Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation

It is of vital importance to carry out a compete 'Full Survey' of Infrastructure requirements in our Village of Hullbridge. And even more important to act to complete all those items identified, prior to increasing any further developments within the vicinity.

Our local 'Parish Council' have a several page'd list of outstanding road and pathway issues, which they are unable to get action'd by Essex County Highways, due to their unreasonable and outdated 'Priority Grading System'. This situation is unacceptable in modern times and shows a real lack of operational organisation within Essex County Council department.

This extends from Zebra Crossings and General Road Markings, Speed Signage, Community Building Signage etc. to Paved Areas, Both Made-up and Unmade Road and Paved Surfaces.
Broken, Missing and Damaged Safety Bollards and Lamp Posts in the main Ferry Road shopping area.

On a more positive note, I would like to suggest an improvement to the environmental/welfare of the village. By paving and marking out 'Watery Lane/Beeches Road' as a Pedestrian/Cycle Route.
Allowing only vehicle use by local residential and business traffic.
This to be supplemented by Traffic Calming Measures.
Object: - To encourage a safe outdoor exercise and fresh air activity for all residents.

SUMMARY

General, Vital Infrastructure Improvements for Hullbridge Parish.

Suggested Environment/Welfare Improvement

I write to register my objection to the use of the children's play area (Your Reference CFS023/COL38). Apart from its recognised use as a children's play area it is also a valuable walk through / short cut to Branksome Avenue and to Beckney Woods. This route is used daily basis and I use it regularly to access the woods and friends in Etheldore Avenue. Horse riders also use the route to when they exit the Beckney Woods. If this access was lost it would mean walking along Tonbridge Road, Orchard Avenue, Russet Way, Ash Way and Branksome Avenue to reach the woods. From a drainage perspective the green is at the top (high) part of the road. I live in the lower end of the road, at times of high rain we already see the drainage system is inadequate if we lost the drainage on the green as it is concreted over the situation will only get worse. The green is used by more than children, I have personally seen people enjoying the area using it to do their studies and revise. It is an asset to local people and would be a sad loss; as towns expand pockets of public green space become ever more valuable to residents and in short supply.
Looking at the larger building plan the area around Harrogate Drive. Unless public services are increased in line with any future development then our existing services will become overwhelmed. Doctor's appointments are already difficult to obtain placing more people on the register will only worsen the situation. When my children started their school career class sizes were no larger than 30 by the end the classes were larger. More houses more people, more children larger classes degraded education. I used to live in Rayleigh (my sister still does), and it is a good example of the effects of mass building in a town. Rather than bringing increased trade traffic congestion (traffic gridlock for parts of the day. Listen to local radio and you can hear how often Rayleigh is mentioned) reduces trade as it's easier to go out of town. I avoid going to or though Rayleigh if I can. It would be a disaster for Hockley if we followed the same route.

We are writing to you today with serious concerns about the future housing development in Great Wakering and Shoeburyness.
Looking at Rochford District Council Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017-Appendix B Map Q
if this land was built on you would be changing the face of this area ,community and wildlife forever and will change great Wakering from a village into a town.As it is it is near on impossible to get a doctors appointment with out waiting weeks ,School places are also extremely limited, the roads and infrastructure are weak at best so getting in and out of just southend alone is a nightmare ,parking would also be an issue these problems can not be solved already ,so increasing the population and building on all this land would only make all these problems worse ,The roads as they are are in a very poor condition and could not handle more traffic as you are aware we are forever under cut backs which is another reason why this building project would be a bad idea ,we also have poor public footpaths that are not kept up to a good standard and in some places there is no footpaths or transport to get you to parts of Shoeburyness ,and the impact on the wildlife alone would be devastating ,these have been open farm fields always and as residents who was born growing up in this area and playing in these areas would find it a tragic loss .The amount of land that has been built on over the years in shoeburyness and wakering has already taken large sums of the open fields we feel that if we lost these the feel of the village lifestyle would be gone forever and before long we would just be like southend ,I would also like to point out that most of the houses that are going to be built will not be sold to locals but to the London community that are selling there houses at a great profit then snapping up houses down here and simple out bidding the locals.

As a concerned resident living in Malvern Road Hockley, I refer you to RDC reference CFSO23/COL38.

Firstly CFSO23

Lack of privacy, Less than 40ft of garden and the substantial upward slope of the proposed development land, any new housing will overlook my ground floor and first floor ( bedroom )

Security

Development of this field will open up the land to vehicles and people so possibly increasing the bigger threat of burglary.

Flooding

There is a history of flooding to existing properties ( mine included ) due to a rise in the water table in the land behind Malvern Road after prolonged rainy periods.
Due to this, a spring occurs which follows the downward slope of the land and floods back gardens.
I am worried that any building on this land would effect the water table and increase the possible inability of the field to absorb any more rain and cause even more flooding to the
back gardens.

Water pressure.

My water pressure as it stands is not up to the standard required therefor the proposed number of houses may impact the pressure even more as the existing pumps and pipework
may not support any more development.

Access

The land available at the bottom of Harrogate Drive and Greensward lane is insufficient to gain access thereby making a safety issue for road users as any development of the land behind
Malvern Road will substantially increase the traffic flow. Accidents may occur as traffic entering or leaving Harrogate Drive will have to swing wide.

Loss of amenities

Loss of view of field and woodland, this will rob the residents of quality of life and enjoyment.

Green Belt Land

The proposed building of housing on this land bordering Beckney Wood could seriously effect this ancient woodland of its flora and forna which includes wood anemones, blue bells
celendine etc and which includes as its forna....Bats, Adders, Barn Owls, Green and Red Woodpeckers, Monk Jack deer, Badgers, Pheasants not to mention all the different kind of birds
that make the wood their home. a huge influx of people walking this wood will threaten the existance of this beautiful place.

RDC reference COL38

Small plot of land Malvern Road ( Childrens play area )

This area is used by Malvern Road families and the local residents to use this land as a play area and right of way for citizens to use every day. I have been using the land for the last 40 yrs
the steep incline and narrow access for vehicles makes it totally an inapropriate and dangerous junction and poses a threat to children etc.

Flash Flooding

With the development of this play area will give rise to the occasional flash flooding as water does run down the hill with increased rain fall into Malvern Road

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


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

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

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

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

Section 6.36
Support option B.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I am lead to believe that there is a proposed development to the land to the north of Malvern Road, Harrogate Drive and
the childrens' play area/ walk through to Beckney Woods (ref CFS023 / COL38 on the RDC Land Assessment 2017 - Appendix B).

Myself, my wife Patricia, my children Jessica and Christopher Olivares are vehemently against such a development.

This would destroy a beautiful piece of greenbelt land which is vital to local wild life and a pleasant area of Malvern Road
which was always designated as a safe children's play area for our road. Does the council have no regard for the safety of our young children?

It is hard enough to get an appointment at the local doctors, dentists or blood clinic. It is hard enough to get a parking spot
in the village. If there are more houses, you will put an even more intolerable strain on our (already) struggling services and village infrastructure..

Keep your "dirty hands" off of our wonderful green area. You should be ashamed of even considering such a development!

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.

I am writing to object to the following site reference number developments in Great Wakering:
CFS057, CFS097, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056 and CFS034
I was born in Great Wakering 40 years ago and the greatest qualities in the village is the Community, peace, safety and being surrounded by people who you know. If, the above planning goes ahead this will be lost for the following reasons.
School
The Great Wakering Academy is full and would not be able to take the planned volume of children. If the plans went ahead siblings of the current families may miss out on spaces and have to commute to other schools. As most schools start at similar times how would parents get their children to different schools. We are not within walking distance of other schools and do not have frequent public transport. With the school being the size it is there is an excellent family feel to it, this would be lost if the village was to expand. Currently there is a lollypop lady at the beginning and end of the day but she does not cover after school activities or breakfast club times. With no permanent crossing and an increase in traffic the children's safety would be a major concern.
Roads
We do not have the roads to cope with the increase in traffic volume and they would not be fit for purpose. When they built the Star Lane development there was often delays caused by traffic lights, access vehicles, clearing of mud on the road etc. The High Street in Great Wakering is the main road and already has cars parked on both sides, which leads to single lane use. This increase in traffic will lead to a loss of on-road parking which is a loss of valuable residential amenity. The reason for such parking on the roads is because we are a village with old cottages that do not have off road parking.
The only other access is Poynters Lane. Locals tend not to use this road as it has poor visibility, dangerous speeds are used and pedestrians sometimes walk along it. With increased traffic and building vehicles this would increase the dangers. We are not close to major roads such as the A127 or the main part of the A13. There are plenty of other towns with the potential for development which have good access to the A127 and A13, transport and amenities.
There is one crossing in Great Wakering at the doctors surgery. Increase in cars travelling and parked will become a danger to pedestrians.
Public Transport
The number 4 bus serviced this village for years, twice an hour and took around 20/25 minutes into Southend. About a year and a half ago this was replaced with the number 7/8 bus. This bus can now take 45 minutes to get to Southend as it goes around Shoebury, Thorpe Bay and Woodgrange before finally reaching Southend. It was supposed to be 3 times an hour but now it's twice an hour. So since the Star Lane development our public Transport has actually got worse. Some of the behavior I have seen on the bus has not been nice due to the areas it goes through and my working day has increased as I have a longer journey. The bus is also full and sometimes you cannot get a seat from Southend. When the changes happen it was sold as a better service as it would go past Thorpe Bay train station, well the number 4 went past Southend East so that wasn't improving the service. If these plans were to go ahead this bus service would not cope. I thought we were trying to move away from car based communities not build them!
Surroundings
Great Wakering has beautiful surroundings and many residents look out onto fields with uninterrupted views and great privacy. Children play in the surrounding fields, we exercise in the open space. According to our Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1 we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The developments would destroy our enjoyment of peace by bringing busy roads, all the current walks across the fields would have developments either side, increased noise, smell from work, people, vehicles and over-crowded amenities. By losing the fields this would increase the risk of flooding which Wakering has a history of. We should be protecting Green Belt as a valuable flood prevention not building on it. I believe the Government model for this district is 7,500 homes but with the rate of growth it should be 3,500. Green Belt land should not be used just to ease housing targets it has greater uses such as food production and stopping our village from joining up to the next town and losing the village forever. In the Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project document on the Rochford.gov.uk website,it was said that the historic environment has a powerful influence on peoples' sense of identity and civic pride. Pages 69-70 have some points about Great wakerings history and how a few of the original boundaries survive and every effort should be made to preserve them.
Wildlife
In my garden alone I have squirrels, foxes, birds, hedgehogs and I have heard bats in the village. Day and night the wildlife can be seen. Green buffers between developments would not be enough to keep this wildlife and yet another use for Green belt. Villagers enjoy the walks and seeing the wildlife. With over development to a village, this wildlife would be destroyed.
Amenities
We have one coop which is busy and only has a small car park with tight access. When there are deliveries cars and pedestrians have to stop whilst the lorry reverses into the car park. With an increase for the coop how would it cope with the deliveries and customers. Our local tip is over 30 minutes drive away and then there is often a queue.
Security and Crime
Great Wakering is a very low crime and secure village. The children are happy and parents have confidence in them being allowed out in the village. I have never felt unsafe day or night. But if the village grew to the size of the proposals then this would change. We would not know the people around us and there is hardly any police presence in this village.
Employment
Developments should bring employment but already Star Lane housing has taken some away, with the selling of Star Lane industrial estate. Also Southend is declining in employment opportunities so what are all these new residents going to do for work. My work in Southend will be going in the next few years.
Great Wakering
It is a village and that is why we live here these plans are inappropriate for a village and it will be destroyed. Our previous Prime Minister said that" protecting Green Belt is paramount".

I object to the new local plan as follows:-

1. Loosing green belt which is a buffer to Hockley sprawl, and .
2. The problem with infrastructure has been ongoing for more years than I care to remember the situation in Hockley just gets worse with the Spa pinch point, low funding?
3. No spare capacity for Health and care facilities including Adult social acre let alone for 7500 extra houses.
4. The number of affordable homes home for rent needs to increase from 35% and include quads in this category .
5. The type of houses need to be moderated, so it is not mainly high end and expensive.
6. Fewer but larger sites
7. Please make the next stage of public consultation easier for all to use, the present site is too cumbersome.

I OBJECT to COL38 in Appendix C

1. In 2000 this Play space was given to Ashingdon Parish Council on a Peppercorn rent for 100yrs.
2. We now find it is called a Former Play Space.
3. It was registered with HM Land Registry Title No. EX739404 on 5th February 10.12.2004 as Malvern Road Play Space.
4. In Mr Martin Elliot's report on 1st December 2014 ( this was over a proposed Bridleway)
He stated :-The route across the play area is deemed a public right of way due to its use by pedestrians over a period of time, in his report (point 39) he records that there was significant concern expressed by the objectors (RDC and local residents) to the need to protect the public open space from development

This is a very short sited plan. Infrastructure is paramount before any further development is agreed.
I have major concerns at the development of the proposed sites in Hockley Ward. With this level of density, where are the proposals for travelling to and from work, access to schools, hospitals, doctor, dentists and the emergency services. Utilities will also be under pressure to cope with this level of development in the Rochford District. The whole area is almost gridlocked now and the future of Hockley is very bleak if all the proposals are agreed in the Local Plan.
Land to the North and East of Folly Chase running down to the railway line is a clear abuse of the green belt There has already been incursion into the designated green belt in Church Road Hockley which has caused considerable concerns to both existing and new residents with increased traffic flow and dangers of insufficient visibility on a narrow PR2 County Road with no pavement which has limited access at each end to join the main through traffic flow on the B1013 High Road Hockley and Lower Road Hockley.
Bullwood Hall Development, again on green belt, is listed as a potential additional site despite the reservations expressed in the original planning application to limit the site to within acceptable boundaries. There is still no satisfactory plan in place for the entrance/exit from Bullwood Road onto the B1013 at a junction at the top of a bend and hill without clear visibility.
Development at Lime Court and Popular Court is denying the elderly residents the little amenity space they have and increasing the traffic which consists of larger delivery or emergency vehicles using the entrance onto Greensward Lane just past a very busy junction controlled by traffic lights.
I am sure I am not the only resident who is despairing at the level of development in the area which is just not realistic when there are other brown field sites and vacant housing which could be redeveloped instead.

Ref. Appendix B - Maps P and Q.

1. If all shaded areas - CFS097, CFS034 and CFS056 were to be built on this would mean there was no green belt 'buffer' between Rochford and Shoebury at this point, therefore in effect, Wakering becomes part of the Borough of Southend.
2. The area marked CFS057 covers the wooded area and fishing lakes. Surely this whole area is sacrosanct for both fishermen and the people of Wakering?
3. Infrastructure first! Before large area 'builds' are considered is there to be a new surgery on one of the sites? Or an extension of the existing medical centre to cope with the already overcrowded demand? If so, where are the doctor's coming from?
4. Great Wakering's only Primary school is full. Without taking the playing field there's no room for expansion. A new school then? Necessary with the potential hundreds of children likely!
On an original plan there was an option for a new school to be built in area CFS057 just south of the new Wyborne Park development. Will that come to fruition?
5. Where would secondary schoolchildren go? Would King Edmund, already a very large school, be able to take them?
6. Affordable housing. It's a sad state of affairs that many young couples cannot get on the housing ladder! An affordable home should cost £200,000 or less. The present norm is, I believe, 30 per cent of new houses should be affordable. Why not make if 50%? Yes, the big companies like Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon, etc. will state such a percentage of affordable homes at the above suggested prices would not be sustainable. Although already making inflated profits their argument would be they're looking after their shareholders!
Why not form a conglomerate of local builders? They're all professional and could work from similar plans and are only interested in making a profit! It would be good for the local economy too!
7. Not directly appertaining to new buildings but, what facilities are there for young people, especially teenagers and younger children? The sports centre is now a Private Dance School. The children's playground is a disgrace (take a look at Shoebury and Southchurch Parks' playgrounds)! With the area now likely to be flooded with new families surely they/we all deserve something better!

I OBJECT to COL38 in Appendix C

1. In 2000 this Play space was given to Ashingdon Parish Council on a Peppercorn rent for 100yrs.
2. We now find it is called a Former Play Space.
3. It was registered with HM Land Registry Title No. EX739404 on 5th February 10.12.2004 as Malvern Road Play Space.
4. In Mr Martin Elliot's report on 1st December 2014 ( this was over a proposed Bridleway)
He stated :-The route across the play area is deemed a public right of way due to its use by pedestrians over a period of time, in his report (point 39) he records that there was significant concern expressed by the objectors (RDC and local residents) to the need to protect the public open space from development

I find your Local Plan for extra housing in the Hullbridge, Essex area alarming and very worrying for the following reasons.

How will the infrastructure be delivered to support these new homes. New infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities,
shops, places of worship, recreational facilities, etc.

What is the plan for the many and different types of houses required.

Where are all the new roads to be for this housing and development plan. What is the plan for the upgrade of existing roads to
facilitate the influx of the extra vehicles which will accompany the vast amount of extra population. Who will pay for these new
and upgraded roads.
If a new major road structure is not planned for then this area will become gridlocked and people will be trapped within
the area of the development.

With the extra traffic due to the rise in population how will this affect the pollution that is now quite high.

How do we plan for open spaces, nature conservation, green areas for people to enjoy the countryside.

How do we plan for the extra local transport required.

Flooding is one great worry with a high percentage of the possible building land on flood plains and also very near to the River Crouch.
What thought has been given to the strengthening of the river bank and drainage of the land on lower levels.

Do you really think that your plan to build this amount of houses within such a small area with no plan or thought of how all
the infrastructure required is to be delivered is at all possible.

I am a Great Wakering resident and have grave concerns regarding the many proposed development sites in the village.

My concerns are as follows:
- Traffic/congestion on the 2 access roads serving the village are already extremely busy without the extra traffic that development would bring
- The only school in the village already being at maximum capacity
- Doctors surgery. At the moment the waiting time to see a GP is several days (my sister-in-law only this week had to wait 7 days to see a GP)
- Noise pollution
- Disruption to residents daily lives over the months and years of building work
- Destruction to the local wildlife
- Commuting time to work will increase
- My choice to reside in the village came about from wanting to raise my young family in an environment where we have open land around us and not a concrete jungle!!!!!!!!

Proposed development sites:
- CFS070
- CFS065
- CFS153
- EXP11
- GF02
- BFR1
- CFS115/SER9
- CFS060

Thank you for inviting Basildon Borough Council to provide comments as part of Rochford District Council's consultation on its Regulation 18 New Local Plan Issues and Options Document and Draft Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Rochford Local Plan 2017. Please accept this letter as the response of Basildon Borough Council to the consultation.

Rochford District Council is in the first stages of consultation on the review of their current Local Development Plan, to ensure that the policies are robust, effective and up-to-date, in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Basildon Borough Council acknowledges that this is the first stage of consultation on the new Local Plan for Rochford, and that a number of issues and options are being considered. It is acknowledged that the Local Plan consultation document does not identify specific sites, and that more detailed planning policies will evolve as each consultation stage on the new Local Plan progresses. In view of this, Basildon Borough Council has considered the consultation documentation, its role as a neighbouring planning authority, and strategic and cross boundary matters which are covered by the Duty to Cooperate, and wishes to make a series of observations which Rochford should take into consideration when it prepares the draft version of its Local Plan.

SP1.1: Objectively Assessed Need (OAN)

Consideration has been given to the approach Rochford District Council has taken in determining its OAN for housing. It is clear from the evidence that the need identified within the Rochford District Issues and Options Report reflects more up-to-date national household projections, as required by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), taking into account matters such as economic growth and the need for affordable housing, and is informed by an up-to-date SHMA. A robust approach has been taken in considering the housing need within Rochford district, and no objection is being raised as to how the OAN figure has been calculated.
In relation to meeting its OAN, Rochford District Council is seeking to provide as much of the district's housing within the area, as far as possible, against the identified need, and given environmental and other constraints. Rochford District has also highlighted a commitment to work with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to ensure that the housing need across the South Essex Housing Market Area is effectively met. In view of this, Basildon Council supports Rochford Council's intention to meeting its own needs, and to work effectively with neighbours to ensure that the need for housing in the South Essex Housing Market Area is collectively addressed. Basildon Borough Council will continue to support more effective joint working with Rochford as their new Local Plan emerges, in line with the Duty to Co-operate.
The aspiration to provide Rochford District residents with the opportunity to access a
percentage of new market homes on schemes as a priority is also noted. Basildon
Borough Council will recommend that any supporting policy requirement in relation to meeting the housing needs of residents should be backed with reasonable justification and evidence, in line with national policy and guidance.
Finally, attention is drawn to the emerging Basildon Borough Local Plan. Since the
Basildon Borough Draft Local Plan consultation in 2016, significant matters of principle in relation to the Basildon Local Plan have been considered and resolved. As a consequence, Basildon Council through several decision making processes, has taken the position that some changes should be made to either the Local Plan, or the process of preparing the Local Plan, in order to ensure it is sound. One of these changes arises from the fact that the suite of sites identified for inclusion in the Basildon Borough Local Plan does not meet the identified need for housing of between 19,440 and 19,720 homes. This gives rise to an unmet housing need, which when delivery issues are taken into account is around 4,000 homes for the plan period up to 2034. Following Basildon Borough Council's Infrastructure Growth and Development (IGD) Committee Meeting on the 16 January 2018, and in order to ensure that the Basildon Borough Local Plan is sound in regard to this matter, it has been recommended that assistance is formally sought from other LPAs in the Housing Market Area, to help Basildon Borough to meet its unmet housing need.
Basildon Borough Council therefore formally requests that Rochford District Council
considers whether they can assist in meeting some of Basildon Borough's unmet need in the Rochford District Local Plan.

SP1.5: Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

A need for 15 Gypsy and Traveller pitches up to 2018 was identified in the Rochford
District Core Strategy 2011. The Issues and Options Report however recognises the
recent changes made to legislation relating to Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeople. Following the change in definition of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeople, a further Essex-wide Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople
Accommodation Assessment (G&T and TS AA) was commissioned to understand the
implications for plan-making. A need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches was identified, but there was no need for Travelling Showpeople plots. The assessed need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Rochford District up to 2033 within the emerging G&T and TS AA 2017 for Rochford District could however still be met through the 15 pitch site allocated in the current Allocations Plan Policy GT1. This means that Rochford District can demonstrate a land supply up to 2033 (including a five year supply) for all Gypsy and Traveller households within the district, regardless of whether they meet the 2015 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) definition or not. Basildon Borough Council supports the approach Rochford District are taking in ensuring that their evidence base is up-to-date.

However, while the G&T and TS AA establishes a need for the plan period of 2013-2033, Rochford District's new Local Plan looks forward to 2037. It is therefore unclear how the Gypsy and Traveller needs for Rochford District will be met in the remainder of the plan period (2033-2037), and further evidence of this should be provided. Rochford District Council should carry out further work to re-assess the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople needs up to 2037, and should the need for pitches change in light of this, Rochford District Council should seek to update the Rochford Local Plan accordingly to continue to meet their full objectively assessed needs for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople.

There is also a concern that no acknowledgement has been made of the fact that there may be unmet needs arising from Greater Essex authorities for the provision of accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople within the Rochford Issues and Options Report, which is considered to be a shortcoming. Basildon Borough Council has agreed to work with Chelmsford City Council, Harlow District Council and Colchester Borough Council on behalf of the Essex Planning Officer's Association to develop a protocol for unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need, should this situation arise in any local planning authority in Greater Essex. It is envisaged that this work will be carried out in 2018. Rochford District Council should therefore recognise and support the principle of this approach going forward, to ensure that there will be a technical approach in place to support any neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need in the future. This is to ensure that a fair process is applied throughout Essex, and ensures compliance with the Duty to Cooperate.

SP3.1: Highways Infrastructure

The Rochford Issues and Options Report sets out different options for managing traffic in and around Rochford District. The report recognises that the A127 has known capacity and congestion issues. Consequently, Rochford Council has proposed to work with Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, to develop a transport model for South Essex, which will cover the length of the A127. Basildon Borough Council supports this approach. Rochford Council's commitment within paragraph 8.18, to continue to work with neighbouring local authorities and the Highway Authority to promote strategic and more localised improvements to the highway network is also noted. This initiative is supported by Basildon Council. In particular, reference was made within paragraph 8.18, to the potential for a new link road from the A127 at Pound Lane/Cranfield Park Road to link to the A130 in Rochford District.

It should be noted that the proposed grade separated junction on the A127 at Pound
Lane, with the new link road to the A130 was identified within the Policy TS2 of the
Basildon Borough Draft Local Plan 2016 as part of the provision for new and improved transport infrastructure, essential to mitigate the impact of future housing and economic growth in Basildon Borough. It is expected that this junction will serve the development proposed at East Basildon and South Wickford, improve access to the A127 enterprise corridor, reduce pressure at the A132 Nevendon Interchange and Fairglen Interchange, as well as freeing up capacity for local traffic. This junction will therefore provide significant benefits for both the strategic and local road network. However, this proposal is substantially more expensive at around £130m, and raises issues around development viability.

The proposed improvement to highway infrastructure will therefore require support and funding from neighbouring authorities, to supplement developer contributions from the Department for Transport and South East Local Enterprise Partnership. As Rochford District communities could potentially benefit from the provision of the proposed grade separated junction on the A127 at Pound Lane, with the new link road to the A130, Basildon Borough Council formally requests that Rochford District Council should account for part funding of this junction within the new Local Plan for Rochford. As part of the transport modelling to support the Rochford Local Plan, and also within the Rochford Local Plan itself, Rochford District Council needs to also consider its relationships with neighbouring authorities when allocating growth locations. Basildon Borough is most likely to be affected if growth is concentrated to the west. It is therefore important that Rochford District Council ensures collaborative engagement and continual working between local planning authorities, with the highway authority, and with transport providers to ensure that strategic transport links are capable of accommodating the additional transport pressures that are likely to arise as a result of future population growth, particularly to the west of the Rochford District area.

SP3.2: Sustainable Travel

The main road linking Basildon Borough with Rochford District is the A127, which is well documented to experience capacity challenges, particularly in peak periods. Rochford District Council should ensure that new development have accessible services, and enables people to reduce the need to travel by private car, as much as possible, particularly as the district experiences high levels of car ownership and high levels of outcommuting. In addition, the South Essex Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) 2017 identifies the A127 Enterprise Corridor as an important employment location in South Essex. The role of this corridor will be retained and grown, with the aim of attracting new investors to the corridor. Enhanced public transport connectivity between towns in Rochford District and this employment area in Basildon Borough should therefore be sought by Rochford District as part of the strategy for improving sustainable travel choices across the District and into South Essex.

SP4.3: Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation

Basildon Council welcomes the opportunity to work with Rochford District Council and other neighbouring authorities in South Essex, to prepare more strategic level evidence of needs across the sub-region for open space, sports and recreation, in line with national policy, and to identify ways to improve connectivity between green spaces through the provision of green corridors.

Duty to Co-Operate

In order for the Rochford District Local Plan to be found procedurally sound, it will need to take account of a broader range of issues and opportunities affecting neighbouring areas and the wider region, considering and addressing strategic cross-boundary issues.
Attention is drawn to the joint-working that is underway in South Essex, which aims to deliver a more coordinated planning, regeneration and investment agenda to benefit the combined local communities. It is expected that the development of a Joint Strategic
Planning and Infrastructure Framework (SPIF) would set the strategic growth objectives for South Essex and provide the "effective mechanism" required to determine how unmet development needs from individual local authority areas would be met.
Building on this foundation, it is also relevant to mention the South Essex 2050 which is a unified long-term place vision for the South Essex area, with the addition of Brentwood Borough Council. This work, due to conclude in early 2018, is expected to determine how the work on the Joint SPIF and its inter-relationships to South Essex Local Plans will be prepared and managed in the future, and could accelerate the conditions needed to deliver the shared housing & job ambitions, enabled by significant improvements to transport & other infrastructure.
This shared support demonstrates that LPAs across the region have been engaging
constructively and actively, to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross-boundary matters, and contribute to fulfilling the requirement for Local Planning Authorities to work together under the "Duty to Co-operate", as set out in the Localism Act 2011.
Basildon Borough Council is satisfied with the degree of engagement with regard to the Rochford District New Local Plan, and welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford District Council and other neighbouring authorities in the region on the content of the new Local Plan and its approach to strategic, cross-boundary matters such as housing growth, employment growth, and infrastructure provision through the Duty to Cooperate.

General Observations

It is noted that some of the evidence base, which will inform and support Rochford District Council's emerging Local Plan, is still underway. Some of this has been commissioned jointly with other LPAs, including Basildon Council. While it is not possible for Basildon Council to comment on the forthcoming evidence at this time, Basildon Borough Council will continue to work with Rochford District Council in the preparation of any joint evidence base work to ensure that it is comprehensive and appropriate for what the Local Plan will cover.

Rochford District Council should further identify options, strategic growth areas and
policies informed by up-to-date evidence and, through publication of a draft Local Plan, invite further representations from LPAs and other stakeholders.

Basildon Borough Council welcomes further engagement with Rochford District Council to ensure that the observations raised in this response are duly considered and to continue working together on strategic planning priorities through the Duty to Co-operate.

Draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Rochford Local Plan

Basildon Borough Council has reviewed the content of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Rochford Local Plan, and can confirm that on this occasion, Basildon Borough Council has no comments to make, as it covers all the matters you would expect to see in such a document.

With reference to the council's plans for housing development, my wife and I would like to make the following comments :
CFS011 and GF03 are both category 3 flood plain
Sites CFS011, GF03 and CFS070
Your documents show good open spaces/leisure facilities THERE ARE NONE
Your documents show good Retail facilities, an expensive COOP in the village
Your documents show good Public transport services HA HA
Our neighbour works at southend hospital and it takes her 2 hours by bus !!
Investment in utilities WILL be required in all areas
Investment in sustainable transport WOULD be required
Finally we would like to remind the council that in this country we do not have public transport (Transport that is owned by the public and operated on their behalf for the benefit of the public) we have commercial transport operated by private companies for their own, and their shareholders benefit.

GENERAL CONCERN
The development of Hockley, Rayleigh, Rochford and surrounding areas with an additional 9,000 homes by 2037 will have a serious and adverse impact on the quality of life for existing residents. By its own admission the RDC make plain that money has to be found to alleviate the resulting increase in pressure on our roads, our hospital, GP practices, care home facilities, the schools, leisure facilities and more besides.

Central Government simply does not have the funds available now or in the future to finance NHS England, the Highway Agency and others in order to provide the necessary infrastructure, (and its ongoing maintenance,) to keep pace with the proposed increase in the local population brought about by an additional 9,000 homes.

Furthermore, the developers themselves are not interested in shouldering any of the ongoing maintenance costs of public buildings. For example, the developer of the Hall Road housing estate has refused to pay for the cost of maintaining the proposed school.

In the worst case scenarios residents will pay with their own lives if local government does not have the necessary funding in place. For example, the stark reality of an NHS at breaking point has been laid bare this winter.

SPECIFIC CONCERN
I am also writing to voice my reasons why the land to the north of Malvern Road, described as CFS023 and also the land at the head of Malvern Road, described as COL38 in the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) 2017 is NOT suitable for housing development for reasons of topography, geography and ecology as detailed in the two documents attached.

By contrast the Council is better advised to consider other parcels of the land such as those adjacent to Mount Bovers Lane and also the land behind the "Cock Inn" and adjacent to the roundabout at the northern end of Cherry Orchard Lane. These are flat expanses making them less expensive to develop; are well connected to Hall Road and better linked to the A127. Also, they are in close proximity to the development of industrial units adjacent to Cherry Orchard Lane and the planned expansion of business at Southend Airport making it a more suitable location for employees moving into the area.

Please find enclosed 2 documents attached which should be read in conjunction with this e-mail.

Objections to the development of the small plot of land at the head of Malvern Road - "Play Area"
Rochford District Council Plan to 2037 - site identification COL38 refers.
What follows are objections to the development of land at the head of Malvern Road (Council reference COL38,) and why the Council should remove it from the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) 2017 document and any future editions.
1. Designated Children's Play Area
This area is designated a children's play area. Families living in Malvern Road and the surrounding area exercise their right to access and enjoyment of this land.
It was inspected about 3 years ago by Rochford District Council and its use as a children's play area upheld after a proposal to make it a bridal way was rejected.
2. Access to Beckney Woods and the surrounding area
This area of land is also used every day by numerous walkers as an access to Beckney Woods.
3. Recognised Public Right of Way
In 2014 an inquiry recognised the existence of a public right of way across the Children's Play Area. The report also records the concern expressed by objectors, (to the bridleway,) for the need to protect the public open space from any development.
The Inquiry was opened on 21st May 2014 (then adjourned until to 21st October due to ill health of one of the representatives.)The Inspector, Mr Martin Elliott published his report on 1st December 2014. In it he recognises the route used by pedestrians across the Children's Play Area over a period of time and ruled it to be a public right of way.
In his concluding remarks (point 39) he also records the significant concern expressed by the objectors, (including local residents,) for the need to protect the public open space from development.
4. Inappropriate access for vehicles via Malvern Road
The steep gradient (estimated at 15%) and narrow width make the thin strip of land connecting the Play Area with Malvern Road a dangerous junction for motorists and hence poses a threat to pedestrians. Its use as access for any development on the Play Area is wholly unacceptable.
5. Flash Flooding
There is a real concern that the increasing frequency of extreme weather caused by the impact of global warming on our climate coupled with any development of the Play Area will give rise to the nuisance of "flash flooding" in Malvern Road caused by the inability of drainage to cope with extreme volumes of rain water.

The unsuitability of the land for development at the rear of Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive
Rochford District Council Plan to 2037 - site identification CFS023 refers.
What follows are the reasons why the land to the north of Malvern Road (Council reference CFS023,) is considered the least suitable for development and why the Council should remove it from the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) 2017 document and any future editions.
1. Excessive gradient of the land
Any housing development will require deep piling and foundations to take account of the gradient of the land. This will add additional costs making it more expensive to build on.
Along an east-west axis the land rises by approximately 25 meters (85 feet.) Along a south-to-north axis behind existing houses in Malvern Road the land rises by approximately 20 meters (66 feet) when measured from number 50 Malvern Road to the high ground at top of the field.
2. Clay and Blue Clay - subsidence
In addition to an excessive gradient, the land sits on clay making it necessary to construct deeper foundations in order to resist subsidence. This will add additional costs making it more expensive to build on.
Also there is a possibility that areas of blue clay exist. At the time Malvern Road was developed 40 years ago work was interrupted and it is believed that an area of blue clay was investigated.
3. Rain water - history of flooding
Any development will significantly increase the risk of flooding to existing properties backing onto the fields. Residents already suffer flooding of their land caused by a spring which appears in the higher elevation at the south west boundary of the field after prolonged periods of wet weather. It is understood that it is fed by the corresponding rise in the level of the water table beneath the field. The resulting stream follows the downward slope of the land in a west to east direction adjacent to the existing garden fence line, but also overspills in a north to south direction and so floods into existing back gardens.
The concern is that building on top of the water table will have an adverse impact on the natural ability of the land to absorb periods of wet weather and therefore will increase the frequency of the spring appearing and hence increase the episodes when existing back gardens flood.
4. Rain water - flash flooding
Also, there is real concern that the increasing frequency of extreme weather caused by the impact of global warming on our climate coupled with any development of the land behind Malvern Road will give rise to the nuisance of "flash flooding" caused by the inability of drainage to cope with extreme volumes of rain water and hence give rise to even more frequent flooding of the gardens to existing properties.
Any development of the land will require a developer to incur the extra cost of foul drainage, "swails" and balancing ponds.
5. Infrastructure - insufficient water pressure
There is a fear that the existing system of pumps and pipe work maintained by the water utility companies are insufficient to support any more development in the area adjacent to Malvern Road. It is understood that the fresh water pumps work at near capacity to maintain a sufficient pressure. Already there are occasions when some residents suffer periods of reduced water pressure.
The proposed number/density of housing together with the elevated nature of the land will, it is believed, require a water utility company to design and install a system of new pumps and more pipework to cope thereby making this area of land more expensive to develop.
6. Infrastructure - undeveloped access
There is not the land available to widen the junction at the bottom of Harrogate Drive with Greensward Lane to make it safe for the dramatic increase in the volume of traffic turning into or out Harrogate Drive. The existing bungalows and their gardens (with trees planted in one garden,) come hard up to the junction of both roads.
It is suggested that the Council would have to make a compulsory purchase of the gardens & perhaps even one of the bungalows in order to widen the junction and make it safe for vehicles joining or leaving the busy Greensward Lane and so avoid having to swing into the path of oncoming traffic.
In addition, Harrogate Drive is an unmade road. Also, at the northern end it is bounded by thick boarders of hedgerow and at least two existing telegraph poles almost opposite one another making the upper stretch too narrow for two way traffic and pedestrian pavements.
A developer would have the added cost of developing Harrogate Drive. In the process of doing so it would mean the resulting loss of hedgerow habit for nesting birds such as Black Birds. See later objection.
7. Infrastructure - Harrogate Drive - no mains sewage
Not all of Harrogate Drive is connected to mains sewage. One or more properties rely on a septic tank.
A developer will have the added expense of survey and installation costs.
8. Pristine Green Belt Land
Any development of the fields behind Malvern Road will strip Hockley of important green belt land bordering Beckney Woods and has the potential to seriously damage the wood itself. See later.
The fields under threat of development have only been used for grazing. They have not been sprayed with insecticides or similar chemicals therefore the land is afforded pristine ecological value.
9. Damage to Beckney Woods (ancient woodland) and Loss of Hedgerows
The proposed density of new housing will threaten the ecology, fauna and flora that currently thrive in and around Beckney Woods. A sharp rise in the number of people walking through the wood will threaten the existence of Blue Bells, Wood Anemones and Wood Celendine that carpet the ground.
The wood is believed to have existed for hundreds of years. Natural England confirm that Beckney Wood is classified as "ancient woodland".
Also, the proposed access via Harrogate Drive will strip the existing hedgerow and so deprive a vital habitat for wildlife in the area including nesting blackbirds.
10. Protected animals and loss of habitat
There is concern about the impact of development on the indigenous wildlife in Beckney Woods and the surrounding fields. Bats and Adders are regularly observed by residents. Barn Owls, Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards, and also Herons, Pheasants plus Red and Green Woodpeckers are also seen in the field or flying overhead. Foxes, muntjac deer and a badger set rely on the wood and fields. Pond owners in Malvern Road have observed Great Crested Newts in the past.
11. Encroachment on Privacy
Any development of the field behind Malvern Road will result in a total loss of privacy for up to 17 residents whose houses back onto the land. These properties have small back gardens measuring less than 40ft in some cases. And so the fact that the land behind is substantially elevated combined with the associated excessive gradient means that any new houses will overlook the ground floor, the first floor and the gardens belonging to most of the existing 17 residents.
12. Impact on the character of the neighborhood and loss of amenities
The proposed density of new housing will have an adverse impact on the existing character of what has always been a very quiet and peaceful neighborhood for more than 40 years. It will mean that in addition to the total loss of loss of privacy, residence will also be adversely impacted by an increase in nuisance caused by more noise generated by a large increase in the number of neighbors; the noise from a 100 or more extra vehicles accessing Harrogate Drive and motoring about the housing development; and for residents backing onto any new development the nuisance of light pollution caused by street lighting and exterior house lighting.
At present existing residents enjoy good air quality. Any development will take this away. Existing residents will have to suffer the nuisance caused by an increase in exhaust emissions from vehicles accessing and moving within any new development. The slower vehicle speeds, sub 30 mph, will mean the associated carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and 'particulate matter' will take longer to disperse and so will adversely impact what is a very quiet neighborhood with good air quality.
13. Loss of amenities - view of fields and woodlands
The development being proposed will rob the residents of enjoyment and a quality of life afforded by the views of the fields and woodland. Many have lived in the road for more than 20 years and some are the original residents of Malvern Road going back 40 years.

RDC ref: COL38. MALVERN ROAD
Object is hereby made into possible inclusion of this site in the proposed development plan.

It is a designated play area and should remain as such.



LETTER
Land availability, local plan. Ref: CFS023 Site south of Beckney Wood

I object to the proposal by RDC to build 7500 additional homes in the District.

Existing infrastructure is struggling to cope at the present time, for example low mains pressure, access to A and E and G.P. appointments and additional homes will only add to the problems. The road network is barely able to cope even at present levels with long queues at peak times, with the resulting frustrating delays and the additional pollution caused by exhaust fumes and stationery vehicles. I can find no evidence of the existence of significant plans to improve the road infrastructure.

I object to the proposal to include land to the south of Beckney Wood in the Local Plan as a possible development site. Beckney Wood is registered by Natural England, Ref: 1120652 as 'Ancient woodland with semi-natural priority habitat'. The site in question is immediately south and is designated 'Green Belt' and as such should not be development unless there are 'very special circumstances', and I do not believe that they currently exist. Case law from Court judgements in 2014 and 2015 established that 'shortfall of land supply very rarely warrants grants for permission' and that the drawing up of a new Local Plan does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances'.

One of the listed functions of the Green Belt is to 'provide a contiguous habitat network for wild plants, animals and wildlife. The identified site, where legend has it, the dead from the Battle of Assendune were laid out and subsequently buried has been grazed continuously until 2016. Flora and fauna, invertebrates large and small have been able to thrive on the site free from cultivation, mechanical disturbance, ploughing and the pesticide spraying of modern farming practices.
As such it provides a much richer and varied habitat than the same area of cultivated farmland. The site is a buffer to the ancient woodland of Beckney Wood. Buffer areas next to ancient woodlands are set out as a requirement in the National Planning Policy Document. Furthermore, paragraph 118 of the Document goes on to say that 'planning permission should be refused for development resulting in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland'.

The site was not granted planning permission back in c1976 when the whole field was then considered for development. Malvern Road was set down as the northern limit of development in order to allow this buffer zone to be established.

As I write, I note that there is currently a White Paper before Parliament which is seeking to given even more protection for ancient woodland.

I object to the proposal on the basis that there would be an increased risk of flooding to the properties in Malvern road. During periods of heavy rain there is extensive run off which would be made worse by development.

I object because development of the site which has a significant slope to the existing houses in Malvern Road would cause a lack of privacy and intrusion on a greater scale than if the site were level.

I object because development of the site would increase the traffic using Greensward Lane which would in turn lengthen the queues during rush hours at Hockley Spa. If the Council is of a mind to allow extensive development in the Rochford District then it would seem preferable to locate it at the west of the District in the Rayleigh area where access to main A roads is much closer. Similarly, access to the A127 would be easier from the Hall Road/Cherry Orchard area.

In conclusion, I would urge the Council to resist excessive development to the District which affects the quality of life for us all and to prevent the site adjacent to Beckney Wood from being in any development Plan.

Comments Form Response
Rochford District Council Issues and Options Document and draft sustainability plan.

I would like to lodge the following comments in connection with the following sites which have been included in the potential for development in the RDC plan.

1. RDC Reference: COL38 land between Malvern Roadn and Branksome Avenue - Malvern Road play area.
This area is owned by RDC and was allocated and set aside as a play area when Malvern Road was initially built/developed. The attached letter from RDC legal services shows that following previous proposals to develop this land and objections from local residents that RDC committed to retain this as a public open space. Ashingdon Parish Council minutes also confirm this. There were also proposals to make a bridleway across this piece of land and in the inquiry in May 2014 it was recognised as a public right of way due to its continuous use as a walkway between Malvern Road and Branksome Avenue.
Having lived adjacent to this piece of land for over 35 years I can confirm that it is used as a play area and is also regularly used by people accessing Beckney Woods and crossing between Branksome Avenue and Malvern Road.
There are several oak trees at the top end of the sit which link with the footpath which lead up into Beckney woods. Beckney Woods is recognised as ancient woodland and these trees link into the woods and form part of the natural buffer between the woodland and the urban environment. Birds and animals use the play space too and there are frequently woodpeckers seen on the field.
Developing this piece of land would be detrimental to our community, remove the right of way and also add another burden to our overstretched infrastructure.

2. RDC Reference: CFS023 land to the rear of Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive.
This land is green belt and as such should be protected and maintained. It forms a buffer between Malvern Road and Beckney Woods which has ancient woodland status. It is recognised that there should be a buffer between urban development and ancient woodland and this field provides a natural buffer.
Development of this land would add pressure to our already overstretched infrastructure and would increase the use of schools, health services, roads water and sewage, all of which are struggling to meet the needs of our current population.

I hope that you can accept my comments in this format I found that the online method having to comment on each issue separately was too difficult to do

Objections to the development of land to the rear of Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive plus the 'play area'. Rochford District Council Plan 2037 - CFS023 and COL38 refers.
Option:
Paragraph:
Comments: Objections to the Development of land at the rear of Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive - RDC reference CFS023
The land to the north of Malvern Road CFS023 and the land described as COL38 at the top of Malvern Road is not suitable for inclusion in the Rochford District Development Plan for 2037.

The land adjacent to Mount Bovers Lane and the land behind the 'Cock Inn' Public House and adjacent to the roundabout at the northern end of Cherry Orchard Lane would be better for development. Both sites are flat expanses of land, are connected to Hall Road and better linked to the A127. Also, they are in close proximity to the development of industrial units adjacent to Cherry Orchard Lane and the planned expansion of business at Southend Airport making the location good for employees. The residents could also enjoy the benefits and use of Cherry Orchard Country Park.

We object to the development of land at the rear of Malvern Road (your ref CFS023) as set out below.

1. Steep gradient of land - privacy

Any development would require deep piling and foundations to take into account the gradient of the land. In addition the excessive gradient sits on clay. It is likely that areas of blue clay exists. When Malvern Road was developed 42 years ago work was interrupted and it is believed that an area of blue clay was investigated. This will make development expensive.

Any development of the field would also result in loss of privacy. The existing properties that back onto the field have small rear gardens. As the land is elevated substantially the associated excessive gradient would mean that any new houses would overlook every aspect of existing properties creating a complete loss of privacy on both ground and upper floors and gardens.

2. Surface Water Flooding History

Any development will significantly increase the risk of flooding to existing gardens and properties backing onto the field. We already have excessive water on our gardens caused by the increase in the water table levels of the field behind Malvern Road after heavy rainfall. As a consequence a spring appears on the south west boundary of the field. We understand it is fed by the rise in the level of the water table beneath the field. The stratum it creates follows the contour of the land and floods existing gardens.

We are very concerned that building on top of the water table would adversely effect the natural ability for the water to be absorbed into the soil quickly enough and will increase further the danger of surface water flooding to our property.

With the evidence of climate change due to global warming now accepted by Government we are right to assume that seasonal weather conditions are no longer a given. We are likely to have heavier rainfall in the future and any development of the field at the rear of Malvern Road will have a significant and unacceptable increased risk of flooding to existing properties caused by the inability of natural and engineered drainage to cope with extreme volumes of water. The contamination from Foul Water breaches from development is also a major concern and one which should be considered.

Water Pressure

Water pressure is a concern to residents. Houses no. 50, 52, 54, 56, 58 already have water pressure reduction at certain times. The existing system of pipe work and pumps are insufficient to support further development adjacent to the Malvern Road area.

Access

The land at the junction of Harrogate Drive and Greensward Lane is not wide enough to create a safe and hazard free turn for road users. Any development of the field behind or adjacent to Malvern Road will result a huge increase in traffic using Harrogate Drive and significantly increase the chances of accidents due to drivers having to wing their vehicles wide out of or into Harrogate Drive - Greensward Lane. In addition Harrogate Drive is too narrow at the undeveloped end to accommodate 2 way traffic and suitable safe pavements for pedestrians. Also hedgerows will have to be removed and loss of natural habitat for wild life gone forever.

Impact and Amenity Loss

The proposed development will have a negative impact on the quiet peaceful character of the neighbourhood. The increased traffic will create more CO2, NO and particulate matter pollution. Together with slower vehicle speeds this will have a devastating effect on the air quality and noise levels which will have a severe and detrimental effect on the Ancient Woodland of Beckney Woods with the glorious fauna and flora that exists there.

The field itself which has not been infected with offensive sprays and heavy machinery for 50 years or more offers habitat to a diverse array of creatures including Bats that are seen flying at dusk, adders, slow worms, grass snakes, badgers, foxes, muntjac deer and a variety of rodents. Amphibians including the crested newt have been seen. We also have a full array of British birds including the blackbird (quite rare), thrush (even rarer), herons, 2 species of woodpecker, several species from the tit family including the long tailed, robins and the joyous wren. The buzzard and sparrow hawk are also arrivals in recent years.

These are just a few examples of the diversity the woodland and field attract and the need to protect this environment from destruction is apparent. It is an amenity to be enjoyed by many and appreciated by residents at this end of Hockley and beyond.

The small plot of land at the top of Malvern Road 'Play Area' REDC reference CO38

Designated Children's Play Area

This is a designated children's play area. Families living in Malvern Road and surrounding area exercise their right to access and have enjoyment of this piece of land.

Three years ago the land was inspected by Rochford District Council and its use as a children's play area was upheld after a proposal to change of use to a bridleway was rejected.

This area of land is used every day by many walkers to access Beckney Woods. The inspector, Mr Martin Elliot, published his report on 1 December 2014 where he recognised the route used by pedestrians across the children's play area over a period of time and ruled it to be a public right of way. He also recorded the significant concern expressed by objectors for the need to protect the public open space from development.

Access for vehicles via Malvern Road

Estimated at about a 15% steep gradient and having a narrow access between 2 properties the proposed development between Malvern Road and the children's play area would make this a very dangerous junction for both motorists and pedestrians especially in winters just experienced.

Flash flooding

We also have serious concern, that in extreme weather conditions as is expected in the years ahead, this development will be prone to cause flash flooding in Malvern Road as the drainage, natural and engineered will be unable to cope.

Dear Sir/Madam

Rochford District Council Issues and Options Document and Draft Sustainability Appraisal (Screening) Public Consultation

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 6th February 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Local Plan (Issues and Options Document)

Section 3: our characteristics

 Under key Environment Characteristics: (page 12) the first bullet point states "our district has significant areas of ecological value, particularly the Crouch and Roach estuaries and Foulness Island". We advise that this sentence includes the international and national designated importance of the estuaries.

Section 4: our special challenges

 Section 4.10 highlights cooperation between Essex authorities in strategic and cross-boundary matters. We advise that the natural environment is included as a cross-boundary matter in light of the strategic approach required to address recreational disturbance impacts on coastal protected sites. Rochford District Council has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work with neighbouring authorities though the Essex Recreation Avoidance Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) project and we recommend that this is recognised in the list of cross-boundary matters which will be addressed through the Duty to Cooperate.

Section 5: our vision and strategic objectives

 The draft vision for 2037 (page 25) is written as "Rochford District is a green and pleasant place with a focus on business and high quality homes supported by accessible and responsive services and facilities, creating healthy and sustainable communities". We suggest the following amendment: Rochford District is an environmentally rich and pleasant place with a focus on business and high quality homes supported by accessible and responsive services and facilities, creating healthy and sustainable communities.

Our Environment (page 26): as in line with the NPPF and the commitment of the 25 Year Environmental Plan to "embed an environmental net gain principle for development, including housing and infrastructure" we recommend a commitment to delivering net gain for the natural environment, in order to compensate for residual impacts of development on environmental assets. In addition this could be included and expanded in Strategic Objective 19.

Section 6: delivering homes and jobs

Strategic Priority 1.6: Houseboats and Liveaboards (page 54): further information on current houseboat and liveaboard numbers and location in Rochford and the wider Essex area would be useful as baseline data to understand potential impacts of increased numbers to designated sites. Impacts should include both disturbance to species and habitats and pollution from waste effluent.

We support the following options:
o B) Amend existing policy to strengthen criteria.
o D) Amend the definition in the Development Management Plan with the aim of agreeing a clear definition at county level and one that reflects potential impacts on protected sites
o C) Allocate specific areas of coastline where such uses may be acceptable
 Policy should align with best practice proposed by the Essex RAMS project to ensure recreation disturbance is adequately managed within a strategic framework that is Habitats Regulations Assessment compliant (HRA).

 Natural England welcomes the opportunity to work with the Local Planning Authority to address the issue, with regard to potential ecological impacts, and help formulate a policy that does not pose an adverse impact on any designated sites.

 Strategic Policy 1.9: London Southend Airport (page 65): any potential impacts to air quality resulting from an increase in flights, duration and/or adjustment in aircraft or flight paths (including the operational implications of stacking) and road infrastructure should be considered and HRA compliant. It is likely any proposed expansion would require a Habitats Regulations Assessment and this needs to be addressed at a strategic level as part of the Local Plan. Delivery of any mitigation recommendations identified through the HRA and SA will need to be secured through robust Plan policies.

 Natural England's preferred option is A, "retain and update the Core Strategy policy supporting London Southend Airport's growth". This option will update existing policy and ensure reflection of any environmental impacts particularly on any Sites of Special Scientific Interests (SSSI's) and Natura 2000 sites.

 Strategic Policy 1.10: supporting tourism and rural diversification. This policy should consider any potential impacts to the natural environment including recreational disturbance.

 This section should also recognise that the England Coast Path may provide economic opportunities for tourism and the rural environment.

Strategic Policy 3: the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat)

 Strategic Policy 3.4: water and flood risk management. Natural England supports the proposal to update the Water Cycle Study and we advise that the results of this study should be used to inform the HRA. We acknowledge that that the Environmental Capacity Study found that water supply and capacity for water treatment was sufficient until 2032. The revised Local Plan extends this time period until 2036 and consideration should be given to ascertain if additional capacity is required to meet the needs of development up to 2036. Evidence should be provided to demonstrate that any measures needed to address capacity shortfalls can be implemented ahead of / in line with development. This is needed to demonstrate that Local Plan development is sustainable and will not have an adverse effect on the environment including nationally and internationally designated sites. Delivery of mitigation measures should be secured through robust Plan policies.

 In Para 8.46 this section states "As noted within the Environmental Capacity Study 2015 the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan policy is to hold the line with maintaining or upgrading defences along the coast." This implies that 'hold the line' is the SMP preferred policy along the whole of the Rochford shoreline. We advise this section is revised to reflect the SMP fully and include coastline areas under managed realignment.

The plan should refer to the relevant Shoreline Management Plan and take forward applicable actions. Local Authorities should use Shoreline Management plans as a key evidence base for shaping policy in coastal areas.

Sea level rise and coastal change are inevitable and bring both challenges and opportunities for people and nature. Sustainable coastal management needs to embrace long-term change and achieve positive outcomes for both.

Local Plans should therefore provide for coastal adaptation and work with coastal processes. Plans within coastal areas should recognise the need to respond to changes over long timescales and adopt an integrated approach across administrative and land/sea boundaries. A successful integrated approach should set levels of sustainable levels of economic and social activity whilst protecting the environment.

We would also advise that Local Plans should help facilitate the relocation of valued environmental assets away from areas of risk.

Strategic Priority 4: The provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities

Strategic Policy 4.3: open space and outdoor sports recreation. We advise that open space policy corresponds with Natural England's Accessible Natural Green Space Standards (ANGST), which describes the amount, quality and level of visitor services we recommend for all areas. This will help to ensure the delivery of sufficient levels of high quality informal open space to meet the needs of new residents and to buffer and enhance the resilience of the natural environment, particularly more sensitive designated sites.
Strategic Policy 5: protecting and enhancing our environment

Strategic Policy 5.2: biodiversity, geology, and green infrastructure (10.27). We recommend the strengthening of existing policy ENV1 and a commitment to net gain in line with the requirements and aspirations of the NPPF and 25 Year Environmental Plan.

Protection of local habitats of important ecological value (10.28).We agree that option F should be updated to reflect the findings of the latest Local Wildlife Sites assessment. If options C-F are merged to form a singular strategic nature conservation policy, it should include the same level of protection and enhancement as existing policy.

Section 10.43 identifies broad soil sensitivity and its importance to wildlife across the district. The Local Plan should give appropriate weight to the roles performed by the area's soils. These should be valued as a finite multi-functional resource which underpins our wellbeing and prosperity. Decisions about development should take full account of the impact on soils, their intrinsic character and the sustainability of the many ecosystem services they deliver.

The plan should safeguard the long term capability of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the Agricultural Land Classification) as a resource for the future in line with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 112 to safeguard 'best and most versatile' agricultural land. The plan should recognise that development (soil sealing) has an irreversible adverse (cumulative) impact on the finite national and local stock of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. Avoiding loss of BMV land is the priority as mitigation is rarely possible. Retaining higher quality land enhances future options for sustainable food production and helps secure other important ecosystem services.

 Strategic Policy 5.3: Wallasea Island and the RSPB's Wild Coast Project. Natural England supports option A which retains existing policy and supports Wallasea Island Wild.

 Strategic Policy 5.4: landscape character. Natural England expects the Plan to include strategic policies to protect and enhance valued landscapes, as well as criteria based policies to guide development, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 We support the review of the Upper Roach Valley and coastal protection belt as part of the Local Landscape Character Assessment and new evidence should be used to strengthen and adapt existing policy.

Detailed policy considerations

 D.P1.13: light pollution (page 163): light pollution can give negative impacts on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and on nature conservation, particularly invertebrate and bats. We advise that policies should address impacts on the natural environment in accordance with government guidance on light pollution1. Light pollution policy should ensure the protection of existing dark skies and that new developments increased local light pollution in sensitive areas.

 The Campaign to Protect Rural England have produced maps on light pollution which may be a useful evidence resource for local policy.

Sustainability Appraisal

Natural England is broadly satisfied that the Sustainability Appraisal has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive, as transposed through the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. We have provided advice on the Issues and Options Document and Draft Sustainability Appraisal below.

1. Do you think the Local Plan might have a 'likely significant effect' on Natura 2000 sites? If so, in which broad locations and what might be the likely effects?
Depending on the quantum and location of development, the local plan may have a likely significant effect on:
 Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar,
 Foulness SPA and Ramsar
 Essex Estuaries SAC
 three SSSIs Hockley Woods, Foulness and the Crouch and Roach Estuaries

However, details of new housing location allocations is not provided in the sustainability appraisal or issues and options document. The local plan will need to have its own Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) in due course. The findings and recommendations of the HRA should inform the SA. Mitigation recommendations should be referenced, and implementation secured, through robust Plan policies.

Sufficient evidence should be provided through the HRA to demonstrate any significant effects including increased recreational pressure and changes in air quality associated with new development, with suitable and proportionate mitigation included. The district is sensitive to changes in air quality and evidence through air quality modelling may need to be provided. A likely increase in visitor pressure at key locations may also need to be delivered and measures to address adverse effects should follow the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. measures to avoid impacts should be prioritised. Where adverse impacts cannot be avoided, detailed measures to mitigate these will need to be provided.

Natural England welcomes the commitment to develop an Essex wide strategy to identify potential impacts of recreational disturbance resulting from the delivery of new homes and mitigation delivery through the Essex Coastal Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy.

We fully support the ambition to work with neighbouring local authorities to identify local wildlife corridors and networks across boundaries

2. Have all the policies, plans, and programmes that are relevant to the production of the Plan been considered? Or are there other documents that should be added to those outlined in the 'Schedule of Plans, Policies & Programmes relevant to the Plan'?

Natural England has not reviewed the plans listed. However, we advise that the following types of plans relating to the natural environment should be considered where applicable to your plan area;

Green infrastructure strategies
 Biodiversity plans
 Rights of Way Improvement Plans
 Shoreline management plans
 Coastal access plans
 River basin management plans
 Relevant landscape plans and strategies

3. Is the data collected in the 'Schedule of Baseline Information relevant to the Plan', to the best of your knowledge, factually correct?

No comment

4. Is the data collected in the 'Schedule of Baseline Information relevant to the Plan' is relevant and suitable for the Plan? Do you know of, or have, any additional data that you think should be added to the list already collected?

We advise that local habitat policy is reviewed and aligned with up to date baseline data to ensure maximum positive effect on biodiversity, health and wellbeing
Please see attached Annex A for our advice on additional sources of local plan evidence on the natural environment.

5. Do you agree that the issues identified as 'Key sustainability issues' are the main sustainability issues relevant to the Plan? Are there any other sustainability issues that you believe should be added?

Strategic Priority 1: Delivering homes and jobs

3.2.1.4 Tourism and rural diversification - option B: if the council seeks to expand the current approach to tourism and include other forms of rural diversification, consideration should be given to increased recreational disturbance and assessed as part of the HRA process. Any mitigation should be proportionate to insure sustainable growth in this area.

6. Will the indicators and data identified in the 'Schedule of Baseline Information relevant to the Plan' provide an effective framework for monitoring the performance of the Plan against the SA Objectives in the 'Draft Sustainability Objectives and SEA Topic'?

As set out in Planning Practice Guidance, you should be monitoring the significant environmental effects of implementing the current local plan. This should include indicators for monitoring the effects of the plan on biodiversity (NPPF para 117).
The natural environment metrics in the baseline information are largely driven by factors other than the plan's performance. They are thus likely to be of little value in monitoring the performance of the Plan. It is important that any monitoring indicators relate to the effects of the plan itself, not wider changes. Bespoke indicators should be chosen relating to the outcomes of development management decisions.

Whilst it is not Natural England's role to prescribe what indicators should be adopted, the following indicators may be appropriate.

Biodiversity:
 Number of planning approvals that generated any adverse impacts on sites of acknowledged biodiversity importance.
 Percentage of major developments generating overall biodiversity enhancement.
 Hectares of biodiversity habitat delivered through strategic site allocations.
Green infrastructure: Percentage of the city's population having access to a natural greenspace within 400 metres of their home.
 Length of greenways constructed.
 Delivery of objectives and targets in the Green Grid Strategy
 Hectares of accessible open space per 1000 population.

7. Are there other/additional methodologies that could be used to identify the significant effects of the Local Plan?

No comment

Sources of local plan evidence on the natural environment

The following sources of evidence may be useful in ensuring local plans are evidence based, in line with paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and assist in meeting Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) requirements. A range of additional locally specific evidence is also likely to be needed to underpin plan preparation.

i. General natural environmental evidence

National Character Areas (NCAs) divide England into 159 distinct natural areas. NCA profiles contain descriptions of the area and statements of environmental opportunity, which may be useful to inform proposals in your plan. Natural England has also published downloadable natural capital maps. There is a suite of ten maps, of different aspects of natural capital, which contributes to our understanding of where our natural capital is.

The Magic website will provide you with much of the nationally held natural environment data for your plan area in downloadable GIS format.
Local environmental record centres may hold a range of additional information on the natural environment, principally ecological. The following local organizations may also hold environmental information where applicable: Local Nature Partnerships, Wildlife Trusts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnerships and Nature Improvement Areas.

Evidence relating to the significant environmental effects of the current local plan should be available (in line with SEA legislation), as should suitable biodiversity evidence for any plan adopted after the NPPF came into effect (27 March 2012), usually through the current plan's Annual Monitoring Report.

ii. Landscape

The Magic website provides data on the extent of protected landscapes (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). National Park/Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plans may also be a source of useful evidence. These are usually found on these organisations websites.

Most areas have local landscape character assessments. These are tools to help understand the character and local distinctiveness of the landscape and identify the features that give it a sense of place. It can help to inform, plan and manage change in the area. Data on tranquillity is held by CPRE. They also hold mapping data on light pollution.

iii. Biodiversity and geodiversity

The most relevant layers on Magic for you to consider are Ancient Woodland, Local Nature Reserves, Priority Habitat Inventory, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (including their impact risk zones), Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, and Ramsar Sites (including, where relevant, marine designations).
You may also wish to draw on more detailed information on specific Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the Conservation Objectives and Site Improvement Plans for Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas.

Priority habitats and species are those listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). Larger areas of priority habitat will usually be mapped either as Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Magic website or as Local Wildlife Sites or Local Geological Sites. Local wildlife site data is usually held by local planning authorities themselves as is local geological site data. Local Environmental Record Centres and local wildlife and geoconservation groups are also a source of information on Local Sites.

Natural England maintains the Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land Inventory (a priority habitat dataset currently not integrated into the Priority Habitat Inventory on Magic) and is available on request from Natural England via email; NaturalEnglandGIDataManagers@naturalengland.org.uk.
Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify the local action needed to deliver UK targets for habitats and species. They also identify targets for other habitats and species of local importance and can provide a useful blueprint for biodiversity enhancement in any particular area. Local Geodiversity Action Plans (LGAPS) identify agreed local action for geodiversity, a list of active LGAPs can be found at UK Geodiversity Action Plan (http://www.ukgap.org.uk/getting-involved/lgaps.aspx).
Some areas have identified Biodiversity Opportunity Areas or similar for spatially targeting biodiversity restoration work.

Protected species are those species protected under domestic or European law. Local environmental record centres are likely to hold much of the available data on such species.

APIS holds data on air pollution in particular in relation to protected nature conservation sites.

iv. Access

The Magic website holds the following access related data: National Trails, Public Rights of Way (on the Ordnance Survey base map), Open Access Land (the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 layer), together with national and local nature reserves, country parks and the England Coast Path.

Locally held data will include the definitive Public Rights of Way, and may include Rights of Way Improvement Plans where they exist, and any locally mapped open space audits or assessments.

Natural England's work on Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt) may be of use in assessing current level of accessible natural greenspace and planning improved provision.

v. Green infrastructure

Green infrastructure strategies may comprise or contain useful evidence sources where they exist.

vi. Soils

A provisional Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) map is on Magic, and the GIS layer 'Likelihood of Best and Most Versatile Land' is available on request from Natural England via email;

Some areas already have detailed ALC maps. The coverage of existing detailed MAFF post 1988 ALC surveys is shown on Magic. The MAFF post 1988 ALC survey reports and maps themselves are available from Natural England or from Gov.UK. Our publication Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land may also be of help.

General mapped information on soil types and Agricultural Land Classification is available (under 'landscape') on the Magic website and also from the LandIS website, which contains more information about obtaining soil data.

vii. Climate change

The Climate Change Adaptation Manual provides evidence to support nature conservation in a changing climate. The National Biodiversity Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Model provides a spatially explicit assessment of the relative vulnerability of priority habitats. The data files can be accessed here: National Biodiversity Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment data. The LWEC Climate Change Impacts Report Cards present the latest evidence on how climate change is affecting different aspects of our environment, economy and society.

viii. Coastal and Marine issues
The following may be of help:
 Catchment flood management plans (considers all types of inland flooding, from rivers, groundwater, surface water and tidal flooding).
 Shoreline management plans (considers flooding from the sea).
 Any estuary or harbour management plans that are held locally.
 River basin management plans (covers entire river systems, including river, lake, groundwater, estuarine and coastal water bodies).
 Coastal Erosion Maps.

 The Marine Management Organisation has a marine planning evidence base which supplies a range of information on marine planning.

 There may be specific Heritage Coast information held locally, such as a management plan.

ix. Water Quality and Resources and Flood Risk Management

The Planning Practice Guidance provides guidance on information sources for the water environment.

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).

CFS078/CFS079/CFS080/CFS081

Point SP 1.1: (Objectively Assessed Need)
Rochford District Council are under a duty to provide between 331 to 361 houses per annum under the Objectively Assessed Need. Rochford Council should not rely on neighbouring authorities Duty to Cooperate as these areas are also under pressure to supply housing. Rochford Council must guarantee they have a supply to meet this, going further than the proposed option A. 'Seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within our area, as far as possible, given environmental and other constraints. The council must consider releasing more land from the Green Belt, as detailed in the response to Point SP 5.1 below.

Point SP 1.3: How do we plan to facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next 20 years within the district?
Additional land is required for inclusion in the local plan for future development and to meet the objective of supplying at least 331 houses per annum. For this reason option C. Several small sections to the existing area would be the best way to achieve the minimum of 331 houses per annum in the Rochford District.
The allocation of the above site at the minimum density of 30 homes per hectare as set in the development management plan would create approximately 600 homes. This allocation alone would meet the district's housing supply for almost two years.

Point SP 4.3: How do plans meet the needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities across the district over the next 20 years?
The site incorporates the current Ashingdon Boys football club and the development could incorporate and enhance the current facilities.

Point SP 5.1: How do we balance protection of the district's Green Belt that the meets the five Green Belt purposes, against the need to deliver new homes and jobs across the district and the wider South Essex area?
The principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas. The development of the Green Belt should only happen in exceptional circumstances, but as reiterated by Government publications the plan-led system should review the existing Green Belt boundary to ensure development is always sustainable.
The Five purposes of the Green Belt are:
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
The Council's approach to the Green Belt is set out in the Core Strategy adopted in December 2011. The four objectives of the Core Strategy for the Green Belt are;
1. Continue to protect the openness and character of the District's Green Belt.
2. Ensure the minimum amount of Green Belt is allocated to meet the District's housing and employment needs, and that extensions to the residential envelope are in sustainable locations, which retain the individual identities of settlements and prevent coalescence
3. Ensure existing lawful businesses in the Green Belt are able to continue to function and contribute to the local economy, as appropriate, having regard to the impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt.
4. Ensure appropriate forms of diversification are encouraged to support the local rural economy and help achieve the vision of developing green tourism in the District.
Given the above the land referred to in the Strategic Housing Land Assessment should be considered as it meets the requirements for new housing as set out in points one and two above. There should also be an amendment to the current policy to release sustainable sites like this from the Green Belt and hence the support for option B to amend the current Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy.

Section/Paragraph - Site CFS171 (Land North of Rawreth Lane)
Section - Appendix Sites

I am opposed to the release of this green belt site for development, as it would have an entirely excessive impact on the small local community centres around Bedloes Corner.

Instead I would like to see this site acquired by the District Council for leisure purposes, extending the Rawreth recreation ground into a country park to serve the communities of the western end of the district (Rawreth, Hullbridge and West Rayleigh). It should be possible to use Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) obtained from releasing land for development elsewhere in the district to secure this land.

It should be remembered that the original land to create Cherry Orchard Country Park in Rochford was obtained because of a deal with Essex County Council that involved planning permission being granted for residential developments on the former Park School site in Rawreth, so it is only reasonable and fair that Rawreth now gets a country park back in return!

Such a country park could allow a greenway walking route to be developed from the recreation ground all the way through to Wheatley Wood in west Rayleigh (via the green space 'buffer strip' planned for the far end of the land already released for development between Rawreth Lane and London Road.

*THIS REPRESENTATION HAS AN ATTACHMENT*

ROCHFORD DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN - ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION (13 DEC 2017 - 7 MARCH 2018) - Persimmon Homes Representations

1.Introduction

Persimmon Homes welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Issues & Options version of the Rochford Local Plan.

Persimmon Homes are one of the UK's leading builders of new homes with a track record of delivery in the eastern region. They are particularly active in Essex therefore a developer with significant experience of both market and planning issues in the area, as well as being a 'user' of the development plan.

2Scope of representations

Persimmon Homes are promoting residential development at the following sustainable site that would assist Rochford meet its housing needs;

-Land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh (Site ID CSF087) - this 4.18 ha site was advanced as part of the 2015 call-for-sites. Submitted alongside this letter of representation is a 'Site Deliverability Statement: Development at Land south of Kingswood Crescent, Persimmon Homes, February 2018'.

3Representations

Duty to Co-operate
One of the required outcomes of the Duty to Co-operate is the delivery of full objectively assessed housing needs (OAHN) for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (HMA) as set out in the NPPF (para 47) including the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with sustainable development (NPPF para 182).

The Council defines its Housing Market Areas as including Basildon, Castle Point and Southend-on-Sea.

Local Authorities comprises Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock and Essex County Council have formed the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA). We note that as of the end of 2017 ASELA have prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Part of the aims of ASELA is to 'Open up spaces for housing, business and leisure development by developing a spatial strategy'.

It is evident from the experience at Castle Point that certain authorities have expressed a desire not to meet their full OAHN. It remains to be seen the establishment of this body will provide effective governance and a mechanism by which to ensure genuine co-operation to meet full OAHN. Many adjoining authorities within the northern part of Essex have not had to factor in meeting housing growth from ASELA Authorities and are significantly more advanced with their development plans than the majority of South Essex Authorities.

The need for market and affordable homes

Para 5.11 (p27) Strategic Priority 1

We are concerned that the Council's 'Strategic Priority 1: The homes and jobs needed in the area' is too narrow in its scope and does not accord with the NPPF

'To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs through prioritising the use of previously developed land first and working with our neighbours in South Essex'.

This implies that there is two routes to meeting housing and jobs; (1) opportunities on brownfield sites and (2) meeting unmet need via the Duty to Co-operate. The plans strategic policies should seek to deliver 'the homes and jobs needed in the area' in accordance with para 156 of the NPPF. The Council do not have the evidence to establish that it cannot meet its own development requirements. This strategic policy is unduly narrow and restrictive, does not accord with the NPPF and is not supported by evidence.

The issues and options document does not identify that the Council will undertake a Green Belt review. In terms of accommodating sustainable development that allows future generations to meet their needs, an assessment should be made of the wider sustainability issues of meeting its full OAHN housing requirements together with an assessment against the Green Belt purposes. This may lead to the identification of land released from the Green Belt to provide a portfolio of sites and is an arguable 'exceptional circumstance' for reviewing the boundary. The NPPF seeks to align Green Belt boundary review with sustainable patterns of development (paragraph 84).
There is a risk that constraining growth to previously developed land would not enable the Council to address its other strategic objectives, including supporting future housing need and addressing affordability issues (Objective 2) and supporting economic growth (Objectives 3 and 4). Unduly limiting growth would also not support Strategic Priorities 2 and 3 as this would limit growth in the economy and the opportunity to lever investment in infrastructure.

Strategic Priority 1 does not accord with the Governments policy to significantly boost housing supply. The draft amendments to the NPPF also sets out an expectation for objectively assessed needs to be accommodated unless there are strong reasons not to, including any unmet needs from neighbouring areas.

Objectively assessed needs

Council's SHMA identified objectively assessed housing need (OAN) for Rochford of between 331 and 361 dwellings per annum (dpa). 361 dpa is a 41% uplift on the 2014 based household projections. This level of housing is similar to the Government's standard methodology target.

The consultation identifies three options (p38):

A.meet our own needs as far as possible given environmental and other constraints

B.Work with other neighbouring LPAs to ensure the needs of the HMA are met

C.Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be made available to residents of Rochford first.

These are not mutually exclusive options. The first two are requirements of the NPPF.

As detailed above, we are concerned that the Council's Strategic Priority has been too narrowly framed and is not NPPF compliant. In addition, the Council should commit to a Green Belt review to help it assess the extent it can meet full OAHN and comply with para 14 of the NPPF.

In relation to Option 'c', we consider that there is no national planning policy support to limit a percentage of market homes to qualifying residents of Rochford. Furthermore, such a policy would be anti-competitive and discriminatory. It is relevant to note that no surrounding authorities, including those within the HMA, have policy that seeks to restrict occupation of market homes. Such a policy should impede social mobility, including the need to provide houses to support economic growth.

The Council should plan to meet full OAHN which will ensure that the needs of Rochford are met in full, including for those who aspire or need to live in the borough in the future. We strongly suggest that the Council does not advance option 'C' as to do so would risk the soundness of the plan.

Affordable Homes (p39 - 6.32)

In line with the NPPF, the development plan needs to be deliverable. Levels of affordable housing need to be informed by an assessment of housing need and what developments can viably support. Para 173 of the NPPF is clear that 'the scale of development identified in the
plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened'.

The Council should look to establish the level of affordable housing based on a thorough understanding of development viability. As there is a high level of need, the Council should assess the potential to deliver a higher housing figure as this would increase the total supply.

Homes for older people and Adults with disabilities

Any policy on optional accessibility standards will need to be fully justified, as required by paragraph 56-007 in PPG, on the basis of need, viability and the accessibility and adaptability of the existing housing stock.

Council needs to consider the impact on viability of the scale of obligations and policy burdens sought, including delivering both the lower and higher accessibility standards set out in part M4 of the Building Regulations.

Part M4(3) should not be application to market homes. PPG states: "Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling."

(Paragraph 56-009).

Delivering our Need for Homes (p46)

We note the existing settlement hierarchy.

It is too early in the process to discount any of the options set out at para 6.48. It is considered that the Council should not unduly constrain itself and needs to fully investigate the options based on robust evidence. We consider that the Council should undertake a review of its Green Belt and assess the extent to which this could assist in meeting the full OAHN.

In terms of option 'E' 'A new settlement', the Council will need to consider the extent to which this could be delivered within the plan period, the associated complexities and the critical mass needed to ensure it would be sustainable.

Good Mix of Homes (p46-48)

We support Option A which retains a flexible approach to the type of market homes delivered. It is considered that a target a mix for affordable homes is appropriate, subject to flexibility to ensure that it can reflect the specific circumstances of the site.

Option C - The current adopted plan contains minimum habitable floorspace standards within Table 3. Whilst the 'National Technical Housing Standards - nationally described space standards' have superseded these by default, it is relevant to note that the Council Standards were derived from HCA and are in the most part are not as high as the NPSS. Therefore the previous plan assessed a less onerous standard.
Paragraphs 174 and 177 of the NPPF make it clear that via the Local Plan process LPAs should assess the cumulative impact of policy burden, including housing standards, to ensure that it does not put implementation of the plan at serious risk.

The new Ministerial Statement stated the following: "The optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Guidance."

Accompanying this, Paragraph 001 Reference ID:56-001-20150327 of the NPPG made it clear that LPAs will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans. Paragraph 002 Reference ID 56-002-20160519 of the NPPG confirms that LPAs should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment.

The new NPPG section provided substantial guidance in terms of the implementation of the new regime including specific advice on the individual standards which are discussed below.

NPPG sets out clear criteria which Councils must satisfy in order to adopt optional NDSSs over and above the requirements of Building Regulations.

Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas:

*need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes.

*Viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted.

*timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions.

The guidance effectively sets out three stages which must be overcome to ensure the NDSSs are only applied where needed and impacts are fully considered.

In the recently Housing White Paper the Government have confirmed their view that the fundamentals of the Building Regulations system remain sound and that important steps were taken in the last Parliament.

In relation to Space Standards, paragraph 1.55 states that "the use of minimum space standards for new development is seen as an important tool in delivering quality family homes. However the Government is concerned that a one size fits all approach may not reflect the needs and aspirations of a wider range of households. For example, despite being highly desirable, many traditional mews houses could not be built under today's standards.
We also want to make sure the standards do not rule out new approaches to meeting demand, building on the high quality compact living model of developers such as Pocket Homes. The Government will review the Nationally Described Space Standard to ensure greater local housing choice, while ensuring we avoid a race to the bottom in the size of homes on offer."

The above confirms the Government's intentions to review NDSSs. This does not have any immediate impact upon Colchester's emerging plan. However, it does demonstrate the Government's unease with a one size fits all approach and its desire to ensure greater local housing choice. Unfortunately, introduction of the NDSSs would narrow the choice available at the expense of affordability and viability.

Option E - We do not consider it appropriate to include a requirement for bungalows. This would reduce the density of development. In addition, modern homes are often capable of adaptable to assist accessibility.

In terms of density (p50), we support the Council's use of minimum density to ensure efficient use of land. The Council will need to ensure it is clear as to where higher minimum densities would be appropriate and assess where these should apply. If higher densities are applied in certain locations, policies should be framed to ensure that there is a recognition that new development may be of a scale and density which is distinct from the prevailing character of the area.

Renewable Energy Generation (p98)

The cost of any additional measures will need to be factored into an assessment of viability.

Planning Obligations and Standard Charges (p99)

The Council should ensure that reliance upon s106 with the associated pooling restrictions do not impede growth. The options do not consider the role of CIL.

Early Years and Childcare Provision (P109)

It is considered that whilst expanding existing education facilities may play a role, the scale of development may warrant identifying sites for education purposes. It is considered that this option should not be ruled out.

Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation (p115)

The Council should not only review its policy, but look at the opportunities that development brings to secure new open space and Green Infrastructure.

As detailed in the attached promotional document, the development of part of land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh (CSF087) provides the opportunity to formalise footpath routes and improve access to Green Infrastructure in this locality.
Green Belt (p121)

As detailed above, the Council needs to consider its options to meet its full OAHN, including the implications for the Green Belt in doing so. The Council need to undertake a review of its Green Belt to understand the degree to which land under this designation continues to support the purposes as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF and to consider whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would support amendments to the current boundary.

It is considered unhelpful to frame the options in relation to the current Core Strategy which addresses a different plan period and does not seek to meet the current OAHN.

Good Design and Building Efficiency (p135)

Paragraph 10.63 sets out seven options with regard efficiency standard in buildings.

We support option G not to have a policy on energy efficiency standards. Any other approach would be inconsistent with the Government's approach to building standards which it limits to those optional technical standards set out in the PPG.

Mix of Affordable Homes

It is evident that the Council needs to deliver more housing, including affordable housing. We consider that the Council's policy needs to be reviewed in light of evidence of need, viability and changes to national guidance. The government introduced 'affordable rent' in 2011 and this needs to be reflected in policy.

Self Build and Custom Homes

Emphasis should be on the local authority using their own land and as part of their overall housing strategy finding the necessary plots. Option A is inconsistent with national policy as it seeks to impose a proportion of self-build plots on developers. We recommend that the option B is the most appropriate.

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt (p156)

As part of the Green Belt review the Council should look at opportunities to develop previously developed sites in the Green Belt. In undertaking this exercise, the Council should look at the opportunities this presents to build sustainable extensions to settlements and the benefit that may arise in terms of providing affordable housing within settlements that may not otherwise arise. Sites of former glasshouses and redundant agricultural buildings close to or within settlements offer opportunities for housing.

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of these representations.

*THIS REPRESENTATION INCLUDES AN ATTACHMENT*

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Housing, Essex County Council in
support of land to the south of the former Adult Community Learning Centre ("ACL Centre"),
Rocheway, Rochford (hereby referred to as the "Site").
1.2 The Site is owned by Essex County Council ("ECC") and is currently designated as open space in
the adopted Local Plan. It is used under licence for 10 months of the year by Hambro Colts, a local
youth football team which has aspirations to relocate back to its original home in Rayleigh and is
working collaboratively with ECC to do so. The site is not used for any other purpose despite its
designation.
1.3 The New Local Plan presents Rochford District Council (RDC) with an opportunity to take a
comprehensive approach to the consideration of open space provision alongside housing and
employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would
support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate. This should be informed by
emerging evidence and in consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, including Sport England.
1.4 In this context we therefore consider that the Site has excellent residential redevelopment potential
taking account of its sustainable location within walking distance of Rochford town centre and the
opportunity presented by the extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the former ACL
Centre, granted under 17/00102/FUL, which would provide means of vehicle access to the Site
from the north.
Summary of representations
1.5 Taking account of the above, our representations may be summarised as follows:
● We consider the RDC should plan to meet its full objectively assessed housing need across
the Plan period, within its own administrative boundaries;
● This should take place via the allocation of large scale extensions to existing higher order
settlements in the hierarchy, such as Rochford;
● We consider that RDC needs to undertake a Green Belt Review to assist in the identification of land parcels that do not perform a strong Green Belt function, such as the playing fields south of the former ACL Centre, Rocheway;
● RDC needs to take a comprehensive approach to the assessment of open space provision as part of its Local Plan review. This means considering open space provision alongside housing and employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate.

2.0 The Site

2.1 The extent of the Site is shown on the accompanying plan at Appendix 1 of this document. The Site is currently designated as open space under adopted policy OSL1 and it falls within the Green Belt.

*PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FOR MAP* Above: The Site in context. Note its proximity to Rochford town centre approximately 400 metres to the west.

2.2 The Site is formed of playing fields to the south of the former ACL Centre, constructed in the mid-
1930s as a school which was later converted to its most recent use. The designated open space to the south of the ACL was therefore originally intended as a playing field for the school and not as a purpose built public space.

2.3 The Site is defined by strong physical hedgerow boundaries to its western, southern and eastern sides. Designated amenity open space at Millview Meadows is immediately to the west of the site and arable agricultural land is to the east. The Site located within easy walking distance of Rochford town centre's many services, facilities and retail offer via safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian routes. Rochford town centre also offers regular bus routes to Southend-on-Sea and Rayleigh and mainline railway links to London Liverpool Street and London Southend Airport. The Site is considered to be sustainably located.

The playing pitches on the Site are currently used under licence for 10 months of the year by the
Hambro Colts, a Rayleigh-based youth football team, for training purposes and on matchdays. The
pitches remain unused for the remainder of the monthly schedule. The Hambro Colts temporarily
relocated from Rayleigh to the current Rocheway Site some years ago, but due to a lack of
available alternative site in the Rayleigh area, have not been able to return to their home location.
It is the club's ultimate intention to do so and is in collaboration with ECC to ensure that suitable
facilities can be delivered equitably.

2.5 Taking account of these existing constraints, we recognise that the appropriate manner for this development potential to be realised is through the new Local Plan, in full consultation with the relevant statutory bodies. This would ensure that any requirements for the quanta and location of open space re-provision may be devised in a collaborative way and in accordance with emerging evidence of need. We also propose that the Green Belt boundary is amended as part of the new Local Plan so that the Site may be included within a revised development boundary for Rochford.

3.0 The Evidence Base
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
3.1 The Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA), prepared in 2017,
identifies that the Site is suitable, available and that housing development is achievable. A copy
of that assessment is contained at Appendix 2 of this document.
Open Space Provision
3.2 The evidence of relevance to the Site includes the Open Space Study (2009) and Playing Pitch
Strategy (2012), both prepared by RDC in support of its adopted Development Plan. They
identified at the time of their publication that:
● The Site is one of 48 outdoor sports facilities in the District, which collectively provide a total of
1.6 hectares per 1000 population (excluding golf courses) across Rochford. This falls slightly
short of the recommended 1.8ha per 1000 population standard;
● When provision is assessed across the District by ward, the ward in which the Site is located
has an identified surplus in provision;
● There is an imbalance in geographical spread of play space provision - players tend to reside
on the western side of the District (i.e. Rayleigh and to the west of the District in Wickford and
Basildon) thus clubs travel further to the east (including Rochford) to use pitches.
● There is a shortage of mini and junior football pitches - note that during its preparation, the
Playing Pitch Strategy identified the opening of a new facility at Priory Chase in Rayleigh which includes three mini pitches and two junior pitches. As this new facility was not considered as part of the study, it is considered that this provision would contribute to the shortage - both in terms of geographical spread and type of playing space; and
● Outdoor sports facilities are one of the least visited types of open space, assessed as being only moderately needed in the District, after other types of open space such as natural and semi-natural greenspaces, amenity spaces and play space;
● The Site at Rocheway is listed in the Open Spaces Study as an "Outdoor Sports Facility" but, unlike other such facilities listed in the document, is not individually assessed. The evidence therefore provides no overall conclusion or commentary on the quality or suitability of the Site for recreational purposes at present. We would expect this to be updated and to include the Site as part of the evidence base underpinning the new Local Plan.

3.3 It is possible to ascertain from the above that any historic under-provision of playing pitches in the District may have been met by the introduction of new dedicated play space in the western side of the District, thereby re-balancing an uneven geographical spread previously weighted more heavily to the east.

3.4 It is there of utmost important that RDC updates its assessment of open space provision and need as part of the new Local Plan, including all sites currently designated as open space including an assessment of the Rocheway Site.

4.0 Responses to Issues and Options Questionnaire

4.1 Taking account of the above, we set out our responses to the questions raised in the Issues and Options document which are of relevance to Rochford and to the Site.

Strategic Priority 1: The homes and jobs needed in the area
Question SP1.1 - We have a real identified need for affordable homes in the district and an ageing population, so how do we sustainably meet our need for market and affordable homes, and homes for older people and adults with disabilities over the next 20 years?
Our comments on the identified issues in respect of objectively assessed housing need:

4.2 We support RDC's acknowledgement of the district's objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) for Rochford District.

4.3 We note that RDC states that the Core Strategy housing target of 250 homes per year has been challenging to meet, due to factors beyond its control (Issues and Options document para 6.18).
The OAHN for the district is even higher than the Core Strategy figure; a range of between 331 and 362 new homes will be needed per year. If the Council is to deliver the new homes that are needed to support the employment and economic growth anticipated in the district within the Plan period as part of the wider strategy, we consider it imperative that the new Local Plan seeks to plan to facilitate growth, allowing sufficient flexibility so that it is resilient to change and/or under-delivery.
We therefore consider that the new Local Plan should plan to meet the higher 362 per annum figure. Our position in this respect is supported by the Framework, which clearly requires local
planning authorities to "boost significantly the supply of housing" (para 47) by "using their evidence
base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full [our emphasis] objectively assessed needs".

Our comments on the identified options in respect of objectively assessed need:

4.4 The options as set out are:
A. Seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within our own area, as far as possible, given environmental and other constraints.
B. Work with neighbouring authorities to ensure that housing need across the South Essex Housing Market Area is effectively met.
C. Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be available to residents on a first-come first served basis for a limited period of time.

4.5 Taking account of the issues highlighted above, we consider that Option A is the most appropriate; RDC should seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within its own area. If RDC were to propose that its neighbouring authorities take a proportion of unmet need, it must be satisfied that it had first passed the test set by Planning Practice Guidance, which makes it clear that under the duty to cooperate "local planning authorities should have explored all available options for delivering the planning strategy within their own planning area" (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 9-003-20140306). RDC notes that it is subject to environmental and other policy constraints (including Green Belt); RDC's neighbouring authorities within the South Essex Housing Market Area are subject to similar environmental and policy constraints. We are not aware of any other local authorities in this situation that have successfully demonstrated the soundness of an approach at Examination that seeks to reduce the amount of housing growth against the evidence.

4.6 RDC should therefore plan to meet its full OAHN within its own administrative boundaries as part of the new Local Plan.

Question SP1.3 - How do we plan for and facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next 20 years within the district?
Our comments on the issues:

4.7 We note that the Issues and Options document identifies the settlement hierarchy as set out in the adopted Core Strategy (2011), as follows:

TIER SETTLEMENTS
1 Rayleigh;
Rochford / Ashingdon;
Hockley / Hawkwell.
2 Hullbridge;
Great Wakering
3 Canewdon
4 All other settlements

4.8 The table shows that Rochford sits within the top tier of settlements in the adopted Core Strategy.

Having regard to its sustainable location with easy access to public transport opportunities including mainline rail and London Southend Airport, range of services and amenities, we consider that the settlement hierarchy should remain the basis for spatial planning in Rochford district as part of the new Local Plan, because this has not fundamentally changed in the time since the Core
Strategy was adopted.

Our comments on the options:
4.9 The realistic options as set out are:
A. Increasing density within the existing residential area - which would require an
amendment to the 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.

We consider that option D is the most appropriate method of meeting RDC's housing needs.
Taking account of the district's spatial and environmental characteristics, existing settlement
hierarchy and structure, several fewer larger extensions to existing sustainable settlements
including Rochford provide the only realistic method of delivering on the scale required to meet
RDC's full OAHN.
4.11 Our reasoning for this approach is because options A and B would drastically alter the character
of existing settlements and residential land allocations to the extent that would be damaging to
existing character and environmentally. Furthermore these options would be ineffective in meeting
the scale of OAHN the Plan needs to accommodate over the next 20 years.
4.12 We do not consider that Option C would deliver sufficient CIL or s106 receipts to enable the
cumulative impacts of several small extensions to existing residential areas to be adequately mitigated. This would create larger problems for the future, which would be unsustainable and fail to address the key priorities identified in the consultation document.

4.13 Option E would require such substantial infrastructure and funding to make development both acceptable and deliverable and this would seriously inhibit the ability of development to deliver other planning policy objectives, such as affordable housing provision. In any event, we do not consider that the district displays the type of spatial characteristics that could allow it to successfully accommodate a new settlement under Option E.

4.14 This means that the only reasonable option is Option D. The Issues and Options document acknowledges that larger extensions to existing residential areas of sustainable settlements, such as Rochford, can contribute more to improving existing infrastructure and deliver new infrastructure through s106 agreements and CIL to mitigate the impact of any scheme. We agree with and support this approach.

Strategic Priority 4: Supporting Health, Community and Culture

Question SP4.3 - How do we plan to meet the needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities across the district over the next 20 years?
Our comments on the identified issues:

4.15 We note and support RDC in updating its evidence on the demand for playing pitches and that this is needed to inform the planning of future provision. We also support the collaboration with neighbouring authorities on a strategic scale because this would capture trends of movement to and from areas of open space that might otherwise remain unidentified. It is evident from the existing evidence base (refer to section 3 of this document above) that it is not possible for RDC to make informed (and therefore sound) decisions on spatial planning matters without first having a full appreciation of the quantum and quality of all existing open space within the District, including the Rocheway Site.

We also consider that the updated evidence should form part of a comprehensive strategy that considers housing and economic development needs in the round. This is particularly important because as Rochford is a Green Belt authority, it falls to be considered under Framework paragraph 84 in which RDC will need to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as part of a Green Belt Review. Furthermore, Framework paragraph 74 allows the replacement of existing open space with equivalent or better provision in terms of quality and quantity in suitable locations.

4.17 Where under-utilised open space exists in sustainable locations, it would be inappropriate for RDC to overlook the development potential of such sites if such opportunities were considered alongside proposals for their re-provision in more suitable locations, where appropriate.

4.18 The policy approach to this is supported by National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 158 which, in respect of plan-making, says that "local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals." Furthermore, paragraph 70 says that planning policies and decisions should ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services."

4.19 We consider that RDC should use the Local Plan Review to comprehensively consider its approach to the provision and location of open spaces so that opportunities for their use and participation in sport may be maximised. Such an approach would enable new development to be delivered in the most sustainable locations, boosting the health of the community, therefore delivering a range of wider sustainability objectives.
Our comments on the identified options:
4.20 The options set out are:
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.

4.21 We consider that RDC should pursue option B. We recognise the value of designated existing open space but the policy must be updated where relevant to properly reflect the most up-to-date evidence of identified local need. This should take account of shifts in patterns of development, take account of new development and changing trends in use of open space, including playing pitches. Crucially the evidence needs to fully assess in quantitative and qualitative terms the quality of all presently designated open spaces across the district, including the Rocheway Site.

4.22 The designated open space at the Site on Rocheway is only used by one youth football team under licence for 10 months of the year. It is not used by any other group at any other point despite its open space designation. If the existing youth football team were to relocate to premises better suited to its requirements, coupled with an emerging RDC open space strategy that enables the re-apportionment of open space where evidenced, this would present an excellent opportunity for the Site to be re-allocated for residential development; in a sustainable location. This would make
best use of underutilised land and would promote sustainable patterns of development. We recognise and would support the reapportionment of designated playing pitches undertaken in full collaboration with Sport England.

Strategic Priority 5: Protecting and Enhancing our Environment

SP5.1 - How do we balance protection of the district's Green Belt that meets the five Green
Belt purposes, against the need to deliver new homes and jobs across the district, and the wider South Essex area?

Our comments on the issue are as follows:

4.23 We note that the Local Plan document identifies the Green Belt as a planning designation that is given to land, which can include both greenfield and brownfield land in areas with potentially varying landscape quality (paragraph 10.5). We also note that the document acknowledges the national commitment to increase the number of new homes (paragraph 10.12). It would be posible to balance these competing objectives by ensuring that a fully up-to-date evidence base is in place to support the new Local Plan. This should include a Green Belt Review of all such designated land within the district, a process which the Framework facilitates.

4.24 The Framework enables the review of Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or review of a Local Plan (paragraph 83). It also advises local planning authorities to take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development when drawing up Green Belt boundaries
(paragraph 84). Furthermore, it says that local planning authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the Green Belt boundary (paragraph 84).
4.25 We consider that the competing objectives of Green Belt protection and delivery of new homes and jobs across the district can be reconciled as part of the new Local Plan process, but to do so requires the right evidence in place; this should include a Green Belt Review.
Our comments on the options:
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.

4.26 We support Option B; Core Strategy Policy GB1 (Green Belt Protection) needs to be updated to take account of and adequately plan for the district's FOAN, as identified through the evidence base. To reconcile the issues of Green Belt protection and the need to deliver growth, the new Local Plan must be accompanied by an integrated approach to evidence base; it must contain a Green Belt Review as part of that process; this has not yet been undertaken by RDC. A Green
Belt Review would enable RDC to assess land parcels against the five Green Belt purposes:
● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
4.27 Only once the Green Belt Review is complete, RDC may then come to an informed view on how it intends to deliver sustainable patterns of development. Under Framework paragraph 182, this is fundamental to the test of soundness.

5.0 Summary

5.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Housing, Essex County Council, in support of the Land south of the former Adult Community Learning Centre, Rocheway, Rochford.
5.2 The site is currently designated as open space in the Local Plan but it is only used by one youth football team, Hambro Colts, who have aspirations to relocate back to a suitable site closer to their original home in Rayleigh. The Colts are in collaboration with ECC to enable them to do so.
Allocation of this underused, yet sustainably located, parcel of land for residential development would enable Rochford District Council to:
● Promote sustainable patterns of development in the New Local Plan; and
● Plan for open space and playing pitch provision in a comprehensive manner, taking account of
emerging evidence of need, housing and employment growth.
5.3 Our review of RDC's evidence base of relevance to open space provision reveals that it needs to be fully updated as part of the new Local Plan process and that its scope needs to include all sites currently designated as open space. The evidence underpinning the adopted Development Plan suggests that this is presently not the case. Only with a comprehensive assessment of such provision could RDC make fully informed, robust and therefore sound planning policy decisions on the District's growth.
5.4 In conclusion we therefore consider that:
● RDC should plan to meet its full objectively assessed housing need across the Plan period, within its own administrative boundaries;
● This should take place via the allocation of large scale extensions to existing higher order settlements in the hierarchy, such as Rochford;
● RDC should undertake a Green Belt Review to assist in the identification of land parcels that do not perform a strong Green Belt function, such as the playing fields south of the former ACL Centre, Rocheway;
● RDC needs to take a comprehensive approach to the assessment of open space provision as part of its Local Plan review. This means considering open space provision alongside housing and employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate. This should be informed by emerging evidence and in consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, including Sport England.
● The Site is considered favourably in the SHELAA in which it is defined as suitable, available and that development would be achievable.

*THIS REPRESENTATION INCLUDES AN ATTACHMENT*

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Housing, Essex County Council in
support of land to the south of the former Adult Community Learning Centre ("ACL Centre"),
Rocheway, Rochford (hereby referred to as the "Site").
1.2 The Site is owned by Essex County Council ("ECC") and is currently designated as open space in
the adopted Local Plan. It is used under licence for 10 months of the year by Hambro Colts, a local
youth football team which has aspirations to relocate back to its original home in Rayleigh and is
working collaboratively with ECC to do so. The site is not used for any other purpose despite its
designation.
1.3 The New Local Plan presents Rochford District Council (RDC) with an opportunity to take a
comprehensive approach to the consideration of open space provision alongside housing and
employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would
support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate. This should be informed by
emerging evidence and in consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, including Sport England.
1.4 In this context we therefore consider that the Site has excellent residential redevelopment potential
taking account of its sustainable location within walking distance of Rochford town centre and the
opportunity presented by the extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the former ACL
Centre, granted under 17/00102/FUL, which would provide means of vehicle access to the Site
from the north.
Summary of representations
1.5 Taking account of the above, our representations may be summarised as follows:
● We consider the RDC should plan to meet its full objectively assessed housing need across
the Plan period, within its own administrative boundaries;
● This should take place via the allocation of large scale extensions to existing higher order
settlements in the hierarchy, such as Rochford;
● We consider that RDC needs to undertake a Green Belt Review to assist in the identification of land parcels that do not perform a strong Green Belt function, such as the playing fields south of the former ACL Centre, Rocheway;
● RDC needs to take a comprehensive approach to the assessment of open space provision as part of its Local Plan review. This means considering open space provision alongside housing and employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate.

2.0 The Site

2.1 The extent of the Site is shown on the accompanying plan at Appendix 1 of this document. The Site is currently designated as open space under adopted policy OSL1 and it falls within the Green Belt.

*PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FOR MAP* Above: The Site in context. Note its proximity to Rochford town centre approximately 400 metres to the west.

2.2 The Site is formed of playing fields to the south of the former ACL Centre, constructed in the mid-
1930s as a school which was later converted to its most recent use. The designated open space to the south of the ACL was therefore originally intended as a playing field for the school and not as a purpose built public space.

2.3 The Site is defined by strong physical hedgerow boundaries to its western, southern and eastern sides. Designated amenity open space at Millview Meadows is immediately to the west of the site and arable agricultural land is to the east. The Site located within easy walking distance of Rochford town centre's many services, facilities and retail offer via safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian routes. Rochford town centre also offers regular bus routes to Southend-on-Sea and Rayleigh and mainline railway links to London Liverpool Street and London Southend Airport. The Site is considered to be sustainably located.

The playing pitches on the Site are currently used under licence for 10 months of the year by the
Hambro Colts, a Rayleigh-based youth football team, for training purposes and on matchdays. The
pitches remain unused for the remainder of the monthly schedule. The Hambro Colts temporarily
relocated from Rayleigh to the current Rocheway Site some years ago, but due to a lack of
available alternative site in the Rayleigh area, have not been able to return to their home location.
It is the club's ultimate intention to do so and is in collaboration with ECC to ensure that suitable
facilities can be delivered equitably.

2.5 Taking account of these existing constraints, we recognise that the appropriate manner for this development potential to be realised is through the new Local Plan, in full consultation with the relevant statutory bodies. This would ensure that any requirements for the quanta and location of open space re-provision may be devised in a collaborative way and in accordance with emerging evidence of need. We also propose that the Green Belt boundary is amended as part of the new Local Plan so that the Site may be included within a revised development boundary for Rochford.

3.0 The Evidence Base
Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
3.1 The Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA), prepared in 2017,
identifies that the Site is suitable, available and that housing development is achievable. A copy
of that assessment is contained at Appendix 2 of this document.
Open Space Provision
3.2 The evidence of relevance to the Site includes the Open Space Study (2009) and Playing Pitch
Strategy (2012), both prepared by RDC in support of its adopted Development Plan. They
identified at the time of their publication that:
● The Site is one of 48 outdoor sports facilities in the District, which collectively provide a total of
1.6 hectares per 1000 population (excluding golf courses) across Rochford. This falls slightly
short of the recommended 1.8ha per 1000 population standard;
● When provision is assessed across the District by ward, the ward in which the Site is located
has an identified surplus in provision;
● There is an imbalance in geographical spread of play space provision - players tend to reside
on the western side of the District (i.e. Rayleigh and to the west of the District in Wickford and
Basildon) thus clubs travel further to the east (including Rochford) to use pitches.
● There is a shortage of mini and junior football pitches - note that during its preparation, the
Playing Pitch Strategy identified the opening of a new facility at Priory Chase in Rayleigh which includes three mini pitches and two junior pitches. As this new facility was not considered as part of the study, it is considered that this provision would contribute to the shortage - both in terms of geographical spread and type of playing space; and
● Outdoor sports facilities are one of the least visited types of open space, assessed as being only moderately needed in the District, after other types of open space such as natural and semi-natural greenspaces, amenity spaces and play space;
● The Site at Rocheway is listed in the Open Spaces Study as an "Outdoor Sports Facility" but, unlike other such facilities listed in the document, is not individually assessed. The evidence therefore provides no overall conclusion or commentary on the quality or suitability of the Site for recreational purposes at present. We would expect this to be updated and to include the Site as part of the evidence base underpinning the new Local Plan.

3.3 It is possible to ascertain from the above that any historic under-provision of playing pitches in the District may have been met by the introduction of new dedicated play space in the western side of the District, thereby re-balancing an uneven geographical spread previously weighted more heavily to the east.

3.4 It is there of utmost important that RDC updates its assessment of open space provision and need as part of the new Local Plan, including all sites currently designated as open space including an assessment of the Rocheway Site.

4.0 Responses to Issues and Options Questionnaire

4.1 Taking account of the above, we set out our responses to the questions raised in the Issues and Options document which are of relevance to Rochford and to the Site.

Strategic Priority 1: The homes and jobs needed in the area
Question SP1.1 - We have a real identified need for affordable homes in the district and an ageing population, so how do we sustainably meet our need for market and affordable homes, and homes for older people and adults with disabilities over the next 20 years?
Our comments on the identified issues in respect of objectively assessed housing need:

4.2 We support RDC's acknowledgement of the district's objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) for Rochford District.

4.3 We note that RDC states that the Core Strategy housing target of 250 homes per year has been challenging to meet, due to factors beyond its control (Issues and Options document para 6.18).
The OAHN for the district is even higher than the Core Strategy figure; a range of between 331 and 362 new homes will be needed per year. If the Council is to deliver the new homes that are needed to support the employment and economic growth anticipated in the district within the Plan period as part of the wider strategy, we consider it imperative that the new Local Plan seeks to plan to facilitate growth, allowing sufficient flexibility so that it is resilient to change and/or under-delivery.
We therefore consider that the new Local Plan should plan to meet the higher 362 per annum figure. Our position in this respect is supported by the Framework, which clearly requires local
planning authorities to "boost significantly the supply of housing" (para 47) by "using their evidence
base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full [our emphasis] objectively assessed needs".

Our comments on the identified options in respect of objectively assessed need:

4.4 The options as set out are:
A. Seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within our own area, as far as possible, given environmental and other constraints.
B. Work with neighbouring authorities to ensure that housing need across the South Essex Housing Market Area is effectively met.
C. Consider a policy requirement to deliver a percentage of new market homes on schemes to be available to residents on a first-come first served basis for a limited period of time.

4.5 Taking account of the issues highlighted above, we consider that Option A is the most appropriate; RDC should seek to provide as much of the district's housing need within its own area. If RDC were to propose that its neighbouring authorities take a proportion of unmet need, it must be satisfied that it had first passed the test set by Planning Practice Guidance, which makes it clear that under the duty to cooperate "local planning authorities should have explored all available options for delivering the planning strategy within their own planning area" (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 9-003-20140306). RDC notes that it is subject to environmental and other policy constraints (including Green Belt); RDC's neighbouring authorities within the South Essex Housing Market Area are subject to similar environmental and policy constraints. We are not aware of any other local authorities in this situation that have successfully demonstrated the soundness of an approach at Examination that seeks to reduce the amount of housing growth against the evidence.

4.6 RDC should therefore plan to meet its full OAHN within its own administrative boundaries as part of the new Local Plan.

Question SP1.3 - How do we plan for and facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next 20 years within the district?
Our comments on the issues:

4.7 We note that the Issues and Options document identifies the settlement hierarchy as set out in the adopted Core Strategy (2011), as follows:

TIER SETTLEMENTS
1 Rayleigh;
Rochford / Ashingdon;
Hockley / Hawkwell.
2 Hullbridge;
Great Wakering
3 Canewdon
4 All other settlements

4.8 The table shows that Rochford sits within the top tier of settlements in the adopted Core Strategy.

Having regard to its sustainable location with easy access to public transport opportunities including mainline rail and London Southend Airport, range of services and amenities, we consider that the settlement hierarchy should remain the basis for spatial planning in Rochford district as part of the new Local Plan, because this has not fundamentally changed in the time since the Core
Strategy was adopted.

Our comments on the options:
4.9 The realistic options as set out are:
A. Increasing density within the existing residential area - which would require an
amendment to the 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.

We consider that option D is the most appropriate method of meeting RDC's housing needs.
Taking account of the district's spatial and environmental characteristics, existing settlement
hierarchy and structure, several fewer larger extensions to existing sustainable settlements
including Rochford provide the only realistic method of delivering on the scale required to meet
RDC's full OAHN.
4.11 Our reasoning for this approach is because options A and B would drastically alter the character
of existing settlements and residential land allocations to the extent that would be damaging to
existing character and environmentally. Furthermore these options would be ineffective in meeting
the scale of OAHN the Plan needs to accommodate over the next 20 years.
4.12 We do not consider that Option C would deliver sufficient CIL or s106 receipts to enable the
cumulative impacts of several small extensions to existing residential areas to be adequately mitigated. This would create larger problems for the future, which would be unsustainable and fail to address the key priorities identified in the consultation document.

4.13 Option E would require such substantial infrastructure and funding to make development both acceptable and deliverable and this would seriously inhibit the ability of development to deliver other planning policy objectives, such as affordable housing provision. In any event, we do not consider that the district displays the type of spatial characteristics that could allow it to successfully accommodate a new settlement under Option E.

4.14 This means that the only reasonable option is Option D. The Issues and Options document acknowledges that larger extensions to existing residential areas of sustainable settlements, such as Rochford, can contribute more to improving existing infrastructure and deliver new infrastructure through s106 agreements and CIL to mitigate the impact of any scheme. We agree with and support this approach.

Strategic Priority 4: Supporting Health, Community and Culture

Question SP4.3 - How do we plan to meet the needs for open space, sports and recreational facilities across the district over the next 20 years?
Our comments on the identified issues:

4.15 We note and support RDC in updating its evidence on the demand for playing pitches and that this is needed to inform the planning of future provision. We also support the collaboration with neighbouring authorities on a strategic scale because this would capture trends of movement to and from areas of open space that might otherwise remain unidentified. It is evident from the existing evidence base (refer to section 3 of this document above) that it is not possible for RDC to make informed (and therefore sound) decisions on spatial planning matters without first having a full appreciation of the quantum and quality of all existing open space within the District, including the Rocheway Site.

We also consider that the updated evidence should form part of a comprehensive strategy that considers housing and economic development needs in the round. This is particularly important because as Rochford is a Green Belt authority, it falls to be considered under Framework paragraph 84 in which RDC will need to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development as part of a Green Belt Review. Furthermore, Framework paragraph 74 allows the replacement of existing open space with equivalent or better provision in terms of quality and quantity in suitable locations.

4.17 Where under-utilised open space exists in sustainable locations, it would be inappropriate for RDC to overlook the development potential of such sites if such opportunities were considered alongside proposals for their re-provision in more suitable locations, where appropriate.

4.18 The policy approach to this is supported by National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 158 which, in respect of plan-making, says that "local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals." Furthermore, paragraph 70 says that planning policies and decisions should ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services."

4.19 We consider that RDC should use the Local Plan Review to comprehensively consider its approach to the provision and location of open spaces so that opportunities for their use and participation in sport may be maximised. Such an approach would enable new development to be delivered in the most sustainable locations, boosting the health of the community, therefore delivering a range of wider sustainability objectives.
Our comments on the identified options:
4.20 The options set out are:
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.

4.21 We consider that RDC should pursue option B. We recognise the value of designated existing open space but the policy must be updated where relevant to properly reflect the most up-to-date evidence of identified local need. This should take account of shifts in patterns of development, take account of new development and changing trends in use of open space, including playing pitches. Crucially the evidence needs to fully assess in quantitative and qualitative terms the quality of all presently designated open spaces across the district, including the Rocheway Site.

4.22 The designated open space at the Site on Rocheway is only used by one youth football team under licence for 10 months of the year. It is not used by any other group at any other point despite its open space designation. If the existing youth football team were to relocate to premises better suited to its requirements, coupled with an emerging RDC open space strategy that enables the re-apportionment of open space where evidenced, this would present an excellent opportunity for the Site to be re-allocated for residential development; in a sustainable location. This would make
best use of underutilised land and would promote sustainable patterns of development. We recognise and would support the reapportionment of designated playing pitches undertaken in full collaboration with Sport England.

Strategic Priority 5: Protecting and Enhancing our Environment

SP5.1 - How do we balance protection of the district's Green Belt that meets the five Green
Belt purposes, against the need to deliver new homes and jobs across the district, and the wider South Essex area?

Our comments on the issue are as follows:

4.23 We note that the Local Plan document identifies the Green Belt as a planning designation that is given to land, which can include both greenfield and brownfield land in areas with potentially varying landscape quality (paragraph 10.5). We also note that the document acknowledges the national commitment to increase the number of new homes (paragraph 10.12). It would be posible to balance these competing objectives by ensuring that a fully up-to-date evidence base is in place to support the new Local Plan. This should include a Green Belt Review of all such designated land within the district, a process which the Framework facilitates.

4.24 The Framework enables the review of Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or review of a Local Plan (paragraph 83). It also advises local planning authorities to take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development when drawing up Green Belt boundaries
(paragraph 84). Furthermore, it says that local planning authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the Green Belt boundary (paragraph 84).
4.25 We consider that the competing objectives of Green Belt protection and delivery of new homes and jobs across the district can be reconciled as part of the new Local Plan process, but to do so requires the right evidence in place; this should include a Green Belt Review.
Our comments on the options:
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.

4.26 We support Option B; Core Strategy Policy GB1 (Green Belt Protection) needs to be updated to take account of and adequately plan for the district's FOAN, as identified through the evidence base. To reconcile the issues of Green Belt protection and the need to deliver growth, the new Local Plan must be accompanied by an integrated approach to evidence base; it must contain a Green Belt Review as part of that process; this has not yet been undertaken by RDC. A Green
Belt Review would enable RDC to assess land parcels against the five Green Belt purposes:
● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
4.27 Only once the Green Belt Review is complete, RDC may then come to an informed view on how it intends to deliver sustainable patterns of development. Under Framework paragraph 182, this is fundamental to the test of soundness.

5.0 Summary

5.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Housing, Essex County Council, in support of the Land south of the former Adult Community Learning Centre, Rocheway, Rochford.
5.2 The site is currently designated as open space in the Local Plan but it is only used by one youth football team, Hambro Colts, who have aspirations to relocate back to a suitable site closer to their original home in Rayleigh. The Colts are in collaboration with ECC to enable them to do so.
Allocation of this underused, yet sustainably located, parcel of land for residential development would enable Rochford District Council to:
● Promote sustainable patterns of development in the New Local Plan; and
● Plan for open space and playing pitch provision in a comprehensive manner, taking account of
emerging evidence of need, housing and employment growth.
5.3 Our review of RDC's evidence base of relevance to open space provision reveals that it needs to be fully updated as part of the new Local Plan process and that its scope needs to include all sites currently designated as open space. The evidence underpinning the adopted Development Plan suggests that this is presently not the case. Only with a comprehensive assessment of such provision could RDC make fully informed, robust and therefore sound planning policy decisions on the District's growth.
5.4 In conclusion we therefore consider that:
● RDC should plan to meet its full objectively assessed housing need across the Plan period, within its own administrative boundaries;
● This should take place via the allocation of large scale extensions to existing higher order settlements in the hierarchy, such as Rochford;
● RDC should undertake a Green Belt Review to assist in the identification of land parcels that do not perform a strong Green Belt function, such as the playing fields south of the former ACL Centre, Rocheway;
● RDC needs to take a comprehensive approach to the assessment of open space provision as part of its Local Plan review. This means considering open space provision alongside housing and employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate. This should be informed by emerging evidence and in consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, including Sport England.
● The Site is considered favourably in the SHELAA in which it is defined as suitable, available and that development would be achievable.