Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?

Not enough emphasis is being placed on the preservation of existing wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

Not at all. The infrastructure cannot cope at the moment let alone with further pressure. Schools, doctors and roads are not sufficient.

The point I feel most challenged by are concerns that 'rural diversification' and the development of housing projects will affect bio diversity and community cohesion in rural areas. The provision of shopping, community and leisure facilities in these communities and in neighbouring towns especially around Rochford is constantly narrowing (despite numerous large scale housing projects in recent times). I support small scale projects for necessary provison to low income or first time buyers but fear that most projects will be executive housing.

Too much house building without infrastructure in place. Areas allready over developed

The Government &Council are very good at using words to make visions all sound promising &well considered BUT if Rochford residents wanted to live in a densely populated area we would not be residing here. The majority of residents oppose this huge development &the draft vision doesn't address the negative psychological impact on residents &the stress/ worry/concern we feel for our future generations due to trying to over populate the area. The Government are trying to make Essex an extension of London. Also the vision does not include the decline in birth rate and future decrease in population.

I moved to Rochford (Great Wakering) in Dec 2019, what attracted us to the area was its semi-rural way of life. I do not understand how Rochford will continue to be a green and pleasant place to live if we are to accept the proposed development locations put forward?

I also question what is meant by high quality homes, the houses that are being constructed in Rochford, do not fit in with the local aesthetic and are crammed in together. I would not want to see homes like that built in Wakering.

I agree with preserving and enhancing the quality of lives of people in our district, our green belt and conservation areas

I agree with the vision for Rochford district preserving our green belt, conservation areas and enhancing the lives of the residents

Although I recognise the need for further sustainable housing in our district it does seem that Rochford has taken ore than its fair share of recent developments and I would not want further housing in this area.

My concern here is with the Climate Emergency which is now upon us. These 'plans' do not take it seriously enough.

The traffic situation through Hockley, Ashingdon and Rochford to and from Southend at peak times is a major problem. Nothing in the plans will alleviate the problems. In fact, if all the promoted sites are taken up then the situation will only get worse. We should be looking to reduce even the current levels of vehicles on the roads and this can only be achieved with better alternatives for transport. A lot of the current peak problems through the Ashingdon Road area appear to be caused by parents transporting children to school. We should be encouraging active travel (walking, cycling etc) which will have a number of benefits - better health, less polution, better journey times for those that need to use motorised transport for example. This should be done before any development takes place creating a fully connected network of routes that make it easy, safe and pleasant enough to encourage car users to use them. It is not sufficient for each development to add a little bit of infrastructure as that will not encourage people to use it because users will get dumped in amongst dangerous drivers when the little bit of infrastructure runs out - for a current example look at the shared path along Hall Road that terminates at the railway bridge at Rochford station. How can you expect children to use that for getting to and from school? There are several stretches of cycling infrastructure that I know of that are totally unfit for purpose and must have been designed by someone that has never ridden a bicycle.
I have recently been told that you had the chance to apply for funding for active travel improvement for which you did nothing at all. If that is true then shame on you. Your jobs are to make things better for the residents - it's time to step up and deliver on that.

We have seen a number of abnormal or extreme weather events across Europe this year. This will have a knock on effect to food production and, therefore, the ability to import sufficient for our needs. There is no way we should be using greenfield sites as we will be needing them to make up for import shortfalls. Additionally, in my own garden, there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of pollinating insects. My own very small vegetable plot has seen lower production as a result of the bad weather and lack of pollination this year. We must retain the greenfield sites to make up for lower crop yields and also to provide habitat for the pollinators.

The local community and facilities (schools, doctors etc) cannot cope with the amount of housing we have now.

Building additional housing and creating additional jobs is a mistake, and pure vandalism of the precious little countryside and environment we still have. More housing brings more people to the already struggling roads/infrastructure, which in turn drives the need for more jobs, which then needs more housing. This is a viscous spiral and vision that can't be followed without it resulting in the paving over of the whole of the district.

We agree with the draft vision for Rochford District, especially in relation to the delivery of high quality homes supported by accessible and responsive services and facilities, creating healthy and sustainable communities.

For many years Rochford and the surrounding area was a small town, with appropriate roads and services to support the low volume of housing, and its rural nature of farmland, woodland and open areas. In recent years large amounts of housing development have been created with little or no consideration for the changing landscape and wildlife and no change in the available roads, doctors, schools etc.
Options could be -
Looking to work with Southend to meet housing quotas

Developing a new area into a Canewdon size village area, with appropriate road works and services appears an option..

With the Hall Lane development, there is no sign of a school or any other promises which were made, and if you did proper measurements of the traffic in the Hawkwell Hockley area you would know that the road infrastructure is just not viable. The road surfaces are constantly eroded by traffic .. The GP surgeries won't be able to cope, neither will the schools. Can someone point out that we live in a peninsula and there is little or no scope for more development without eroding residents wellbeing.

We welcome inclusion of a reference to the RSPB's important wetland site in the vision but we would also like you to consider including a reference to the importance of trees and woods, planted in the right locations, for providing a wide range of benefits for local people and for wildlife and, of course, contributing to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

The vision seems to be more about continued growth which is just not sustainable in an area that already has significant infrastructure constraints (as outlined in several of your supporting documents). You also have little control over the quality of homes that are built and the vast majority of green spaces are private owned and not accessible to people (other than by driving past them).

The Vision makes a passing and vague reference to Rochford District being a "green and pleasant place", but it's main emphasis is on continued business, housing and infrastructure development. The Vision should give equal weight to maintaining and creating high quailty, connected, and biodiverse landscapes. Otherwise the Vision is not consistent with creating healthy communities, nor with strategic objectives 20, 21 and 23.

Overall I agree, but I disagree the order of the strategic priorities - in so far as they implicitly give an order of priorities. I would put Priority 5 at the top and in particular the first part of Objective 22. Priority 5 should override Housing or the other priorities. Building should be within the constraint of maintaining and enhancing the distinct characteristics of the communities in Rochford district and the key historic, natural and social features.

I agree in principle but we need to make sure that there is affordable housing for children who would like to continue to live in a particular place once they have left the family home.

The Vision makes a passing and vague reference to Rochford District being a "green and pleasant place", but the emphasis is firmly on continued development of business, housing and infrastructure. The Vision should give equal weight to maintaining and creating high quality, connected, and more biodiverse landscapes, so that the Vision is consistent with creating healthy communities, and with strategic objectives 20, 21 and 23.

I disagree with your comment under our environment stating that "We have retained our open character and extensive Metropolitan Green Belt designation" - you will not be adhering to this. There are plenty of brown field sites and empty industrial estates around Rochford. You should not even be considering destroying any green belt site.
"We have ensured the delivery of a wide size and tenure of new homes which meets the needs of residents, and is supported by a range of infrastructure necessary to mitigate potential impacts on communities" - no you have not provided any infrastructure that will help the mass development of potential housing estates - the doctors in Rochford can not cope, the schools are full, the roads can not possible cope with additional transport.

No I don't. I do not agree with you building on green belt, destroying our beautiful countryside and a rural community including wildlife.

I see so little
Evidence in support for small businesses, it’s very disheartening seeing shops close constantly and businesses fold.

The draft vision at present appears to be too vague and lacks a real vision. It is clear that the two big challenges facing the country in the next 20-30 years are a lack of homes, particularly for both young and elderly, along with the impending threat of climate change and its attendant impacts. Therefore, both of these need to be reflected in the vision. Rochford should strive, in its local plan, to not only meet its housing supply but to plan beyond, as well as to meet the threat of climate change by encouraging all developments to be ‘green’, to exceed climate change targets and to seek alternatives to the private car to transform how Rochford residents travel.

For example, the ‘Our Society’ vision needs to have a greater vision for the delivery of new housing and supporting infrastructure. Rochford should welcome the challenge of building at least 360 homes per year, by choosing to focus on high quality developments and the attendant benefits of planning for the delivery of these homes.

Similarly, the ‘Our Environment’ vision does not refer to climate change, which is a missed opportunity, given the pressing need facing the Country in addressing Climate Change impacts and its repeated messages within the NPPF, particularly as detailed within Chapter 14, and at paragraph 153 which states that, “Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change…”.

Alongside this, the Covid-19 pandemic has transformed how people work, with more people now choosing to work from home, more often. This needs to be reflected in the ‘Our Economy’ vision – can Rochford provide the employment hubs and flexible working conditions to meet the new ‘normal’ for example.

Appears to be a fur assessment

Yes – We also believed by using London Southend Airport as business hub, and by supporting start up businesses, whilst maintaining a balance of appropriate land release with protection and enhancement of the metropolitan greenbelt, Rochford can achieve the 2050 draft vision.

The publication of the Spatial Options Consultation document is a welcome step forward for the new Local Plan. Although notionally the adopted Core Strategy covers the period to 2025, that document is now a decade old, and it is important therefore for the Council to move forward and get a new Local Plan in place. Not only are some of the key assumptions in the Core Strategy regarding housing requirements and employment provision now substantially out of date, but there is in any event only a limited period of time now until the end date of the Core Strategy is reached, and it is important for the sustainable management of future development and its co-ordination with the necessary infrastructure for a long-term replacement Plan to be brought in to place as soon as practically possible.

We appreciate that the original intention had been for the new Local Plan to be guided by the Joint South Essex Plan, and of course that may still be the case, and that process may raise additional strategic options for consideration. However, in the absence of the joint strategic plan, we support the Council in moving forward at this stage with a range of strategic options for consultation, in light of the urgent need for progress outlined above.

It would be helpful to provide clarity on the period that the new Local Plan is intending to cover. The Committee Report and Vision section refer to the Plan setting out a 30 year vision for the District at 2050 (which coincides with the period for the joint Strategic Plan). However, the growth strategy section refers to growth requirements over the next 20 years. The different time spans are confusing, plus it is difficult to explain how the vision for 2050 would be achieved if the Plan is only delivering growth to the 2040s.

Yes – We also believed by using London Southend Airport as business hub, and by supporting start up businesses, whilst maintaining a balance of appropriate land release with protection and enhancement of the metropolitan greenbelt, Rochford can achieve the 2050 draft vision.

I do not agree