Air Quality

Infrastructure
Areas needed to be in place before construction: -
- roads
- schools
- transport
- doctors
Developers to contribute to the above.

Monitoring of construction to be carried out at all times plus air quality to be monitored too.

Rochford District Council is a semi-rural area (predominantly Green Belt). How is a 30% increase in housing not going to impact Green Belt (GB)?

Key problem area is infrastructure.

- Roads
- Schools
- Doctors
- Hospitals

These must be agreed and in place at the start of Development with the developers contributing to all of the above.

There must also be extremely close monitoring of construction traffic and the impact on local roads and people.

The air quality is also a current issue prior to building and must be monitored closely.

Please find below the comments from Hockley Parish Council relating to the Issues and Options Document.

1. Infrastructure: There is little provision for improvement which must be given priority as the district cannot sustain the existing level of development.
2. Affordable Housing: Insufficient affordable or suitable housing for first time buyers.
3. Empty Houses: These should be brought back into use before allowing more new development.
4. Air Pollution: There is evidence that this has reached a dangerous level in many local areas which will only increase with more traffic on already over-congested roads.
5. Local Services: Hospitals, doctors, social services schools etc are struggling and there is serious concern that further increases in housing and the proposed merger of hospitals in Southend, Basildon and Colchester will add to the pressures on both providers and communities.

Having read through most of the plan, I have some real concerns.

The first is that although there is a lot of talk about "affordable homes", most of these are clearly not affordable to the majority of young people. Plus they are becoming exponentially less affordable as time passes. Therefore what is needed are family homes at an affordable rent, and this area is woefully short of these!

The second concern, I have is that our roads are already hopelessly congested and whilst we continue to build numerous houses without improving road space, we are adding to an already appalling problem. This is also having a detrimental effect on air quality and no consideration seems to have been given to the future health of our children and future generations.

It is not only road space which needs expanding, but doctors' surgeries, schools, hospitals and all of the other services essential to our community.

Large proportion of people commute to London from this area, so will the current rail system cope with a large increase in population.

In conclusion although it is obvious that we are in desperate need of more housing, we must have the infra structure to support the resultant increase in population if we are to maintain the character of this area and, more importantly, the quality of life of the residents.

Best. Regards - David Mullen (Hawkwell resident)

p.s. Why has Hawkwell not been included as a district particularly as it has a higher population than Hockley?

I would like to register my objection to all proposed additional new builds as outlined in the recent Lib Dem 'Focus' newsletter.

The rush hour traffic on London Road, Downhall Road, Rawreth Lane and Crown Hill is already chaos. The pollution is too high at this time, the infrastructure is not in place and no amount of planning for this will ever overcome the problem of the distinct lack of land available to widen roads or build sufficient new junctions.

There are insufficient school places for the additional new houses. It is already impossible to get an appointment with a GP in the area. I am also concerned about the increased risk of flooding.

In addition, I am a regular user of the bridal path (CFS164 & 163) and also a member of the UKWCKFA Kung FU club, which, located at Unit 4, The Planks, Lubards Lodge, appears from the Lib Dem newsletter, to be earmarked for demolition. I would be grateful if you could clarify this position.

This is an objection to new local plans for more new houses to be built around the Rayleigh area.
ROADS ARE GRID LOCKED AT VARIOUS TIMES OF DAY ALREADY WE NEED A RING ROAD PUT IN BEFORE ANY MORE NEW DEVELOPMENT ITS SIMPLE NO NETWORK IMPROVEMENT NO BUILDING MAKE THE DEVELOPERS PAY

POLLUTION WILL INCREASE

GYPSY SITES ALREADY IN RAYLEIGH ARE SPREADING WITH NO COUNCIL CONTROL SO MAKE PROVISION FOR THEM IN LESS OVERPOPULATED TOWNS

LEAVE OUR OPEN FIELDS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES TO FILTER FUMES AND TO DRAIN OUR WATER AWAY WHEN WE GET FLASH FLOODING

WE ALL LIKE TO SEE GREEN AREAS BETWEEN OUR TOWNS MARKING BORDERS AND STOPPING THE SPREAD OF MORE CONCRETE

ARE PLANES GOING TO BE FORCED TO TAKE OFF OVER SEA OTHERWISE IF THEY ENCOUNTER ANY PROBLEMS THERE WILL BE NO OPEN SPACES TO TRY TO LAND


IF WE HAVE GOT TO BUILD WHY NOT IN SMALLER NUMBERS OVER MORE YEARS ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN COPE IN HOSPITALS AND ALL SERVICES

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows :

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term LAGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

To whom it may concern,

PLEASE, PLEASE stop this over development of Hawkwell, Hockley Rochford and Ashingdon. It is well documented that the air quality in this area is one of the worse in the country and the Council want to make it even worse. More children are now suffering from asthma with the increase in pollution. As it is we need an additional Hospital in this area to cope with the many thousands of people pouring in from outside of the area (many from the London boroughs) Once the fields have been concreted over the ability to grow food for the increased population will be gone for good.
Quality of life in this area is getting worse as the stress many residents are suffering just being stuck in traffic as they try to get to work let alone trying to get home again.

Where are the children that will live on Elizabeth Gardens going to go to school? Some surely will no doubt be going to Westering Primary. So how are those parents going to get them there? By car (no doubt) on already congested roads
I wonder if this is all about money and the additional Council Tax the Government will receive. As it is white lines on the roads have not been freshened up for years let alone getting the pot holes filled in.
Please Please listen to mine and the view of the majority of long standing (I have lived in this area all my life) residents in this area.

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal as follows.

1 No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure.

2 No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3 No spare capacity within Health and Care Services.

4 No let up in the sacrifice of the green belt and air quality
.
5 No long term Legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVELS.

I am a local Rayleigh resident who moved to Rayleigh in 1996, I moved here as it was semi rural and the area that I chose to live was great for walking my dog and bringing up my children. We have been blessed with lovely fields to roam in and kids can play but now I feel like I am being more and more hemmed in. A simple journey that should only take ten minutes is now filled with traffic , road rage and stress. The facilities that I used in the area are now over crowded and becoming unpleasant experiences.

The schools aren't coping with the influx and demands being put on them for intakes. The town is busy and not to mention the pollution. We are slowly being polluted, stressed out and hemmed in.

I live in Saxon close just of Ferndale Road and have noticed the never ending traffic that is hitting Rawreth Lane, my school runs are diabolical and if there is an accident in either Downhall Road, Rawreth Lane or Hullbridge Road the whole area around me grinds to a halt.

This is not acceptable. Looking at the planned applications, I an see that you plan to build 1300 houses in Lubbards farm, that is beyond too many, where are all the cars going to go ? Where are the children going to go to school, where are the people going to get a doctors appointment ? I am mostly concerned about this are as it is directly on my doorstep. What about the flood risks ??

According to the plans I cannot believe you expect Rayleigh/Rawreth to have a total of 4540 houses in my local vicinity. I really am concerned about this and the pollution it is going to create for myself and my family.

I don't know why house building cannot be spread all around the country, why does everything have to be accumulated into the south east of England ? Enough is enough. Surely by making peoples lives more stressful and making people iller by pollution this is going to have a negative effect on the NHS and our children future health.

It seems absolutely ludicrous to me that this should be allowed to go on.

The roads are falling apart at it is there are potholes everywhere that are not being repaired, my road has been like this for two years nearly now and no-one has bothered to look at it. No road sweepers have come here for ages. Where is my council tax being spent as its sure not on benefitting the residents.

I am totally apposed to the over building on Rayleigh and I am sure that mire residents will be apposing these ludicrous applications.

I am writing to voice my objections to the plans for excessive additional housing development in the Rochford Local Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in the London Road, Rawreth Lane and Lubbards Farm areas in Rayleigh.

Since we moved here over 30 years ago Rayleigh has become more and more congested, the doctors are more and more difficult to see and the place grinds to a halt with exhaust pollution poisoning the air, every time there is an incident on the A127.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support more house- building and yet we hear no plans on this front, with developers wringing their hands and saying that it is not their problem. Our daughter works near Rayleigh Weir a journey which of late has taken more than 30 minutes in the rush hour from our home in Downhall Park Way.This is madness.

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

We moved to Rayleigh in search of something better and we thought for a good few years we had found it. Now we may as well change the name to Basildon or Romford. We are turning into their back-yards.

Please don't let this happen

I am writing to voice my objections to the plans for excessive additional housing development in the Rochford Local Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in the London Road, Rawreth Lane and Lubbards Farm areas in Rayleigh.

Since we moved here over 30 years ago Rayleigh has become more and more congested, the doctors are more and more difficult to see and the place grinds to a halt with exhaust pollution poisoning the air, every time there is an incident on the A127.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support more house- building and yet we hear no plans on this front, with developers wringing their hands and saying that it is not their problem. Our daughter works near Rayleigh Weir a journey which of late has taken more than 30 minutes in the rush hour from our home in Downhall Park Way.This is madness.

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

We moved to Rayleigh in search of something better and we thought for a good few years we had found it. Now we may as well change the name to Basildon or Romford. We are turning into their back-yards.

Please don't let this happen

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows:

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

With regard to the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are in the Green Belt with the exception of a portion of CFS100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard, which is obviously now a highly contaminated site.
Sites CFS006, CFS138, CFS149, CFS099, GY01 and GY02 are not located in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will obviously require access off the existing narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and
will merge the villages of Rawreth and Hullbridge. CFS015 has 50% of the
site in the flood plain.
CFS151 will require access off the existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS 026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access off the unmade single track in Kingsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

SUMMARY

RDC have not assessed, previously, any alternatives in terms of major impacts and sustainability especially in connection with the Malyons site in Hullbridge and all the other major developments recently completed or under construction, we therefore have no confidence that this will change
in any future emerging new Local Plan for this district. ECC report
concludes that housing targets cannot be matched by infrastructure provisions due to a massive shortfall of £billions in funding (ECC/AECOM GIF Report 2016).
RDC need to take into account further carbon emissions, overcrowding, traffic congestion, flooding and further drains on the existing infrastructure.

OBJECTION
PROPOSED SITE CFS 127

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE ABOVE-NAMED PROPOSAL.

One of the principles of Green Belt is to preserve the identity of individual communities and limit urban sprawl. Rayleigh and the surrounding areas have already lost a significant amount of Green Belt and to add to this will have devastating effects on the community.

Extremely poor access via Bartletts.
Narrow roads/congestion.
Infrastructure - I understand that a report issued in 2016 by the ECC concludes that the infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of under-funding. I believe that the utility companies have not proved their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting extra demands.
Our schools and GP surgeries are already oversubscribed.
Poor air quality.
Flooding issues.

I would first like to say I don't to believe in consultations as they do not represents public opinion due to the lack of response from residents. This is mainly caused by making the online method too complicated with too many questions. The drop in presentation that were provided by RDC were pathetic with just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do?
I would like to object to building any more homes on green belt land that joins existing villages an towns in Rochford District. The current building programme that runs until 2025 is already causing serious traffic jams on the existing roads with the resulting air pollution, even though building work has only just started. It has been stated that drivers in our area spend 30 hours per year in rush hour jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year.
I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already and not just roads but services like electrics, gas, water, sewers and the health system, including the hospital, GP surgeries and dentists. RDC have indicated that they will include additional infrastructure this time but they have a very poor record on this so far, as the current increase in housing has produced practically none at all. I realise the reason for this is that additional housing comes from RDC and the infrastructure from Essex County Council (ECC) who provide the funds but so far this has not happened, as there aren't any.
We do need additional homes for our children to buy but unfortunately most are unaffordable and many end up being used to relocate people from London councils to relatively cheaper homes in our area. We also need retirement home developments in our area that would free up existing larger homes.
We live on a peninsular surrounded on three side by water, if we really have to have an additional 7,500 new houses in our district, I believe a new Garden Village could be located near South Fambridge and served by a new road from the north connecting to the B1012 would be the best solution. This road could cross the River Crouch near Fambridge linking to North Fambridge railway station.
If RDC allow more homes to be built adjacent to the existing B1013 and all the other already clogged up roads in our area, it will make the lives of our residents a misery and I believe they will not put up with it any more.

We have lived in this village for over 40 years. We have seen many changes, some of them good and now there seems to be a plan to change a nice place to live into an over populated town which will be desperately short of school places, doctor's appointments and just getting in and out of what is at present a village into a place that is difficult to arrive at. At present with the extra unwanted development going on in the village it is near impossible to get to an appointment without being in a traffic queue. We haven't yet seen the impact of impending present development, Bullwood Hall, Folly Grove, Waters and Stanton plot, and all the other single plots being developed into oversized flats.

The amount of pollution created by this increase in stationary traffic will have an adverse affect on our health and it is a very worrying scenario to think of our young people who will be facing health issues due to this increase when there will a shortage of doctors/hospital appointments.

We live in Folly Chase which is under threat of extra unwanted development when we already have the inconvenience of having large heavy lorries speeding on the wrong side of the bends In Folly Lane to get to the development on Pond Chase. This will in turn cause more traffic to arrive at the main road making more congestion. Folly Chase is as the name suggests a private lane, not wide enough for two cars and especially has no pavement. We worked very hard to obtain our property in a nice area and it seems the Council are adamant in ruining our local area. We have only just heard how the extra planned properties on the Pond Chase site was increased at the Council's request and were very annoyed no thought was given to the area or traffic congestion.

I am glad to say our grandchildren will be out of local education by the time this extra development is finished as schools at present are just adequate and we will soon be at the stage where there will be no room for our children to attend their own local school.
We believe ours should be a forward thinking council not one that gives quick fix solutions that will surely cause problems in the areas that they are currently thinking of developing. Thought should be given to look for a site to the east of the district where plans can be made to provide all amenities schools, doctors, services, sufficient roads etc.It could be planned properly from scratch rather than trying to alter an already overcrowded area which will be detrimental to large parts of the community.

We understand Redbridge Council has fought the government to reduce extra development there and suggest this should be a consideration as so many of our residents are angry over this issue and believe some consideration could be given to them.

To summarise, extra unwanted development will cause:
More pollution
More traffic queues
More pressure on present Doctors for appointments
No places for local children at schools
New settlement east of Hockley the best option.

The infrastructure in Rochford is not suitable for any more housing developments. 60 residents have already voiced their opinion on this which is being ignored for the South Street developments.

During peak hours the traffic is at a stand still down South Street, Bradley Way, the roundabout at Whittinghams garage, Sutton Road and other areas. This is also before the development of 600 houses in a mini-town in Hall road shows any impact. Surely you can see we cannot take any more development. Most of these people are also being brought down from London and it is not a local housing problem. The roads are not built for this amount of traffic.

Air Quality

Because of the above traffic the fumes in our house peak during peak hours can be smelt. This is not good for people's health and also our house is covered in exhaust which has to be washed off regularly.

There are not doctors in the area to take more development - I have waited over two weeks to see my doctor. Again before the Hall Road Development kicks in.

Southend General has been on black alert for months and has cancelled all orthopaedic operations for over a year. How will they cope with all this development. The only way to see a dentist now in this area is to pay privately.

Even English Heritage is questioning your developments so why are you still going ahead with all these developments.

As a Hockley resident that lives on the High Road I feel I must object to the additional homes in the area without an improved infrastructure.

We constantly have queues of traffic outside our house morning and evening as the roads currently cannot cope. As a result, the fumes from the sitting traffic are strong, particularly in cold and foggier weather when the fumes sit lower. I walk my daughter to school along the main road in Hockley and we regularly have to deal with the fumes; I have on occasion turned back and got in the car and joined the traffic as sometimes it is very bad and am concerned about us inhaling it - however, I'm then adding to it. We are encouraged to walk our children to school but it is becoming a health risk. My husband has also mentioned it when he runs along the road.

It also takes a long time to cross the road where there are no set crossings, due to the heavy traffic flow (we don't have any crossings at our end of the High Road).

I do hope these considerations are taking into account when planning the future of the local area.

NEW LOCAL PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS DOCUMENT
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THAT DOCUMENT.
This is a response to the expensively produced document of approximately 800 pages which outlines proposals for the development of Rochford District post 2025.
I wish to state that I consider the prospect of building a possible unconstrained additional 7500 dwellings is UNSUSTAINABLE in every way imaginable. My reasons are summarised briefly below.
There will be an expansion on these issues further in this document.
Housing
Traffic / Roads / public transport trains & bus capacity
Flooding
Health provision / hospitals / doctors / care provision
Schools / Education
Environment
Air Quality
Greenbelt protection
Housing demand
There is a need for housing to meet the natural growth in our district. The percentages of house building requirements do not match the current objective need. The actual objective is to provide for London overspill because of the mass influx of people that have arrived in our capital city in the past ten years. To suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous.
The natural growth of the district can be met by RDC actively seeking out brownfield sites for development, small infill developments, use of degraded greenfield, the return of the use of flats over shops, in order to keep our towns and villages alive and active, and finally the conversion of properties into larger units. All these measures will prevent the proposed maximum attack on our greenbelt and valuable farmland.
I will cite the following examples of fairly recent developments:-
Gunn Close London Road (One bungalow morphed into 14 four bed houses)
Eon site London Road (one industrial site became 101 homes)
London Road / Station Approach (small scrubland site developed into numerous apartments). Lakeside Downhall Road (back land development of multiple apartments).
I could continue to discuss developments throughout this particular small part of the Rayleigh and surrounding areas, especially Hullbridge, that are NOT included in the figures, to meet some central Government target, that should serve to meet the generic need for the area without mass building projects. Add to this the regular conversion of bungalows into 4/5 bed houses and the proposals to create cul-de-sacs from single dwelling plots, the capacity to house our increasing population could be met. The figures for generic growth in our district do not support by the kind of mass development envisaged.
It is claimed that developers, having secured planning permission, have been using a loop hole in the 'affordable housing' requirement by subsequently claiming the projects don't might the 20% profit threshold required. Thus very few houses are being build that are affordable for local people.
The maps of the areas to be suggested for development show a huge number to be built in the town of Rayleigh and the village of Hullbridge. It identifies enough land to build a minimum of 6000 suggested for Downhall and Rawreth Ward in the west of the district. This is in addition to the 700 not yet built as a result of the 2010 Local Plan (SER1) in the same location.
Traffic and Road network
This western part of the district is unfortunate to suffer an almost daily gridlock on our roads.
London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane are the arteries that feed most of the villages and small towns to the east. They are all regularly at a standstill. 7500 extra dwellings will result in at least 15,000 more vehicles.
The increase in traffic on our roads will be UNSUSTAINABLE if this plan is implemented.
Promises of the 'jam tomorrow' of roundabouts and traffic improvements have no prospect of delivery due to the piecemeal nature of the developments already approved.
There have been suggestions from other objectors that a substantial upgraded road be developed towards the east of the district. Taking a route whereby Watery Lane / Lower Road are fed by vehicles, directly via the A130, bypassing Rayleigh. We cannot support this idea because it will serve to open up much of our remaining greenbelt to further development to the detriment of the villages further east in our district. We cannot agree to make the situation worse for our neighbouring villages.
70,000 vehicles pass through the A127 Fairglen Interchange daily, serving Rochford, Southend, South Benfleet and beyond, making it the busiest junction in South East Essex. To increase the volume of vehicles by 15,000, in this area alone, is not sustainable.
Essex County Council have a serious shortfall in funding. It will result in no major improvements in the road network for the foreseeable future in this district. Refer to addendum 1 showing ECC Summary of infrastructure project costs and funding gaps.(2016-2036)
Public Transport
There is limited opportunity to increase the train capacity on the Greater Anglia line at peak times because of the terminus at Liverpool Street is currently at its' peak capacity. Trains are overcrowded now so how can they accommodate more passengers.
Bus transport is somewhat irregular and completely unavailable in many parts of the district.
Cycle. The distances and the terrain preclude the use of cycles except for those who are able. Plus there has been no sustained efforts to create safe cycle paths for cycle users.
Walking
Due to the distances covered it is impractical to expect residents to walk for most of their daily requirements. For instance, the elderly and families will not be able to walk from Hullbridge to Rayleigh and carry necessary groceries, a distance of 3 miles plus. It is simply not practical and to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous fantasy.
Families use cars. That is a fact of life for almost every activity i.e. shopping, travel to work/school (many youngsters have to be ferried to and from school due to the distances involved) and for the opportunity to even use the somewhat remote leisure facilities.
Flooding
Where are the measures to tackle the flood risk to many of our riverside communities? Extreme weather is becoming a norm and the building of huge estates with piecemeal flood alleviation measures is unsustainable. Evidence is readily available to the RDC that clearly identifies pinch points in the flood defences of this area.
Air Quality
Rayleigh town centre, as acknowledged in the report, has a dismal record on AIR POLLUTION. Being at consistently illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. This is damaging our children's health and well being and with a possible link to dementia. Increasing the traffic will exacerbate this problem.
Health Provision
Residents have difficulties accessing their doctors in a timely manner. It is routine at the moment for the local surgeries to offer appointments three weeks after they are requested.
Our three hospital Southend , Basildon, and Broomfield have all issued notices that they are on 'black alert' over the past year. Indicating they have NO BEDS available. There is no provision made in the proposals to increasing the capacity in our health service to meet the increased demand.
The gap in funding for adult social care is not addressed in this proposed plan.
Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).
Schools
Evidence is available that Rayleigh Primary Schools are over-subscribed. Rayleigh Primary and Glebe School state they have no capacity at present. Some parents are face with travelling across the district to different schools to educate their children.
As discussed in a Guardian newspaper article developers have managed to wriggle out of providing planned schools, after securing their planning permission, by persuading authorities that the development would be made 'unviable'.
I cite the situation on the Hall Road Development where a school was promised and now is not to be provided. Also the planning for the site North of London Road was recently given the go ahead by the District Councillors and the school was left as a 'pending' provision with no firm promise of it being built. The education of our children should not be left to a chance that a developer MIGHT provide the facilities.
Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).
Greenbelt
There is no possibility of delivering the number of dwellings proposed without the destruction of vast swathes of our remaining greenbelt which is against the policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF. Our Prime Minister and Minister for Housing has stated repeatedly 'there should be no building on greenbelt until every other opportunity has been explored'.
To Summarise.
Due to the evident unsustainable nature of the present Issues and Options document I would make a request to consider the following :-
I propose a compete rethink of the document and would ask the Members of Rochford District Council and Members of Parliament representing constituencies in South East Essex namely:-
Mark Francois MP mark.francois.mp@parliament.uk
Rebecca Harris MP rebecca.harris.mp@parliament.uk
Sir David Amess MP amessd@parliament.uk
Stephen Metcalfe MP stephen.metcalfe.mp@parliament.uk
John Barron MP baronj@parliament.uk
James Dudderidge MP james@jamesdudderidge.com
To support these objections and comments.
In addition i request that the above listed representatives call for a scheme to build a new Garden City on the Dengie Peninsular with a road and rail bridge over the River Crouch linking Southend to the north of the county. Links could be provided to provide further development in future. This would help to preserve the semi-rural nature of South East Essex and prevent the total URBANISATION of our part of Essex. They could call on the new proposed Infrastructure Policy, announced recently by the the Government, to help fund the roads and bridge.
Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the Cambridge to Oxford corridor and those serving Kent constituencies have secured such funding for Garden Cities with all the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospital, schools etc. This is in order to protect their residents. I call on all our local Members of Parliament to step up and try to protect our people in the same manner. A copy of this objection will be distributed to the Parliamentary members named for their attention.
Regards
Chris Hennessy

Dear Sir/Madam

Rochford local plan - Issues and Options

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your issues and options document produced as part of your new local plan. We have provided comments related to our remit.

Section 6 - Delivery homes and jobs

We welcome option A, supporting the effective use of brown sites, provided they are not of high environmental value. The justification for such a policy should set out how the local authority will deal with any contamination issues to ensure the protection of human health, ecological systems, property and the environment. The policy should refer to a tired approach to the development of contaminated land which meets good practice (CLR 11). We suggest the policy which outlines the steps to be taken for dealing with contamination, as detailed below

 A preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) which has identied all previous uses and contaminants associated with those uses. A conceptual model of the site identifying sources, pathways and receptors and any unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

 A site investigation and detailed assessment of risk to all potential receptors both on and off the site.
 An options appraisal and remediation strategy giving details of remediation measures proposed and how they will be undertaken.
 A verification report demonstrating completion of the remedial works.

Section 6.6.1.- Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

We feel this section should include the flood risk posed to pitches that maybe occupied by Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use are classed as Highly Vulnerable. 'Highly vulnerable' development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3 and the Exception Test is required in Flood Zone 2. If users of the development function as residents rather than holiday makers, in the event of a flood, they may have no other place of residence available and could lose all of their possessions. You should consider the flood zone 'compatibility' in accordance with Table 3 of the PPG.

Section 6.79 - Houseboats and Liveaboards

We feel that the houseboat section should include information in regards to flood
risk.
Although boats are water compatible, if the use of the boat is to be residential we
would then classify the development use as 'More Vulnerable'. Table 3 of the PPG
makes clear that this type of development is not compatible with Flood Zone 3b and
should not therefore be permitted. However if LPA confirmed they would classify
houseboats as 'water compatible' we would review our position.

We feel this section should also consider the pollution potential of houseboats. Our
main concern with the use of houseboats is the potential for waste water (including
but not limited to sewage) being discharged from boats into the environment. The
nutrients therein have the potential to cause deterioration of the water quality and
have a knock-on impact on the ecology and wildlife. We therefore ask that any policy on houseboats seeks to ensure that waste water is disposed of by a method other than direct discharge, and that it is passed through appropriate treatment before discharge to the environment. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas are identified within the plan but it should be noted that the Crouch and Roach estuaries are used for shellfish cultivation which is reliant on good water quality. A
deterioration in water quality could impact on this business and so houseboats in
these locations could have a particular impact.

Section 8 - Delivering Infrastructure - Waste Water

We feel that the plan should include recognition of the importance of waste water
infrastructure. We would recommend liaison with water companies and ourselves
throughout the plan period to ensure adequate capacity is available. Water
resources; security of supply in this zone remains at 100% according to the latest
update to Essex and Suffolk Waters WRMP. However, a new WRMP is currently at
draft stage, and plans should be checked against this document as soon as it
becomes available.

Southend and Rayleigh East Water Recycling Centres (WRC) are over capacity with
regards to their permit. Rayleigh West and Rochford have considerable capacity
remaining, so it is recommended that, in the short term, development be planned to
go to these two WRC. In the longer term we would strongly suggest remaining in
regular touch with Anglian Water regarding the preferred locations for development
and the possibility of upgrade works at Rayleigh East and Southend. The LPA
should be aware that Anglian Water are reluctant to commit to upgrades until there is development firmly planned, but that can take up to 10 years.

Section 8 - Water and Flood Risk Management

We welcome the reference to the Thames Gateway South Essex Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) and the South Essex SWMP. These are useful supporting
documents to understand the potential impacts on the flood risk management
infrastructure.
The DEFRA document "Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding - DEFRA
policy statement on an outcome-focused, partnership approach to funding flood and
coastal erosion risk management" is another useful document to support evidence
base with regard to funding deliverability of new and replacement flood defence
infrastructure. This document could be used to enhance the flood risk management
policy.
We continue working in partnership with Rochford Distric Council and the local Flood
Risk Management Authorities (RMA's) including and the local communities on
developing flood alleviation schemes for both fluvial and surface water flooding in
Rochford. These are discussed at the District Council led Rochford Flood Forum and
the Community Action Group meetings. Any additional partnership funding that could be generated from new development will help to enhance and accelerate their
delivery.

The proposed new development allocations should ensure that where possible
development does not impact on the Main Rivers of Crouch, Roach and their
associated tributaries and their modelled floodplains. As highlighted in the new Local
Plan development in areas should be located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) less
than 1 in 1000 year (<0.1%) of fluvial flooding. This ensures that development is
sustainable and compliant with the principles of National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). It should contribute and minimise the risk of river flooding and flood
inundation to existing and future development in major conurbations in Rochford
District.
For all new development proposals there must be a robust application of the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) Sequential Test to avoid development in areas of flood risk wherever possible and to maintain the function of these land areas for natural processes. Any new proposals relating to flood defence schemes should draw on the guidelines highlighted in the attached documents.
Any development allocations highlighted in Local Development Plan should be
appropriately located according to the requirements of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and any proposals in Flood Zone 3 highlighted blue on the
attached plan will be required to pass the Exception Test in the NPPF.
Any works associated with the development in, over, under or within 8m byelaw
distance of the "Main Rivers" may need our formal permit.

We believe the water and flood risk management section should also consider the
following points which are relevant to all proposed developments and whose
inclusion would enhance policy.

General Flood Risk Comments

All development proposals within the Flood Zone (which includes Flood Zones 2 and
3,as defined by the Environment Agency) shown on the Policies Map and Local
Maps, or elsewhere involving sites of 1ha or more, must be accompanied by a Flood
Risk Assessment.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

The Local Plan should apply the sequential test and use a risk based approach to
the location of development. The plan should be supported by a Strategic Flood risk
Assessment (SFRA) and should use the NPPF Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
The PPG advises how planning can take account of the risks associated with
flooding and coastal change in plan-making and the planning application process.
The following advice could be considered when compiling the Local Plan to ensure
potential development is sequentially sited or if at flood risk it is designed to be safe
and sustainable into the future.

Sequential Approach

The sequential approach should be applied within specific sites in order to direct
development to the areas of lowest flood risk. If it isn't possible to locate all of the
development in Flood Zone 1, then the most vulnerable elements of the development should be located in the lowest risk parts of the site. If the whole site is at high risk (Flood Zone 3), an FRA should assess the flood characteristics across the site and direct development towards those areas where the risk is lowest.

Finished Floor Levels

We strongly advise that proposals for "more vulnerable" development should include
floor levels set no lower than 300 millimetres above the level of any flooding that
would occur in a 1% (1 in 100) / 0.5% (1 in 200) Annual Exceedence Probability
(AEP) flood event (including allowances for climate change). We are likely to raise
an objection where this is not achieved in line with Paragraphs 060 of the NPPF's
Planning Practice Guidance which advises that there should be no internal flooding
in more vulnerable developments from a design flood.
We recommend "less vulnerable" development also meet this requirement to
minimise disruption and costs in a flood event. If this is not achievable then it is
recommended that a place of refuge is provided above the 0.1% AEP flood level.

Safe Access

During a flood, the journey to safe, dry areas completely outside the 1% (1 in 100) /
0.5% (1 in 200) AEP flood event, including allowances for climate change, should not involve crossing areas of potentially fast flowing water. Those venturing out on foot in areas where flooding exceeds 100 millimetres or so would be at risk from a wide range of hazards, including, for example; unmarked drops, or access chambers
where the cover has been swept away. Safe access and egress routes should be
assessed in accordance with the guidance document 'FD2320 (Flood Risk
Assessment Guidance for New Developments)'. We would recommend that you
refer your SFRA which has produced hazard maps following a breach/overtopping of
the defences?

Emergency Flood Plan

Where safe access cannot be achieved, or if the development would be at residual
risk of flooding in a breach, an emergency flood plan that deals with matters of
evacuation and refuge should demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood
hazards. The emergency flood plan should be submitted as part of a FRA and will
need to be agreed with yourselves. As stated above refuge should ideally be located
300mm above the 0.1% AEP flood level including allowances for climate change. If
you do produce a flood safety framework as mentioned above, it will be important to
ensure emergency planning considerations and requirements are used to inform it.

Flood Resilience / Resistance Measures

To minimise the disruption and cost implications of a flood event we encourage
development to incorporate flood resilience/resistance measures up to the extreme
0.1% AEP climate change flood level. Information on preparing property for flooding
can be found in the documents 'Improving the Flood performance of new buildings'
and 'Prepare your property for flooding'.

Betterment

Every effort should be made by development to improve the flood risk to the local
area, especially if there are known flooding issues. Opportunities should also be
taken to provide environmental enhancements as part of the design, for example
naturalising any rivers on the site with a buffer zone on both sides.

Increases in Built Footprint (excluding open coast situations)

When developing in areas at risk of flooding consideration should be given to
preventing the loss of floodplain storage. Any increase in built footprint within the 1% AEP, including allowances for climate change, flood extent will need to be directly compensated for to prevent a loss of floodplain storage. If there are no available areas for compensation above the design flood level and compensation will not be possible then a calculation of the offsite flood risk impacts will need to be
undertaken. If this shows significant offsite impacts then no increases in built
footprint will be allowed. Further guidance on the provision of compensatory flood
storage is provided in section A3.3.10 of the CIRIA document C624.

Climate Change

The Environment Agency guidance 'Flood risk assessments: climate change
allowances' should be used to inform the spatial distribution of growth and the
requirements of Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) for individual applications.
The National Planning Practice Guidance provides advice on what is considered to
be the lifetime of the development in the context of flood risk and coastal change.
The 'Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances' guidance provides
allowances for future sea level rise, wave height and wind speed to help planners,
developers and their advisors to understand likely impact of climate change on
coastal flood risk. It also provides peak river flow and peak rainfall intensity
allowances to help planners understand likely impact of climate change on river and
surface water flood risk. For some development types and locations, it is important to assess a range of risk using more than one allowance. Please refer to this guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances.
This advice updates previous climate change allowances to support NPPF and may
result in flood extents being greater than they have been in the past. This does not
mean out flood map for planning has changed, as these maps do not consider
climate change, but fluvial flood maps that may have been produced as part of
SFRAs and other flood risk studies may be out of date. FRAs submitted in support
of new development will need to consider the latest climate change allowances.

Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities

An environmental permit for flood risk activities may be required for work in, under,
over or within 8 metres (m) from a fluvial main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert or 16m from a tidal main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert.
Application forms and further information can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits. Anyone
carrying out these activities without a permit where one is required, is breaking the
law.
The Local Plan should consider this when allocating development sites adjacent to a
'main river'. A permit may be required and restrictions imposed upon the work as a
result in order to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact upon
the environment and flood risk.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

We agree with the promotion of the use of SUDS within the policy on all
developments where geological conditions permit. However in order to ensure the
protection of the water environment, we feel any development must incorporate
appropriate pollution prevention measures and a suitable number of SUDS treatment
train components in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SUDS Manual.

Policy 10 - Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

We welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 19: To protect, maintain and
enhance our district's natural environment, geology and biodiversity, including our
open spaces, recreational areas and our extensive coastline, as well as support
wildlife, to create habitat networks and reduce fragmentation.
We also welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 22: To mitigate and adapt to
the forecasted impacts of climate change, including the water environment, air
quality, biodiversity and flooding, support more efficient use of energy and natural
resources and facilitate an increase in the use of renewable and low carbon energy
facilities. We hope that innovative solutions to the issue of climate change be found,
including the use of natural flood management techniques.
Whilst we broadly support the policy protecting and enhancing the environment, but
feel more importance should be given to the water environment. The policy needs to
refer to the Water Framework Directive and all development need to show that it will
not have a negative impact on water bodies. We feel this is important in regards to
the proposed marina development at Wallasea Island. This could cause serious
impacts on the protected estuarine habitat and birdlife as well as a deterioration in
the WFD status of the Crouch and Roach Estuaries.
We welcome the importance given to green infrastructure and the benefits it can
provide to human health and the environment. We feel the policy could also promote
the enhancements developments could provide for overall biodiversity. Setting a
requirement that all new development must create a new priority habitat would
support Local Planning Authoritys duty under the Natural Environments Rural
Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Priority habitats include new wetlands created as
part of SuDs schemes, deciduous woodlands and wildflower meadows.

Section 10 - Air Quality

Whilst we have no direct comments in regards to the air quality policy it is worth
noting that any new development of within 250-500m of a site permitted by the us
could result in the proposed development being exposed to impacts, e.g. odour,
noise, dust and pest impacts. The severity of these impacts will depend on local
factors such as the size of the facility, the nature of the activities and the prevailing
weather conditions. If the operator can demonstrate that they have taken all
reasonable precautions to mitigate these impacts, the facility and community will coexist, with some residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern, and there are limits to the mitigation the operator can apply. Only in very exceptional circumstances would we revoke the operators permit. These factors should be considered when identifying areas suitable for development. The locations of waste sites can be found on our public register at
https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-all
We trust the advice we have given is useful and will contribute to the soundness of
the emerging local plan. We will continue to provide further advice and comments at
future statutory stages of the emerging local plan. Should you wish us to review any draft policies and text as well as technical documents and background studies, such
as strategic flood risk assessments or water cycle studies which may be used to
support your plan, we can offer this as part of our planning advice service.

This service will ensure that your evidence documents fully support the local plan
and ensure that environmental issues are addressed in an effective and timely way
contributing to sustainable development. As part of the planning advice service we
will provide you with a single point of contact who will co-ordinate access to our
technical specialists who will be able to provide bespoke advice and help you
prepare any supporting documents. We will be pleased to provide you with an
estimated cost for any work we would undertake as part of the service.

NEW LOCAL PLAN my views

We are being overwhelmed with new-build houses. The selling price of these houses is beyond the reach of nearly all constituents of Rochford District and their relatives and friends.

As a result of this over-building, our environment is suffering gross pollution (not only from cars): I myself suffer from a lung infection and my only way of preventing further decline in health is to move away from the area. I chose to move to Hawkwell in 1963 when I could walk across the main road (B1013) without even looking; this remained the case for about 15 years when I moved away to live in South Woodham Ferrers.

Subsequently I moved back to Hawkwell in 1999 to find Hawkwell had changed only a little but this was to change radically in the next 12 years. In the past 5 years, traffic and pollution have increased 4-fold. It sometimes takes 10 minutes to pull out of my driveway onto the road due to traffic, a lot of which is only 'passing through' and should properly be using the A127! The road congestion cannot be avoided and with it comes pollution.

Councils are being blackmailed by Parliament to build regardless of the cost to our health and well-being. Our MPs are failing us. They have not stood together and said: "stop", they must now do so.

About 6 years ago, in response to the request of Hawkwell Parish Council and in conjunction with other concerned parishioners, we produced the Hawkwell Parish Plan (copies were handed to Rochford District Council members) showing what it was that Hawkwell parishioners wanted; to get a good idea of what was need in 2012 and beyond, it is necessary to read the conclusions of the plan. It was not necessary to build very many houses - the need was for hundreds and not the thousands of houses which are being built now: all this latter does is to encourage people to move out of London to live in Rochford District, it does not improve or even maintain the lot of our existing parishioners.

It is my view that those elected to serve the community are failing us badly in all aspects of local life here; this applies at government, county and district levels.

I am writing to express my concern at the plan to build more new homes and increased development in Hockley. I have recently moved to the area, from Romford, which used to be a traditional market town; however, that was before the council decided to build thousands of new homes. It is now a built up town, with an extremely high crime rate and is far from the nice market town it once was. I have seen first hand how it has gone from a desirable area to a no go town, which is something I and the residents of Hockley would be devastated if this were to happened here. Please see below some key points/questions that concern myself and the people of Hockley:

- Already, the village experiences high congestion at peak times - how exactly is it supposed to cope with an extra 28, 000 cars on the road?

- The extra pollution? How will this affect our health and also the beautiful countryside and wildlife?

- Hockley is desirable due to its village appeal. With increased development this will disappear and it will be like other overdeveloped towns, with no character and the issues that come with the increased activity

- Will there be sufficient infrastructure to cope with the increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and the nearest hospitals? The wait for appointments is already far too long meaning health is out at risk. How will it cope with 7,500 more people needing treatment?

- How will the schools cope? With increased class size, children's education will suffer. This will have a detrimental effect.

- It is well documented that the crime rate in built up areas is higher than that in less populated villages and towns.

Please consider these points. This is an extremely important issue for Hockley residents and something that needs much consideration - it would mean changing the village for ever and not for the better. It is a strong opinion that the focus should be on preserving the local area and village feel.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email and consider the points above.

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.

Firstly may I thank the officers of the Council for their time at the public meeting held on 16 January 2018. I note with regret that more senior members of council planning staff were not available to justify or answer questions about the plans and hope that they will be more visible to residents in the future.

Before I raise specific issues about the plan, I feel I must point out that in drafting the document, the Council has started from an incorrect position from which it will now be very difficult to recover, namely that there is a need for 7,500 new dwellings in the area. As your council planning officer explained the figure of 7,500 is based on a standard model developed by the Government and takes into account no local factors. However, unfortunately this ludicrous figure of 7,500 has now set the bar of expectation with both opposition (the majority of residents) and pro-development (developers and land-owners) parties.

The Council should have started from a position that given the known opposition of existing residents to plans for major development, evidenced by the huge opposition to the Hall Road development (of 620 houses), combined with the factors weighing against further development, little additional development is considered appropriate in the local area and a figure of perhaps 250 homes offered as the most that could be absorbed. The starting position adopted by the Council is a major strategic error for which the Director of Planning must take full responsibility.

It is clear both from the factors outlined below and the opposition to the plan from existing council tax paying residents, that any further development of significant scale is unsustainable and the council should rethink this plan to arrive at a more acceptable and sustainable solution.

Major traffic congestion - The B1013 is the main road through Hawkwell and Hockley connecting the towns to Rochford and Rayleigh. This road is already heavily congested at peak periods such as "rush hour" and "school run" times. It also carries traffic to what is becoming a major airport and the major business park at the airport that is currently undergoing very significant expansion. Of particular concern is the junction of Spa Road, Woodlands Road and Southend Road (the mini-roundabout opposite The Spa public house), which is a major "pinch-point".

Impact on public safety - The two Fire Stations managed by Essex County Fire & Rescue Service at Hawkwell and Rochford, respectively, are manned on a "retained" basis. This means that fire crews are alerted to incidents by means of a radio-pager and aim to reach the fire station within 4-5 minutes. Additional traffic created by further residential and commercial development in the area will increase turn-out times thereby increasing the time it takes the Fire Service to attend incidents, placing those needing assistance at additional risk.

Air polution - At certain times of the day, the air pollution caused by current major traffic congestion in some parts of Hockley and Hawkwell is already likely to be in breach of the standards set by the European Commission (Directives 2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC). However, as the Council has been reluctant to carry out appropriate air quality monitoring it has been left to a group of independent councillors to undertake a 12 month study the results of which are due shortly. Clearly, the additional traffic resulting from further housing and commercial development will add to the toxic level of pollution in the atmosphere adding to the misery of those suffering with respiratory medical conditions and to the detriment of the health of residents. However, it is not only the excessive vehicle traffic that causes high levels of pollution. It must be appreciated that having a significant airport within the immediate vicinity is a major cause of both air and noise pollution.

Green Belt Development - Major developments suggested on major areas of green belt land between Gusted Hall Lane and Mount Bovers Lane would cause significant damage to the environment and have a dramatically negative impact on the landscape of the area. Not only would it destroy an important wildlife area but also productive arable farming land would be lost forever. Greenbelt land should be protected with any development limited to Brownfield and "in-fill" development to ensure the essential character of Hawkwell is maintained.

Developments absent from the plan and errors in mapping - There appears to be developments that have been approved that are absent from the plan. For example, the approval of circa. 70 homes on the site of the former Bullwood Hall prison are not even mentioned and their impact is not considered. The area marked on the map for prospective development in Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell is a small rear garden with no access and unsuitable for development. These are important omissions and errors that need to be corrected.

Independence of AECOM - Within the document, the Council refers to the draft scoping report prepared by "independent consultants" AECOM. A look at AECOM's annual report for 2017 shows very clearly, large multi-national and highly aggressive organisation focussed primarily on its own commercial objectives. For such an organisation to be successful it will be dependent on strong relationships with developers and construction companies, who stand to benefit from large building projects. The Council may wish to consider this when preparing tenders for further work and ensuring that any relationships AECOM may have with parties who stand to benefit from large developments are fully transparent and to seek assurances that no conflict of interest is present.

Information Asymmetry - The council tax payers expect the council planning team to be the "experts" in the area of planning policy and we expect them to produce credible proposals to safeguard the integrity and existing nature of the local area for residents. Instead what has been produced is a long, meandering and sometimes complex document containing vast quantities of largely irrelevant data and very little by way of evidence, with the apparent purpose of deterring engagement from residents. Even simple traffic surveys and existing air quality data are absent from the document, presumably because the facts would not support the case for over development that the Council is clearly promoting. Residents expect the council to be protecting their interests in discussions such as these as residents do not have access to the amount of information and resources that parties such as developers and large construction companies have at their disposal.

Conclusion - In conclusion, there are sadly very few, if any, positive proposals in the plan for existing residents and I am left wondering what we are in fact paying our council tax for?

The New Local Plan document does not, as it claims, "set out a shared vision for the future of our district" as it does not take any account of the strong views of most existing residents who are opposed to this so called "vision".

The Council planning team has missed a significant opportunity to put forward proposals to improve the district for the residents of Hawkwell and surrounding areas and instead is bending over backwards to support major developers who are only concerned about profit and greedy landowners who see an opportunity to make a "killing" from their assets, to the detriment of the majority of residents.

I call for far greater transparency in the communications that have clearly been ongoing between prospective site owners and Council officials to ensure that the public have a full picture of how this initial set of sites has been derived.

Given that a plan already exists up until 2025, it is far too early to consider further development as the alleged "evidence" on which the proposals are based will change e.g. the increased level of traffic from developments under construction but not yet completed. The proposals put forward are clearly not sustainable and do not strike the right balance between environmental, economic and social factors and are not in the best interests of current residents of the area.

OBJECTION to the RDC New Local Plan ( Issues & Options stage ):-

RDC is still not able to access the impacts of current and approved future development, since a large amount has not been completed we are already noticing issues of gaining access to medical services and traffic congestion.

Development of the area should take in to account the unique geography being a peninsular.



I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows :

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.

2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.

4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.

5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

OBJECTION to the RDC New Local Plan ( Issues & Options stage ):-

RDC is still not able to access the impacts of current and approved future development, since a large amount has not been completed we are already noticing issues of gaining access to medical services and traffic congestion.

Development of the area should take in to account the unique geography being a peninsular.



I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows :

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.

2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.

4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.

5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

I refer to the proposal for the possible building of 7,500 new houses in the local area to Hullbridge, Rayleigh and surrounding area.

I strongly object to this vast number of houses being built in this area due to congestion, pollution, lack of school places, lack of patient places at doctors, loss of wildlife and green areas, reduction of quality of life in what is a small village now and which would become a town.

With the type of soil in the village of Hullbridge building on such a vast scale could cause flooding.

We are already having to accept 550 houses which will dramatically alter life here without another load being built.

I believe roads will be totally congested with just the 550 houses and cannot imagine how horrendous it would be with this huge extra number of properties. Rayleigh is already known to be a very polluted town with a poor air quality in parts which is injurious to health and this will just increase across the whole of this area making it unpleasant to live and travel in. Considering we are all supposed to be more environmentally aware I'm amazed the council would want this much pollution. The roads just could not support the increase in traffic this building project would bring.

On top of this it appears funding for this whole project looks pretty dire with secured funding a tiny percentage of what is required.

Please think again on this disastrous plan so we aren't drowned in a sea of concrete and pollution. Hullbridge has a very special community which our local council seems determined to ruin.

I write to object to the developments proposed in the new local plan. These plans are not realistic or sustainable, from what I have read there is not enough funding to provide an adequate infrastructure for the proposed amount of development. The majority of the sites in question involve building on our greenbelt land. This land is of vital importance not only for future generations, and to stop negative impact on the environment but also for preventing urban sprawl and the merging of our towns. The greenbelt land should be protected and it is stated that it should only be overruled in extreme circumstances. What are these extreme circumstances? The civic amenities and services in this area are already stretched beyond sustainability we do not have the services to cater for so much growth in the area; the hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries and emergency services are under enough strain already. Speaking about Rayleigh specifically as it is the town I am most familiar with, the area already suffers with extreme congestion and we do not have the road system to effectively cope with more commuters, not to mention that the air quality in some places is already at dangerous levels. In regards specifically to the area outlined in map E a lot of these plots are flood risk 2 and 3 ,and regarding Daws heath road, the road itself is not wide enough to handle more traffic as it already has the overflow from the a127 in peak times as well as having poor drainage, flooding and awful potholes year after year it simply could not cope with more traffic from extra adjacent housing sites. I ask you to cut the target amount to sustainable levels and protect our greenbelt for the sake of all residents.

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows: 1.
No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.

An ECC report has made it clear there are insufficient funds to provide the vital infrastructure for this plan. It's unsustainable and will adversely affect the quality ofl ife of current residents and will nor provide a good environment for those purchasing any property.

NHS Services are at full stretch - witness deaths over Christmas/New Year due to insufficient NHS provision locally.

Roads are already at full capacity.

Schools are largely full.

No provision for improvement to Police provision,

No provision for extra public transport capacity.

Some areas are already known to have bad air quality, which would worsen.

2.

No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

The water companies have made it clear they cannot cope with this extra demand on resources, per the ECC infrastructure report.

No provision for increases in electricity and gas provision.

3.

No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.

Our hospital couldn't cope over Christmas/New Year 2017/18 - deaths ensued. Mny GP surgeries are already full.

4.
No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.

Air quality known to be above set limits at places such as Rayleigh Weir and the Hockley Road where it enters the town, and Websters Way area, due to traffic queues occurring there. This must be addressed first.


5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

No figures as to how many affordable homes needed, and will be available for our younger residents needing first time homes. Likelihood is builders will erect larger more profitable houses. Also possibility of affordable homes being sild off to authorities the area - thus not solving our housing needs.

Destroying our Green Belt - as this Plan could do, leaves an area no longer fit to live in. This whole scheme in no way considers the welfare of current residents and possible future ones. This scheme will destroy this general district. Presumably RDC has no concerns over making this area part of a greater urban sprawl; and gaining the reputation as a council determined on destructive, uncontrollable and indiscriminate building at the cost of adversle affecting the welfare of residents.