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.

Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) - Option A Support

Affordable Homes - Options A and E Support

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

Need for Care Homes - Option A Support

Delivering our Need for Homes - Options C and E Support

Good Mix of Homes - Option A Support

Bungalows - Option E Support

Density of Schemes - Option G Support

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople - Option A Support

Houseboats and Liveaboards - Option D Support

Meeting Business Needs - Option E Support

Need for Jobs - Option F Support

London Southend Airport - Option D Support

Supporting Tourism and Rural Diversification - Option B Support

Retail, Leisure and Town Centres - Option A Support

Villages and Local Neighbourhood Centres - Option A Support

Highways Infrastructure - Options A and C Support

Sustainable Travel - Option A Support

Communications Infrastructure - Option B Support

Water and Flood Risk Management - Option B Support

Renewable Energy Generation - Option B Support

Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Option A Support

Health and Well-being - Option D Support

Community Facilities - Option B Support

Education and Skills - Options D and E Support

Early Years and Childcare Provision - Option A Support

Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation - Option D Support

Indoor Sports and Leisure Centres - Option A Support

Facilities for Young People - Option A Support

Play Space Facilities - Option A Support

Green Belt - Option A Support

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

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

Landscape Character - Option C Support

Protecting and Enhancing Heritage and Culture - Option A Support

Good Design and Building Efficiency - Options A and F Support

Air Quality - Options A, B and C Support

Mix of Affordable Homes - Option F Support

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

Rural Exception Sites - Option G Support

Annexes, Outbuildings and Independent Homes - Option B Support

Basements - Option A Support

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

Agricultural, Forestry and Other Occupation Homes - Option A Support

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

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

Parking Standards and Traffic Management - Option A Support

Homes Businesses - Options A Support

Alterations to Existing Business Premises - Option B Support

Advertising and Signage - Option A Support

Light Pollution - Option B Support

Contaminated Land - Option A Support

Delivering Infrastructure

Underlying Thoughts

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

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

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

Delivering Homes
Background

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

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

Delivering Jobs

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