialist homes, such as wheelchair accessibility (part M Category 3), independent living units, sheltered and extra-care housing, over a certain threshold

ECC Comments

Options A-B: ECC would anticipate combination of options (including the option in paragraphs 6.30-6.35) to support and ensure the appropriate mix of provision including care homes in accordance with the NPPF and based on evidence.
ECC recommend that consideration is given to the need to ensure provision is accessible, appropriate and inclusive to ensure integration within the community and has regard to the health and social care requirement a set out in the revised EDG and the details set out above in response to Paragraph 6.33, options for the provision of specialist housing.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to engage with RDC on these matters further to ensure the preparation of a legally compliance, effective and sound local plan.

SP1.3. Delivering our Need for Homes

ECC General Comment

The Issues and Options within this section provide a clear overview of the key planning issues facing the District and what the new Local Plan should address in respect of meeting the needs for homes. However, it is recommended that further consideration should be given to the following.
 Infrastructure provision and funding. The new Local Plan should ensure there are clear policies for the full provision, enhancement and funding of infrastructure arising from planned development. Mechanisms include planning obligations, the use of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and the ability to negotiate specific contractual obligations for major strategic sites, in accordance with the Garden City principles defined by the Town and Country Planning Association (or subsequent updated guidance) and wider definition of sustainable development outlined in the NPPF. This will ensure the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF, including the three dimensions to achieve sustainable development (paragraphs 6 -10), the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) and the 12 core planning principles (paragraph 17).

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and Local Plans should boost significantly the supply of housing to ensure the full objectively assessed needs for housing over the plan period. The NPPF includes the delivery of sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs as a core planning principle.

There is a clear expectation that local authorities should make provision for funding for new school places from Section 106 contributions and CIL. ECC alone does not have the capital resources to fund the construction of early years' and child care places, primary schools or secondary schools. There appears to be a view developing that the provision of sufficient school places is the sole responsibility of ECC assisted by the DfE in the form of 'basic need' funding, as the District and Borough councils are not the local education authority. The expectation is that the DfE will fund any shortfall in school places that result from large new housing developments.

ECC wish to draw attention to paragraph 72 of the NPPF, which states 'The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.' ECC does not view financial contributions for education as optional. If this is the case then there will be no DfE and or ECC funding available, to provide all the school places required as a result of a growing school population and the need to create additional school places to meet the needs generated by new housing developments. ECC recommends that it is made clear in the new Local Plan that there is a requirement for financial contributions from developers to fund the full additional early years and childcare, primary and secondary school pupil places (including post 16) generated from new development to ensure that new housing developments are sustainable in terms of educational and childcare provision. ECC considers that this would accord with NPPF paragraph 72 and reiterates the requirements in the ECC Local and Neighborhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation and the ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016). Further information on this issue is provided later in this response.
ECC welcomes the recognition that infrastructure is critical to support sustainable growth and to make sure RDC has the right infrastructure, at the right time, to accommodate the new jobs and homes needed in the future and the acknowledgement of ECC's role in the provision of Local and Strategic infrastructure. ECC wishes to be proactively engaged with the assessment of the spatial options and site allocations, given the importance of infrastructure provision and funding to the Draft Plan, which will vary for each spatial option and site allocations, given their respective individual and cumulative infrastructure requirements, generating their own, individual and cumulative impacts and opportunities on the delivery of ECC service areas.
 Flooding and its impact on development. This is broadly mentioned but will significantly influence future development locations. The main river and surface water flood risk areas should be clearly identified and the new Local Plan should provide appropriate policies in relation to flood risk. ECC is the Lead Local Flood Authority for surface water management and is revising the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) taking into account the recent changes in the EA's Climate Change Allowances. ECC recommends the provision of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and the revised SWMP as part of new development. Further information on this issue is provided later in this response.
 Broadband. While highlighted in the document, ECC recommend that "broadband" is distinguished from other telecommunications infrastructure, and specified in policy as a necessary infrastructure requirement for new development.. This will support relevant strategic and local objectives relating to economic growth particularly in rural Rochford. This will have a wider impact on growth and productivity, as increased broadband coverage will support businesses and attract investment to Essex. It also has the potential to increase opportunities for home-working and remote-working, reducing the demand on travel networks at peak periods. The importance is demonstrated by recent census returns which show that the biggest change in journey to work patterns in the last 20 years has actually been the increase in people working from home.

 Minerals and Waste provision and safeguarding requirements (please see section 2 "Tells Us Your views).

It is recommended that the above policy requirements are considered when preparing the new Local Plan and developing the overarching spatial strategy. Further information is provided below and in Sections 7 - 11.

Paragraph 6.46 ECC welcomes the positive recognition and importance placed on reducing inequalities and improving congestion levels, by ensuring the provision of new homes will include a variety of modal travel options. ECC recommends engagement and close working with ECC's Sustainable Travel Team and raising awareness of the local cycle action plans which also include some infrastructure elements

ECC recommends greater emphasis is placed on the creation of and access to more sustainable travel options within new developments, including connectivity to existing settlements for both housing and employment.

Paragraph 6.48 Options to provide a realistic strategy for delivering new homes:
A. Increase density within the existing residential area - which would require an amendment to our current density policy
B. Increase density on allocated residential sites
C. Several small extensions to the existing residential area
D. A number of fewer larger extensions to the existing residential area
E. A new settlement

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider these options as presented to be mutually exclusive. ECC would anticipate the Spatial Strategy to be developed with a range or combination of the options, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and in particular the overarching principles of the NPPF.

ECC recommends that consideration is given to the wider "duty to co-operate" in emerging national policy (housing white paper) requiring local authorities (including RDC and ECC) to place greater emphasis on the development of Joint Strategic Priorities to address strategic cross boundary planning matters. The formation of ASELA to develop the South Essex 2050 vision with a set of strategic priorities and JSP will provide the context for RDC to consider the requirements of the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Area and to explore whether there are any unmet housing needs within the area.

ECC welcomes the recognition that infrastructure is critical to support sustainable growth and to make sure RDC has the right infrastructure, at the right time, to accommodate the new jobs and homes needed in the future, and the acknowledgement of ECC's role in the provision of Local and Strategic infrastructure. ECC wishes to be proactively engaged with the assessment of the spatial options and site allocations, given the importance of infrastructure provision and funding to the Draft Plan, which will vary for each spatial option and site allocations, given their respective individual and cumulative infrastructure requirements, generating their own, individual and cumulative impacts and opportunities on the delivery of ECC service areas.

ECC considers that any large scale housing developments will need to include appropriate infrastructure such as schools, community facilities and improvements to the roads. In contrast, a larger proportion of small scale or piecemeal developments are less likely to secure funding for the necessary infrastructure requirements. Furthermore infrastructure provision is likely to have a major impact on the phasing, delivery and viability of development(s) and this would need to be considered as part of the overall strategy.

ECC recommend consideration is given to the cumulative scale of development required to secure the necessary supporting infrastructure and the mechanisms available to secure developer contributions (be it S106 contributions, pooling of contributions or via the Community Infrastructure Levy). ECC consider this to be essential in the preparation of a new local plan, to ensure it complies with the legal duty to co-operate, meets the tests of soundness and is effective, viable and deliverable. ECC expect RDC to prepare a sound and deliverable Local Plan, having regard to the available levels and sources of investment available to deliver the supporting infrastructure.

ECC recommends consideration is also given to the respective infrastructure funding streams available to deliver and implement strategic infrastructure, be it the ECC Developers' Guide to Contributions, the Opportunity South Essex Partnership, the South Essex Local Enterprise Partnership, and Government Departments/agencies, such as the Department for Transport agencies, as well as changes in the national policy and legislation for the S106 and CIL.

ECC can advise in principle, that subject to the scale of the development being considered, Option E may have the potential to bring forward the level of investment needed to provide significant improvement to the highway and transportation infrastructure. However, in the absence of a location or scale for any new settlement ECC cannot recommend its preference for Option E over and above any other options put forward. Again, subject to the scale of development the other options including smaller size settlements may not bring the level of investment required. In essence this reflects the "critical mass" in the scale of development required to enable effective infrastructure and service planning, which it may not be possible to secure with a number of smaller developments given the effect of the CIL Regulations (Regulation 123) and the restrictions on pooling contributions.

SP1.4 Good Mix of Homes

Paragraph 6.58 Options identified in relation to the broad approach for considering the type and size of new homes:
A. Retain the current policy on types of homes, which takes a flexible, market-driven approach to types
B. Include specific reference to the size and types of homes referred to the South Essex SHMA
C. Continue to require new homes to meet the National Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards
D. Do not adopt specific policy on the mix of homes

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate a strategy to be developed based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF. Please refer to ECC's comments in response to the options in paragraphs 6.30 - 6.36 above paragraph 11.5 below which are considered relevant to this option.

ECC does not support Option D for the reasons stated in the justification, it is considered contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 50) and the emerging vision and objectives of the draft Local Plan, for example SO2 (as referred to in response to paragraph 6.31 above).

SP1.5 Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

Paragraph 6.78 Option identified to meet the needs of Gypsies and Travellers:
A. Retain the current criteria-based policy (Core Strategy policy H7)
B. Retain the current allocated site (Allocations Plan policy GT1)
C. Allocate a number of smaller Gypsy and Traveller pitches / sites to meet needs
D. Consider a mobile home policy for those no longer falling within the Gypsy and Traveller definition
E. Prepare a more detailed criteria-based policy
F. Do not have a policy on Gypsy and Traveller provision
ECC Comments
ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and the Planning Policy for Traveller sites 2015 (PPTS), requiring an inclusive approach for all gypsies and travellers, both members of the travelling and settled communities.

ECC would anticipate provision to be made for travellers who meet the planning definition, may be meet the definition or do not met the definition to be in accordance the Greater Essex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment 2016-2033 (GTAA) published in January 2018.
Furthermore ECC would anticipate the emerging strategy and emerging policy to take into account the Transit Recommendations within the Essex GTAA prepared by EOPA and considered to be a strategic cross boundary issue for the Greater Essex authorities.

SP1.6 Houseboats and Liveaboards

Paragraph 6.82 ECC welcome and support the commitment to work with other neighbouring authorities and relevant bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA). ECC and partners would be able to assist in monitoring and the assessment of impacts arising from the proposed approach to Houseboats and Liveaboards. This could include identifying an appropriate scale / limit for the number of houseboats that could be permitted to moor in a particular area.

Paragraph 6.83 ECC considers the statement regarding the extent of land use planning control "to only extend as far as the mean high tide" to be incorrect and should be amended. ECC can advise that Land Use planning control extends to Low Water Mark, whilst the Marine Planning system extends to High Water Spring Tide, therefore there is an overlap of the 2 planning systems in the intertidal area. This correction also provides an opportunity to work with the MMO in developing evidence and an emerging policy.

Paragraph 6.84 ECC considers further exploration of the infrastructure requirements is necessary, in addition to the reference to the need for provision of toilets for houseboats with a permanent mooring, and to also include the infrastructure provision required for boats which are moored temporarily. It is important that the boats do not discharge waste into the marine environment and hence they would need to be equipped with holding tanks and to use pump out facilities to discharge this type of waste appropriately.
Paragraph 6.86 Options to address the mooring of houseboats in the district:
A. Retain the existing policy
B. Amend the existing policy to strengthen criteria
C. Allocate specific areas of coastline where such uses may be acceptable
D. Amend the definition in the Development Management Plan

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate a strategy to be developed based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and other national policy. ECC considers additional evidence and engagement is required, and recommend that this is explored further with EPOA and / or Essex Coastal Forum.

ECC welcome the consideration of the need for a policy on houseboats/ liveboards as part of the review of the current polices to ensure they are based on the most up to date evidence. This would be appropriate given the growth in occupation and experiences elsewhere in the country (especially in London) where living on a boat is proving to be an attractive proposal, and in certain areas demand has outstripped available mooring. Whilst it may be a lifestyle choice for many, the result is an increasing number of houseboats across the Essex coast, especially in areas commutable to London.

SP1.7 Meeting Business Needs;

Paragraph 6.87 ECC recommends consideration is given to the contribution made by the environmental / Green Infrastructure (GI) to provide a network of multi-functional high quality green spaces and other environmental features, which together deliver multiple environmental, social and economic benefits. ECC can provide advice and evidence from the findings of a Forestry Commission report on the economic value of Green Infrastructure, to overcome barriers to businesses, whilst improving people's quality of life, health and wellbeing, which is available here:
https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/nweeconomicbenefitsofgiinvestigating.pdf/$file/nweeconomicbenefitsofgiinvestigating.pdf

Paragraph 6.92 ECC notes the emerging Local Plan seeks to facilitate a diverse, modernised economy providing high value employment, and supports this aspiration. Paragraph 6.105 states that the Economic Development Needs Topic Paper 2017 advocates employment land increases to primarily facilitate B1 and B2 uses. Whilst ECC does not object to this, it is considered important to ensure that any strategy seeking to grow the economy does not preclude opportunities for waste management, with such facilities often being sited on industrial / employment land. Whilst, waste related developments are employers in their own right, economic activity generates waste, and a cost effective, local waste solution supports economic development across the spectrum. It is recognised that there is nothing in the Issues and Options consultation that indicates such opportunities would be precluded, and indeed ECC notes the role that Rawreth and Star Lane industrial estates play in this regard, but ECC as the MWPA welcomes the opportunity to make this point. It is requested that reference is made to supporting appropriate 'sui generis' uses when defining appropriate use classes on employment land.

Paragraph 6.94 Please amend the reference to "Ultrafast broadband" for the reasons set out in response to Section 6 and paragraphs 6.96 and 6.127.

Paragraph 6.96 ECC supports this statement and the need for improvements to the highway networks / sustainable travel choices to support businesses and economic growth; and to enable people to work in the local area.

Paragraph 6.96 Options to support employment and economic growth in the district
A. Continue to support employment growth within the current employment growth policy
B. Update the current employment growth policy to include reference to broadband
C. Update the current employment growth policy to further support new businesses at each stage of their lifecycle - in particular to reflect the need for grow-on space
D. Include specific reference in the current employment growth policy to tourism; and
E. Include specific reference to supporting sustainable travel options and promoting highways improvements

ECC Comments

ECC would expect all of the options to contribute to RDC meeting its need for employment and economic growth; and would expect RDC to prepare a sound and legally compliant Local Plan, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.
ECC welcomes proposals to ensure the protection and provision of suitable employment land and appropriate uses within the District, with the pre-eminence of the importance of London Southend Airport to the economy whilst seeking opportunities for rural diversification, tourism, retail, leisure, town centres, to meeting the life cycle of business needs including "Grow on Space" and development of skills and training opportunities.

ECC welcomes and supports the importance and economic role played by London Southend Airport as international gateway and the A127 corridor and London-Southend Victoria railway line for connectivity with South Essex, the rest of Essex and London. A key priority will be to enable investment in infrastructure and economic growth (for example the A127 including passenger transport; ultrafast broadband) as well as developing options to support the alignment of skill provision to meet the local needs in accordance with the Economic Plan for Essex (2014) and the Government's Industrial Strategy as are being explored by the ASELA through the Industrial Strategy workstream and the preparation of the JSP. The provision of jobs and infrastructure to support economic growth will be essential, including the need to provide social, physical and green infrastructure.

ECC recommends consideration is given to the role and contribution of waste related developments as employers in their own right, economic activity generates waste, and a cost effective, local waste solution supports economic development across the spectrum. ECC recommends the inclusion and reference to 'sui generis' uses when defining appropriate use classes on employment land (see paragraph 6.92 above and 6.105 below).

In respect of Option B and the reference to Broadband, ECC acknowledge the importance of this infrastructure to support economic growth. Please refer to ECC's comments in response to paragraph 8.44 and the options for communication and broadband provision, as well as the references above to "Ultrafast" broadband.

In respect of Option C, ECC welcomes and supports the reference to the ECC "Grow on space" report 2017 and its findings seeking to address the lifecycle needs of businesses. This is also consistent with the Essex Economic Commission.

In respect of option D and the references to rural diversification and tourism ECC considers the development and promotion of the Essex Coast Path could provide opportunities for the local economy. ECC considers there is a need to have regard to the role and contribution of the environment and in particular investment in Green Infrastructure to attract new businesses and opportunities which will help to create employment, including for example regeneration projects which together can deliver multiple environmental, social and economic benefits. Further details and examples are set out in response to paragraph 4.6 above.

In respect of Option E, ECC supports the need for a range of highways and sustainable transport improvements to existing employment areas, including London Southend Airport and the airport business park and will continue to seek funding through bids to central Government, SELEP and S106 contributions, as set out in response to SP1.3 (ECC general comment) above and Paragraph 6.48.
As explained, ECC would anticipate the inclusion and promotion of sustainable modes of travel to support the community (both residents and businesses) to be embedded in the emerging strategy in conjunction with other options, to support employment and to deliver the wider principles in the emerging vision and spatial strategy, in accordance with the Essex LTP, Economic Plan for Essex and the A127 Corridor for Growth An Economic Plan. Please also refer to ECC comments regarding Highway Infrastructure in section 8.

SP1.8 Need for Jobs;

Paragraph ECC notes that the emerging Local Plan seeks to facilitate a diverse,
6.105 modernised economy providing high value employment. This aspiration is supported. Paragraph 6.105 states that the Economic Development Needs Topic Paper 2017 advocates employment land increases to primarily facilitate B1 and B2 uses. Again, this is not objected to but it is important that any strategy seeking to grow the economy does not preclude opportunities for waste management, with such facilities often being sited on industrial / employment land. As explained in response to paragraph 6.92 & 6.96 above regarding waste management developments as employers in their own right ECC recommends that reference is made to supporting appropriate 'sui generis' uses when defining appropriate use classes on employment land.

Paragraph 6.111 Options to support economic growth in the district over the next 20 years:

A. Develop specific policies for each employment site to protect certain uses
B. Reconsider the allocation of Rawreth and Star Lane industrial estates back to employment
C. Review new employment land allocations that do not have planning permission
D. Retain current strategy and allocate additional employment land
E. Promote improvements to quality of building stock and intensification of existing sites
F. Strengthen policy stance on access improvements
G. Do not have a policy on employment land

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive and would expect RDC to develop a policy based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and the National Planning Policy for Waste 2014 (NPPW).

ECC would expect all of the options A-F to contribute to RDC meeting its need for economic growth, taking into account ECC's comments in respect of Paragraph 6.96 above to support employment and economic growth in the district. ). ECC would expect a Rochford Employment Land Review to be prepared and for the following evidence to be taken into account -, the South Essex Economic Development Needs Assessment; the Governments Industrial Strategy, SELEPs Economic Plan, OSE economic objectives, Thames Estuary Commission, the Economic Plan for Essex and ASELA's emerging South Essex 2050 vision and emerging industrial strategy workstream and JSP.

provide an effective multi modal interchange for the Airport, with improved connectivity and realistic sustainable travel option for all users.

Paragraph 6.114 ECC supports the development of the Airport business park and the associated highway and cycling network improvements

Paragraph 6.115 ECC acknowledges the need for investment in the highway / transport network around London Southend Airport and will continue to seek funding through bids to Central Government, SELEP and S106 contributions.
ECC considers there to be a need to promote and encourage a package of sustainable travel options, for residents and businesses to travel sustainably, with the highway improvements referred to also including improvements to bus journey times and bus priority measures, to promote sustainable travel (including buses) as a realistic sustainable travel option. Further contributions through a combination of s106 and S278 and CIL funding should be secured through appropriate new developments to address the sustainable travel agenda when opportunities arise.
Paragraph 6.116 ECC acknowledges and supports the need for transportation improvements to the A127 to facilitate growth within the District and South Essex; and recommend that reference is made to the joint ECC and Southend on Sea BC A127 Route management Strategy entitled A127 Corridor for Growth - An Economic Plan 2014

Paragraph 6.117 Options in relation to London Southend Airport:
A. Retain and update the Core Strategy policy supporting London Southend Airport's growth
B. Retain the existing policy in the Allocations Plan
C. Retain the existing policies in the JAAP
D. Continue to support surface access improvements in and around London Southend Airport

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC recommends that RDC should consider and clarify the "in principle" inter-relationship and compatibility between the JAAP and the new emerging Local Plan. For example, is the intention to incorporate the provisions of the JAAP within the new Local Plan, or will the JAAP continue to be a separate standalone document, subject to its own review?

In respect of Option D, ECC considers that the JAAP clearly sets out the associated access improvements for London Southend Airport, and that this would be appropriate option to address the passenger transport and sustainable travel options, as part of an integrated travel solution. ECC considers there to be a need to actively promote and improve passenger transport provision and connectivity, rather than solely relying on highway improvements to provide benefits for passenger transport, as any additional highway capacity may be absorbed by continual increases in demand by motorists, in the absence of realistic alternative travel options.

SP1.10 Supporting Tourism and Rural Diversification

Paragraph 6.121 ECC notes the comments regarding the lack of rural passenger transport services. However, it is of concern that the emphasis for the solution is solely placed on improvements to roads and the cycling network. In order for RDC to improve accessibility to the rural parts of the District, whether for tourism, employment or other reasons, it is considered that the most effective and viable approach would be the development of a District transportation strategy. This would have the benefit of setting out aspirational networks for all sustainable travel options including walking, cycling and passenger transport. There are a range of options that could be considered from traditional timetabled services to demand responsive operation or a combination of services to optimise technology. ECC would wish to engage with RDC to explore the options, which could be of particular value and support for tourism and rural diversification.

ECC considers investment to improve and create new Green Infrastructure such as woodlands, nature reserves and greening town centres would be appropriate and would benefit tourism, through attracting new visitors, and support retail and tourism sectors.

ECC considers transport and accessibility to be vitally important for tourism and investing in the Green infrastructure would provide opportunities to encourage alternative modes such as walking and cycling. This would improve accessibility to green spaces, whether by the distance from home and businesses; or by the creation of green links/greenways including enhancements to the existing Public Rights of Way network (including cycleways). Thus providing alternative traffic free cycling and walking routes, as well as wildlife corridors.

ECC considers that this would need to be developed in partnership with stakeholders including ECC and public transport providers to improve the accessibility of green spaces, to be as easy as possible. ECC would welcome the opportunity to explore this further, as outlined in ECC's response to SO6 above, regarding the proximity of new developments to green space.

Paragraph 6.127 Please amend the reference to "Ultrafast broadband" for the reasons set out in response to Section 6 and paragraphs 6.94, 6.96 and 6.127.

Paragraph 6.128 Options for tourism and rural diversification:

A. Continue to support current defined forms of green tourism and rural diversification as set out in our current policies
B. Expand the current approach to include other forms of rural diversification
C. Do not support rural diversification

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider options A and B to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of the options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF, and to evolve as part of the overarching economic growth strategy (see paragraphs 6.96 and 6.116 above).

In respect of Option B (rural diversification) ECC supports this option in principle (subject to evidence) to provide an opportunity to retain employment in the first instance which may then lead to creation of new jobs. ECC recommends that the following factors are further explored:

 Accessibility Issues - there is potential to expand the current policy approach to address accessibility issues raised by ECC (paragraph 6.121). ECC recommends further investigation is required in respect of the wider passenger transport improvements to support access to tourism and rural areas, tourism. It is considered that this could include a range from timetables to the "on demand" bus services, as realistic alternatives; which goes beyond improvements to roads and cycle networks.
 Tourism and consideration of the potential benefits of the England Coast Path, and opportunities for tourism and rural diversification including for temporary camp sites if for example there is an increase in events specifically using the coast such as Maldon District's Council annual Saltmarsh 75 event.
 Potential provision for waste management facilities suited to the rural environment (such as anaerobic digestion or composting), as part of rural diversification in accordance with NPPW

ECC recognise that Policy GB2 in the Core Strategy and Policies DM12 and DM13 in the Development Management Plan do not act to constrain the rural diversification opportunities highlighted above and a continuation of this stance may be appropriate, based on evidence.

ECC does not support Option C for the reasons stated within the justification, it is considered contrary to the NPPF (and the emerging vision and objectives for the draft Local Plan.
SUPPORTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (SECTION 7)

SP2.1 Retail, Leisure and Town Centres

Paragraphs 7.12 In respect of the Retail and Leisure Study update 2014, ECC
and 7.17 notes the reference to "catering needs" and recommend that this should also include "A5" fast foot outlets, to avoid clustering and high concentrations of A5 premises within the district. ECC strongly recommends that RDC review the existence and pattern of A5 premises, which can be undertaken using the FEAT tool (http://www.feat-tool.org.uk/), which is a fast food tool which provides details on fast food outlets for districts including A5, fast food retailers. ECC Public Health is aware of the emerging evidence base on high energy foods and obesity, including recent publications from Public Health England for spatial planners on fast food restrictions. ECC Public Health would welcome the opportunity to provide advice and to work with RDC on this matter.

Paragraph 7.20 Options for the district's town centres:
A. Retain current Core Strategy policies
B. Retain current policies in the Rayleigh Centre Area Action Plan
C. Retain current policies in the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan
D. Retain current policies in the Hockley Area Action Plan
E. Review the town centre Area Action Plans
F. Do not have policies on town centres

ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

As set out in response to paragraph 6.117 in respect of the JAAP, ECC recommends that RDC should consider and clarify the "in principle" inter-relationship and compatibility between these Area Action Plans and new emerging Local Plan. For example, is the intention to incorporate these Area Action Plans into the new Local Plan, or will they be separate standalone Area Action Plans subject to their own reviews?
DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE (SECTION 8)

SP3.1Highways Infrastructure

Paragraph 8.17 ECC welcomes and supports the references and importance given to the Essex and Southend "A127 A Corridor for Growth - An Economic Plan (2014)" and the need for investment in the highway and transportation network, in accordance with the Essex LTP. ECC will continue to seek funding through bids from central Government, SELEP and S106 contributions as appropriate (CIL?) (as stated in 6.111 above).

ECC can advise that work is progressing on the next phase of the A127 Route Management Strategy, with the Options Appraisal and Strategy Report, in conjunction with the South Essex authorities, the London Borough of Havering, Transport for London and Highways England, to promote the importance of the A127 to facilitate growth across the area. In respect of improvements to the strategic transport network, ECC can confirm that the 'short term' funded transport scheme for the A127/A130 Fairglen Interchange is planned for implementation by 2022/23. ECC is also preparing a Joint A13 Route Management Strategy with Southend on Sea BC and Thurrock BC Highway Authorities.

In moving forward it is considered that RDC's approach to the Highways and Transportation will need to take into account the ASELA South Essex 2050 vision and emerging Infrastructure workstreams and the JSP.

Paragraph 8.18 ECC welcomes the reference to work with ECC as the Highways Authority and neighbouring authorities to promote strategic and more localised improvements to the highways network. ECC will continue to work with RDC on an ongoing basis to ensure these strategic matters are addressed collectively within the respective emerging Local Plans and a wider South Essex Joint Strategic Plan.

Paragraph 8.20 Options for the Local Highway Network:

A. Retain current policies on the local highway network
B. Prioritise local highways and junctions between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford (B1013), to support and direct funds to improve the local highway network
C. Prioritise local highways and junctions by upgrading the east to west connection north of Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford, to support and direct funds to improve the local highway network
D. Do not have a specific policy on the local highway network

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options in consultation with ECC as highway and transport authority, based on evidence (including transport modelling) and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC would anticipate the strategy for the local highways network to be a combined approach as part of an integrated package of transport solutions (including sustainable travel options) and for this to be embedded within the Local Plans' spatial strategy.

As stated in response to SP1.3 and paragraphs 6.46 and 6.113 above, ECC considers greater emphasis should be placed on an integrated transport solution, in accordance with the Essex LTP to move away from the traditional reliance on road improvements, which is only part of the solution. For example, the inclusion and promotion of sustainable modes of travel (in addition to the outcomes of the transport modelling work) would support the community (both residents and businesses) in respect of transport and travel through the main towns and improve rural transport options. There is a need to ensure the appropriate approaches for the local highway network also take into account the requirements and inter-relationship with the wider local and Strategic networks as well as cross boundary issues / impacts.

Strategic Highways Network Transport

Paragraph 8.21 ECC welcome the reference for RDC to work with ECC and Southend BC (as the Highways Authorities) in the development of a transport model for the length of the A127, however please refer to ECC's update on the A127 Route Management Strategy in paragraph 8.17 above.

ECC can advise that the A127 comprises three highway authorities (Southend on Sea, ECC and the London Borough of Havering (LBH)), as such the A127 Route Management Strategy is being extended to incorporate the LBH. Furthermore LBH and the seven south Essex authorities (including ECC) have signed a Statement of Common Ground in respect of the importance of the A127 to facilitate growth.
ECC is engaging with the South Essex authorities in respect of a potential South Essex transport model which would be consistent with ECC's aspirations for an Essex wide model, drawing on the modelling work to date. This will however need to take into account the Highways England modelling information, including for example the Lower Thames Crossing.

ECC can also advise that Highways England would wish to be engaged in emerging Local Plans, to ensure any potential "ripple effect" of development is considered in respect of their transport network, for example the M25, A12 and sections of the A13 within South Essex.

Paragraph 8.21 Options identified for the strategic highway network:
A. Support improvements to the strategic highway network
B. Do not have a specific policy on the strategic highway network

ECC Comments
ECC would expect RDC to prepare a policy approach to the strategic highway network in consultation with ECC as highway and transport authority, based on evidence (including transport modelling) and in accordance with the NPPF.
In respect of Option A, ECC would anticipate the policy for the strategic highways network to be a combined approach as part of an integrated package of transport solutions (including sustainable travel options) and moving away from the traditional reliance on road improvements, which is only part of the solution. This would be in accordance with the Essex Local Transport Plan, and the A127 and emerging A13 Route Management Strategies as set out in response to paragraphs 8.17-21 above, and in response to SP1.3, paragraphs 6.46 and 6.111.
ECC does not support Option B for the reasons stated within the justification; it is considered contrary to the NPPF, the Essex LTP and A127 Route Management Strategy and the emerging vision and strategic objectives in the draft Local Plan.

SP3.2 Sustainable Travel

Paragraph 8.22 ECC welcome the desire for a modal shift towards more sustainable ways to travel, given that car use is the dominant mode of transport. ECC recommends there to be a need to change the modal shift in the short term, with greater emphasis placed on promoting alternative travel options (walking, cycling, passenger and public transport) and given greater weight in the Local Plan, to ensure these facilities are planned in now, to enable the options and benefits to be realised during the plan period. Greater emphasis is required on an integrated transport solution, and moving away from the traditional reliance on road improvements, which is only part of the solution.

Paragraph 8.22 ECC notes the reference to the Rayleigh Town Centre AQMA, however recommend this should be expanded to include reference to the National Air Quality Plan published by DEFRA in July 2017 which designates a site on the A127 to the east of Rayleigh Weir.

Paragraph 8.24 ECC welcomes the reference to Public Transport and recognition of the importance and connectivity to the rural areas and cross boundary connections, however there is a need to recognise that Public Transport is of value to everyone (all residents and employers) and not solely to residents who do not have access to private vehicles. There is a need for a change in emphasis, with the principles of alternative sustainable travel and accessibility (including passenger transport) to be embedded within the Local Plans' emerging spatial strategy to deliver the "vision" for the district and modal shift in transport. ECC recommends that RDC actively engages and works with the local transport operators in the District as well as ECC to develop services.

For example, there is the opportunity to explore innovative ways to deliver a more demand led public transport service to broaden accessibility away from the scheduled bus service. It could bring improved frequencies and less complex journeys by being able to be more responsive to demand for specific journeys, and provide quicker interchanges between modes. How this is supported could be explored within the context of paragraph 8.30, and may have potential to form part of the solution to air quality issues identified in paragraph 8.31.

Paragraph 8.27 ECC recommend that reference is made to the Rochford Cycling Action Plan 2018; prepared by Essex Highways and further information on the Essex Cycling Strategies is available here:
http://www.essexhighways.org/getting-around/cycling/cycle-programme.aspx.
Please note for consistency of terminology the references to "Cycle "Storage" within this paragraph should be change to "Cycle "Parking".

Paragraph 8.28 For clarity, ECC recommends that greater references should be made to "cycling" and "cycling networks", to help distinguish the nature of the routes being referred to, for example by inserting "cycle" before "routes to link homes" within this paragraph.

Paragraphs ECC welcomes the reference to the positive role of "Green Infrastructure"
8.27, 8.28 within this section which highlights the high dependency on cars, and that
and 8.32 other sustainable modes of travel should be encouraged.

In respect of the approach to car use, consideration should be given to the provision for charging points for electric cars (see also comments under Renewable Energy Generation). Further consideration is required on the practicality of long term public transport provision with the likely changes in car ownership patterns in 20 years' time, arising from the Government's commitment to ban the sale of new diesel and petrol vehicles from 2040 and responses from the car industry and possible growth in the use of electric vehicles, be it hybrid or pure electric vehicles, with sales projected to increase to around 10% of new vehicles by 2025. The industry anticipate the share of Electric Vehicles will continue to rise and that by 2025 Electric Vehicles will be more affordable than internal combustion vehicles, even without Government subsidies.

The need for and provision of Electric Vehicle charging points should be explored further and ECC's Environment team wish to engage with RDC on this matter, including sharing examples of good practice in emerging and new Local Plans.
Paragraph 8.30 ECC would welcome the opportunity to work closely with RDC on the development and implementation of Travel Plans for all new developments, or extensions to existing businesses, or where the development will have a significant impact on the highway. The ECC Sustainable Travel team would welcome the opportunity to explore this further with RDC and recommend reference is made to ECC's Passenger Transport Strategy - Getting Around In Essex 2015.

Paragraph 8.33 ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to explore the issues raised (bullet points 1-6) in relation to sustainable travel choices for communities across the district, which could be addressed through the Local Plan. Further consideration is required regarding the role and importance of realistic sustainable travel options to support the growth in the District.

Key issues ECC would like to explore further with RDC include:

Fifth bullet point - ECC considers the proposal to re-route the bus services away from Marked Square in Rochford Town Centre to be unsound. The removal of buses from this key location would be contrary to the principles of sustainable and accessible communities, and the strategic objectives in the Local Plan including the need for a modal shift in transport towards realistic and sustainable travel options for all. For example; if buses could not serve this area then residents would be encouraged to travel by car, adding further traffic to the already congested road network.

Sixth & Seventh bullet point - Further clarification is required on the nature of the issues.

Paragraph 8.34 ECC supports the proposal for setting a more challenging mode share; and would wish to work with RDC to explore and develop these issues and opportunities further within the context of the emerging new Local Plan.

Paragraph 8.35 ECC welcomes the opportunity to work with RDC and partners to explore and help shape new and improved passenger transport options across the District, as part of ongoing "duty to co-operate" engagement in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Paragraph 8.36 ECC consider the reference to SERT, which concerns bus services to be unclear within this paragraph on cycling.

Paragraph 8.37 Options identified to support Sustainable Travel
A. Retain the current policy on public transport
B. Support the development of a rapid public transit system for South Essex
C. Retain the current policy on travel plans
D Lower the threshold to require travel plans to be prepared for schemes under 50 homes
E. Retain the current policy on walking and cycling
F. Do not have policies on sustainable travel

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options A-E, in consultation with ECC as highway and transport authority, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC would anticipate the approach to support sustainable travel to be a combination of options, as part of an all-encompassing, integrated package of transport solutions (including highway network improvements) and for this to be embedded within the Local Plans.

ECC recommend RDC has regard to NPPF (section 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport and section 8 Promoting Healthy Communities), the Essex Local Transport Plan, the A127 and emerging A13 Route Management Strategies, ECC's Sustainable Travel Strategy, and evidence (including transport modelling the Cycle Action Plan and South Essex Active Travel programme), and ECC's Passenger Transport Strategy - Getting Around in Essex (2015).

In respect of Option A, ECC considers this to have the potential for greatest advantages to prepare the District for its future transportation needs, including the potential for a more demand- led model, to work alongside scheduled bus and rail services. ECC would anticipate the need to consider this as part of a wider cross boundary engagement, with neighbouring authorities, ECC and transport providers. ECC would welcome the opportunity to engage with RDC on this matter.
In respect of Option D, ECC recommend that the threshold for travel plans is considered further to take into account the thresholds within EPOA Guidance for Health Impact Assessments 2008; where active and sustainable travel is already considered. ECC is currently reviewing the EPOA Guidance for Health Impact Assessments, to ensure it is up to date and relevant. ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC on the development of this aspect within the Local Plan.

In respect of Option E, ECC considers the current approach in policy T6 positively encourages people to travel sustainably.

ECC does not support Option F for the reasons stated in the Justification, it is considered contrary to national policy, the Essex Local Transport Plan, and ECC Passenger Transport Strategy and the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the draft Local Plan.

SP3.3 Communications Infrastructure,

Paragraph 8.43 ECC recommends that reference is made to the BT Openreach policy of providing FTTP connections to any new development of houses over 30 properties, free of charge to the developer. Further information is available on the BT Open reach web link: https://www.ournetwork.openreach.co.uk/property-developers/site-registration.aspx

This provides the framework for implementation of superfast broadband within new residential developments

Paragraph 8.44 Options identified for communications infrastructure:
A. Retain the existing policy on telecommunications infrastructure
B. Amend the existing policy to include specific reference to improving broadband and mobile coverage
C. Ensure that all commercial and residential developments over a certain threshold are conditioned to deliver appropriate broadband infrastructure
D. Do not have a policy on telecommunications infrastructure

ECC Comments
ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options A-C based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF. ECC would anticipate the strategy for the communication infrastructure to be a combined approach embedded within the Local Plan.

As set out in response to Section 6, paragraphs 6.94, 6.96 and 6.127, ECC recommend all references to the provision of and requirements for future broadband are pre-fixed by "Ultrafast". ECC acknowledge the current rollout programme is "Superfast Broadband", however it is recommended that the draft new Local Plan should refer to "Ultrafast Broadband" to reflect the Government's next roll out initiative, thereby provide longevity in the draft Local Plan and to distinguish the standards for new provision from the "standard broadband" which is not fast enough.

ECC also recommends that reference is made to the BT Openreach policy of providing FTTP connections to any new development of houses over 30 units, free of charge to the developer. Further information is available on the BT Open reach web link: https://www.ournetwork.openreach.co.uk/property-developers/site-registration.aspx
This provides the framework for implementation of superfast broadband within new residential developments.

In respect of Option B, ECC considers this to be a positive approach to develop infrastructure resilience to support the growth ambitions within RDC. ECC recommends that the needs of both residents and businesses are incorporated within the policy requirements for good communication infrastructure provision.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to ensure the latest policies; guidance and evidence are taken into account to inform the principles, strategies and policies and site allocations within the emerging Local Plan.

ECC does not support Option D for the reasons stated in the justification, and considers it to be contrary to the NPPF (paragraphs 42-43) and the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the Local Plan, for example SO9.

SP3.4 Water and Flood Management,

Paragraph 8.45 ECC wish to draw RDC's attention to the requirements of NPPF paragraph 100, which requires development in areas at risk from all forms of flooding should be avoided and not just fluvial and coastal flooding. This is in line with national guidance which states:

In plan-making, local planning authorities apply a sequential approach to site selection so that development is, as far as reasonably possible, located where the risk of flooding (from all sources) is lowest, taking account of climate change and the vulnerability of future uses to flood risk. (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 7-001-20140306 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change)
ECC notes that the South Essex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2011 is in the process of being updated given the changes to the Environment Agency (EA) climate change allowance.

ECC also recommends that the following guidance and evidence
published since 2011, should be taken into account in the preparation of
the Local Plan:
 EA - Risk of Flooding from Surface Water (RoFSW) maps;
 ECC Sustainable Urban Drainage Design Guide 2016
 ECC Essex SUDS Design Guide 2016;
 South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (2012 and emerging
revision due 2018);
 ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016)

ECC also advises that the following Assessments and Strategies are
currently being updated and once complete should also be taken into
account as part of the Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisals evidence
base:
 The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for Essex; and
 The Essex Flood Risk Management Strategy
ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to ensure the latest
policies; guidance and evidence are taken into account to inform the
principles, strategies and policies and site allocations within the emerging
Local Plan.

Paragraph 8.46 & 8.48 Whilst the preferred intent of management in the Shoreline
Management Plan might be to maintain or upgrade defences along the
coast, there is no guarantee that funding will be available to deliver these
preferred policies. It is therefore appropriate that RDC seeks to secure
funding from development or other sources to potentially allow a funding
contribution towards any coast flood or erosion schemes especially given
the new approach of 'partnership funding' which now applies.

Paragraph 8.47 ECC welcome the positive consideration and approach to locate
& 8.48 development, within the lower flood risk areas, whilst taking into account
climate change, the vulnerability of future uses to flood risk and the impact
on water supply from a changing climate.

Paragraph 8.49 ECC can advise that the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (2012) is being updated and this includes revisions to the Critical
Drainage Areas. The review is scheduled to be completed in 2018 and
ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC and to provide this
additional information to inform preparation of the Local Plan, in particular
the emerging spatial strategy and the assessment of site allocations.

Paragraph 8.50 In respect of the reference to below and above ground SUDS features,
ECC's requires priority to be given to the provision of above ground
SUDS features (with the exception of soakaways) and that below ground
SUDS features should only be considered acceptable, if it is
demonstrated that above ground SUDS features are not viable. In all
cases ECC would require any features to provide acceptable levels of
water quality treatment/ storage requirements

Paragraph 8.50 & 8.51 ECC welcomes and supports the use of SUDS to alleviate flooding and that it should be incorporated in to new developments, domestic and
commercial. SUDS can provide great opportunity to improve our
environment and, linked with Green Infrastructure, could create a more
balanced and natural ecology in our communities. SUDS can help meet
the growing demands to deliver GI by creating green open spaces which
encourage biodiversity, habitats, wildlife corridors and health and
wellbeing.

Paragraph 8.51 ECC recommend that the emphasis of the statements within this
paragraph are changed, to encourage SUDS on all new developments,
including minor developments, and should not be limited to the major
developments which are subject to statutory consultation with ECC as the
LLFA.

ECC recommend that the last sentence in this paragraph should be
changed to reflect the overall requirements and application of SUDS
design principles, to read as follows:

"In some instances, financial contributions could be sought to improve
surface water drainage infrastructure through a standard CIL charge for
example (considered in detail below)."

Further information is available within the ECC Sustainable Drainage
Systems Design Guide (2016) and ECC will work with RDC on this matter
in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Paragraph 8.53 ECC welcome the positive consideration and approach to locate
development, within the lower flood risk areas, whilst taking into account
climate change, the vulnerability of future uses to flood risk and the impact
on water supply from a changing climate.
ECC recommend that reference is made to the Environment Agency's
revised climate change allowances, further details are available here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-changeallowances

Paragraph 8.56 ECC recommends that new developments should be supported by
infiltration and groundwater testing. Further details are set out within the
ECC Sustainable Drainage Systems Design Guide (2016).

Paragraph 8.58 Options identified to minimise flood risk:
A. Retain the existing flood risk policy for coastal flooding
B. Revise Core Strategy policy ENV3
C. Continue to apply SUDS policies
D. Do not have a policy on flood risk

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options A-C based on evidence and in accordance with national policy including the NPPF.

ECC will engage with RDC on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Local Plan to ensure it is based on the most up to date Guidance and evidence including the ECC SUDS guide, the revised South Essex Surface Water Management Plan, as well as the latest EA climate change allowances.
ECC does not support Option D for the reasons stated in the justification, it is considered contrary to national policy (including paragraphs 99-108).

SP3.5 Renewable Energy Generation

Paragraph 8.62 ECC note and support the reference to the Rayleigh Town Centre Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) in respect of the need to explore different measures including for example provision for electric vehicles (Electric Charging Points).

Paragraph 8.64 & 8.65 ECC welcome the recognition of the need for charging points in urban centre car parks. ECC is currently preparing a strategy for Electric Vehicles and would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC, including on the need for new policies to promote the provision of Electric Charging Points for new domestic and commercial developments (see paragraphs 8.22-8.37 above). This is required to support the need for this new infrastructure with a variety of Electric Charging Points required to meet the anticipated grown in Electric Vehicles, which could not be solely met by urban car parks.

Paragraph 8.66 Options identified to support renewable energy provision within the district:
A. Retain the current policies on renewable energy
B. Include a specific policy on electric vehicle charging points
C. Do not have a policy on renewable energy

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive and would expect
RDC develop a combination options A & B based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and other national policy.

In respect of Options A and B, ECC would support a review of the current policies and amendments to ensure they are in accordance with the most up to date evidence (including developments in technology) and national policy and guidance.

ECC consider the policy should be amended to include the provision for Electric Vehicles Charging Points. ECC would welcome the opportunity to explore these requirements further with RDC in the preparation of the local plan, including the policies and infrastructure requirements for the provision of Electric Charging Points, and consideration given to engaging the key stakeholders.

ECC does not support Option C for the reasons stated in the justification, it is considered contrary to national policy and the Essex Local Transport Plan, supporting evidence and the emerging vision for the Local Plan.

SP3.6 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges;

Paragraph 8.73 ECC welcome the reference to and identification of the issues raised in respect of the delivery of infrastructure provision associated with a large number of small sites, as set out in ECC's earlier comments in response to paragraph 6.48 (options to provide a realistic strategy for delivering homes).

ECC a statutory authority responsible for the provision of specific infrastructure in support of communities and the preparation of Local Plans, would wish to engage with RDC on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Local Plan and Spatial Strategy, especially as the Local Plan progresses to consider specific sites and spatial strategy. ECC can also provide details of our policies, strategies, guidance and standards in respect of the delivery of specific infrastructure and the respective levels of growth required, for example:
 the ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016); and
 the Essex County Council Local and Neighbourhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation (2018).

Please be advised that the latter Guide includes changes and updates to ECC's policy for the minimum size and land requirements for new primary and secondary school provision, please also refer to Section 8 below.

ECC can confirm that the issues do arise and that, subject to the scale of development, small schemes may not bring the level of investment required. In essence this reflects the "critical mass" in the scale of development required to enable effective infrastructure and service planning, which it may not be possible to secure with a number of smaller developments given the effect of the CIL Regs (Regulation 123) and restrictions on the pooling of contributions.

Paragraph 8.75 Options for planning obligations and standard charges:
A. Retain the existing policy and provisions in current local plan policy
B. Do not have a policy on planning obligations and standard charges

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to prepare a policy for planning and obligations and standard charge, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC considers there to be a requirement to retain an appropriate and up to date policy for securing the necessary Planning Obligations and Standard Charges in accordance with the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance, the forthcoming changes in national policy on this matter, and the ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions and the recommended 'Infrastructure delivery and impact mitigation' policy set out in Appendix B to the Essex County Council Local and Neighbourhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation (2018). With reference to ECC comments in response to paragraph 6.48 and 8.74 above, the principle of "pooling" restrictions and applying standard charges to smaller sites is not sufficient to meet the substantial levels of investment required to enable the provision of the appropriate infrastructure.

ECC therefore recommends that RDC's existing planning t policy is amended to take into account the latest material considerations and that RDC uses the best practice policy for "Infrastructure delivery and impact mitigation policy' (referred to above) to deal with pooled contributions, and to list any on-site facilities (new schools or extra land to expand existing schools) within the individual housing allocation policies. It is necessary to separately designate land to be allocated for Education use as D1 use class. This is considered necessary to avoid residential hope value being attributed to school land as part of any development viability assessment.

ECC recommends that the use of the best practice policy approach, referred to above is applied to the provision of other specific infrastructure, as outlined in ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016).

ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC on an ongoing basis to develop an effective approach through the preparation of the Local Plan.

SUPPORTING HEALTH, COMMUNITY AND CULTURE (SECTION 9)

SP4.1 Health and Well-being;

ECC welcomes and strongly supports the approach taken by RDC regarding health within this section. ECC considers the approach to be very positive towards Public Health and the wider issues of health have been considered and the promotion of Public Health with reference to the NPPF. ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC in the development of this policy in conjunction with their planning and Health and Wellbeing team; and can provide advice on a range of supporting evidence and good practice available to inform the preparation of the local plan. This includes:
 FEAT tool (http://www.feat-tool.org.uk/), which allows authorities identify the various types of food retailers within their districts, including A5, fast food retailers.
 RTPI dementia friendly practice guidance- http://www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/practice/dementia-and-town-planning/
 Sports England Active Design- https://www.sportengland.org/media/3426/spe003-active-design-published-october-2015-email-2.pdf
 Public Health England - Health profiles- https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/health-profiles
Paragraph 9.11 Options to promote health and wellbeing:
A. Retain the existing policy in current local plan policy
B. Ensure that land is specifically for healthcare
C. No policy on healthcare needs
D. Build on the existing healthcare policy to address wider health and well-being issues

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC as a lead advisor for Public Health will engage with RDC on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Local Plan and Spatial Strategy, especially as the Local Plan progresses to consider specific sites and spatial strategy. ECC can also provide details of its policies, strategies, guidance and standards in respect of the delivery of specific infrastructure and the respective levels of growth required.

In respect of Option D, ECC is supportive of this approach to refresh and build upon the existing health and wellbeing policy and ECC Public Health would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC in the development of this policy in conjunction with their planning and Health and Wellbeing teams.

ECC considers this approach should include greater recognition of the role of the natural environment and Green Infrastructure within the communities' health and wellbeing, including opportunities in preventing and treating ill health, as well as promoting wellness, including greater access and use of green space

ECC does not support Option C, for the reasons stated within the justification, it is considered contrary to national policy, the emerging vision for the Local Plan, ECC's vision for Essex and the revised EDG.

SP4.2 Community Facilities;

Paragraph 9.15 Options for Community Facilities:
A. Retain the existing policy in current local plan policy
B. Strengthen provisions in the existing policy
C. No policy on community facilities

ECC would expect RDC to prepare a policy option based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC would anticipate the provision of a range of community infrastructure in support of Local Plans, would wish to engage with RDC on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Local Plan and Spatial Strategy, especially as the Local Plan progresses to consider specific sites and spatial strategy. Further details are set out in Section 2B above and in response to Section 4 of the Issues and Options Report.
In terms of future provision, opportunities for the co-location of services and maximising the use of existing buildings will be encouraged, to respond to the increasingly integrated models of service provision and provision for multi-purpose facilities. There is increasing emphasis on the integration of other form of community infrastructure, such as libraries and community spaces.

New provision is therefore likely to be in the form of a co-located community hub/library. This will be dependent on the level of population growth and the demographic of that population, along with the service requirements of future library provision. It is therefore likely that new provision could be made at some of the larger growth locations, particularly if there is a need for other community facilities, e.g. health centres, community halls etc. However, at this stage it is not possible to identify specific needs or costs of provision. It is not possible to identify specific needs or costs at this stage. Co-location may be something that should be encouraged but this would be more of a policy focus, possibly through a masterplanning approach, for the new development.

Funding will need to come from developer contributions and will be delivered through the masterplanning of new development sites.

ECC does not support Option C for the reasons stated in the justification, it is considered contrary to national policy, the emerging vision and objectives of the draft local plan and would not enable the necessary infrastructure to be appropriately planned for and delivered to meet the needs of the local community (residents and businesses).

SP4.3 Education and Skills;

ECC note the scope of Strategic Priority 4.3 (this section) mainly concerns Educational facilities; however there is no acknowledgement of or reference to the provision and requirements for Special Education Needs, either within schools or the wider community. ECC recommends that this is addressed, to consider and demonstrate the needs of the residents and the contribution that it can make. ECC welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to explore this further and can provide additional information on ECC's policies, strategies and evidence in respect of the requirements for this service, to be taken into account in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Paragraph 9.17 ECC welcomes the references within this paragraph, however the reference to "Nursery Education" should be changed to "EYCC provision" and this change should be incorporated throughout the document. Equally the reference to the need to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within "schools" should be amended to specifically refer to "EYCC provision" in addition to schools

Paragraph 9.22 & 9.27 ECC advises that the Essex Employment and Skills Board (ESB), through its 2017-18 Evidence Base, has identified seven priority sectors for Greater Essex including: construction, logistics, advanced manufacturing and engineering, IT/digital, healthcare and finance and insurance. To address shortages in these areas the ESB works in partnership with skills training providers, employers and other partners to offer an Education and Industry, Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths programme, to all secondary schools. These taster day opportunities, open to the District's schools would complement the District's Career Taster Days and continue to promote apprenticeships and access to skills and training. ECC welcomes the opportunity to explore this further with RDC in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Paragraph 9.23 ECC would like to advise RDC that it is in the process of updating the referenced ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016), to include planning obligations and standard charges for contributions to support the full range of post-16 provision, where need is sufficiently evidenced. This is as a result of students 16-18 being required to stay in some form of education or training. This would support workforces, support apprenticeships and work with local colleges to address identified skills gaps. This also reflects ECC's overarching Lifelong Learning Strategy 2014 - 2018 and supporting strategies

Paragraph 9.26 ECC requests that the references to the scale of residential development that would generate the need for a viable new school are updated, to reflect section 2.2 of the recently published Essex County Council Local and Neighbourhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation (the Planners Guide) i.e. circa 1,400 houses for a 2 form entry primary school and 4,500 houses for a 6 form entry secondary school.

ECC's School Organisation Team welcomes the opportunity to assist in the preparation of the Local Plan and the next stage will be for ECC to 'scenario test' the preferred option to identify the education infrastructure required to mitigate the cumulative impact of allocations and permitted development.

Paragraph 9.27 Please refer to ECC's comments in paragraph 9.22 above, ECC would welcome the opportunity to explore this further with RDC in the preparation of the Local Plan.

Paragraph 9.29 Options identified to plan for education and skills development in the future:

A. Retain the current policies on schools provision
B. Ensure that land is specifically allocated for schools
C. Do not have a policy on meeting education needs
D. Update the current employment growth policy on skills and continue to support skills development through a skills training academy
E. Promote apprenticeships through planning

ECC Comments

ECC does not consider these options to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of the options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

In respect of this section and the range of Options, ECC recommends that they are expanded to explicitly incorporate the requirements and provision of Special Education Needs within schools and the wider community. ECC welcomes the opportunity to work with RDC on an ongoing basis to ensure this is addressed in the development of the Local Plan, in accordance with ECC's overarching Lifelong Learning Strategy 2014 - 2018 and supporting strategies, which include the provision of services from pre-birth to 24 for children with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities.
Further details are also available within
 Essex Early Years and Childcare Strategy 2015-2018;
 ECC Local and Neighborhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation; and the
 ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016).
In respect of Options A and B, ECC does not consider there to be a need for separate education infrastructure policies as before. ECC recommends that RDC uses the best practice policy set out in Appendix B to the ECC Local and Neighborhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation, as set out in response to SP3.6 and paragraphs 8.73 and 8.75 above)regarding an appropriate and effective approach to pooled contributions, and to list any on-site facilities (new schools or extra land to expand existing schools) within the individual housing allocation policies.

It is necessary to separately designate land to be allocated for Education use as D1 use class. This is considered necessary to avoid residential hope value being attributed to school land as part of any development viability assessment.

In respect of Option C, ECC does not support this approach for the reasons stated in justification, it is considered contrary to the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the draft local plan, to national policy and would fail to comply with "Duty to Co-operate" in the preparation of a sound, legally compliant and deliverable local plan, as it would not enable the necessary educational infrastructure to be appropriately planned for and delivered to meet the needs of the local community (residents and businesses).

In respect of Option D, ECC recommends the current employment growth policy on skills and supporting skills development are amended and based upon the most up to date evidence and strategies, to determine the requirements for the future. For example ECC would wish to reserve the position on the proposal for construction of a specific academy; ECC recommends further investigation of the skills system is required to ensure it more closely reflects the needs (both now and emerging) of current and new employers. ECC would wish to engage and work with RDC on these matters including the need to address the social determinants of health.

In respect of Option E, ECC welcomes and is supportive of the approach to using development as a way of supporting local apprenticeships. ECC is in the process of updating the referenced ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016), to include planning obligations and standard charges for contributions to support the full range of post-16 provision, where need is sufficiently evidenced.
This is as a result of students 16-18 being required to stay in some form of education or training. This would support workforces, support apprenticeships and work with local colleges to address identified skills gaps. ECC would wish to engaged and work with RDC in the development of these matters in the preparation of the Local Plan, to ensure it reflects the latest evidence and strategies, including for example (but not limited to) ECC's overarching Lifelong Learning Strategy 2014 - 2018.

SP4.4 Early Years and Childcare Provision;

Paragraph 9.30 Overall ECC is generally supportive of the approach to EYCC, as presented, however please be advised that the ECC Strategy "Essex Early Years and Childcare Strategy 2015-2016 will be reviewed late 2018. ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC on an ongoing basis to ensure the draft Local Plan is prepared based upon the most up to date ECC strategies and objectives as well as the latest EYCC sufficiency data, which is reviewed annually. ECC wishes to be engaged with the next stages of the Local Plan and the consideration of site allocations and their assessments to ensure full consideration is given to the opportunities and impacts on EYCC infrastructure requirements and delivery matters arising from both individual and cumulative site allocations.

Paragraph 9.31 ECC recommend that the emphasis and role of the EYCC service as referred to is changed to correctly reflect the role and provision of EYCC services, which is for every child to achieve a good level of development and best start in life, and not for parents employment. The provision of EYCC facilities is a key service which supports parents wishing to re-enter employment, continue with their current employment or to pursue further or higher education. Please refer to the Essex Early Years and Childcare Strategy 2015-2018 for further clarification, which includes ECC's vision that "Children in Essex get the best start in life to enable them to reach their full potential". The access to high quality education is one of the fundamental influences on the long term life chances of children living in Essex. Furthermore this strategy forms part of ECC's broader Lifelong Learning Strategy 2014 - 2018, for children from pre-birth to 19 and pre-birth to 24 for children with Special Education Needs or Disabilities.

Paragraph 9.32 ECC welcomes and supports the reference to the EYCC sufficiency data (at August 2016) presented within table 11, however please be advised that this data is monitored and updated on an annual basis, and more recent information is now available. ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC on an ongoing basis as the draft Local Plan is prepared, to ensure it based upon the most up to date and relevant ECC strategies and objectives including this EYCC sufficiency data (as referred to in paragraph 9.30 above).

Paragraph 9.33 ECC recommends that all references to nursery education is changed to "Early Years and Childcare Provision". ECC notes the reference to "Childrens Centres" within the paragraph and can advise that the provision of these service had been changed is and is now call "Essex Child and Family Well-being Service" as set out in paragraph 9.35. ECC recommends that all references to "Childrens Centres" throughout the draft Plan are now changed to "Essex Child and Family Well-being Service". Further information and evidence is available on ECC's website as follows: http://www.essex.gov.uk/Education-Schools/Early-Years-Childcare/Pages/Children%E2%80%99s-centres.aspx

Paragraph 9.34 & 9.35 ECC recommends that the references to "PB" are changed to "pre-Birth" to provide the clarification on the nature of the services being provided.

Paragraph 9.36 Options Identified for the provision of early years and childcare facilities:

A. Retain the current policies on schools, early years and childcare
B. Ensure that land is specifically allocated for schools, early years and childcare
C. Do not have a policy on early years and childcare facilities
ECC Comments
ECC would anticipate the strategy for early years and childcare facilities to be developed with a combination of the options, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF

In respect of this section and the range of Options, ECC recommends that they are expanded to explicitly incorporate the requirements and provision of Special Education Needs within EYCC and the wider community. ECC welcomes the opportunity to work with RDC on an ongoing basis to ensure this is addressed in the development of the Local Plan, in accordance with ECC's overarching Lifelong Learning Strategy 2014 - 2018 and supporting strategies, which include the provision of services from pre-birth to 24 for children with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities.

Further details are also available within:
 Essex Early Years and Childcare Strategy 2015-2018;
 ECC Local and Neighborhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation and the
 ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016)
In respect of Option A, ECC is supportive of a broad approach in respect of Education and EYCC to ensuring there is sufficient provision. There is however a need to ensure that the policies are updated to reflect current and future need for the community. ECC recommends that the following are taken into account:
 ECC's Essex Early Years and Childcare Strategy 2015-2018;
 the implementation of the Government's Extended Funding Entitlement offer (30 hours) introduced in September 2017;
 ECC's emerging strategy for the "Essex Child and Family Service",
 the most up to date EYCC Sufficiency Data; and
 the Infrastructure delivery requirements set out in ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016).

ECC would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with RDC, to ensure the most-up to date and relevant Strategies, guidance and evidence is used to inform the broad policy approach as well as the wider preparation of the draft Local Plan.

In respect of Option B, ECC is supportive of this approach to ensure specific land is allocated for the provision of schools and EYCC facilities. ECC would welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with RDC on this matter, and draw your attention to the requirements of the ECC Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2016), the ECC Local and Neighborhood Planners' Guide to School Organisation, as well as ECC's comments above to paragraph 9.36 and the Options identified to plan for education and skills development in the future.

ECC does not support Option C, for the reasons stated in the justification, it is considered contrary, national planning policy and would fail to comply with the "Duty to Co-operate" in the preparation of a sound, legally compliant and deliverable Local Plan, the emerging vision and objectives, and it would not enable EYCC and educational infrastructure to be appropriately planned for and delivered to meet the needs of the local community (residents and businesses).

SP4.5 Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation

Paragraph 9.37 ECC welcomes and supports the provision of Open Space, Outdoor Sports and Recreation (both formal and informal) and supports the preparation of up to date evidence with the joint South Essex Playing Pitch Strategy, in co-operation with Active Essex, as well as the need to commission a new Open Space Study incorporating Green space and infrastructure.

ECC recommends further consideration is given to the wider role of and value of green space to support healthy communities including general landscape value, green infrastructure, biodiversity, green corridors and country parks for the provision of managed informal passive and active recreational space for all residents.

Paragraph 9.42 Options identified for open space, outdoor sports and recreation:
A. Retain, and where necessary update, the existing overarching policy on open spaces
B. Retain, and where necessary update, our current policy on existing open space
C. Retain, and where necessary update, our current policy on new open space
D. Retain, and where necessary update, our current policies
ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of the options, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC would expect this to include the South Essex Playing Pitch Strategy and the Open Space and Green Infrastructure Study to be commissioned) and in accordance with the NPPF and guidance, including the emerging EDG (to be published February 2018) and Sport England's Active Design Principles, to create and promote healthy communities.

ECC recommend that further consideration is given to connectivity investment and improvements between green spaces through the provision of green corridors and enhancement of existing and new Green Infrastructure, which would provide a number of key benefits. This includes
 Climate change adaptation and mitigation
 Health, wellbeing and social cohesion
 Economic growth and investment
 Wildlife and habitats

This would support the creation of stronger communities and these benefits could be achieved through good planning and management to ensure green space is supplied and maintained. ECC would wish to engage with RDC on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Local Plan, especially as the plan progresses to consider specific sites and spatial strategy.

In respect of Option C, ECC recommends that the "Challenge" on how to deliver infrastructure to support new homes should also seek to incorporate new open space Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG) as part of new residential developments to avoid recreational impacts on European sites. Further details on this aspect are incorporated within the revisions to the emerging EDG. ECC also consider that this approach and option is cross referenced to the challenges set out in paragraph 4.17 and the approach to Greenways in paragraph 10.29 (Option H).

SP4.6 Indoor Sports and Leisure Centres

Paragraph 9.50 Options to address the provision of the indoor sports and leisure centres:
A. Retain the existing policy
B. Do not have a policy on indoor sports and leisure centres

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a policy approach based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

ECC support Option A, subject to the need for any amendment arising from the new / emerging evidence base.

ECC does not support Option B, for the reasons stated within justification, it is considered contrary to the NPPF and the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the draft local plan.

SP4.7 Facilities for Young People;

Please refer to ECC's comments in response to SP4.3 - 4.5 above regarding community facilities; Education and Skills; Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation; and Indoor Sports and Leisure Centres.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to ensure the latest ECC policies; guidance and evidence are taken into account to inform the principles, strategies and specific policies within the emerging Local Plan, please also refer to the Revised EDG.

SP4.8 Play Space Facilities;

Please refer to ECC's comments in response to SP4.3 - 4.5 above regarding community facilities; Education and Skills; Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation; and indoor sports and leisure centres.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to ensure the latest ECC policies; guidance and evidence are taken into account to inform the principles, strategies and specific policies within the emerging Local Plan, please also refer to the Revised EDG.

PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 10)

Paragraph 10.1 Overall ECC welcomes the Strategic Priority SP5

ECC supports the inclusion and strategic priority 5 (and SO19) regarding conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, broadly in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 156). ECC recommends that the objectives should be further amended, to include policies which seek to minimise the impacts to biodiversity in accordance with NPPF paragraph 117, which sets out the need for planning policies to:
 plan for biodiversity at a landscape-scale across local authority boundaries;
 identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation;
 promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan;
 aim to prevent harm to geological conservation interests;

ECC recommends that this is developed under the Duty to Co-operate with neighbouring authorities to both identify the wildlife corridors and to implement them through planning policies.

ECC consider the following Acts, Strategies and Guidance to be relevant and recommends that these are taken into account and used as appropriate:
 NERC Act 2006 concerning biodiversity duties for public bodies;
 England Biodiversity Strategy 2020; Net Gain initiative;  DEFRA's biodiversity metric calculator; and
 Essex Biodiversity Validation Checklist.

SP5.1 Green Belt

Paragraphs 10.5 ECC notes and supports RDC's desire to protect the Green Belt,
10.15 whilst also seeking to meet the emerging vision and strategic objectives for the District, including the preparation of evidence incorporating a review of the Green Belt boundary for plan making purposes in accordance with the NPPF.
ECC supports this approach and welcomes the opportunity to work closely with RDC on this matter, in accordance with ECC's Full Council motion in December 2014 and 2017, to support the Essex District, Borough and City Councils which when developing their Local Plans, seek to protect Green belt sites from inappropriate development and to ensure that housing development cannot occur where there is insufficient infrastructural provision. ECC will not support Local (Development) Plans unless adequate resources are identified from developers, local councils and/or Government grants to ensure that sufficient infrastructure, including roads, schools, medical facilities, parking, sewerage and drainage, is provided in a timely manner and in a way that balances the needs to promote economic growth and provide housing for residents whilst protecting their quality of life.

In 2017 ECC called on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to issue urgent statutory guidance, which removes the opportunity for this exploitation and protects valued greenfield sites from predatory development.'

Paragraph 10.16 Options in relation to the Green Belt:

A. Retain the existing policy on broad Green Belt principles in the Core Strategy
B. Amend the current Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy
C. Do not have a policy on the Green Belt

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a policy option based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF. In respect of both Options A and B, ECC recommend a Review of the Green Belt boundary as part of the evidence base to inform the preparation of the Local Plan and its emerging spatial strategy, in accordance with NPPF (paragraphs 83-85), to set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC to ensure the latest ECC policies; guidance and evidence are taken into account to inform the principles, strategies and specific policies within the emerging Local Plan.

ECC does not support Option C, for the reasons stated within the justification and would expect RDC to take any decision based on robust evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

SP5.2 Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

Paragraph 10.17 ECC welcomes the overall approach to protect and enhance the natural environment by RDC, including a review of the evidence base to ensure decisions are based upon the most up to date biodiversity and geodiversity information.

ECC recommends the inclusion and reference to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA within the list of European sites.

Paragraph 10.19 ECC note that Green Infrastructure (GI) is only referred to in its wider District context (see ECC comments to paragraph 6.4). However, due to the rural nature of the District, ECC considers localised GI design principles should be incorporated as part of a proposed housing development, specifically large developments such as Garden Communities and Urban Extensions. This would be in accordance with the NPPF and the Core Planning Principles and in particular paragraph 114 for conserving and enhancing the natural environment, by setting out the strategic approach within the Local Plans.

ECC recommends the principles in NPPF paragraph 114 are incorporated within Strategic Priority SP5.2 to protect, manage and enhance important habitats, nature conservation areas, geo-diversity and greenways.

Paragraph 10.20 ECC recommends Local Geodiversity/Geological Sites (LoGS) are added to the list of local sites. These are in addition to Local Wildlife sites (LoWS) and would be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 117.

Paragraph 10.21 As outlined above in response to Strategic Objective 12, ECC welcomes the reference to 'encouraging adherence to the waste hierarchy' and making 'best use of mineral deposits' but considers that these statements could be afforded slightly more clarity. Supporting the waste hierarchy and ensuring a sustainable use of minerals requires that existing facilities and infrastructure are safeguarded to ensure that they are able to continue to make their planned contribution to the mineral and waste strategies operating in the County. Whilst already covered by MLP Policy S8 and WLP Policy 2, it is considered beneficial for this to be incorporated into the Rochford LP objectives (see suggested change to Strategic Objective 12 above).

ECC welcomes and supports the reference to the requirement to safeguard mineral development recognised in paragraph 10.21 and consider the proposed modification to Strategic Objective12 to be in accordance with this recognition. However, it is noted that there is no similar recognition for waste facilities, which the proposed modification to Strategic Objective 12 would then cover.

Paragraph 10.22 ECC supports the approach outlined in this paragraph and polices DM25-DM27 which are considered to be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 118 to deliver biodiversity and the requirements of the NERC Act

Paragraph 10.26 ECC welcome and support the development of an Essex-wide strategy in respect of Recreational Disturbance Avoidance Mitigation Strategy, however note that this would mitigate for recreational disturbance impacts, in-combination with other plans and projects.

Paragraph 10.27 Options in relation to Biodiversity and Geodiversity in the district:
A. Retain or amend our current broad policy on sites of nature conservation importance
B. Do not have a policy on sites of nature conservation importance

Paragraph 10.28 Options identified to support and protect local habitats which have important ecological value:
C. Retain our current policy on trees and woodlands
D. Retain our current policy on other important landscape features
E. Retain our current policy on species and habitat protection
F. Update our current policy on Local Wildlife Sites
G. Condense and merge our current policies on nature conservation
Paragraph10.29 Options identified in relation to greenways in the district:
H. Retain our current policy on greenways
I. Do not have a policy on greenways

ECC Comments

Options A- I: ECC does not consider the options to be mutually exclusive. ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of the options based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and guidance, whilst also having regard to the evidence presented in sections SP4.5 and 4.6 and ECC comments (see above).

ECC would wish to engage with RDC on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Local Plan, especially as the plan progresses to consider specific sites and spatial strategy.

In respect of Option A, ECC welcomes and supports the proposal to commission a joint South Essex Open Space and Green Strategy, which shall subsequently inform this Local Plan. ECC also welcomes the importance assigned to nature conservation sites, the identification and enhancement of local wildlife/green corridors and networks to build biodiversity resilience to climate change allowing species dispersal within the urban landscape. These corridors will also provide a provision of greenways for walking and cycling; improve accessibility to green spaces and should have regard to the cycle network in the Rochford Cycling Action Plan.

ECC consider there to be the additional benefits including the health and wellbeing agenda, as well as improving the attractiveness of a place and potential to attract visitors and investment to the area.

In respect of Options C-G (local habitats) - Whilst ECC does not disagree with these options, consideration should be given to the preparation of one policy, incorporating all the policies referred to (within options C-G and ENV1). This would enable a holistic approach to be taken to our natural environment, with the elements considered as a "whole", within Option G.

In respect of Option G, if developed, ECC recommends that the policy is expanded to include "greenways" (please refer to ECC's comments in sections SP4.5 and 4.6 above in relation to open space and outdoor recreation and green infrastructure).
ECC supports Option H (Greenways), in principle, if it is not incorporated within Option G, as suggested above. ECC consider there to be a need to ensure "greenways" are captured, in accordance to NPPF, and having regard to the wider benefits as outlined above in respect of biodiversity; resilience to climate change, protecting the health of the green space, green infrastructure, open space, outdoor recreation, sustainable travel options and to promoting healthy communities.

ECC does not support Options B and I, for the reasons stated within their justifications, they are considered contrary to national policy and the emerging Local Plans strategy and vision.

SP5.3 Wallasea Island and the RSPB Wild Coast Project

Paragraph 10.34 Options identified for Wallasea Island and the RSPB's Wild Coast Project:
A. Retain the current policy which supports the Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project
B. Continue to support further development at Essex Marina as per current policy
C. Do not support further development at Essex Marina

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a policy approach for based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

In respect of Option A, ECC would anticipate the strategy for Wallasea Island and the RSPB's Wild Coast project, to be developed with a combination of the options, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF including consideration for a project level HRA and appropriate mitigation for recreational disturbance.
ECC would recommend the need for a holistic approach within the context of the wider emerging spatial strategy, as well as the other emerging strategies in respect of open space, green space, nature conservation, rural diversification, tourism green infrastructure and sustainable travel. A balanced approach is considered necessary to both support the Wallasea project and improvements to accessibility, whilst ensure this would be sustainable with minimal ecological impact to ensure its survival and viability as a visitor destination.

In respect of Options B & C in relation to the Essex Marina, ECC would expect a policy approach to be developed based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

SP5.4 Landscape Character;

Paragraph 10.35 ECC notes and welcomes inclusion of this section and the importance and use of Landscape Character Assessments as part of the baseline criteria for any development proposal. The principle of this approach is supported and should ensure the existing landscape elements are retained and that any new elements should enhance the overall landscape character.

Paragraph 10.44 Options identified for Landscape Character:
A. Retain the current policies on the Upper Roach Valley
B. Retain the current policies on the Coastal Protection Belt
C. Develop a broad policy on landscape character
D. Ensure consistency throughout Development Management Plan policies in relation to supporting development in appropriate landscape character areas and special landscapes.
E. Do not have a policy on landscape character

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate a combination of the options A-D to be developed based upon evidence and in accordance with NPPF.

ECC does not support Option E for the reasons stated within the "justification", it is considered contrary to NPPF (paragraph156).

SP5.5 Protecting and Enhancing Heritage and Culture

Paragraph 10.45 ECC notes and welcomes the reference to the EDG, within this section and throughout the Issues and Options Report; however as this EDG is being revised and now includes sections such as Green infrastructure, Garden Communities and SUDS, which could form other key adoptable guidelines for future development.

ECC recommend that the new revised EDG is taken into account in the ongoing preparation of the draft Local Plan and ECC would welcome the opportunity to work with RDC on this matter.

SP5.6 Good Design and Building Efficiency

Paragraph 10.54 ECC recommend that this section is updated to reflect the updates and changes within the revised EDG 2018, which now specifically addresses health and wellbeing requirements. ECC can confirm that Sports England has been engaged with the revisions to the EDG, to include the Sport England - Active Design Principles 2015; which is supported by Public Health England and is consistent with the overall approach to health and wellbeing.

Paragraph 10.57 ECC recommend that a reference should be included to require the sustainable use of minerals in the construction of approved developments. This would be consistent with Strategic Objective 12 which aims to make best use of mineral resources, in accordance with the NPPF.

Paragraph 10.62 Options identified in relation to ensuring design principles are appropriate:
A. Retain the existing policies on design.
Ensure design policies make specific reference to Secured by Design, and the need to strike an appropriate balance between urban design and security.
C. Retain current guidance within our Supplementary Planning Documents.
D. Develop specific design principles for individual towns and villages building on the current guidance within our Supplementary Planning Documents.

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate a combination of the options A-D to be developed based upon evidence and in accordance with NPPF.

ECC recommends the following Guidance and Evidence is also taken into account to inform the emerging Local Plan:
 The Revised EDG (to be published in February 2018)
 Sport England - Active Design Principles 2015 (which provide updates which specifically include health and well-being requirements and the creation of inclusive and active places. ECC can confirm that Sports England has been engaged with the revisions to the EDG, to include the; which is supported by Public Health England and is consistent with the overall approach to health and wellbeing.

In respect of Option A, ECC considered this option would need to be amended to take into account changes in national policy and guidance, including the removal of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

In respect of Option B, ECC consider the guidance within the Revised EDG to be applicable and relevant.

Paragraph 10.63 Options for building efficiency standards for new homes, and new commercial and industrial buildings.
E. Remove reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes and replace with a simpler policy on water efficiency.
F. Continue to drive up energy efficiency standards for new homes through replacing the Code for Sustainable Homes with one that focuses on energy, thermal and water efficiency in particular.
G. Do not have a policy on energy efficiency standards for new homes.
H. Retain existing policy on BREEAM.
I. Amend the existing policy on BREEAM to apply to only certain types of buildings.
J. Include a specific policy on the efficiency of conversions, extensions and alterations to existing homes.
K. Do not have a policy on energy efficiency standards for conversions, extensions and alterations to existing homes.

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate a combination of the options E-F and H-J to be developed based upon evidence and in accordance with NPPF (paragraph 156).

In respect of Option E, whilst the removal of reference to the "Code for Sustainable Homes" would be appropriate, there would be a need to ensure an appropriate approach to water efficiency is developed, in accordance with the NPPF to address the broad principles being developed within the emerging vision, strategic objectives and spatial strategy (as outlined in Option C) and to incorporate the standard for energy efficiency within Option F to promote sustainable development, and resilience to climate change, in accordance with the NPPF.

In respect of Option J, this is supported by ECC and is considered to be consistent with best practice, for example the approach contained in Uttlesford District Council's Supplementary Planning Document on home extensions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing building.

ECC does not support Options G & K, for the reasons stated within the respective justifications, they are it is considered contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 156) and the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the draft Local Plan.

SP5.7 Air Quality

Paragraph 10.64 ECC recommends that the scope and content of this section is expanded to include the latest national policy advice including the "National Air Quality Plan (2017)" published by DEFRA in July 2017, and the designation of the A127 to the east of Rayleigh Weir as an area having possible air quality issues.
Paragraph 10.69 ECC recommends inclusion and reference to the adoption of the AQMP for Rayleigh should be updated to say it was adopted in 2017 as this document has been issued after the date of adoption

Paragraph 10.72. Options in relation to Air Quality:

A. Retain the existing policies on air quality
B. Continue to promote clean air initiatives, such as sustainable ways to travel and renewable energy projects
C. Support, where appropriate, the actions put forward in the Rayleigh Town Centre Air Quality Action Plan
D. Do not have a policy on air quality
ECC Comments
ECC would anticipate a RDC to develop a combination of options, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF and DEFRA's National Air Quality Plan (2017), which specifically designates the A127 to the east of Rayleigh Weir as having possible air quality issues.

ECC recommends that consideration is also given to the use and role of wider sustainable development principles including green infrastructure, green spaces and green design principles to provide an opportunity to enhance the environment and support wider health.

ECC does not support Option D, for the reasons stated in the justification, it is considered contrary to NPPF (Paragraph 156), the National Air Quality Plan (Defra 2017) legislation, and the emerging vision and strategic objectives of the draft local plan.

DETAILED POLICY CONSIDERATIONS (SECTION 11)

ECC notes the majority of the issues identified within this section concern detailed matters, below the overarching strategic polices and principles addressed in the preceding sections of the ECC response to the Issues and Options consultation.
The principle of the approach is noted, however, ECC would anticipate all the themes and options to be developed, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF, taking into account the outcomes of the wider emerging spatial strategies and principles being developed within this Issues and Options consultation, as part of the preparation of the Local Plan.

In addition to the above, ECC can provide the following detailed comments on specific themes:

D.P1.1 Mix of Affordable Housing

Paragraph 11.5 Options to address the split between affordable housing products:
F. Retain the current affordable homes split (80% social and 20% intermediate) where a scheme meets the prescribed threshold
G. Amend the split taking into account any changes in national planning policy and guidance (if the definition of affordable homes is widened to include other products)
H. Do not have a prescribed split in a policy

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate a RDC to develop a combination of options, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF

Please refer to ECC's comments in response to SP1.1 (see Paragraphs 6.30, 6.31 and 6.32) above which equally apply to this option; and in particular ECC's recommendations for consideration to be given to the provision of key worker homes through the affordable housing schemes, to support the needs of healthcare providers (see paragraph 6.31)

DP1.8 Options for development of Brownfield (Previously Developed) Land in the Green Belt in the future
A. Retain the current policy on previously developed land
B. Do not have a policy on previously developed land

ECC Comments

ECC would anticipate the approach to the development of Brownfield Land in the Green Belt, to be developed based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF, as stated in ECC's response to SP5.1 and paragraph 10.16 regarding the policy approach to Green Belt, the need for a Review of the Green Belt Boundary.

ECC does not support Option B for the reasons stated within the justification, and it is considered contrary to the NPPF (paragraphs 79-92).

DP1.10 Parking standards and Traffic Management

Paragraph 11.57 Options identified for Parking and Traffic Management:
A. Retain our broad policy on parking standards and remove our Development Management Plan
B. Retain our current approach to traffic management
C. Do not have policies on parking and traffic management.

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of options A and B, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

Please also refer to ECC's response to highway infrastructure (Section 8) regarding the Local and Strategic Highway Network and Sustainable Travel. There is a need for greater emphasis to be placed on an integrated package of transport solutions, which is applicable to Parking Standards and Traffic Management. Please also refer to ECC's earlier comments in Sections 6-8, regarding the development of sustainable communities, and in particular active design principles, promotion of healthy communities and the revised EDG to be applicable. This is necessary to ensure a holistic approach and consistency across the emerging vision and strategic objectives within the draft Local Plan.

In respect of Option B, this is partially supported by ECC, given the need to ensure that the policy is strengthened to provide an appropriate level of off street parking and to fully mitigate the impact of development (as set out in the traffic management plan), however there may be the potential to combine these options into one policy.

ECC would welcome the opportunity to explore this further with RDC as part of the preparation of the Local Plan.

ECC does not support Option C, for the reasons stated in the justification; it is considered contrary to NPPF (paragraph 156 & 157), the Essex LTP, EPOA's Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Guide; and the revised EDG.

D.P1.11 Home Businesses

Paragraph 11.61 Options to deal with home businesses:
A. Retain the current policy
B. Take a more restrictive approach to home businesses
C. Take a more flexible approach to home Businesses
D. Do not have a policy on home businesses

ECC Comments

ECC would expect RDC to develop a combination of the options A-C, based on evidence and in accordance with the NPPF.

In respect of Option C, ECC would support a more flexible approach to home businesses, taking into account the balances within this section and the inter-relationship and links to ECC's earlier comments regarding the ambition for communication infrastructure (improvements to broadband coverage and speed) as well as the need for "grow on space", to accommodate businesses as they become more successful and need more space from which to operate.

Further details on this are set out in ECC's response to meeting business needs (SP1.7 and paragraph 6.87); the options to support employment and economic growth (paragraphs 6.94 & 6.96); and Communication Infrastructure and the options to improve broadband coverage and speed including ultrafast broadband (SP3.3 and paragraphs 8.43 & 8.44).

ECC's considers there to be a need for a holistic approach and consistency across the emerging vision and strategic objectives within the draft Local Plan.

ECC does not support Option C for the reasons stated within the justification, it is considered contrary to the emerging vision and strategic objectives within the draft Local Plan.

DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

ECC consider the SA to be a good example of an initial Regulation 18 'Issues and Options' appraisal, exploring the sustainability considerations of a wide range of strategic options and assessing them to the same level of detail.
Whilst not a criticism of the SA, it is considered that the options explored surrounding OAN possibilities within the Plan could be expanded upon within the SA. The Plan, at Table 2 (South Essex Housing Market Area - OAN for new homes (Source: South Essex SHMA Addendum 2017)) indicates a range of between 331 and 361 homes per year. Although the upper and lower figures displayed are perhaps not distinctively different to warrant separate assessment within the SA under the Regulations, RDC may want the SA to consider assessing indicative higher and lower figures in future iterations. If felt necessary, this could also be expanded to assess reasonable spatial strategy options / permutations under different scenarios regarding levels of growth (i.e. at which level of growth would certain spatial strategy options be considered reasonable). Further, it may also be considered necessary to assess the figure included for the District in the recent DCLG consultation which set a standardised methodology for calculating housing needs. This is in consideration of the Plan being at an early stage of preparation and uncertainty as to what might be the District's OAN later on in the plan-making process.

ECC notes the reference throughout the SA and the Issues and Options Report, to 'a combination of options' and considers that whilst this may be a logical option in most cases, care needs to be taken as to what form a 'combined' policy would contain and aspire to.

ECC recommends that the "Climate Change" section should include a reference on whether the proposal will support the findings/priorities of the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan (2012 and emerging 2018 revision).

"Drafting our Strategic Objectives"

Strategic Objective 14: change healthcare providers to healthcare commissioners and providers include this as an additional Strategic Objective: Ensure new developments consider the Health and Wellbeing principles of the Essex design guide

Section 6

Section 6 - 6.2 - replace "affordable homes" with 'affordable homes including key worker housing'

"Need for Care Homes"

Add: Planning for care homes should be in conjunction with the health economy and take account of the additional health needs of the residents

Section 8

8.42 - regarding broadband - reference importance of fast, reliable broadband for health services to enable health care delivery in the community

Section 9

Above 9.11 use heading 'Recruitment and Retention of Health

Option B. (in table) - replace text in first column with 'Ensure that land is specifically allocated to healthcare where required'

Section 9 (cont'd)

Option C. (in table) - please not we will not support this option

9.15 - Can these be utilised as meeting space for home based businesses and mobile working?

9.5 - after "50 homes or more" insert 'in one or more phases of development

Include in text in 9.5 - 'care homes and independent living schemes should also propose suitable mitigation measure'