How should we protect, manage and enhance our important habitats, nature conservation areas, geology and greenways?

Paragraph 10.19 notes the need and benefits of a green and blue infrastructure, and paragraph 10.25 notes the need to plan positively for the creation, protection and enhancement of such infrastructure. We request that such enhancement and creation will include increased access for all user groups, including equestrians.

10.17 Due to its coastal location the district is particularly important for biodiversity. international and national nature conservation designations reflect this importance:
* Crouch is a Ramsar site- wetlands designated for their international importance under Ramsar Convention
* Crouch is a Special Protection Areas (SPAs) - habitats important for migratory birds under European Birds Directive
10.17 Essex Estuaries (SAC)
* Crouch estuary is a ... Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - country's very best wildlife and geological sites.

All reasons for NOT building more houses in Hullbridge.

10.22 National policy broadly seeks to prevent the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including Ancient Woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside Ancient Woodland. It also recommends the use of criteria based policies to assess schemes which may impact on protected wildlife sites. Policy DM25 of our Development Management Plan provides more local detail on how applications which may impact on trees and woodlands would be treated; with the aim of conserving and enhancing existing trees and/or woodlands wherever possible.

Please protect our trees and woodland in Hullbridge.

We have referred in our comments in the trees and woodland section to the need to strengthen ancient woodland policy in your new Local Plan, in line with emerging policies in the draft revised NPPF.

We would also like you to consider the role which trees and woods can play in improving water quality and lowering flood risk. There is a polcy on flood risk in your exisitng Core Strategy (ENV2) which does not mention a role for green infrastructure, trees or woods but there is increasing reseach on this subject. Some of this is summarised in our report "Stemming the Flow" which can be found on our website at http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2014/05/stemming-the-flow/

New housing should be located on sites that are already well served by infrastructure and should avoid harm to existing environmental assets.

Housing should be targeted at places where it can have a positive environmental impact to help achieve landscape restoration and recovery. This requires an up-to-date and well-informed ecological network map, which identifies existing natural features and habitats, alongside areas where new habitats are needed to restore ecosystems and help wildlife recover.

New housing developments and houses themselves should be designed to integrate space for both wildlife and people, as well as to reduce carbon emissions and minimise water usage.

A good nature-friendly development protects and keeps existing wildlife habitats and joins them up with wildlife-rich gardens, verges, amenity green space, cycle paths and walkways. The aim is to create a network of natural green and blue corridors weaving through the development and beyond, into the surrounding urban or rural landscape and contributing to the wider ecological network.

This approach improves air quality, reduces surface water flooding and makes developments greener and more attractive places to live. Residents have easy access to safe, beautiful, natural space for exercise, play and social interaction. Wildlife becomes part of everyday life.

New housing developments should provide:

* Real, measurable gains for wildlife and make a demonstrable, positive contribution to nature's recovery.

* Effective water management, pollution and climate control provided by green spaces and water courses, sustainable urban drainage, green roofs, trees, woodlands, wetlands and other natural features.

* Connectivity between wild places - enabling both wildlife and people to move through the landscape, and for natural processes to operate effectively.

* Improved health, wellbeing and quality of life for people living and working nearby.

* Easy access to high quality, wildlife-rich, natural green space for everyone, providing daily opportunities to experience wildlife.

Benefits of this approach

Housing developments designed with environmental sensitivity and green infrastructure at their heart can deliver multiple social, environmental and economic benefits. Nature-rich housing can provide benefits for everyone - from developers to home-owners.

Benefits for wildlife:

* No loss of key wildlife sites - better protection of the already diminished wildlife resource and sites. Protection and beneficial management for Local Wildlife Sites and sites of national and international importance for wildlife.

* Much more space for wildlife - a substantial increase in the creation and restoration of habitats, through additional funding and resources, for example Section 106 agreements and conservation covenants - contributing to an overall increase in the abundance and diversity of wildlife and an improvement of soil and catchment health.

* Improved connectivity of wildlife habitats - both within developments and linking to the wider landscape and ecological networks beyond.

* Buildings that are more wildlife-friendly - with bird and bat boxes, pollinator and insect-friendly structures and connected spaces for hedgehogs.

* Reduced emissions - reducing carbon emissions, pollutants and water use to help minimise threats to wildlife.

Benefits for people:

* Daily enjoyment of nature - people can experience and benefit from contact with wildlife and wild places in their daily lives, because there is wildlife around them near to home.

* Improved health - accessible natural green spaces for fresh air, exercise and quiet contemplation improve health and wellbeing, for example by helping to lower levels of heart disease, obesity, stress and depression.

* Protection against extremes of climate - natural green spaces and trees within urban areas help stabilise temperature and reduce pollution.

* Safer transport routes - networks of natural green spaces can provide safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes.

* Sense of community - natural green space in and around housing areas can provide a shared space for the local community to come together and socialise - reducing isolation.

Benefits for the economy and wider society:

* Cost-effective environmental protection - providing green space in and around housing is a cost-effective and sustainable way of increasing environmental resilience, for example by reducing surface water flooding and improving air quality.

* Employment - when communities get involved in the planning and management of the natural green space where they live this provides jobs and volunteering opportunities.

* Space for local food - networks of natural green space in and around housing areas provide opportunities for local food production, bee keeping, etc.

* Attracting investment - high quality developments rich in natural green space can attract further investment from business and visitors.

* Reduced health-care costs - people living in developments with more green space are likely to place fewer demands on the NHS, as they enjoy better health and higher quality of life.

Benefits for developers:

* Satisfied customers - houses and developments set in natural green space are more desirable to buyers.

* Market value - houses in greener developments can have a higher market value.

* Enhanced brand value - developers that take a lead on nature build their brand and change the sector as a whole.

* Improved high-calibre skills recruitment - such developers are also more likely to attract up-and-coming graduates by demonstrating a genuine commitment to the environment.

* Improved environmental performance - helping drive higher ranking in sustainability and nature indices, making the direct links to the benefits of a natural capital approach.

* Happier communities - new houses designed to retain existing natural features with high quality greenspace are more acceptable to existing residents.

Principles guiding this approach

All housing developments must result in:

* A measurable improvement for wild species and habitats, avoiding any loss of or damage to wildlife sites - new housing must not damage or destroy important national and local wildlife sites. Our natural environment is finite. These sites are remnants of a rich past and essential to our future.

* More than compensating for any habitat that is lost - where damage to existing habitats is unavoidable, mitigation must bring about an overall gain in habitats. This should be assessed objectively using an improved version of the Defra biodiversity metric.

* Creating new habitat - habitat creation should be a standard feature of all new housing development, wherever it is.

* Designing in existing habitats - new housing must work with as much existing habitat as possible. For example, retaining existing woods, copses, hedges and streams as integral parts of new developments.

All residents having lasting access to nearby nature, which means:

* Providing wildlife on the doorstep - space for wildlife must be designed into new development, much of this should be easily accessible to people.

* Ensuring our natural spaces are well managed for posterity - maintaining local green spaces is as essential as maintaining roads, power and other important infrastructure. Financial planning should account for this at the outset, through a service charge or capital endowment.

* Empowering communities - for major housing developments provision should be made to empower local residents to come together to maintain shared spaces, grow food and understand the area they live in.

* Engaging civil society - local charities and social enterprises have skills and experience that will be vital to ongoing community engagement.

The only way society can ensure this will be by:

* Using ecological network maps - such maps should be built from local, up to date data with the active involvement of civil society and must be the basis for deciding where new housing is (and isn't) located, and how close it is to existing natural areas and wildlife habitats.

* Developing within environmental limits - decisions about the planning, design and construction of new housing must be based on a thorough understanding of the natural environment's capacity to meet the demands placed on it.

* Employing ecological expertise - when making decisions on land use and new development planning authorities should consult experienced ecologists and ensure they have access to high quality wildlife and environmental data.

Issues and Options Document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.33 Option: A

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

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

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

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

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:
Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

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

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

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

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

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do not look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

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

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

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

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.

Air quality now has increased importance. The EU is threatening to fine our government because its plans to improve air quality in a large number of cities and towns are inadequate. Just waiting and hoping that things get better will not do!

If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

I refer you again to the plan that I append to this document to significantly reduce congestion and improve air quality in Rayleigh town centre. This could be achieved in much less time than waiting for all the existing vehicles to be replaced.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference.

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

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

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

Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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




Appendix

A proposal for the reduction of traffic congestion in central Rayleigh and consequent improvement of air quality

Air pollution is an acknowledged problem in central Rayleigh and just today the high court have ruled that the government must do more to reduce it, particularly NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. A major cause of air pollution in Rayleigh is traffic queuing on Crown Hill and creeping forward one vehicle at a time - engines continually running and repeated hill starts which are particularly bad for NOx emissions. Many recent cars and buses have automatic engine stop when stationary so that if traffic is held at a red light emissions will be significantly reduced. This feature will become commonplace over the next few years.

The pedestrian crossing at the top of Crown Hill and the mini roundabout at its junction with the High Street must be eliminated in order to cure this problem. This proposal achieves that and improves traffic flow in Websters Way as well as eliminating most traffic from the central part of the High Street.

1. Close the High Street to traffic between the Crown and Half Moon/ Church. Allow access for taxis to the existing taxi lagoon only. Allow access for delivery vehicles but perhaps only at specified times. This will be a shared space and so 10 MPH speed limit.
2. Block off access from Bellingham Lane and Church Street to the High Street.
3. Replace the mini roundabout at the Crown Hill / High Street junction with a swept bend with limited access to and from the High Street (see 1) with give way lines on the outside of the bend.
4. Replace mini roundabouts at the High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road/ Websters Way junctions with traffic lights.
5. Replace the zebra crossing at the top of Crown Hill with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
6. Remove the pedestrian crossing outside the Spread Eagle. This is no longer needed as people can cross from The Crown to the taxi lagoon.
7. Replace the zebra crossing across Eastwood Road outside Marks and Spencer with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
8. Replace the zebra crossing across Websters Way near to Eastwood Road with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
9. Arrange for coordinated control of the two new sets of traffic lights, and the four light controlled pedestrian crossings (Crown Hill, Websters Way, and two in Eastwood Road). *
10. Remove the pedestrian crossing in the centre of the High Street as it is no longer needed.
11. Remove the traffic lights at the Junction of Websters Way and High Street and the pedestrian crossing across the High Street as they are no longer needed. Retain the pedestrian crossing across Websters Way. This junction becomes a swept bend and will be free flowing for traffic except when pedestrians are crossing.
12. Access for wedding cars and hearses to the church will be unaffected except that they will have to use London Hill instead of Bellingham Lane to/from Church Street.
13. Access to the Mill Hall and its car parks will be via London Hill and Bellingham Lane. A new exit will be required from the windmill car park to London Hill adjacent to Simpsons solicitors. **
14. Provide parking for disabled people in Bellingham Lane between the Mill hall and its previous junction with the High Street. Create a small turning circle where the junction used to be.
15. Create a layby in Websters Way for buses heading for Hockley or Bull Lane.
16. The loading bay outside Wimpy will become the bus stop for the No 9 bus.
17. The No 1 bus is a problem as it will no longer be able to stop in the High Street or Websters Way and the first stop in the High Road is too far from the town centre. A new bus layby will be needed outside Pizza Express. ***
18. Install traffic lights at the junction of Downhall Road and London Road, incorporating the existing light controlled pedestrian crossing.
19. Install traffic lights at the junction of London Hill and London Road / Station Road. Traffic lights will not be needed at the junction of The Approach and London Road if the lights either side of this junction are phased correctly.

* There are potentially some problems which arise because there will be traffic lights at junctions where the limited space available prohibits the use of a right turn lane or a left filter lane and there are pedestrian crossings nearby. The traffic lights at High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road / Websters Way will each need to have a phase when traffic from all three directions is stopped and both the adjacent pedestrian crossings are open for pedestrians. This phase will only need to occur when a pedestrian has requested it at either of the adjacent crossings. When there is a lot of pedestrian traffic it will be necessary to synchronise both junctions so that the "all traffic stopped" phase occurs at both junctions at the same time.

** Some drivers will complain that in order to get to the Mill Hall they have to go down Crown Hill and up London Hill, although they could park in Websters Way car park or the market car park and walk. However, people approaching Rayleigh along the London Road will have easier access to the Mill Hall car parks and will not enter the town centre at all, reducing congestion and pollution.

*** Considering traffic coming up Crown Hill, it will be advantageous to arrange that when the pedestrian crossing on Crown Hill goes red to stop traffic there is a delay of several seconds before the light at the High Street/ Eastwood Road junction and the Eastwood Road pedestrian crossing turn red. This should empty this section of road and allow a bus in the layby to pull out without disrupting the traffic flow up Crown Hill.

Maldon District Council Comments on the Rochford District Council New Local Plan: Issues and Options Document 2017
Forming the first stage of the Local Plan review, the Issues and Options Document identifies a series of strategic priorities and objectives to support the draft vision for the future of Rochford District. These are supported by key planning issues that have been identified for a number of themes, and potential options to deal with these issues.
Document Page, Policy and/or Paragraph Number Comments
Our Vision and Strategic Objectives
5. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives 5.8 Maldon Council supports a number of key ideas and themes that have come from paragraph 5.8. Improving the strategic infrastructure network is a shared objective for both authorities; the Southminster branch line holds a significant relationship with the Southend train line, which must be safeguarded and enhanced.
Delivering Homes and Jobs
Pg. 32. Para. 6.9 The revised OAN now expresses a range of between 331 and 361 homes per year. To effectively meet the revised OAN, all possible options must be considered including a review of Green Belt land. With the current pressures on housing need as a national issue, there needs a balance between serving strategic housing allocations and mitigating the consequences, such as loss of greenfield land.
Pg. 39. Para. 6.31 Provided the national threshold for affordable housing is 10 units or 1000sqm, which has been widely adopted by most local authorities, it would seem appropriate to use this threshold as local policy given the pressures on affordable housing as a national issue.
Pg. 56. Para. 6.86 Retention of or amendments to strengthen the existing policy would be supported by the Council. Any amendments which would be detrimental to the landscape, ecology and/or biodiversity of the River Crouch would be objected to.
Pg. 58. Para. 6.91 With a revised OAN of 6620-7220 homes from 2017-2037, the assessed need of up to 16 hectares of 'new' employment land between 2016-2036 would need to be appropriately situated to align with a vision that seeks increased provisions for sustainable transport and sustainable communities.
Delivering Infrastructure
Pg. 85. Para. 8.26 Although there are limitations on the level of influence local planning authorities have on the level of provision with regard to public transport, the level of provision is based on the use of services. When identifying strategic housing allocations within the district, this must be taken into consideration.
Protecting and Enhancing our Environment
Pg. 127. Para. 10.26 It should be emphasised that there will be a close working relationship between all contributing authorities in the preparation and production of the Essex Coastal Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and that there must be a Duty to Cooperate.
Pg. 127. Para. 10.27 Retaining or amending policy ENV1 to strengthen the current policy is supported.



Additional Comments
Reference to Wallasea Island in the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan Referenced within the 'made' Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Development Plan, the town will encourage the RSPB to invest appropriately in facilities that will encourage visitors to travel sustainably between Burnham-on-Crouch and Wallasea. The Council supports the aspirations of the Burnham-on-Crouch Neighbourhood Plan in this regard and wishes these aspirations to be acknowledged by Rochford District Council.
Speed Limits on the River Crouch With reference to the River Crouch, the Council seeks the acknowledgment of Rochford District Council with regard to the issues related to the omitted speed restrictions and a commitment to overcome these challenges. The sensitive shorelines of the River Crouch have been noted to be a high priority for conservation within Maldon District Council and therefore would like to form an open and productive dialogue with Rochford District Council to mitigate the relevant issues.