Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?

The Spatial Options Paper lists 23 Strategic Options and Persimmon Homes broadly agrees with these, though we would have the following observations to make:

• Strategic Objective 1 – Persimmon Homes understands the Council’s reasons for looking to prioritise previously developed land first. However, the Paper goes onto confirm at page 29 that previously developed land will not be able to meet the Council’s housing targets in full; therefore there is no justification in prioritising previously developed land first. In many cases, greenfield sites are able to be brought forward quicker than previously developed land, particularly in the case of previously developed land having existing uses that need to be relocated first, or contaminated land that requires remediation. Accordingly, this objective could be reworded as follows:

“To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs, through working with our neighbours in South Essex and encouraging the redevelopment of previously developed land alongside suitably located greenfield sites to ensure the plan requirements are met in full.”

• Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 – these objectives could usefully reference the change in remote working patterns and confirm that Rochford will promote the use of flexible working practices to meet the needs of the ‘new normal’ arising from Covid-19, as well as offering flexible work spaces to meet the needs of the 21st Century Office;

• Strategic Objective 6 – we would disagree with the phrasing ‘highest attainable quality’ as this is vague and imprecise; design is, to a large degree, subjective (particularly moreso where Local Authorities lack design codes and guides to guide the design of built form). We would therefore recommend the following revised wording:

“To ensure that all new homes and commercial premises are built to a high quality design and sustainability standard with a good level of access to green space and the countryside.”

• Strategic Objective 13 – this objective could usefully highlight Governments’ requirement to direct development to Flood Zone 1 (i.e. areas at the lowest risk of flooding);

• Strategic Objective 23 – the sole objective relating to climate change could usefully reflect Governments’ Future Homes’ requirement (being introduced in 2025).

Totally agree that areas whcih support the community nedd to be both protected and enhanced for the needs of the community not for financial gain by those not living and utilising the local needs

No comment

Yes – The list was very comprehensive.

Yes – The list was very comprehensive.

Our Wakering/Barling villages suffer from poor connectivity to other areas, with the local roads being predominantly farm tracks paved over with no capacity to accept further development without significant infrastructure investment. Normal council operations such as refuse collection already cause significant traffic issues due to a lack of or poor infrastructure design throughout the district, especially on link roads such as Sutton Road. Developments currently discharge traffic onto feeder roads that are narrow and unfit for large volumes of traffic (Barrow Hall Road) and congestion on other roads such as the A13 push traffic onto other minor country lanes such as Shopland Road. Sustainable development needs to address infrastructure and public transport, the latter is poor with limited services and encourages car usage.

Thank you for consulting Castle Point and Rochford Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) on the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation paper 2021. The CCG and the Mid and South Essex Health and Care Partnership (HCP) welcome the
opportunity to provide comments on the consultation document. The focus of the comments is on the document’s approach to health and wellbeing and, the provision for healthcare facilities.
Draft vision
It is noted that the draft vision for Rochford in 2050 makes references to achieving a network of infrastructure including health as well social and green infrastructure, enabling residents to work locally and have many accessible and high quality open spaces including coastline that residents can enjoy. These ambitions will promote the health and wellbeing of our population and are supported.
Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives
The strategic priorities to meet the need for homes and jobs in the area; to provide for retail, leisure and other commercial development, infrastructure and climate change mitigation and adaptation are supported. Amendments are suggested to strengthen the strategic objectives that support these priorities.
Strategic objective 2: The stated objective is to plan for a mix of homes needed to support current and future residents, in particular viably addressing affordability issues and supporting our ageing population. The objective is supported; access to quality housing is one of the wider determinants of health.
Reference could be drawn from the Lifetime Homes standard to ensure that homes make life as easy as possible for as long as possible, providing accessible and
adaptable accommodation for everyone, from young families to older people and individuals with a temporary or permanent physical impairment. This approach should,
over time, allow older people to stay in their own homes for longer and reduce the need for home adaptations.
It is also important to recognise the housing needs of younger members of the population and to address the challenges of entering the housing market. In addition,
the ability of health and social care workers to access the housing market should be considered when addressing the affordability of housing. A local health and care
workforce, as well as built and digital infrastructure, is needed to successfully deliver services for the benefit of our population.
Strategic objective 3: Economic wellbeing is a wider determinant of health and so objectives to deliver more local jobs such as strategic objective 3 are supported.
Strategic objective 4: In addition to allocating land for employment development, provision should be made to enable working from home, which has the benefits of
reducing travel. Houses should be of sufficient size and flexible designs to accommodate this option.
Strategic objective 7: The scope of this objective could be extended from the town centres in Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford meeting local niche shopping and leisure
needs to include a broader range of activities. These could include shared workspaces for local businesses, community cafes and drop-in facilities for early intervention health services, which would support health and wellbeing of the population.
Strategic objective 8: This objective could include improvement of village and neighbourhood centres to enable the delivery of some health services such as
vaccination centres and drop-in facilities. This would benefit the health and wellbeing of residents and reduce the need to travel.
Strategic Objective 11: Encouraging walking and cycling and so levels of physical activity is supported. Ensuring that our population is well served by public transport is
important to achieving equal access to healthcare services and is important both in new developments and to link established and new developments.
Strategic objective 14: The CCG and HCP welcome the inclusion of strategic objective 14 and look forward to working with the Council and other partners to ensure that our population has access to good quality social and health and wellbeing services.
Strategic objective 15: The inclusion of a reference to older people in this objective is positive. However, it should be made clear that promoting healthy and active lifestyles, and improving physical and mental health and wellbeing, is important for people of all ages, including young people.
Strategic objective 23: Mitigating and adapting to climate change is supported. This objective should be amended to make it clear that those changes are current as well as
forecast and so require immediate action.
Figure 16 – Typical Levels of Growth required to Deliver Infrastructure
It is important to note that the level of growth required to deliver a primary healthcare centre given is, as the title indicates, only typical. There are circumstances where a new facility would be triggered by a development of less than 3,500 additional dwellings and others where 3,500 new dwellings would not result in the provision of a new healthcare facility.
Spatial Strategy Options
Additional healthcare capacity will be needed to provide primary care services to meet the needs of new residents in each of the spatial strategy options. How this additional capacity is achieved will need to be the subject of discussion
informed by more detail about the scale and location of development. New facilities are one option but may not be the most appropriate solution in all cases. Increased capacity through reconfiguration and/or extension of existing premises will also be considered.
It is requested that the wording in the ‘This strategy could deliver…’ text boxes on pages 30, 31 and 32 be amended from ‘…new medical facilities…’ to ‘additional medical facility capacity’. This is to clarify that new facilities will not necessarily be delivered in relation
to all growth whether through urban extensions, concentrated growth or a balanced combination of the options presented.
Further information about the scale and location of developments in the options presented would be needed to form any preference for a particular spatial strategy. The Health and Care Partnership would welcome discussions with the Council and further involvement in development of the local plan strategy to ensure that healthcare needs are properly addressed.
Question 9 – It is agreed that a sequential approach should be taken, and development should be located away from areas at risk of flooding. The HCP would not support the provision of healthcare premises in areas of high flood risk.
Question 10 – The Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be safeguarded from development as they are a valuable resource to help residents
maintain good physical and mental health.
Question 11 – The principle of requiring developments to source energy from low-carbon and renewable sources in supported. Care should be taken to ensure other important resources, such as landscape are not compromised as a consequence.
Question 12 – Yes, developments should be striving for the highest energy efficiency standards. New NHS buildings are being designed to standards higher than the building regulations in the drive to achieve net-zero carbon developments.
Place-making and design
The inclusion of a place-making charter for Rochford in the Local Plan is supported. It should secure high quality buildings and built environments as well as green and blue spaces; encourage active travel; make provision for local/community food production; and require accessible and adaptable homes. It is also important that existing
communities and new developments, including for our travelling communities, are successfully integrated with easy active travel options and public transport between
them. This approach will help to ensure that development has positive impacts on the health and wellbeing of all of our residents
Healthcare facilities
The structure of healthcare bodies in Mid and South Essex changing. Separate clinical commissioning groups are coming together in an integrated care body which will be part of an integrated care system with other health and social care partners. It is therefore requested that the reference to the Castle Point and Rochford Clinical Commissioning Group is removed.
It is suggested that the ‘Healthcare Facilities’ text on page 57 of the consultation document is replaced by:
With a growing and ageing population, provision of health and community facilities and services within the district is going to become even more important. There is a need to
provide health care facilities that meet existing and future needs, including those arising from the population growth across the plan period. There are currently 10 GP practices in Rochford and the average list size is around 9,500 patients.
The shape of healthcare delivery in Mid and South Essex is also changing. As well as increasing capacity in all three hospitals in Mid and South Essex, the health and care partnership is aiming to invest in and support GP practices to work together to provide
joined up care, building activities in prevention, helping people at an earlier stage and
avoiding serious illness. These priorities will require healthcare hubs that can host a wider
range of healthcare services including diagnostics and early intervention services; support
a move to improved digital services and provide capacity for drop-in and wellbeing services. These will be established through a combination of refurbishment and/or extension of existing facilities; sharing of facilities; and new build projects. The Health and Care partnership is pleased to have to opportunity to respond to the Rochford Local Plan consultation and requests ongoing engagement in development of the plan.

1.1. On behalf of our client Pigeon Investment Management Ltd, Savills (UK) Ltd has been instructed to prepare a response to the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation Paper (July 2021).
1.2. Pigeon Investment Management Ltd are promoting Land north of Greensward Lane (also known as ‘Woodside Park’), Hockley, on behalf Pigeon (Hockley) Ltd; Graham Pattrick, Jill Newman and Jacqueline Strong; Ann Harris; and Chris Short (the ‘landowners’ of Woodside Park). The site is located to the north west of Hockley, and is bound by built development to the south, east and west and Beckney Wood to the north. Whilst the site is currently located in the Green Belt, it is well contained by its existing environment and it is considered its allocation will play an important role in meeting the District’s housing needs and importantly the affordability issues identified in Hockley.
1.3. The concept for Woodside Park is for a high-quality landscape-led sustainable scheme of approximately 100 new homes of a variety of different sizes, types and tenures, together with associated supporting infrastructure, amenity greenspace, and landscaping. The site is located within a highly sustainable location with access to key services and facilities including primary and secondary schools, a doctors surgery and the train station within walking distance of the site.
1.4. There are no significant landscape, ecological, heritage, utilities or drainage constraints that would prevent the scheme being delivered. The site would make a valuable, and sustainable, contribution to meeting housing needs, and could do so in the short-term.
1.5. The site, as shown on the submitted Location Plan, is formed of a number of sites submitted to the HELAA as follows:

• CFS023 (Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley)
• CFS197 (Land r/o 185 Greensward Lane, Hockley)
• CFS199 (Land r/o 155 Greensward Lane, Hockley)
• CFS201 (Land adjacent 41-45 Crouch View Crescent, Hockley)
• CFS204 (Greensward Lane, Hockley)
1.6. In addition to these, a parcel of land to the east of CFS023 is also included within the Woodside Park site, which has not previously been submitted to the HELAA Call for Sites.
1.7. We have responded to the following questions in the consultation, in the order that they are asked (we have sought to not be repetitive and thus cross-refer when a matter relates to more than one Question):
• Question 1: Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
• Question 4: Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?
• Question 5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?
• Question 6: Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
• Question 7: Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?
• Question 8 Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
• Question 14: Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
• Question 17: With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing
• Question 18: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?
• Question 58a: Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?
• Question 58b: With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
• Question 58c: Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
1.8. In support of this submission, the following documents are enclosed:
• Site Location Plan

• Woodside Park Delivery Statement
This sets out our vision for the site including deliverability objectives, key constraints and opportunities and design objectives for the site.
Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?

1.9. Yes. As discussed in our response to other Questions, we consider that further work is required in relation to the following:
1. The housing requirement, including to: i) understand the implications of the proposals contained within the emerging Southend-on-Sea Local Plan; ii) a suitable deliverability buffer; and iii) establish a housing requirement (see our response to Question 6).
2. An update to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The South Essex SHMA was prepared in 2016 and updated in 2017. The SHMA is thus out of date with national policy, and does not factor in the impact of either Brexit, or the Covid-19 pandemic, and unless updated will become increasingly out-of-date as the preparation of the new Local Plan progresses.
Green Belt Study

1.10. The Green Belt Study Part 1 (2020) should be further updated to include a finer grained approach to key settlement edges. Some parcels (i.e. P19) are so large in scale it is not considered balanced and accurate conclusions can be drawn with the regards to the contribution the land makes to the Green Belt.
1.11. P19 extends to over 1,000 hectares from the north eastern edge of Hockley to the south western corner of Rayleigh (see Figure 1 below). It is difficult to comprehend how the Green Belt on the edge of Hockley can play the same role as land west of Rayleigh or south of the village of Hullbridge.
1.12. Figure 1: Extent of P19

1.13. Rayleigh and Hockley are identified as Tier 1 and 2 settlements in the settlement hierarchy respectively, and it is assumed both settlements could accommodate a significant proportion of required growth over the emerging plan period. Both settlements are tightly constrained by the Green Belt and thus it is considered inevitable that land will need to be released from the Green Belt adjacent to both settlements to help meet the District’s housing needs.
1.14. Whilst Stage 2 of the Assessment looks at specific areas on the edge of settlements in more detail, this simply draws on the conclusions of Phase 1 and if the contribution was high, then the harm was also considered high. These smaller edge of settlement areas (i.e. those that fall within parcel P.19) have not been appropriately assessed against the purposes of the Green Belt as advised by numerous planning inspectors as advised by Planning Inspectors (i.e. Welwyn and Hatfield, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire).
1.15. Turning to the assessment of the area of land to the north east of Hockley (i.e. land north of Greensward Road), Stage 2 of the Green Belt Assessment concludes:
"The majority of the assessment area makes a strong High contribution to preventing encroachment into the countryside and a moderate contribution to checking sprawl from the large urban area and preventing the merging of towns. The north western corner of the assessment area which is more contained by the urban edge of Hockley and the woodland block makes a moderate contribution to all of the aforementioned purposes. Apart from a couple of isolated, detached dwellings which are not urbanising, the assessment area is open and undeveloped. With the exception of the north western corner the wooded Harrogate Drive along the south western edge of the area maintains distinction from the inset urban area, although its relationship with the wider countryside to the north is restricted by woodland. Release of the assessment area would impact adjacent Green Belt to the east due to the weaker boundary features at the edge of the assessment area and it would reduce the justification for retaining the existing washed over development in the Green Belt"

1.16. The assessment states that the area is open and undeveloped. The dwellings which front Greensward Road are within the parcel and given their number, it is incorrect to refer to them as being ‘isolated’.
1.17. Furthermore, the relationship with woodland to the north is the same for all these ‘high harm’ parcels as it is for P46 which was identified as having moderate harm. The woodland to the north and road to the south are narrowing on plan, providing more containment, and the boundary to the west edge of P198 is strong, defensible and permanent by virtue of the existing strong wooded vegetation. As a result the degree of containment becomes greater.
1.18. In conclusion, whilst it is appreciated that it is not the purpose of the Green Belt assessment to assess every site submitted for inclusion in the Local Plan, it is not considered that the conclusions drawn for the land within P19 can be used to determine which sites should be released from the Green Belt. Please see our response to Question 58b for an assessment of Woodside Park against the purposes of the Green Belt.

Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?

1.19. Yes. See also our response to Question 6.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

1.20. Yes. We fully support the proposed settlement hierarchy. In particular, we support the identification of Hockley as a Tier 2 settlement.
1.21. Hockley is a wholly sustainable settlement with key services which include a train station, a secondary school, three primary schools, numerous employment sites and a town centre.
1.22. Its identification as a Tier 2 settlement reflects the important role it currently plays in servicing existing communities, including those in neighbouring villages, and the role it can play in supporting new growth. The distribution of a significant proportion of the proposed growth to Hockley will be essential to ensure the identified affordability issues can be addressed through the provision of new market and affordable homes. We discuss this matter and the quantum of housing in our response to Question 6.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

1.23. Prior to discussing the four strategy options set out in the consultation, we have discussed the following matters, which provide important context to the options proposed:
• The Implications of the Emerging Southend-on-Sea Local Plan Consultation;
• Local Housing Need and the Housing Requirement;
• Housing Provision and the Spatial Distribution of Housing, and in relation to this:
• Implications of the Proposed Distribution of Growth for Hockley
The Implications of the Emerging Southend-on-Sea Local Plan Consultation
1.24. This representation is to the consultation on the emerging Rochford Local Plan only, and not to the Regulation 18 ‘Refining the Plan Options’ consultation on the emerging Southend-on-Sea Local Plan. However, given the content of the Southend-on-Sean consultation documentation, that consultation is very pertinent to the consultation on the Rochford Local Plan. In short, the Southend-on-Sea consultation concludes (Table 12) that, of the four strategy options considered, the only way that Southend-on-Sea can meet its identified housing needs is via the provision of 4,900 new homes to the north of the Borough, within Rochford.
1.25. The ‘proposed’ location of these 4,900 new homes (as an extension of the 7,200-home new neighbourhood within Southend-on-Sea), extending eastward from the immediate environs of the airport and southern point of Rochford town-centre has direct implications on what will be an appropriate and sustainable approach to the distribution of growth within Rochford itself.
1.26. Strategy Option 3 is stated as being:
“… to concentrate growth in one or more locations of 1,500+ dwellings. Option 3 has three sub-options based on locations where there is likely to be sufficient land being promoted to deliver this scale of growth in a co-ordinated way:
• Option 3a: Concentrated growth west of Rayleigh
• Option 3b: Concentrated growth north of Southend
• Option 3c: Concentrated growth east of Rochford”
1.27. Option 3b is essentially what is proposed within the current Southend-on-Sea Local Plan consultation, albeit that proposes a much higher level of growth in that location. With this location being proposed to accommodate growth from within Southend-on-Sea, it cannot also accommodate growth from within Rochford. Whilst the quantum of new homes within this area could be increased further to accommodate growth from within Rochford, with the Southend-on-Sea consultation already proposing 12,100 new homes in the area, it is considered that further increasing this number would be neither sustainable nor deliverable within the plan period. Option 3b is thus essentially negated as a viable option by the Southend-on-Sea proposals.
 
1.28. In this context, Option 3c would constitute further strategic development within just a few km of the Southend-on-Sea proposals. As above, it is considered that further increasing this number would be neither sustainable nor deliverable within the plan period. It would result in a more than significant impact on that part of the District and whilst larger-scale development does offer the ability to deliver more major infrastructure, it is considered that the social, economic and environmental impact of over 13,600 new homes, on that part of the District would be dramatic.
1.29. In addition, both Rochford and Southend-on-Sea fall within the same Housing Market Area (HMA). If the Rochford Local Plan were to focus the delivery of a major proportion of its housing needs within the same geographic area as the Southend-on-Sea Local Plan, this would undoubtedly result in a local imbalance between housing need and supply (noting the need for different sizes, types and tenures), and increase the risk of under-delivery resulting from the saturation of the local housing market. The emerging Rochford Local Plan notes at various points within the consideration of the Strategy Options that the risks of under-delivery can be mitigated by “… having a more diverse mix of sites and locations …”.
1.30. In summary, given the conclusions in the current Southend-on-Sea consultation, of the three sub-options to Strategy Option 3, only one – concentrated growth west of Rayleigh is thus considered to remain a viable, sustainable and deliverable possibility.
1.31. This not only has implications for Strategy Option 3, but also for Strategy Option 4, which is proposed as a ‘balanced combination’ “… making best use of urban capacity (Option 1), building one or two large growth areas (Option 3) and a number of smaller urban extensions (Option 2)”.
Local Housing Need and the Housing Requirement
1.32. The Spatial Options consultation explains (p. 12):
“Rochford is a district that is home to around 87,000 people across a mix of urban and rural settlements. Our population has grown around 4% over the last 10 years and is projected to grow by a further 12% over the next 20 years. This would make our population around 98,000 people by 2040.”
1.33. It proposes five ‘strategic priorities’, the first of which is (p. 21):
“Strategic Priority 1: Meeting the need for homes and jobs in the area”
under which it proposes six ‘strategic objectives’, the first two of which are:
“Strategic Objective 1: To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs, through working with our neighbours in South Essex and prioritising the use of previously developed land first.
Strategic Objective 2: To plan for the mix of homes needed to support our current and future residents, in particular viably addressing affordability issues and supporting our ageing population, including the provision of private and social care schemes.”

1.34. The first of these objectives thus relates to the number of new homes to be provided, whilst the second relates to the mix (i.e. size, type and tenure) of homes.
1.35. The NPPF requires (para. 61) (our emphasis):
“To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach … . In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.
1.36. The PPG expands on this, explaining (ID: 2a-002-20190220) (our emphasis):
“What is the standard method for assessing local housing need?
... The standard method … identifies a minimum annual housing need figure. It does not produce a housing requirement figure.”
and (ID: 2a-010-20201216) (our emphasis):
“When might it be appropriate to plan for a higher housing need figure than the standard method indicates?
The government is committed to ensuring that more homes are built and supports ambitious authorities who want to plan for growth. The standard method for assessing local housing need provides a minimum starting point in determining the number of homes needed in an area. It does not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour. Therefore, there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to consider whether actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates.
This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:
• growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable, for example where funding is in place to promote and facilitate additional growth (e.g. Housing Deals);
• strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or
• an authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities, as set out in a statement of common ground; …”
1.37. The consultation reflects this guidance, stating (p. 24):
“National policy … requires Local Plans to provide strategies that accommodate unmet need from neighbouring areas where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development. Whilst the scale of unmet housing need from others’ plans, including those from elsewhere in South Essex and London, is not fully known, it is possible that building more than 360 homes per year, if sustainable to do so, could help to accommodate some of this need.”
1.38. In this context, the consultation discusses a range of growth scenarios, which are summarised in Figure 15 as:
1. Current Trajectory
“Approximately 4,500 new homes by 2040 can be delivered by maximising urban and brownfield capacity and windfalls. …”
2. Standard Methodology
“7,200 new homes by 2040 would meet the Council’s housing needs based on the current standard method …”
3. Standard Methodology + 50% Buffer
“10,800 new homes by 2040 would meet the Council’s housing needs based on the current standard method, with an additional 50% buffer which could help to drive local economic growth or address unmet need from elsewhere”
1.39. It should be noted that whilst the Standard Method Local Housing Need is approximately 360 homes per year (362.6 dpa based on the latest available figures), this is ‘capped’ – the cap being applied at a level of 40% above the projected increase in households. The uncapped housing need figure would be approximately 380 homes per year, which over the 20-year plan period would equate to a need for 7,600 new homes.
1.40. In addition, as we discuss later in this representation, it is evident that Southend-on-Sea cannot meet all of its housing need within its own boundary and is now proposing that the only way it can meet its need is to accommodate approximately 3,950 new homes within Rochford (over the period 2020 to 2040). Adding this to the (capped) minimum housing need for Rochford results in the need for the emerging Local Plan to provide for at least 11,150 new homes.
1.41. As such, we do not support the ‘Current Trajectory’ growth scenario, nor do we support the ‘standard methodology’ growth scenario unless Southend-on-Sea are able to demonstrate an alternative means of accommodating their need. We do support the ‘Standard Methodology + 50% Buffer’ growth scenario, albeit we consider that this should provide for at least 11,150 new homes, not 10,800. We also consider that the reference to a ‘buffer’ should be deleted as this is misleading given that the scenario would only meet Rochford’s own needs plus unmet needs from Southend-on-Sea; it would not meet any other unmet needs from elsewhere in South Essex or London (as the consultation moots), nor would it include any more housing than the minimum to ‘help drive local economic growth’.
1.42. In order that sufficient sites are identified to ensure that the minimum housing need is delivered, it is good practice to add a ‘buffer’ of 5 or 10% when establishing the amount of housing to be provided for in a Local Plan. Adding such a buffer to the minimum need identified above would result in the Rochford Local Plan having to identify sufficient sites for between 11,700 and 12,300 new homes (including that to be provided as part of the unmet need from Southend-on-Sea), or between 11,500 and 11,900 if the 5 to 10% deliverability buffer is only added to Rochford’s own minimum need.
1.43. Overall, we consider growth of between 7,500 and 7,950 new homes over the plan period would, assuming an average occupancy of 2.4 people, equate to an increase in the population of the District of between 18,000 and 19,000 people – approximately a 20% increase on the existing population of 87,000.
Housing Provision and the Spatial Distribution of Housing
1.44. The consultation explains (p. 24):
“Our Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) 2020 identifies a supply of over 4,300 homes that are already planned for. This includes existing allocations, sites with planning permission and an allowance for windfall development of around 45 homes a year.”
1.45. The June 2020 HELAA is now over a year old but provides a helpful breakdown of the 4,300 figure, as it applies to the 20-year period 2019/20 to 2038/39 as follows:
1. Extant permissions: 2,397
2. HELAA sites (deliverable in accordance with existing policy): 239
3. Unimplemented allocations and other: 1,019
4. Windfall allowance: 765
Total: 4,320
1.46. The HELAA identifies that 285 homes were expected to be delivered during 2019/20. Whilst these homes should now be removed from the projected supply for the plan period (which commences with the year 2020/21), it is considered likely that a similar number of homes will have been permitted, meaning that the existing projected supply over the plan period probably remains at approximately 4,300 homes.
1.47. With reference to the ‘Current Trajectory’ growth scenario, the consultation notes (p. 25):
“Approximately 4,500 new homes by 2040 can be delivered by maximising urban and brownfield capacity and windfalls. …”
1.48. This would suggest that, in addition to the sites identified in the HELAA (including windfalls), there is the scope to accommodate just 200 additional dwellings through the maximisation of urban and brownfield capacity. However the HELAA identifies no supply in terms of additional ‘urban capacity’ thus it is assumed that the 4,500 figure referenced is either a rounding up of the 4,320 figure in the HELAA, and/or a rolling forward of this to account for more recent permissions. In either case it is considered reasonable to assume that the available, suitable and deliverable supply in Rochford at the time of writing is approximately 4,300 to 4,500 homes.
1.49. Given this, the ‘Standard Methodology’ and ‘Standard Methodology + 50% Buffer’ growth scenarios would require the identification of new sites sufficient to provide for between 2,700 and 6,300 new homes. However, as we have discussed above, a deliverability buffer should also be included such that new sites sufficient for between 3,000 and 3,450 new homes should be identified, plus the 3,950 proposed in the Southend-on-Sea Local Plan.
1.50. As we discuss above, we consider that Strategy Option 1 ‘Urban Intensification’, is unsound as it will not deliver the required quantum of housing. We also conclude that the proposals contained within the Southend-on-Sea consultation mean that only one of the potential locations identified in Strategy Option 3 ‘Concentrated Growth’, and thus also Strategy Option 4 ‘Balanced Combination’ (of Options 1, 2 and 3) – i.e. land west of Rayleigh, is considered to remain a viable, sustainable and deliverable possibility. Overall, it thus seems apparent that the only sound approach to accommodating Rochford’s housing need is to make best use of existing commitments and urban intensification to deliver approximately 4,500 new homes, and to identify additional small and medium sized sites across the District, with reference to the settlement hierarchy, potentially including the land west of Rayleigh .
1.51. The Strategy Options Topic Paper 2021 includes at Figure 1 a map showing the results of the ‘clustering’ exercise carried out with regard to the sites promoted for development. We consider this to have been a useful exercise to enable a better understanding of how the promoted sites ‘fit’ in the context of existing settlements and the context of other promoted sites. The clustering exercise identified 12 clusters, which we have ordered in Table SAV01 below as per the proposed settlement hierarchy (from Figure 14), insofar as this is possible. To this we have added the existing population (from Figure 7), and then converted this to establish approximately the number of existing homes in each area (utilising a conversion factor of 2.4 people per dwelling as per Figure 14 in the consultation).
1.52. We have then, extrapolated a 20% increase in the number of homes in each area. This approach, which is relatively simplistic, does not factor in the extent of land promoted for development, constraints or settlement / site specific factors, sustainability considerations, or extant commitments / windfall capacity, broadly reflects what is proposed in Strategy Option 2b ‘Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy’, albeit it applies an across-the-board percentage increase in housing.
1.53. We have then weighted aspects of this to more closely reflect an approach that is based on the settlement hierarchy, with a higher proportionate growth applied to settlements in the higher tiers – this also more closely reflects what is proposed in Strategy Option 2a ‘Urban extensions focused in the main towns’, which is considered likely to be a more sustainable approach.
1.54. In doing this we have also:
1. Included figures for the unmet need from Southend-on-Sea.
2. Given (1), reduced slightly rather than increased the proportionate growth at Rochford and Ashingdon (as discussed above).
3. Included for the potential of concentrated growth west of Rayleigh.
4. Given (3), not increased the proportionate growth at Rayleigh.
1.55. This approach results in a growth of 7,850 new homes (excluding the unmet need from Southend-on-Sea), well within the 7,500 to 7,950 range identified above.
1.56. If it is concluded that concentrated growth to the west of Rayleigh cannot be supported, then this approach would direct that growth to a combination of Rayleigh (e.g. increasing to c. 30% growth / 4,000 new homes) and Hockley (increasing slightly to nearly 2,000 new homes).
1.57. As noted, the above is relatively simplistic, does not factor in the extent of land promoted for development, constraints or settlement / site specific factors, sustainability considerations, or extant commitments / windfall capacity. Whilst a useful starting point, it will be for the Council to take all of these matters into account in identifying suitable sites for allocation and confirming the distribution of growth.
Implications of the Proposed Distribution of Growth for Hockley
1.58. As noted above, the June 2020 HELAA identifies existing housing supply, for the period from 2019/20, as follows:
1. Extant permissions: 2,397
2. HELAA sites (deliverable in accordance with existing policy): 239
3. Unimplemented allocations and other: 1,019
4. Windfall allowance: 765
Total: 4,320
1.59. The Council’s 2019/20 AMR identifies a similar, also for the period from 2019/20, supply as follows:
1. Extant permissions & resolutions to grant: 2,312
2. HELAA sites and other: 240
3. Unimplemented allocations: 900
4. Windfall allowance: 765
Total: 4,217
1.60. Of these sites, only sites for approximately 250 new homes are within Hockley and Hawkwell. On this basis it is considered that the emerging Local Plan should seek to make allocations at Hockley / Hawkwell sufficient for at least a further 1,550 new homes, and that these should be spatially balanced and include sites to the west, north and south-east of Hockley.
The Strategy Options
Option 1: Urban Intensification
1.61. As discussed above, this Option will not be able to meet the Councils growth needs. Option 1 is thus unsound, is contrary to national guidance, and should thus be discounted.
Option 2a: Urban extensions focused in the main towns
1.62. This option is supported, so long as a mix of sites and sizes are proposed. In accordance with the draft Settlement Hierarchy, Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley are the most sustainable settlements in the District and thus the most sustainable locations for growth.
1.63. However, if such a strategy is proposed, it is essential that in addition to large scale urban extensions, a sufficiently high proportion of small to medium sized sites are identified. Such sites are more likely to be available in the shorter term, offer a suitable location for development in the shorter term, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site in the short term. This is essential if the Council is to deliver a rolling five year housing land supply across the plan period.
1.64. In summary, Option 2a is considered sound. It would result in new homes being delivered consistently across the plan period in the most sustainable locations, close to existing services and facilities. New development on settlement edges (i.e. at Woodside Park on the north eastern edge of Hockley) will also provide the opportunity to enhance existing areas and communities and gateways into the towns.
Option 2b: Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy
1.65. As with Option 2a, this option is supported so long as a mix of sites are proposed including a high proportion of small to medium sized sites.
1.66. We welcome that this option would base the distribution of development based on settlement hierarchy. As discussed above, as the most sustainable settlements in the District, it is considered a higher proportion of growth should be distributed to the main towns of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley which are the most sustainable locations for development in the District.
1.67. In summary, Option 2b is considered sound. As with Option 2a, it would result in new homes being delivered consistently across the plan period in the most sustainable locations, such as at Woodside Park.
Options 3a, 3b & 3c: Concentrated Growth
1.68. We strongly oppose Strategy Option 3 for a number of reasons.
1.69. Firstly, there are significant challenges associated with the delivery or large scale sites which mean they are highly unlikely to come forward in the first five years of the plan. Such challenges include:
a) Large sites containing concentrated growth take a significant time to deliver due to their complex nature and long preparation, planning and overall lead-in times before development starts.
b) Such sites rely on a significant amount of upfront infrastructure. The upfront costs associated with sustainable urban extensions means they tend to make lower contributions to affordable housing, of which there is a significant shortage in Rochford.
c) If the new Local Plan were to be reliant on effective delivery of a small number of large schemes, and the failure of just one extension to deliver will result in a shortfall of housing throughout the Plan period.
1.70. Furthermore, this strategy would limit growth to Rayleigh and Rochford, such that the needs of other communities would not be met.
1.71. For example, pursuance of Option 3 will result in no planned growth at Hockley, a Tier 2 settlement which is wholly capable of accommodating new homes. As noted on page 77 of the consultation, housing availability and affordability is a key issue in this part of the District. Thus, in order to address this, a significant amount of new growth should be directed to Hockley, which would not occur with Option 3.
1.72. In summary, Options 3a, b and c are not considered sound, and should be discounted at this stage.
Option 4: Balanced Combination
1.73. This option is broadly supported, in principle, and noting the discussion above provided the Council are realistic when it comes to the distribution of growth. Development on brownfield sites and, as set out above, large scale urban extensions can take a long time to come forward and it is therefore essential small to medium sized sites are allocated to ensure a supply of homes across the plan period.
1.74. We would therefore support Option 4 providing a significant proportion of required growth is allocated to Hockley. Hockley is one of the least affordable areas in the District, and new growth is essential to address the worsening availability and affordability crisis.
Summary
1.75. Overall, we advocate a balanced, weighted distribution of growth, that takes into account the proposals in the emerging Southend-on-Sea Local Plan, similar to that set out above at Table SAV01.
Site Appraisal Paper (2021)
1.76. As noted above, Woodside Park (see site Location Plan) is formed of a number of sites submitted to the Call for Sites as follows:
• CFS023 (Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley)
• CFS197 (Land r/o 185 Greensward Lane, Hockley)
• CFS199 (Land r/o 155 Greensward Lane, Hockley)
• CFS201 (Land adjacent 41-45 Crouch View Crescent, Hockley)
• CFS204 (Greensward Lane, Hockley)

1.77. A parcel of land to the east of CFS023 is also included within the site boundary, which was not previously submitted to the HELAA Call for Sites.
1.78. In light of the above, it is requested that the sites are reassessed as a single site so that a full assessment of the site and suitability for development can be assessed. For the purposes of this response, however, we have reviewed the assessment of each of the above sites as contained in the Site Appraisal Topic Paper; our comments are set out at Appendix 1 to this response.

Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?

1.79. Further to our response to Question 6, it is considered that the Council should assess a fourth growth scenario that does include a buffer to ‘help drive local economic growth’ as a ‘reasonable alternative’. Failure to do so would mean that the growth scenario that is proposing to meet the highest quantum of growth is only providing for the minimum need, plus a small buffer to ensure deliverability. Not proactively considering a higher level of growth than this minimum could jeopardise the progress of the Plan.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?

1.80. See our response to Question 6.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?

1.81. Yes. We consider that ‘place-making’ is crucial to the creation of well-designed and socially-inclusive communities. Whilst many of the same principles apply to all sites, any place-making charter should recognise that every site, and every solution, will be different.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?

Housing Mix
1.82. The NPPF requires (para. 65):
“Within [the context of the overall identified housing need], the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes).”
Self / Custom Build
1.83. The 2016 Housing and Planning Act introduced the so-called ‘Right to Build’ requirement, requiring local authorities to grant sufficient permissions for self and custom build plots to meet local demand.
1.84. As noted in the Government’s self and custom build action plan (April 2021),
“The self and custom build sector is under-developed in the UK. In Europe and North America, the sector delivers a much higher proportion of housing output. Only 7% of homes in UK are built via self and custom build, delivering an estimated 13,000 units in 2018. Nonetheless, even at this underdeveloped scale, this level of output is enough to make the sector the equivalent of UK’s fourth largest housebuilder. There is capacity to expand and if we increased to levels similar to the Netherlands, we could see 30-40,000 self and custom build homes built annually.
The government is committed to increasing the number of self and custom build homes in this country and to establish it as a mainstream option for people to choose to get on the housing ladder or when moving home. The government has previously brought forward initiatives to tackle the barriers to the growth of the sector, and now we are bringing these initiatives and new ones together under one self and custom build action plan.”

and with regard to access to land:

“This legislation created a duty on local authorities to keep a register of demand for self and custom build in their area and permission serviced plots suitable to meet that demand within 3 years. Since April 2016, all local authorities have established a register.”
1.85. Demand is measured by the number of people registering on Right to Build registers. This legal requirement came into force after the publication of the 2016 SHMA and the matter was not addressed in the 2017 addendum. For data protection purposes, Rochford’s register is not publically available. However, as part of a new/updated SHMA, existing and future need for self and custom build homes would be assessed, providing evidence to determine future need in Rochford.
1.86. The Housing Topic Paper published alongside the consultation notes (para. 10.20):
“… Currently the Rochford District Custom and Self build register has 83 entries as of April 2021.”
1.87. However this is only a statement of current, existing, need, not an assessment of likely need over the plan period.
1.88. We are proposing that the Woodside Park site include approximately 12 to 15 self / custom build plots, alongside bungalows and other specialist accommodation.

 
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?

1.89. The consultation proposes the following ‘vision statement’ for Hockley and Hawkwell:
“In 2050, Hockley and Hawkwell should be the District's gateway to the green lung of the Upper Roach Valley, making the most of its access to ancient woodland and a network of nature reserves. Its town and neighbourhood centres should be vibrant places with an emphasis on independent businesses and providing for a diverse range of jobs. Deprivation should continue to be largely absent from Hockley and Hawkwell however housing affordability should have been addressed to ensure that local first-time buyers can greater afford to live locally.”
1.90. We support the Council’s proposed vision for Hockley, and welcome the acknowledgement that access to the surrounding ancient woodland should be enhanced. Access to nature plays an essential role in promoting health and wellbeing, whilst well managed and planned trails can ensure appropriate use and management.
1.91. We also welcome the aspiration to address housing affordability which is identified as a key issue for Hockley. It is vitally important a mix of homes are provided to meet the needs of all. At Woodside Park, we are proposing a wide mix of homes including policy compliant affordable housing and self / custom-build plots.

 
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

1.92. We fully support the allocation of land to the north of Greensward Lane (see Site Location Plan), Hockley which comprises:
• CFS023 (Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley)
• CFS197 (Land r/o 185 Greensward Lane, Hockley)
• CFS199 (Land r/o 155 Greensward Lane, Hockley)
• CFS201 (Land adj 41-45 Crouch View Crescent, Hockley)
• CFS204 (Greensward Lane, Hockley)
And also land to the east of CFS023 which was not previously submitted to the Call for Sites.
1.93. This response is accompanied by a Delivery Statement which provides further details of the site, and demonstrates that the site is deliverable and there are no known technical constraints which could prevent the delivery in the first five years of the Plan.
Site Overview
1.94. Woodside Park would include a high-quality landscape and design-led sustainable scheme of new homes of a variety of different sizes, types and tenures, together with associated supporting infrastructure, amenity greenspace, and landscaping. The SHELAA sites all received positive assessments in the 2017 SHELAA assessment, which concluded the sites are available, suitable (subject to release from the Green Belt), and achievable to which we concur.
1.95. The land is located to the north east of Hockley, to the north of Greensward Lane and south of Beckney Wood. It is located within a highly sustainable location with access to key services and facilities with primary and secondary schools, doctors surgeries and the train station, amongst others, all within walking distance of the site, as can be seen from the Facilities Plan included in the Delivery Statement.
1.96. The concept for Woodside Park is for a high-quality landscape and design-led sustainable scheme of approximately 100 new homes of a variety of different sizes, types and tenures, including self/custom build homes and bungalows together with associated supporting infrastructure, amenity greenspace, and landscaping. It is envisaged the site could deliver:
• Family homes
• Policy compliant affordable homes
• Bungalows
• Self-build
• Custom-build
• Housing for older people
• Housing for those with specialist needs
1.97. The Delivery Statement accompanying this response demonstrates that Woodside Park could include provision for substantial new areas of:
• Amenity greenspace
• Play facilities
• Community orchard planting
• Wildflower meadow planting
• Ecological habitat
• Landscaping
• Woodland
together with street trees and extensive areas of new planting throughout.
1.98. Initial technical studies have concluded there are no landscape, ecological, heritage, utilities or drainage constraints that would prevent the scheme being delivered.
Green Belt
1.99. The site is currently located in Green Belt, however, it is considered to make a limited contribution as set out below.
1.100. The Rochford and Southend Green Belt Study is a two part study which identifies the site as falling within two parcels of land, P19 and P46. The results of the assessment show that the Council recognise that overall, the Site does not contribute very strongly to the Green Belt Purposes and is one of the weaker performing Sites.
1.101. A summary of the Council’s study in respect of Parcel P19 reveals the following:
[see document]

1.103. As noted in our response to Question 1, Part 1 of the Green Belt Study should be further updated to include a finer grained approach to key settlement edges. By way of an example, P19 extends to over 1,000 hectares stretching from north east Hockley to south west Rayleigh. Accordingly, an assessment relative to a small part of that larger parcel is very likely to result in a different outcome and the assessment of P19 should be treated with caution.
1.104. In this instance, the assessment relating to Purpose 3: Openness, is skewed by the huge scale of the parcel, such that when the very small part of the Site is considered in isolation, the Purpose 3 Openness score of ‘Strong’ is incorrect, and should be no greater than Moderate – the Site is influenced strongly by the built up area to the south and west, but is also contained by rising landform and woodland to the north, resulting in a reduced relationship with the wider countryside (than the wider parcel).
1.105. Similarly, it is considered in respect of the individual site that the score of ‘Moderate’ for both Purpose 1 (Sprawl) and Purpose 2 (Merging of Towns) are overstated. The Site is located on the north side of Hockley and does not lie in the area between Hockley, Rayleigh or Southend on Sea. Consequently, it can have no effect on the outward sprawl towards any of these towns, and it would also not result in any merging or coalescence of a settlement.
1.106. For the same reasons as P19, the P46 score of ‘Moderate’ for both Purpose 1 (Sprawl) and Purpose 2 (Merging of Towns) are overstated.
1.107. It is appreciated that the purpose of the Green Belt assessment is not to critique individual sites. Therefore, using the same methodology and criteria as outlined in the Green Belt Assessment (2020), we have undertaken our own assessment of the site as follows:

[see document]

Site Assessment
1.108. All five sites which comprise land north of Greensward Lane have been assessed in the Council’s Site Appraisal Paper 2021. It is noted at paragraph 3 of this document that this paper is not itself out for consultation, but as it forms part of the Councils current evidence base and will help inform the Council’s site selection process, it is essential any errors are corrected. We disagree with a number of conclusions drawn in respect of the five sites submitted and our assessment of these are contained at Appendix 1 to this response.
1.109. The purpose of the paper is to assess sites which have been submitted for allocation. Its purpose is not to assess parcels of land identified in, for example, the Green Belt Assessment or the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study. Thus when identifying the impact a site could have on the Green Belt or on the surrounding landscape, it is not enough to rely on the conclusions of these respective studies. The impact individual sites could have on their surroundings should be assessed on individual merit. Consequently as part of our comments on the site, we have sought to provide our own assessment Woodside Park could have on the Green Belt and landscape.
Preferred Spatial Option
1.110. As noted in our response to Question 6, it is considered that Options 2 and 4 are the only suitable options for the Council to take forward, in order to provide a sustainable strategy which meets the District’s needs.
1.111. In particular we support Options 2a and 2b as both will see a proportion of growth distributed to the Tier 2 settlement of Hockley. As acknowledged by the Council a key issue in Hockley is housing availability and affordability. The population is also slightly older than the local average. Thus, it is essential housing sites are allocated across the town to meet its local housing needs.
1.112. As can be seen from Figure 46 (Map of Hockley and Hawkwell), the majority of sites submitted to the Council’s Call for Sites are considered to be of small to medium scale (i.e. up to 250 dwellings). As set out in our response to Question 5, the allocation of small and medium scale sites will make an invaluable contribution to Rochford’s overall housing needs as such sites are more likely to be available in the shorter term, offer a suitable location for development in the shorter term, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site in the shorter term.
Conclusion
1.113. Woodside Park has the potential to make a valuable, and sustainable, contribution to meeting housing needs, and could do so in the shorter-term. It is therefore considered that the site should be allocated in the forthcoming Rochford Local Plan.

On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.

Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.

As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find below my comments regarding the Spatial Options Consultation for your analysis.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Kind Regards,
Jane

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
I could not confirm what were the studies you conducted in order to determine the young people’s needs for leisure activities other than sports. In addition, could you please make available the studies conducted.
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
In a matter of principle, yes, I agree, but there should be a greater highlight to creating new jobs through the establishment of business incubators and support to traditional and new outdoor markets to support local farmers.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
I don’t agree with the separate visions as it will divert the resources from a global vision for Rochford District in terms of number of houses and the respective infrastructure. As such I think it would be detrimental to have a narrower vision which can overlook the effects that the increase of population in one area will have on the remaining parts of the district.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
As principles, yes, but I have several objections in the way they are supposedly achieved.
Strategy Options
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?
Yes.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
It is my understanding that Option 4 would be preferable, but the more the building is concentrated into one area, the less green belt would have to be released. I will detail my concerns in Q17.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?
Please refer to Q6 and Q17.
Spatial Themes
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
Yes, I was not able to verify what would be the dedicated areas for the construction / improvement of roads and other public transport infrastructure. In addition, I could not confirm where will the new waste management facilities (dumps or recycling centres) will be placed, the way the options are presented it does not allow the public to have a detailed understanding of it.
Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
Yes. No infrastructure or housing development should be authorised to be built in high floor risk areas or coastal change areas. As the plan is omits what would be the estimated costs in terms of the additional infrastructure that would be required for building in these areas, it doesn’t allow for a risk/benefit analysis of allowing to build in risk areas versus costs that would have to be paid in rates by the general public.
Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character?
Yes. In addition, Hockley Woods, Rayleigh Mount and Grove Woods should also be preserved from development.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
I agree, provided that the energy production equipment produces a relevant amount of energy.
There are plenty of opportunities to establish micro-production with community funding. I am not an expert, but please refer to the work done in Manchester in this regard http://www.gmcr.org.uk/ .
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?
I agree that energy efficiency should be an important consideration in any development, and they should be above the bear minimum, but I lack the technical knowledge to comment any further.
Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?
The Council should encourage companies, charities and individuals to come up with projects and provide administrative and financial support whenever needed to help them see it through.
Considering the availability of surface water and rain in the UK but the lack of natural elevations in the Essex region, consideration should be given to hydro-electric micro-production facilities.
In addition, solar and wind energy should also be encouraged wherever possible.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
Yes. The principle should be applied by areas.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
Yes, 1) there is no point regarding public transport (bike lanes and walk paths alone are nowhere near the needs of the community) and 2) there is no point regarding the minimization of the impact that new roads will have in the fabric of the places they will go through.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Housing for All
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
I do not believe that in an area where young people have very few cheap options to buy a house, the option to primarily develop detached or semi-detached housing (80% of the planned houses) would be adequate as the house prices will still be too high, even with the affordable option.
In order to achieve the same number of houses in a significantly smaller development site, the option to increase the number of terraced houses and flats to 50% of the new builds would decrease the overall cost of providing these new houses, regardless of the affordable housing conditions.
In terms of the number of bedrooms, I agree with it, only the distribution between the house size seems too focused in large and expensive properties with a negligible discount that will not suffice to cover the current or future housing needs. A 20% discount on a £700,000 detached house for a family who can only afford a £250,000 terrace house is not an acceptable trade-off.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?
In the specific case of Rayleigh where I reside, there is a significant shortage of terraced houses and flats which are by design cheaper than the other options, so in order to meet the new housing needs, development should focus on these rather than creating huge new areas of detached and semi-detached houses that will not meet current housing needs.
Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?
I could not confirm in the plan what areas are being specifically allocated to house rough sleepers and other people in homeless situations.
Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?
Provided that they are willing to pay for their own accommodation and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates, I do not have any specific input in the solution.
Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?
Provided that they are willing to pay for their own accommodation and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates, I do not have any specific input in the solution.
Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites?
Provide that they pay for the land they spend their time on and the facilities and amenities provided by the council and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates through the clear-up of their sites, I do not have any specific input in the solution, although I would think that they would be better placed outside urban areas without sacrificing any green belt area.
Employment and Jobs
Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan?
I could not verify if the council is planning or willing to assist new businesses by providing any reduction in business rates for the first years. Considering the crisis that high-street local businesses are facing to establish themselves and thrive, this would be an incredible tool to employ. I am also not aware of any mention to the creation of new business hubs for creative industries, farmers markets and technology start-ups outside of the airport site. When considering the local importance of informal business sites, such as Battlesbridge Antiques Market, the creation of small business hubs would be extremely effective.
Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt?
As a principle yes, but this has to have a case-by-case analysis of the impacts, namely in terms of polluting employment sites and the needs for infrastructure.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
When establishing the new sites for development, there is an opportunity to require the property developer to establish a commercial presence proportional to the size of the site in order to create basic shopping amenities or go further if the site so justifies in order to attract more retail. For that purpose, the planning must include loading bays in order not to disturb residents and to supply the shops.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Considering that the two main villages in Rochford District are traditionally market towns, it is strange that there aren’t any plans to incentivise more street market initiatives, both seasonal and farmers markets.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
I think more public transport to formal and informal employment sites would greatly stimulate the growth or those sites.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
The current road infrastructure is already insufficient to move the traffic from the businesses and people going to and from the area adjacent to the airport. In order to increase the ability of the airport to be a major employment site, the roads must be able to allow the circulation of the increased traffic. It is already clear that the construction of an alternative to the A127 or the increase to a dual carriage capacity of an existing road is essential.
Biodiversity
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?
Yes, it should include the whole of Hockley Woods.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q33. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Community Infrastructure
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?
I could not verify where the schools are going to be built and what is going to be increased in terms of the public transport infrastructure.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
Depends on the number of houses built and where they are built. I agree that there has to be an increase, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these?
There is an absolute absence of any facilities for young teenagers that don’t involve organised sports or are not paid.
Regarding the schools and healthcare, the current infrastructure is stretched, and doctors are already struggling to keep up with their appointments as it is and this is a nationwide problem. With new houses being built, this should be addressed before the problem gets even worse, but this is a specialist subject I cannot provide further input on.
Open Spaces and Recreation
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Heritage
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Town Centres and Retail
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state
Ensure that new types of retail and other businesses are encouraged to establish themselves in the town centres, namely through the reduction or exemption of council rates to give them a chance to survive the initial period. Other than restaurants and beauty services, no new businesses have opened in Rayleigh High Street. This reduces the overall margin of the existing businesses, the attractiveness to the installation of new businesses and the ability to attract visitors to shop in Rayleigh.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
I don’t have an issue with the hierarchy per se, but there should be some protection to the local centres and local parades to ensure that they don’t disappear.
Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. In the town centres the primary use must be commercial as the unchecked conversion to housing developments would create many problems with noise complaints and others where they didn’t exist before.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as I mentioned before, considering the market town pasts of Rayleigh and Rochford, it would greatly benefit local businesses to incentivise street market initiatives as it would not only provide a greater variety of goods to residents, but it would also provide local businesses the foot traffic.
Transport and Connectivity
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
The plan has to have appropriate measures in place to secure those roads and railways are built ahead of the conclusion of the developments and not after they are concluded, as it is common sense that once the houses are built, any compulsory purchase of space to build infrastructure will be more expensive.
From what I could understand, any plans to increase the transportation network are left to chance or delegated to other entities.
The increase of the housing without transport will further exacerbate the problems that the road infrastructure is currently facing and there are no plans whatsoever to increase public transportation to places which are already lacking, such as Hullbridge which is almost entirely dependent on Rayleigh’s infrastructure.
It is strange that the Beaulieu Estates managed to have a new train line and the people of Rochford District can’t either get appropriate roads, let alone more train connections. I cannot understand how Chelmsford is able to plan these developments to have transport connectivity and Rochford cannot plan a road.
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
Yes, the A127 needs increasing and there is a lack of an alternative route to this road going into Rochford and Southend.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Yes. All of the above, the increase in the demographics and the expected establishment of new businesses should account for an increase primarily focused on roads, rail and buses that serves as an alternative to the current routes that are massively overrun.
Green Belt and Rural Issues
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Planning for Complete Communities
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
No. I cannot see this translated in the detailed plan.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot understand the allocation between commercial and housing properties as well as infrastructure, as there are nowhere near enough roads or overpasses in the image provided.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
No, unless infrastructure is put in place. A simple example is the development in Daws Heath Road, where all these plots are meant to be made available for development, but the end of the road, approaching the A127, is not able to take two cars at the time.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
New developments in the Town Centre that either reduce green areas or affect the Mill Hall and any development that reduces the area of Hockley woods.
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
The legend to Figure 44 does not allow for enough detail to understand the changes to the green spaces and the purpose of them.

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 49 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62d. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64e. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
I cannot provide meaningful input.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options on behalf of Bellway Strategic in relation to Land at Hambro Hill, Rayleigh (‘the Site’).
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted into the Call for Sites under reference CFS105. The site extends to some 10.3ha and has been promoted by Bellway Strategic for a sympathetically planned development at Rayleigh, adjacent to the urban area, open space, and a proposed Regional Park.
1.3 Representations were submitted for the site under the Call for Sites in 2015 and the Issues and Options consultation in 2018, under a different promotor.
1.4 The condition of the site is a mixture of a minerals site and grassland. It is not open to
the public. The site is predominantly grassland but with significant areas of despoiled land used for sand extraction. Alongside the site to the northwest are commercial uses, containing large areas of hardstanding, a compound for vehicle storage, and warehousestyle buildings. The site is clearly separated from the farmland that stretches from the north of the site across to Hockley. It has a very different character to the surrounding
land by virtue of its use for mineral extraction and its isolation created by residential development to the south, west and east, commercial development to the west and north, and a small woodland to the northeast.
1.5 The site is designated as Green Belt in the current adopted Development Plan, which remains the only constraint to the delivery of the site. While within the Green Belt, the site is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Rayleigh, the districts largest
settlement, and is located on the eastern side of the District’s largest settlement. The site has development to the south, east and west, with open space to the north that is proposed to be identified as a regional park. Accordingly, the allocation of the site would make use of the previously despoiled site and be able to provide a more attractive transition into the new parkland, if allocated.
1.6 The site has a planning history which includes the granting of planning consent for the extraction of sand in 1987 (application ROC/916/86). Notwithstanding the green belt designation of land in this area, the established commercial uses on land to the west and
northwest, and the quarrying activity on the site itself, combined with the neighbouring residential development, all identify the site as being less-valued Green Belt land that is not visible from public viewpoints
1.7 The land is served by an existing vehicular access. The site is located in proximity to the junction of Hambro Hill with Hockley Road, and is well placed in relation to the wider strategic highway network and access to Rayleigh, which contains a full range of services
and facilities to serve any future residents. The site is extremely well served by public transport, is in good proximity to both primary and secondary schools, health, open space, the town centre and employment opportunities. It is within reasonable walking distance of the rail station, which can also be reached easily by cycle or public transport. The site represents one of the most suitable sites in terms of sustainable transportation.
1.8 The site is entirely contained within Flood Zone 1. As such, the site is at a low risk of tidal or fluvial flooding and is appropriate for any form of development from a flood risk perspective.
1.9 The site is not subject to any environmental, ecological or heritage designations that would prohibit or constrain its potential to deliver housing sustainably. The site represents a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary, which would deliver an attractive development of market and affordable housing positioned alongside a potentially significant area of open space. When planned considerately and comprehensively, the site would be capable of delivering an extremely attractive extension to Rayleigh.
1.10 The site was assessed as part of the Council’s Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 (SHELAA 2017) to determine its suitability, achievability and availability as a site to help meet the District’s housing needs.
1.11 Appendix C of the Assessment identifies the site as being:
‘Concreate, gated drive way with large car park and vehicle scrap yard with a metal container used as a reception. Unsurfaced ramp to vacant field with overhead
cable traversing the site with trees and hedgerows on the boundary. Large warehouse-style buildings to the rear of the site’
1.12 The adjacent land uses were identified as residential / woodland and notes that there are no constraints on the site (SSSI, Ancient woodland, SLA, SAC, etc). The assessment identifies an active sand and gravel extraction permission.
1.13 Under Housing Development Potential the assessment considers the site to be available and achievable. For suitable, the Assessment states ‘unknown’ and the supporting text states that this will be unknown until a Green Belt assessment is undertaken.
Accordingly, the 2017 SHELAA Assessment finds the site to be suitable on all matters, with the outcome of a pending Green Belt Assessment being the only outstanding matter commented upon in the Assessment.
1.14 Commentary on the Green Belt Assessment is provided later in this response. In summary, it is considered that the Green Belt Study (2020) considered an exceptionally large parcel of land (Parcel P23), extending to 93ha between Rayleigh and Hockley. The
extent of the parcel did not reflect the extent of the two sites submitted to the SHELAA that fall within it, being:
 Site 105 (this representation) - 10.3ha and
 Site CFS040 - 1.11ha.
1.15 In comparison the Green Belt parcel was nearly 88% larger than the total area of land submitted to the Council that falls within the Parcel. Further, by identifying the parcel as land between Rayleigh and Hockley, the larger site inevitably scores strongly for Purpose 2 - preventing neighbouring towns from merging:
1.16 Given the open landscape and natural condition of the majority of the land in the parcel, which was not submitted for consideration for development, it is predictable that the
Parcel would score highly for Purpose 3, to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The Parcel also scores strongly for assisting in urban regeneration by
directing development to derelict or other urban land.
1.17 A more detailed consideration of site 105 is provided at Stage 2 (Appendix 4 of the GBS) which provides an Area Assessment for Area AA38 (pages 77-78). The Assessment finds the overall score to be a moderate-high harm from release of the site. However, in the justification this appears to be reached as a result of a relatively open boundary to the north, which could readily be contained by new landscaping that would be ubiquitous of new large scale residential development. The Assessment considers the release of the Site to weaken the Green Belt purposes of land to the west, but this is currently
identified for open space and would therefore be protected for that other purpose. The assessment also appears to downplay the description of the Site from the SHELAA (provided above) as being alongside previously developed land and its condition as a minerals extraction site.
1.18 As a general assessment of the overall conclusions to the Assessment and the Purposes
of the Green Belt, as shown at pages 40-45 of the Assessment (figures 3.1 - 3.6), it is clear that there is little differentiation between the results across parcels. There is a general north/south split for purpose 1, an east/west split for purpose 2, and very little variation for purposes 3, 4 and 5. For the overall contribution to the Green Belt, there is a strong rating for all of the land lying between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford, with lower ratings for the parcels of land radiating away from these towns.
1.19 Accordingly, development of the parcel is identified as being less-harmful than it would be for land between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford and the scores of parcels have a clear geographic spread that does not differentiate parcels to any significant degree in a way that clear guides the spatial distribution to prefer one approach compared to another, in terms of protecting Green Belt land. Further, the parcel is much larger than the two sites submitted within it (105 and 40), representing an artificially high overall contribution
compared to any releases that may be proposed through the Local Plan. Finally, when considering the site itself, the current condition and uses on the site appear to have been downplayed.
1.20 In combination with the sustainable location and positive SHELAA assessment, with only the Green Belt assessment outstanding at the time, the Site is considered to represent a highly suitable, available and achievable development opportunity. In combination with
other opportunities for land within the parcel, the site is a highly attractive location for a modest development of around 250 dwellings that would not undermine the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
1.21 It is worth noting that, in this instance, the allocation of the site within the Green Belt is directly contrary to the fifth purpose of including land in the Green Belt, as it discourages the regeneration of the brownfield parts of the site.

2.0 Response to Spatial Options Consultation Questions
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.1 In combination with an overall vision for the district, a vision for each settlement (or some of the settlement) may be helpful in articulating a specific, focused objectives for a settlement, distinguishing its development aims from another settlement. It is important that the visions do not prevent development from reacting to change, such as the demands and expectations from homes and businesses, technology, and construction
methods.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.2 The Priorities and objectives identify a fairly broad approach to development demands, covering a lot of aspects of development under each priority. It is recommended that these could be more focused on the spatial challenges and opportunities to ensure they
add value to the plan making process.
2.3 While recognizing that the spatial Options are still open to be determined, one omission is that there is no clear indication of where the district may seek to direct development. There is reference to supporting rural areas but there should be a clear steer towards growth in the most sustainable locations. Regardless of the eventual decision on the spatial distribution, the Vision should identify that the majority of growth will be in the
most sustainable locations and close to existing larger settlements where services are most accessible and available. While we support some development in more rural areas, as currently drafted the Vision appears to articulate the approach to rural diversification, support for rural economic development and supporting rural communities, far more clearly than it does any urban developments or extensions to existing settlements.
Presumably urban extensions will provide the larger share of growth over the plan period and therefore the Vision should more clearly articulate the support for urban developments and extensions to existing settlement. In addition, there appears to be some potential strain between the support for rural development in the Strategic Priorities compared to the objectives in Priority 5 - Making provisions for climate change, conservation and enhancement.
2.4 For the above reasons, we recommend that references to delivering sufficient, sustainable housing is welcome but this should be emboldened by a clear indication of where the majority of growth may be directed and why. Following the adoption of a spatial
strategy it is recommended that the Vision is updated to include where the majority of development will be directed to, and that this should identify the larger settlements as providing the best opportunities for the majority of sustainable development.
2.5 We also consider that the objectives are too ambiguous in relation to affordability and recommend that there should be a distinct objective to improve the affordability of housing in Rochford District, as identified in the spatial challenges.
2.6 The RLPSO notes (page 12) that:
“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times to average
annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”.
(RLPSO, page 12).
2.7 The most recent data available1
reports that the median house price in the District is
11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’).
This is significantly greater than the national average, and indicates housing affordability has worsened considerably in recent years.
2.8 In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69
– significantly below the District’s 11.57.
2.9 In addition, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19
pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Whilst empirical data is currently limited, there are early indications there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a greater desire for homes with larger gardens, space for home offices, better access to good quality open space, and situated within less densely populated areas.
2.10 At the same time, the pandemic has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely expected there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is anticipated that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.
2.11 As a consequence, it can be predicted that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via rail from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London. As a consequence, the area may well prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes will be imperative if the Council is to tackle the issue of housing affordability in the District.
2.12 The RLPSO’s proposed Strategic Objective 3 is:
“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport,
serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”
2.13 We support this and, in addition, suggest this objective should recognise that the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house building would have for the District.
2.14 As the Local Plan Spatial Options recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.
2.15 Employment relating directly to the construction of the development will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.16 We agree that Rayleigh should be identified as the highest ranked settlement, reflecting the wide range of services and facilities available, alongside sustainable transport options and employment opportunities.
2.17 The RLPSO estimates (Figure 7) the 2018 population of the town to be 33,663, equating to 39% of the District’s total population.
2.18 In preparing the Core Strategy (2011), the Council identified that 44.4% of the demand for housing on the Council’s housing waiting list was focused on Rayleigh.
2.19 The adopted Core Strategy also noted, at paragraph 2.68, that Rayleigh has the best access to services within the District. As a retail centre, Rayleigh is by far the largest in the District. The RLPSO recognises this, identifying Rayleigh as the lone Tier 1 settlement in the District.
2.20 Rayleigh is one of only three settlements in the District served by a railway station, and is better served by bus services than the majority of the District. Combined with the range of facilities and services contained within the town itself, it perhaps has the best
potential of the District’s settlements to accommodate growth without reliance on use of the private car.
2.21 It is clear that a significant proportion of the District’s housing growth should be directed to Rayleigh as part of any spatial strategy, and that such development would be
sustainable.
2.22 Finally, it is not clear that Hockley and Rochford (including Ashingdon) provide only local services, as set out in the hierarchy and we recommend the assessment could benefit from not elevating Rayleigh too far above these other settlements, with the implications this may have on growth in these other sustainable locations, the scale of inward investment, and the benefits that come from development.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.23 Given the market and affordable housing needs, affordability issues and heritage and environmental constraints in the District, it is important that the overall strategy seeks to provide a wide range of housing options throughout the Plan period in suitable locations. As such, the strategy should utilise a range of different sites to maximise options to bring forward these new homes and associated infrastructure.
2.24 The temporal dimension of any strategy will also be an important consideration. The Local Plan should seek to ensure that homes can be provided across the plan period, including within the early years. Indeed, it is particularly important for the strategy to deliver homes in the early years of the plan period, given current housing needs against housing delivery.
2.25 For the Local Plan strategy to be sound, we consider that it will need to direct a significant proportion of housing growth to Rayleigh as the most sustainable settlement in the district.
2.26 We consider Option One to be far less likely to result in a sound Local Plan, or to deliver attractive sustainable development that would be welcome in the district, in comparison to the other Options. Option 1 (urban intensification) states this option entails making best possible use of [our] existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). The RLPSO claims this approach could deliver 4,200 dwellings over the next 10 years.
2.27 It is important to recognise that in order to be consider sound, the Local Plan is required to meet objectively assessed housing needs. The RLPSO reports that the minimum housing requirement for the District over a 20-year period is 7,200 dwellings.
2.28 If Option 1 were to deliver 4,200 dwellings, this would result a significant housing shortage in the District. This would result in significant negative social and economic
impacts – it would not deliver sustainable development.
2.29 Furthermore, we question whether urban intensification would deliver as many as 4,200 new homes unless densities were increased in a greater number of locations that simply the town centres. To achieve this would require an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) to be sustained over a 10-year period. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report
2019/20 reports that over the10-year period between April 2010 and March 2020, the District averaged delivery of 176.8 dpa.
2.30 The 1,768 dwellings delivered over this period included a significant number from allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014), and did not merely comprise dwellings provided through the redevelopment of previously developed land / urban intensification.
2.31 It is also relevant to note that over the last 10 years, local and national policy has supported the redevelopment of suitable previously developed land for residential use. It is likely that much previously developed land that is suitable and viable for residential
development has already been redeveloped for housing.
2.32 It is also unclear whether a strategy of intensification could meet the range of different housing needs. The RLPSO appears to suggest that it would deliver a low proportion of affordable housing (only 800 out of a total of 4,200).
2.33 A further concern is whether urban intensification would result in the same level of infrastructure improvements and other community benefits that larger allocations are capable of delivering.
2.34 Finally in relation to Option 1, it is unclear what the spatial distribution of housing would be through this approach, and whether it would result in a sustainable pattern of growth.
2.35 Rather than relying on urban intensification, it is clear that if the Local Plan strategy is to be sound and is to deliver sustainable development, it will be necessary to release some Green Belt and allocate land for residential development.
2.36 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that it is appropriate for Local Plans to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary, provided there are exceptional circumstances for doing so, and that these are justified and evidenced. It is considered that within Rochford, a case can readily be made that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of land from the Green Belt given the scale of the District’s objectively assessed
need, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet those needs.
2.37 With Option 1 failing to deliver the growth required, we consider the other options to represent far more appropriate strategies for the Plan and provide a short commentary on these below.
2.38 Strategy Option 2 is to focus on urban extensions, Option 2a focuses such growth on the District’s main towns; and Option 2b dispersing to all settlements based on the settlement hierarchy.
2.39 Option 2a would identify sustainable sites at the edge of settlements, which would include Rayleigh, to deliver a range of housing developments. This provides flexibility to utilise smaller sites to deliver homes earlier, alongside larger sites to meet the overall housing need, as urban extensions. Option 2b disperses the growth in accordance with a settlement hierarchy. There is merit in both Options, but would advise that when factors such as accessibility, service availability and constraints are considered, the same sites may well be identified under either option. Further, a rigid application of a settlement
hierarchy can be problematic if suitable sites in more sustainable locations are omitted in favour of following the hierarchy. Finally, lower-tier settlements are often overlooked for any development opportunities through a hierarchy approach, again potentially omitting suitable sites.
2.40 Option 3 focuses growth on one of three locations (west of Rayleigh (3a); north of Southend (3b); and east of Rochford (3c)). We consider there is merit to strategic scale growth that can help deliver significant infrastructure improvements, however, this needs
to be complemented by the delivery of a range of different sites, including those that can deliver in the shorter term and do not require significant infrastructure improvements. It is also important to reflect that the District comprises a number of distinct settlements
with their own identities and communities, all of which the Local Plan should seek to support. We therefore caution against concentrating on a few strategic allocations to
meet housing need as this may not deliver consistently over the plan period and may result in an inflexible approach for the authority if any of those sites do not deliver as expected. We therefore recommend that growth in and around existing settlements should always form part of the Council’s strategy.
2.41 Strategy Option 4 entails a mix of the other options, and rightly recognises that the allocation of strategic growth sites and the allocation of urban extensions are not mutually exclusive. We consider this option to be the most appropriate for Rochfrod district and note that it scored positively in the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in relation to its social, economic and environmental impacts. This option will allow current housing needs to be addressed in the short and medium term while enabling provision for strategic allocations. It will also allow for proportionate growth to be directed to the
District’s various communities through settlement extensions, including Rayleigh, whichwe consider should always form part of the distribution strategy to provide sustainable development.
2.42 A balanced approach provides opportunities to deliver housing close to existing communities, making use of existing sustainable locations whilst providing new homes for people in their local community.
2.43 The Bellway Strategic Site at Hambro Hill can form an important part of such a strategy, delivering around 250 homes in a highly sustainable location. The Site is unconstrained, is partly developed already with good access, and can start delivering homes early in the
Plan period and through into the medium term at a character that respects Rayleigh while transitioning to open space beyond.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the
District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
2.44 We caution against applying the same approach everywhere in the District as different areas within Rochford are very different to one another.
2.45 With over 300 listed buildings and 10 conservation areas in the District, clearly some areas have a historic nature that needs to be considered, whereas others will not.
2.46 Should the Council seek a District wide place-making charter, this will need to be relatively high level to ensure that it does not unduly restrict development and prevent it from being appropriate to its context, as recognised in Section 12 of the NPPF 2.47 Any place-making charter should be formulated through consultation with stakeholders, including developers, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable and does not result in development becoming unviable. Such a charter should be published as part of the Local Plan to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to comment and input.
Q16a. Do you consider the new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual
settlements or growth areas?
2.48 Given the pressing housing and affordability needs within the District, it is important that homes are delivered as soon as possible. This is particularly pertinent given that adoption of the Local Plan is not anticipated until late 2023 at the earliest. We primarily recommend that design guides, codes and Masterplans are not necessary in order to achieve good quality development, and the planning system is capable of ensuring good design is achieved without the need for additional layers of design work to be added to the process.
2.49 If the Council seek to deliver design guides or codes, these should be developed alongside the Local Plan with input from stakeholders to ensure that once the Plan is adopted development can commence without delay. There is otherwise the risk that the Council adopt a Plan but development is significantly delayed, to the detriment of residents in need of new homes.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing?
2.50 With areas within the District having different characteristics and development over the Plan period likely to be of varying scales, it is important for developments to be able to provide homes suitable for the site and location. A fixed housing mix across the district will not work, as different locations are suitable for different lifestyles. Option 2 provides flexibility, which is welcomed and this is the option we believe the Council should proceed with. It also recognises that different scales of development can be better placed to
provide greater flexibility of types of housing, such as self-build Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other areas that should be considered or preferred?
2.51 We consider the provision of additional parkland has the potential to have numerous ecological and social benefits. In particular, the Central Woodlands Arc Regional Parkland appears to have considerable potential to provide an alternative recreational
destination to internationally important habitats within the District, including Special Protection Areas.
2.52 From Figure 32 of the RLPSO, it appears that the proposed extent of the Central Woodlands Arc Regional Parkland, passes very close to – or even adjoins – the extent of existing settlements, including in Hullbridge. If such parkland is to be provided, it is considered that it should be located such that it can be sustainably accessed by existing and future residents. However, at the same time, it is important that the precise
boundaries of any such designation do not preclude highly sustainable sites for housing from consideration for residential allocation.
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
2.53 We agree with the principles of the vision. We would caution against identifying a strict boundary for the settlement area, as the experience of the urban area does not have a clean cut off between (for example) Rayleigh and Hockley. Accordingly, we consider that Hambro Hill (105) is better aligned to Rayleigh than to Hockley and should be considered in that regard.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses?
How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
2.54 Land at Hambro Hill, Site CFS105, is on the boundary of the area identified in figure 44.
The land should be included within the area of Rayleigh for the reasons above. That is, the site is most closely associated with Rayleigh and would be capable of providing a sustainable and attractive development on a despoiled site in the highest tier settlement
in the district. To associate the site with Hockley misses the spatial position of the site adjacent to the boundary with Rayleigh, with a considerable area of open space between the site and the urban edge of Hockley, extending to some 80ha. This appears to follow the political ward boundary but has little relationship to how the site is experienced and its relationship to Rayleigh. We strongly recommend that this is corrected.
2.55 The site should be used to provide housing alongside new public open space.
2.56 The site already benefits from access to existing infrastructure and would therefore
represent and effective and efficient use of land. The site is within walking distance of
all categories of school, GP surgery, open space, the Town Centre and the rail station, all of which are made even more accessible with the ready access to bus routes. 2.57 Accordingly, the site should be identified as part of Rayleigh and we consider it to be ideally located for residential development, as identified by the Council in the SHELAA. The only constraint on the site is its current Green Belt designation. The need to release
land in the Green Belt is covered elsewhere in these responses, alongside a comparative assessment of the harm of releasing this site from the Green Belt, which is considered to be superior to other more high performing green belt land, while on other criteria the site scores no worse that vast tracts of land in the district.
2.58 The Site represents a logical extension to Rayleigh that would provide a sustainable development of around 250 dwellings. The Site is well placed to deliver much needed homes for residents, whilst contributing towards local infrastructure, both directly from the development and in the long term from spending in the local economy by residents. With the exception of the Green Belt policy constraint, it is unconstrained and represents a logical ‘filling in’ of the existing development pattern.

3.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment
Assessment Framework
3.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are 1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identify.
3.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
 Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
 Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
 Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
 Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
 Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?
3.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
3.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In
2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 –
significantly below the District’s 11.57

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options on behalf of Bellway Strategic Land in relation to Land North of Brays Lane, Ashingdon (‘the Site’).
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted into the Call for Sites, references CFS126 and CFS007, which Bellway Strategic Land are promoting together to ensure a
comprehensively planned extension to Ashingdon.
1.3 Representations were submitted to the New Local Plan Issues and Options consultation in 2018 to further promote the allocation of the Site to help meet market and affordable housing need in a logical way at the edge of an existing settlement.
1.4 The only current constraint to development is the location of the Site within the Green Belt, with it being unconstrained in other regards. The Site can be used much more effectively to deliver around 250 new market and affordable homes to meet the identified needs within the District and provide new public open space.
1.5 A Vision Document (Appendix A) is submitted as part of these representations to provide further detail about the Site and its proposed development.
2.0 Response to Spatial Options Consultation Questions
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.1 A vision for each settlement could be helpful, but we would highlight that these should not be too restrictive. Given the length of time the Local Plan will cover, there will be changes in the local areas, some of which could be significant. It is important that the visions do not stop development reacting to such changes or the potential responding to new technology, and does not stifle innovation.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.2 We suggest that objectives of the Local Plan should include to improve the affordability of housing for people of Rochford District.
2.3 The RLPSO notes (page 12) that:
“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times to average annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”. (RLPSO,
page 12).
2.4 The most recent data available reports that the median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). This is significantly greater than the national average, and indicates housing affordability
has worsened drastically in recent years.
2.5 In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69
– significantly below the District’s 11.57.
2.6 In addition, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Whilst empirical data is currently limited, there are early indications there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a greater desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas.
2.7 At the same time, the pandemic has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely expected there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is anticipated that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.
2.8 As a consequence, it can be readily predicated that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London. As a consequence, the area may well prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes will be imperative if the Council is to tackle the issue of housing
affordability in the District.
2.9 The RLPSO’s proposed Strategic Objective 3 is:
“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport,
serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”
2.10 We support this and, in addition, suggest this objective should recognise that the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house builder would have for the District.
2.11 As the Local Plan Spatial Options recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.
2.12 Employment relating directly to the construction of the development will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.
2.13 Development of additional homes in the District will also engender sustained local economic benefits relating to additional local expenditure, with additional expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers of new homes on first occupation, on home set up cost, and on an ongoing basis in local shops and services in the area.
2.14 Furthermore, ensuring the provision of sufficient, suitable accommodation is important to securing investment and employers in the District.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.15 We agree that Rochford, including Ashingdon, should be highly ranked within the settlement hierarchy to reflect the wide range of services and facilities available,
alongside sustainable transport options and employment opportunities.
2.16 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionallyconnected settlement.
2.17 Its ranking as Tier 2 is justified given the range of facilities available, but we would highlight that it would be beneficial for the settlement hierarchy itself to state ‘Hockley, Rochford and Ashingdon’, rather than referring to Ashingdon in the accompanying text only. This will be clearer and provide greater clarity to the decision maker.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.18 Given the market and affordable housing needs, affordability issues and heritage and environmental constraints in the District, it is important that the overall strategy seeks to provide a wide range of housing options throughout the Plan period in suitable locations. As such, the strategy should utilise a range of different sites to maximise options to bring forward these new homes and associated infrastructure.
2.19 The temporal dimension of any strategy will also be an important consideration. The Local Plan should seek to ensure that homes can be provided across the plan period, including within the early years. Indeed, it is particularly important for the strategy to deliver homes in the early years of the plan period, given current, acute housing needs.
2.20 For the Local Plan strategy to be sound, we consider that it will need to direct a significant proportion of housing growth to Rochford / Ashingdon.
2.21 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionallyconnected settlement home to around 18,000 residents. Between Rochford town centre and a number of neighbourhood centres located throughout the wider settlement, the Rochford provides for a wide range of services and business spaces, including a number of specialist employment areas supporting nearby London Southend Airport. The
settlement also benefits from a railway station and has good public transport links, particularly when compared to much of the District.
2.22 Rochford / Ashingdon is characterised as a top tier settlement within the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the most sustainable settlements to which to direct
additional growth.
2.23 The Census 2011 suggested that Ashingdon Parish has an ageing population, with a
median age of 45, compared to the nation median of 39. Nevertheless, in 2011 over
20% of the population of Rochford and Ashingdon were aged 17 or under – children / young adults still make up a significant proportion of the local population, suggesting a
relatively large cohort of young people growing up in the area who may well wish to form their own households within the community in which they were raised. However, in the last 10 years, the average price paid for a homes in Ashingdon has increased 61% and the current average dwelling value is estimated to be £337,818. This suggests a lack of housing supply compared to need in the area.
2.24 Rochford and Ashingdon benefit from a range of facilities, services and employment opportunities, many of which are located in Ashingdon, as shown in Figure 2 and discussed in the previous section of this document. This resulted it being categorised (along with Rochford) as a top tier settlement in the District’s hierarchy within the current Development Plan
2.25 Ashingdon was identified as a suitable location to accommodate a proportion of the District’s housing needs through the Rochford Core Strategy (2011) – an approach that was confirmed as sound through a robust examination of proposals. The characteristics of Ashingdon remain broadly the same as they were 10 years ago, and it is evidently still a sustainable location to accommodate some growth.
2.26 One of the options presented by the RLPSO is considered far less likely to result in a sound Local Plan or to deliver sustainable development: Option 1 (urban intensification).
The RLPSP states this option entails making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification
could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). The RLPSO claims this approach could deliver 4,200 dwellings over the next 10 years.
2.27 It is important to recognise that in order to be consider sound, the Local Plan is required to meet objectively assessed housing needs. The RLPSO reports that the minimum housing requirement for the District over a 20-year period is 7,200 dwellings.
2.28 If Option 1 were to deliver 4,200 dwellings, this would result a significant housing shortage in the District. This would result in significant negative social and economic impacts – it would not deliver sustainable development.
2.29 Furthermore, we question whether urban intensification would deliver as many as 4,200
new homes.
2.30 To achieve this would require an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) to be sustained over a 10-year period.
2.31 The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 reports that over the10-year period between April 2010 and March 2020, the District averaged delivery of 176.8 dpa
2.32 The 1,768 dwellings delivered over this period included a significant number from allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014), and did not merely comprise dwellings provided through redeveloped of previously developed land / urban intensification.
2.33 It is also relevant to note that over the last 10 years, local and national policy has supported the redevelopment of suitable previously developed land for residential use. It is likely that much previously developed land that is suitable and viable for residential development has already been redeveloped for housing.
2.34 Even if urban intensification could meet housing needs in full, it would be highly questionable as to whether such development would be suitable. To deliver such a quantum of development within existing settlement boundaries would clearly necessitate
significantly greater densities of development than existing. This in turn would likely result in harm to the existing character of the District’s settlement, and risk harm to amenity of existing residents.
2.35 In addition, it is unlikely that such urban intensification could meet the range of different
housing needs. The RLPSO appears to suggest that it would deliver a low proportion of affordable housing (only 800 out of a total of 4,200).
2.36 A further concern is whether urban intensification would result in the same level of infrastructure improvements and other community benefits that larger allocations are capable of delivering.
2.37 Finally in relation to Option 1, it is unclear what the spatial distribution of housing would be through this approach, and whether it would result in a sustainable pattern of growth.
2.38 Rather than relying on urban intensification, it is clear that if the Local Plan strategy is to be sound and is to deliver sustainable development, it will be necessary to release some Green Belt and allocate land for residential development.
2.39 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that it is appropriate for Local Plans to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary, provided there are exceptional circumstances for doing so, and that these are justified and evidenced.
2.40 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance. However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate
sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green
Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
 The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as
far as practicable.
2.41 Given the scale of the District’s objectively assessed need faced, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green Belt through the preparation of this Local Plan.
2.42 Overall, we consider that a balanced combination of utilising appropriate small scale and larger sites, on both brownfield and greenfield sites is the best approach to seek to meet identified housing needs within the District.
2.43 A balanced approach provides opportunities to deliver housing close to existing communities, making use of existing sustainable locations whilst providing new homes for people in their local community.
2.44 Bellway Strategic Land’s Site north of Brays Lane can form part of this approach, delivering around 250 homes in a sustainable location. The Site is relatively
unconstrained and can start delivering homes early in the Plan period, continuing to deliver in the medium term. It has the potential to deliver much needed new market and
affordable homes to the area at a density and layout that reflects the existing pattern and character of development in the locality.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the
District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
2.45 We caution against applying the same approach everywhere in the District as different areas within Rochford are very different to one another.
2.46 With over 300 listed buildings and 10 conservation areas in the District, clearly some areas have a historic nature that needs to be considered, whereas others, such as east of Ashingdon, do not have such heritage considerations.
2.47 Should the Council seek a District wide place-making charter, this will need to be relatively high level to ensure that it does not unduly restrict development and prevent it from being appropriate to its context, as recognised in Section 12 of the NPPF. A small scale proposal on brownfield land in the middle of a town, for example, will have very different design requirements to a larger scheme of homes on the edge of a settlement.
2.48 Any place-making charter should be formulated through consultation with stakeholders, including developers, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable and does not result in development becoming unviable. Such a charter should be published as part of the Local
Plan to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to comment and input.
Q16a. Do you consider the new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
2.49 Given the pressing housing and affordability needs within the District, it is important that homes are delivered as soon as possible. This is particularly pertinent given that adoption of the Local Plan is not anticipated until late 2023 at the earliest. If the Council seek to deliver design guides or codes, these should be developed alongside the Local Plan with input from stakeholders to ensure that once the Plan is adopted development can commence without delay.
2.50 There is otherwise the risk that the Council adopt a Plan but development is significantly delayed, to the detriment of residents in need of new homes.
2.51 An alternative could be to allow developers to produce design guidance for allocated sites with input from the Council, local community, etc. As set out in the submitted Vision Document, Bellway Strategic Land has begun to consider the design of the land north of
Brays Lane and how development could appear.
2.52 This has been based on technical work and an assessment of the nearby area, building on the successful scheme opposite. Whilst we are keen to engage with the Council, stakeholders and local community in relation to the layout to progress this further, it is not considered that detailed design guidance is required to deliver a successful scheme on this site given the work already undertaken and success of the scheme opposite.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing?
2.53 With areas within the District having different characteristics and development over the Plan period likely to be of varying scales, it is important for developments to be able to provide homes suitable for the site and location.
2.54 Option 1 appears too inflexible in this regard and does not recognise that individual areas have different needs in terms of housing requirements. Such an approach risks being overly restrictive and not allowing development to be appropriate to its context.
2.55 Option 2 does provide such flexibility, which is welcomed and the option we believe the Council should proceed with. It also recognises that different scales of development can be better placed to provide greater flexibility of types of housing, such as self-build.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
2.56 Utilising a range of sites across the District, especially edge of settlement extensions,
can provide significant opportunities for new green and blue infrastructure.
2.57 As set out in the Vision Document, land north of Brays Lane can provide significant new public open space, connecting to footpaths in the wider area. This will assist in delivering new green infrastructure for both existing and future residents.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing?
2.58 Whilst we agree with the principles of the vision, it should also include reference to the provision of new homes to meet local needs and help sustain the existing services and facilities.
2.59 Not providing any new homes in the area risks affordability issues worsening and negative social and economic impacts.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses?
How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
2.60 Land north of Brays Lane should be utilised to provide new market and affordable homes, alongside new public open space, site references CFS007 and CFS126.
2.61 Utilising such locations already benefitting from infrastructure allows development to commence early in the Plan period to start delivering homes.
2.62 As set out in the Vision Document, the Site is within a sustainable location in close proximity to a wide range of services and facilities within easy reach by sustainable
transport methods.
2.63 The Site represents a logical infill adjacent to the existing settlement, extending no further east than existing development to the south.
2.64 The Site is currently defined as being within the Green Belt, being the only constraint to its development.
2.65 Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’) considered the Site as part of Parcel 61 in the Stage 1 Assessment. Parcel 61 is a large area of land covering the entire eastern side of Rochford and Ashingdon. Clearly an assessment of this size parcel of land has limited use when assessing specific sites given that the characteristics are very different. We would caution the Council against giving this weight in the assessment process. Instead, as identified through the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, it is important that Green Belt is considered at a sufficient fine grain. In the Examination of this Local Plan, the Inspector advised as follows: “The phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied
to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further”. (EX39 of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, December 2017).
2.66 The Green Belt Study (2020) Stage 2 assessment did not consider the Site specifically in detail. The Site was considered as assessment area AA112. However, only a brief assessment is provided with an overall conclusion on the level of harm rather than a detailed assessment against each purpose of the Green Belt.
2.67 The Green Belt Study (2020) found that the Site makes a moderate contribution to preventing sprawl of the built-up area and a strong contribution to preventing
encroachment on the countryside. For any site not already within a built up area, these conclusions are highly likely to be similar, which must be recognised. Furthermore, as the Site is bounded by existing residential development on three sides, it is important to
consider how its development would be perceived, which is as an extension to the built up area rather than a site within the countryside.
2.68 The Site would ‘round off’ the existing settlement pattern and is already well connected to existing development. As such, it is considered to have low potential to lead to unrestricted urban sprawl when considered against purpose 1 of the Green Belt.
2.69 In relation to purpose 2, the Site is some distance from the nearest other settlement, being approximately 2 miles from Canewdon to the east. Its development would not have any risk of either actual or perceived coalescence of Ashingdon with any other
settlement.
2.70 In respect of purpose 3, there is no existing, strong defensible boundary between the urban area and adjoining countryside. There are hedgerows associated with existing garden boundaries, but no dominant landscape feature. Existing development is present
and visible within the landscape, with the site providing an opportunity to reframe this edge. The Site is not currently considered to strongly assist in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
2.71 The Site is not adjacent to a conservation area or any listed buildings. Ashingdon itself has a limited number of listed buildings, with two to the very north and to the south a considerable number within Rochford. This is pertinent given that there are over 300 listed buildings within the District. The Site makes no contribution towards preserving the setting and special character of historic towns in respect of purpose 4.
2.72 In respect of purpose 5, this is only applicable where development needs can be met in full on previously developed land. For Rochford District, this is not an option as the amount of market and affordable homes that could be delivered is significantly below the
identified need.
2.73 The above assessments have been informed by the site-specific Landscape / Visual
Appraisal prepared for the Site and previously submitted to the Council. Overall it is
considered that the Site makes limited contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt, and its residential development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.
2.74 The Council’s SHELAA 2017 considered that the Site is available and achievable, with the suitability dependent on an assessment of the Green Belt purposes. It was considered suitable in other regards. As set out above, the Site is considered to make limited contribution towards the Green Belt purposes and should be considered suitable, available and achievable.
2.75 As set out in greater detail in the submitted Vision Document, the Site is unconstrained and located in an already sustainable location. It can provide around 250 new homes, including a mix of sizes, market and affordable.
2.76 With infrastructure already in place, homes can start to be delivered early in the Plan period to meet identified needs.
2.77 The proposal on the Site is of a scale suitable for its surroundings, reflecting its location
adjoining the built up area of Ashingdon. It can reflect the popular and well received
Bellway development opposite on the south of Brays Lane, continuing this high quality design to provide new homes and public open spaces.
2.78 Overall, the Site is well placed to deliver much needed homes for residents, whilst contributing towards local infrastructure, both directly from the development and in the long term from spending in the local economy by residents. With the exception of the Green Belt policy constraint, it is unconstrained and represents a logical ‘filling in’ of the existing development pattern.

3.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment
Assessment Framework
3.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are 1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups
in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identify.
3.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
 Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
 Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs
of all sectors of the community?
 Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
 Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
 Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities,
including specialist services for disabled and older people?
3.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting
the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek
to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
3.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened
significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national
average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 – significantly below the District’s 11.57.

ECC Response to Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation July 2021

Thank you for consulting Essex County Council (ECC) on the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation (SOC) published in July 2021. ECC has engaged with Rochford District Council (RDC) in the preparation of the new Local Plan, and our involvement to date has been proportionate at this early stage of plan preparation, building on the Issues and Options consultation in 2017/18. Once prepared, the new Local Plan will include the required strategies, policies and site proposals to guide future planning across the District, and will replace the current suite of adopted Development Plans up to 2040.

ECC welcomes the opportunity to review and comment on the emerging new Local Plan vision, strategic priorities and objectives, initial growth scenarios, spatial options, thematic themes and ‘Planning for Complete Communities’. As Plan preparation continues, ECC is committed to working with RDC through regular and on-going focussed collaborative discussions to prepare evidence that ensures the preferred spatial strategy, policies and site allocations are sound, viable and deliverable, where future development is aligned to the provision of required local and strategic infrastructure.

A Local Plan can provide a platform from which to secure a sustainable economic, social and environmental future to the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors. A robust long-term strategy will provide a reliable basis on which RDC, ECC and its partners may plan and provide the services and required infrastructure for which they are responsible. To this end, ECC will use its best endeavours to assist on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty to cooperate (Duty), including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance.

It is acknowledged that RDC has engaged ECC under the Duty, during the past year, in addition to the joint and regular meetings established with the South Essex authorities, through specific South Essex strategic planning duty to co-operate groups for Members and Officers respectively to explore strategic and cross boundary matters.

ECC interest in the Rochford New Local Plan – spatial options consultation
ECC aims to ensure that local policies and related strategies provide the greatest benefit to deliver a buoyant economy for the existing and future population that lives, works, visits not only in Rochford District, but Essex as a whole. This includes a balance of land-uses to create great places for all communities, and businesses across all sectors; and that the developer funding for the required infrastructure is clear and explicit. As a result, ECC is keen to understand, inform, support and help refine the formulation of the development strategy and policies delivered by LPAs within and adjoining Essex. Involvement is necessary and beneficial because of ECC’s roles as:
a. the highway and transport authority, including responsibility for the delivery of the Essex Local Transport Plan; the lead authority for education including early years and childcare (EYCC), Special Education Needs and Disabilities, and Post 16 education; Minerals and Waste Planning Authority; Lead Local Flood Authority; lead advisors on public health;
and adult social care in relation to the securing the right housing mix which takes account of the housing needs of older people and adults with disabilities;
b. an infrastructure funding partner, that seeks to ensure that development proposed is realistic and does not place an unnecessary (or unacceptable) cost burden on the public purse, and specifically ECC’s Capital Programme;
c. major provider and commissioner of a wide range of local government services throughout the county (and where potential cross boundary impacts need to be considered);
d. Advocate of the Essex Climate Action Commissioner’s (ECAC) Report 2021 Net Zero – Making Essex Carbon Neutral providing advice and recommendations for action on climate change mitigation and adaption including setting planning policies which minimise carbon. This work has been tailored for use in the county of Essex; and
e. involvement through the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and Opportunity South Essex Partnership (OSE), promoting economic development, regeneration, infrastructure delivery and new development throughout the County.

In accordance with the Duty, ECC will contribute cooperatively to the preparation of a new Rochford Local Plan, particularly within the following broad subject areas,
• Evidence base. Guidance with assembly and interpretation of the evidence base both for strategic/cross-boundary projects, for example, education provision and transport studies and modelling, and wider work across South Essex as part of the joint strategic plan.
• ECC assets and services. Where relevant, advice on the current status of assets and services and the likely impact and implications of proposals in the emerging Local Plan for the future operation and delivery of ECC services.
• Sub-regional and broader context. Assistance with identification of relevant information and its fit with broader strategic initiatives, and assessments of how emerging proposals for the District may impact on areas beyond and vice-versa.
• Policy development. Contributions on the relationship of the evidence base with the structure and content of emerging policies and proposals.
• Inter-relationship between Local Plans. Including the Essex Minerals Local Plan (2014) and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan (2017).

To achieve this, ECC seeks a formal structure for regular and ongoing engagement with RDC through the next stage of Plan preparation. Of critical importance is the additional evidence required for the site assessment process at both the individual and cumulative level to refine and develop the spatial strategy, which will be informed by the provision of sustainable and deliverable infrastructure and services at the right scale, location and time, for the existing and future residents of Rochford. There are also challenges arising from COVID-19 and how these can be addressed through the Local Plan and the future growth ambitions for London Southend Airport.

Key issues and messages of the ECC response
The ECC requirements are set within the context of national policy and ECC’s organisation plan proposals within “Everyone’s Essex” and commitments for “Renewal, Ambition and Equality” based on ECC’s strategies, policies, objectives and evidence base. The ECC response therefore identifies where we support emerging options and proposals, and where we recommend further work and engagement with ECC in order to refine and inform the “Preferred Options”, the next iteration of the local plan preparation, scheduled for consultation in Spring 2022. The key messages in ECC’s response are summarised below.
1. ECC support RDC preparing a new Local Plan and will assist with the preparation of sound evidence and policies, that plan for long term sustainable infrastructure delivery.
2. It is still too early for ECC to provide detailed comments on the impacts, opportunities and requirements for the full range of ECC infrastructure and services, and additional evidence is required on a range of matters to inform the selection of a preferred strategy and sites, together with supporting policies. It is acknowledged that ECC has engaged with RDC on the preparation of the transport evidence base to date, which has been proportionate to this stage of plan preparation.
3. The preferred strategy and site allocations will need to ensure that the requirements of ECC infrastructure and services are met to secure their sound, viable and sustainable delivery at the right scale, location and time, that is commensurate with housing needs and growth aspirations.
4. This will include engagement with preparing additional evidence, that will include, but is not limited to,
o Transportation modelling (including sustainable transport) to develop a strategy to realise modal shift including analysis of existing active and sustainable travel infrastructure (including bus network and services). In collaboration with ECC, it is recommended that RDC prepare a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).
o Scenario testing for education provision including early years and childcare and the approach to Special Education Needs with Disabilities provision.
o Minerals and waste policy compliant assessments.
o Flood and water management assessments through revised Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) and revisions to the South Essex Water Management Action Plan.
o Economic need and employment evidence including an up to date Economic Development Needs Assessment to refine the level of economic growth to be planned for.
o ECC will also contribute to the evidence in respect of skills, Adult Social Care, Public Health, climate change, and green and blue infrastructure to that can deliver safer, greener, healthier communities.
o There is also benefit in undertaking a Health Impact Assessment to ensure health and wellbeing is comprehensively considered and integrated into the Local Plan, including a strategic health and wellbeing policy, an area where ECC can advise and assist, and one successfully implemented and included in other plans across Essex.
5. RDC will need to engage and work closely with ECC to inform site selection and the range of preferred sites both individually and cumulatively, having regard to the evidence.
6. Spatial Growth Scenarios – the preferred scenario should meet national policy to deliver housing and other growth requirements; climate change resilience and adaptation; and environmental aspirations of RDC. As a minimum, the standard methodology should be met and any buffer to drive local economic growth or address unmet need from elsewhere is supported but will need to be based on sound evidence.
7. Spatial Strategy Options – the spatial strategy option to proportionately spread growth across the district would not deliver the necessary scale of growth to secure the viable and sustainable delivery of local or strategic infrastructure and services (most notably a secondary school) and would not be supported. Based on the information presented in the SOC, a preferable option is likely to see a combination of the options presented resulting in urban intensification, a focus on main towns, and concentrated growth in one or more locations (resulting in a new neighbourhood the size of a larger village or small town). The option will need to be informed by the evidence base and further site assessments.
8. ECC will need to be involved in any cross boundary development proposals. To this end, Option 3a would need to be delivered in the longer term given current constraints of the strategic road network (Fairglen Interchange) and have regard to emerging proposals and aspirations arising in Basildon and Castle Point Boroughs; and Option 3b will require close and formal working arrangements with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.
9. It is noted that several of ECC’s comments and observations made in response to the Issues and Options consultation from 2017/18 continue to apply, given the early stages of Plan preparation. We therefore reiterate where important our previous comments and additional points where this is necessary to do so.

The ECC response is set out in table from page 5 onwards and reflects the order of the SOC paper including responses to specific questions; the Integrated Impact Assessment; supporting Topic Papers; and Site Appraisal Paper.

[Due to tabular format of submission, please refer to attached documents for full submission]

Dear Sir/Madam
Rochford District New Local Plan: Spatial Options: Consultation Paper 2021
Thank you for providing the opportunity for Southend Borough Council (SBC) to comment on
the above consultation plan. Set out below are officer level comments that relate principally
to cross-boundary issues and potential strategic scale developments.
SBC and Rochford District Council (RDC) should continue to co-operate on cross-boundary
issues, including through the Rochford and Southend Member Working Group and via the
Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA).
The effectiveness of joint working between the two authorities should continue to be
documented and as we continue to work together under the duty to co-operate, Statements
of Common Ground should be prepared and agreed in line with Government guidance.
General Approach
The Borough Council broadly welcomes the publication of the Consultation Paper and its
general approach to setting out the potential options for meeting Rochford District’s future
development needs, whilst delivering sustainable development and protecting the local
environment. Given Southend Borough’s acute challenge in finding sufficient land within the
Borough to meet its own development needs, it also particularly welcomes the recognition of
the importance of liaising with neighbouring local authorities to ensure wider cross-boundary
issues and development needs are fully addressed.
Coordination of Plans
SBC would wish to emphasise the crucial ongoing importance of coordinating the
preparation of the Rochford New Local Plan with the Southend New Local Plan, which has
reached a similar stage of consultation (the Southend New Local Plan also currently being
out to public consultation at a second Regulation 18 stage, ‘Refining the options’).
Progressing the plans in a collaborative, coordinated and timely manner will be essential to
the effective and sustainable planning for this part of south-east Essex.
As was identified in consultation paper, where it summarises feedback from the Rochford
New Local Plan Issues and Options Document (December 2017 – March 2018), ‘an
infrastructure-first approach to planning is required as there are existing issues with
infrastructure capacity’. (Rochford Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation Paper, page 102)
In seeking to meet future development needs for this part of south-east Essex, it will be
essential that infrastructure provision, particularly in relation to transport, is planned in such a
way to ensure that infrastructure improvements are clearly identified, are realistic and
achievable. In our view, this requires an effective coordinated, sub-regional and cross-
boundary approach, both through our inputs to ongoing ASELA work and through continued
duty of co-operate cross-boundary arrangements.
Question 1 (page 21): Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the
Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
- Given the number of important strategic cross-boundary issues already recognized
between our two authorities (e.g. housing needs, employment needs, transport
infrastructure, environmental protection, strategic green infrastructure provision,
climate change mitigation/adaption, the future of London Southend Airport etc.), we
strongly advocate that both authorities must continue to work closely together on the
preparation of evidence studies and other technical work to support our plan making.
Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives (pages 40 – 43)
Question 4: Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is
there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be
included? – Inclusion of reference to a new Country Park facility north-east of
Southend should be considered and potentially included as part of Strategic
Objective 15.
It has long been an ambition to deliver a new Country Park facility to the north-east of
Southend, as identified in the adopted Southend Core Strategy. If enabled through our local
plans, it would complement similar facilities at Hadleigh Castle and Cherry Orchard and
provide a much needed addition to informal recreation opportunities for the residents of and
visitors to south east Essex.
It is therefore recommended that the words ‘including a new Country Park facility to the
north-east of Southend’ are inserted after the word ‘coastline’. The revised Strategic
Objective would then read as follows:
‘To protect and enhance leisure, sport, recreation and community facilities and to support the
delivery of a multi-functional green infrastructure network across our district and along the
coastline including a new Country Park facility to the north-east of Southend, connecting to
neighbouring areas in South Essex and beyond, to promote healthy and active lifestyles, and
improve physical and mental health and well-being into old age’.
Growth Scenarios (pages 46 – 50)
The ‘Southend New Local Plan - Refining the Options’ consultation document (2021) sets
out that Southend is unable to meet all identified housing needs, as calculated using the
Government’s Standard Methodology, up to 2040. Even if Southend’s remaining Green Belt
was developed there would be a calculated shortfall of around 4,000 new homes. This rises
to around 9,000 new homes if Green Belt land within Southend Borough is not developed.
It is therefore appropriate that Rochford District Council should continue to explore the
options within its area to accommodate a level of housing development which is higher than
necessary to meet its own housing needs (as calculated by Government’s Standard
Methodology), so it is able to consider the potential, and possibly address at least some of
the unmet housing need evident from plan preparation to date in Southend, in line with the
requirements of Government policy.
Spatial Strategy Options (pages 51 to 62)
Question 6: Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken
forward in the Plan? - Strategy Option 4 Balanced Combination. (Strategy Options listed
in footnote 1 below)
It is our view that Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination, appears to offer the most
appropriate strategic approach, balancing Strategy Option 1 and 3. This option appears to
provide the best opportunity to provide sustainable communities that afford the critical mass
needed to secure transformational new infrastructure whilst seeking to make the best
possible use of existing brownfield sites. It also allows for a continuous supply of
development land to come forward over the plan period.
In supporting this approach, it is recognized that as part of Strategy Option 4, Strategy
Option 1: Urban Intensification must take priority and every effort should be made to ensure
new economic and housing growth is being optimized where this would lead to sustainable
development within urban areas (i.e. the use of brownfield land) before looking at
development in the Green Belt.
Subject to Green Belt considerations, the Borough Council welcomes the identification of
Option 3a: concentrated growth west of Rayleigh and Option 3b: concentrated growth north
of Southend within the consultation as possible sites for comprehensive development noting
that may provide the potential critical mass for achieving infrastructure improvements.
It should be noted that land west of Rayleigh is well served by the strategic highway network
(A130 and A127) whilst land to the north of Southend is less so. The potential for this option
to come forward well served by the strategic highway network would be dependent therefore
on a coordinated and planned approach with land to the south in Southend Borough and the
provision of a new highway and sustainable transport link partly on land within Rochford
District.
The consultation document also omits to note that Option 3c, concentrated growth to the
east of Rochford, would also be strongly dependent on new highway provision to the east of
Rochford, the existing Ashingdon Road being of an inadequate capacity to cope with the
increase in transport movements.
In this respect Figure 23 (Sustainability Appraisal of Strategy Options (AECOM, 2021))
which identifies Options 3a, 3b, 3c and 4 as providing a positive return in terms of transport
and movement is misleading.
Rochford District Council and Southend Borough Council would need to co-operate
effectively to explore the potential opportunity of comprehensive development to the north of
Southend (Option 3b) if this option were to be considered further. This joint work can then
inform both Councils’ next stage of plan making.
Any growth in this location is well placed to meet some of Southend’s unmet housing need,
however, if it were to come forward it must deliver significant new infrastructure which
ensures it’s development is sustainable and delivers advantages to neighbouring
communities, including neighbourhoods in Southend, which could benefit for example from
the close proximity of new accessible parkland, education, community and leisure facilities
delivered as part of development in this locality. It is also crucial that any development
provides for the additional road, active travel and public transport capacity necessary to
serve the development and mitigate fully any impacts which might arise.
A comprehensive development in this area appears to include most of the land necessary to
deliver the new road links necessary to facilitate development within both authority areas
and provide relief to the existing network. Development of this scale also has greater
potential to deliver the level of development finance required to help provide for those links.
SBC would not support development to the east of Rochford or south of river Roach without
significant mitigation and transport improvements both within Rochford District and Southend
Borough. SBC has delivered a rolling program of junction improvements along the A127 over
the last 20 years, however further improvements to increase capacity at pinch points are
likely to be required to facilitate growth. There are however constraints in increasing capacity
along the A127 given its urban context. As such, both Councils, along with Essex County
Council should explore strategic transport opportunities and funding mechanisms, including
a potential new link road/ sustainable transport corridor to the north of Southend, the option
of a new transport hub at Southend Airport Railway Station with improved access and further
improvements along the A127.
Strategy Option 2: Urban Extensions is unlikely to deliver the required transport
improvements necessary to facilitate accommodate the growth in trips on the network within
this area.
Spatial Themes
Question 8: Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require
greater emphasis? – Yes. Transport and Connectivity.
As a general rule, all the themes listed are self-contained in that they relate to specific
sites/areas of land and uses of land. The exception is ‘Transport and Connectivity’.
Transport infrastructure provision has a wider impact that relates to a range of transport
modes and is cross-boundary and sub-regional in its impact. As such the theme is
considered to require greater emphasis in the Plan.
Climate Change and Resilient Environments (pages 65 – 68)
Questions 9, 11 and 12 relating to whether a sequential approach to flood risk should be
taken, for development to source a percentage of their energy from low carbon and
renewable sources, and the provision of higher energy efficiency standards are supported.
Question 10: Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should
be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? – Yes.
These areas also provide important areas for informal recreation for the residents of southeast Essex including Southend.
Place Making and Design (pages 69 – 72)
Question 16a: Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be
created alongside the new local plan? – Yes.
Question 16b: If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code
for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements
or growth areas? – To have design guides/masterplans for individual growth areas.
It will be essential that any identified concentrated growth sites (Options 3a and 3b) are
planned and designed individually so that the sites can be effectively planned in a
sustainable manner that takes into full account their setting and local environment and
provides for well-designed places and spaces.
Employment and Jobs (pages 84 – 90)
Question 25: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for
growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment
facilities? – Yes, land north of Temple Farm Industrial Estate.
Land north of the existing Temple Farm Industrial Estate provides the opportunity for an
extension of the estate to meet future employment needs as part of strategy option 3b:
concentrated growth north of Southend.
Future of London Southend Airport (pages 91 – 93)
Question 28: With reference to the options (listed as footnote 2 below), or your own options,
how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the
planning system?
SBC is currently consulting on options within its Local Plan ‘Refining the Plan Options’
document on how to continue to plan for London Southend Airport and would welcome
continued co-operation with RDC to ensure an effective policy framework remains up-to-date
to manage future development at the Airport, this could include consistent policies included
within respective Local Plans. It is crucial that any future growth that is facilitated, if that is
indeed the right course of action, should fully consider the environmental impacts of that
growth. It should also be noted that the existing planning permission allows a level of growth
beyond the level of operations being experienced pre-Covid, in 2019 and that level of
operation was in itself leading to local complaints associated with aircraft noise, airport
operations, on street car parking locally and night-flying in particular.
Green and Blue Infrastructure (pages 98 – 101)
Question 33: Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on
Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other
areas that should be considered or preferred? – Yes. See comments relating to question
34 below.
Question 34: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for
growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? – Yes. Option 3b:
concentrated growth north of Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers clear
opportunities to deliver new accessible green space including the provision of a new subregional scale Country Park facility aligning with the River Roach and incorporating land
within flood Zone 2 (Figure 8). A new Country Park in this location would provide informal
countryside opportunities to the benefit of residents within the eastern peninsula of southeast Essex and would complement the facilities at Hadleigh Castle Country Park and Cherry
Orchard Jubilee Country Park and the broader South Essex Regional Park concept.
Community Infrastructure (pages 102 – 105)
Question 36: With reference to your preferred strategy option, are there opportunities for
growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? – Yes. Option 3b:
concentrated growth north of Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers the potential
to provide for a range of community infrastructure, including new school, leisure and health
facilities.
Transport and Connectivity (pages 123 – 126)
Question 51: With reference to the options (listed as footnote 3 below), or your own options,
how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
All four options need to be pursued as part of an integrated approach in partnership
with South Essex Local Authorities, Essex County Council and the Government.
As stated in the Rochford Local Plan consultation document: ‘it is clear that a more
ambitious approach is required to connectivity if we are to keep growing.’ A step change in
improving connectivity and accessibility is needed to accommodate growth if the local
economy is to remain attractive to investors, and highway congestion and air quality issues
are to be addressed.
The plan needs to recognise that significant volumes of traffic that have their origin or
destination in Rochford District will utilise highways within Southend Borough, particularly the
A127. A coordinated partnership approach to infrastructure provision is therefore essential.
The Rochford Local Plan should seek to ensure that the approval of any large development
proposals are subject to infrastructure triggers where developments are not permitted to
proceed until such time as the necessary infrastructure is committed. Individual development
sites cannot continue to be treated in isolation, the cumulative impact of development
schemes has and will continue to have significant impacts on the existing highway
infrastructure, which has impacts beyond Rochford District.
Question 52: Are there any areas where improvements to transport connections are
needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
Yes. A comprehensive integrated partnership approach to improving transport
connections is required across the whole sub-region.
Question 53: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for
growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes
and modes should these take?
Yes. Option 3b: concentrated growth north of Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend appears to offer the
potential to provide for improved transport connectivity. Such a development scheme would
be dependent on the provision of a new link road from east Southend to the A127 via
Warners Bridge, utilising land within the administrative district of Rochford, as well as a new
transport hub at Southend Airport Train Station.
Any such link road should also give consideration to the potential for a Rochford bypass to
the east of the town particularly if Option 3c: concentrated growth to the east of Rochford
were to be taken forward. This could provide the first phase in a potential opportunity to
deliver an outer strategic highway route linking to the A130 between Rayleigh and
Hullbridge.
Planning for Complete Communities
• Rayleigh (pages 133 – 134)
Question 56b: With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred strategy option, do you think
any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses (housing,
commercial, community infrastructure)? Yes. Option 3a: concentrated growth west of
Rayleigh.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth west of Rayleigh offers the potential to
meet a variety of housing needs, mixed use developments and community infrastructure.
• Rochford and Ashingdon (pages 136 – 137)
Question 57e: Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local
significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? Yes.
Edwards Hall Park
Edwards Hall Park serves the informal recreational needs of residents of Eastwood in
Southend Borough and provides an important pedestrian/equestrian gateway into the Cherry
Orchard Jubilee Country Park.
Question 57d: Are there any areas that require protecting from development? Why these
areas? Yes.
In considering the identified option 3b: concentrated growth north of Southend any future
development scheme that may be justified as constituting exceptional circumstances and
sustainable development should be carefully planned so as to avoid the coalescence of the
Rochford with Southend.
Wakerings and Barling (pages 142 – 143)
Question 59b: With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think
any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses (housing,
commercial, community infrastructure)? Yes. Option 3b: concentrated growth north of
Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers the potential
to provide for improved community infrastructure, transport and access improvements and
provision of public open green space.
Question 59d: Are there any areas that require protecting from development? Why these
areas? Yes. Preventing the direct coalescence of Great Wakering/Little Wakering with
Southend.
In considering the identified option 3b: concentrated growth north of Southend any future
development scheme that may be justified as constituting exceptional circumstances and
sustainable development should be carefully planned so as to avoid the direct coalescence
of the Great and Little Wakering with Southend.
Stonebridge and Sutton (pages 160 – 161)
Question 64b: With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think
any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses (housing,
commercial, community infrastructure)? Yes. Option 3b: concentrated growth north of
Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers the potential
to provide for improved community infrastructure, transport and access improvements and
public open green space.
Other Minor Comments
There are one or two typing and cartographical errors in the consultation document as
follows:
- Page 65 last paragraph, the third sentence is incomplete.
- Page 98 Figure 32: Map of Key Green and Blue Infrastructure Assets includes
land within the Southend Borough south of Great and Little Wakering. This should be
deleted from the map.
- Page 135 Figure 45: Map of Rochford and Ashingdon
should read Figure 44: Map of Rayleigh. In addition, the blue horizontal lines
defined on the map are not interpreted in the key.
Kind Regards
Mark Sheppard
Team Leader Strategic Planning
Southend Borough Council
_________________________________________________________________
Footnotes
Footnote 1: Page 51 summarises the 4 strategy options as follows:
• Strategy Option 1: Urban Intensification
• Strategy Option 2: Urban Extensions
- » Option 2a: Focused on main towns
- » Option 2b: Dispersed to all settlements based on Settlement Hierarchy
• Strategy Option 3: Concentrated growth
- » Option 3a: Focused west of Rayleigh
- » Option 3b: Focused north of Southend
- » Option 3c: Focused east of Rochford
• Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination
Footnote 2: Question 28 refers – Options for planning for the future of London Southend
Airport (page 93)
Given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the impact of Covid-19 on the aviation industry, it is not
currently possible to identify precise land use requirements for the airport’s growth. Nevertheless,
there are considered to be a number of options available relating to planning for the future of London
Southend Airport. These are:
1. To work alongside Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to prepare a new joint Area Action Plan, or
masterplan, alongside each authority’s respective new Local Plan, that contains a consistent policy
approach to managing the Airport’s long-term growth ambitions
2. To work alongside Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to ensure that policies contained within both
authority’s respective Local Plans maintain a consistent policy approach, as far as is practicable, to
managing the Airport’s long-term growth ambitions
3. To prepare a new Area Action Plan, or masterplan, to manage the Airport’s long-term growth
ambitions, with suitable partner engagement but without the status of a statutory document
4. To continue to make decisions based on the existing JAAP for the time being, but to consider
developing a new Area Action Plan, or masterplan, after the new Local Plan is adopted or when the
need arises
Footnote 3: Question 51 refers – Options for addressing Transport and Connectivity (page 125)
Non-exclusive options for addressing transport and connectivity through the plan are to:
1. Embed a sustainable movement hierarchy into the plan to ensure sustainable modes of transport
are prioritised in favour of private vehicles
2. Prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan alongside the plan to ensure new development delivers
meaningful improvements to transport networks, including to cycling, walking, public transport and
road
3. Prepare a Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan or Cycling Delivery Plan alongside the
plan to identify and deliver specific improvements to our walking and cycling networks, including
costed schemes highlighted in the Rochford Cycling Action Plan
4. Work with Government, Highways England, Essex County Council and neighbouring local
authorities to deliver meaningful new transport options, such as rapid transit solutions and a long-term
solution to the A12

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
We feel strongly that a local highways study needs to take place. The document only refers to a study of the main roads in the south Essex infrastructure position statement. This states in 4.2.4 that much of the main road network which leads to our district is operating at, or near, capacity in peak periods.
We cannot understand why Rochford District Council (RDC) would base its planning upon the 2025 flood risk area when developments could reasonably be expected to be in place for more than 100+ years. All evidence from the IPCC and other scientific institutions demonstrate that global sea level rise is a real and presently accelerating threat. In addition, the British Geological survey shows that the Eurasian tectonic plate is tilting along an axis between the Wash and the Bristol Channel, this means that Essex is sinking at a rate of 0.4 to 0.7mm per year (ref. research carried out at Durham University and published in the Journal ‘GSA Today’). These projections are not the worst-case scenario, and the sea level rise could be much worse if climate change continues raising temperatures beyond 1.5 degrees centigrade.
The map generated by Coastal Climate Central for 2050 shows that all of the promoted sites to the west of Hullbridge will be in the flood risk area, and that those to the North East of Hullbridge are also in the flood risk area. RDC needs to ensure that no site at risk of flooding by 2050 is developed.
The Coastal Climate Central 2050 map shows large part of Rochford including Hullbridge below flood levels:
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/0.6252/51.6246/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_ type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&fo recast_year=2050&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_ level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

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


We believe that the vison should take into consideration the differences in towns and villages; for example, Rayleigh or Rochford may have a more business focus, whereas Hullbridge may be more of a rural community with a greater need to cater for its older population who do not need employment but do need more health services. In principle, the results of this consultation need to feed into it to make specific plans for each settlement.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?


We agree that there should be separate visions for each settlement, however, these should be determined by each Parish Council working with its own residents - this is the appropriate level of localisation. Whilst agreeing with the principle of the localisation approach, it is not visible in the document as a whole. As we have already covered, there should be separate visons for each settlement. In this way it will support planning decisions at a local and district level to ensure the unique character of each distinct settlement remains rather than developing into one indistinct mass.


Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?


Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problem of the aging population within the district. This is in large part due to the failure to provide adequate low rent social housing to enable young people to remain in the district and to develop stable family units. The failure of Housing Associations to meet this need is well documented nationally, and locally the largest Housing Association (Sanctuary) has a poor record of maintaining properties and honouring contractual promises made when the RDC’s housing stock transferred. The strategy should provide council housing (preferably directly managed) with genuinely affordable rents and secure tenancies in small local exception sites. There also needs to be provision within these sites for social housing accommodation for elderly residents.
With regard to objective 12 we are concerned that Rayleigh tip has been put forward for development. If so there still needs to be a site for waste disposal close to Rayleigh. The restrictions on vans needs to be lifted to prevent fly tipping.
We believe that sufficient primary school places should be provided within local communities, and steps should be taken to minimise the use of cars to transport children to schools; we are concerned that this is currently not the case.
Strategy Options

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


Yes, the hierarchy seems logical. We feel the strategy should take into account that many more people are working from home, reducing the need to commute to employment centres.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?


It seems that some elements of option 1 and 3 will be required but given the requirement to build more homes the least disruptive option preferred by us would be to go for option 3a. Option 3a has the advantage of being close to the existing road hubs (A127 and A130) and services. It would also be of a sufficient scale to attract section 106 funding for vital infrastructure. 3a would also be close to employment opportunities in Wickford and Basildon.

Option 3b would create considerable pressure on the existing road network and would erode the green belt separation of Southend and Rochford.

Option 3c would place development within the flood risk area and not be sustainable without the need for major road building that would open up the green belt to considerable development in the Crouch Valley.

The building of a major bypass road (as promoted by landowners in the past) to deal with congestion caused by 3b and 3c would destroy the green environment of Rochford and generate further development within the green belt. Development in the villages should be small scale and focussed on providing homes for young families and the elderly.

Small ‘exception’ housing developments added to the village settlements could provide council housing, sheltered housing and bungalows to meet the needs of low-income young families and the elderly. Such provision for the elderly could free up existing houses for younger residents and families to purchase.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?


Using option 3a as a starting point, other areas could be developed in future using option 1 when the infrastructure is planned and/or in place.
Restrict overdevelopment in rural and village communities to protect the character of village life.

Spatial Themes

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?


We are concerned about the fact that access was denied to the topic papers, and wholeheartedly believe that the existing lifestyle of the area should be protected from overdevelopment.


Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
We agree that it is imperative that both flood risk and coastal change should be central to any development plans going forward; for us in Hullbridge, many of the proposed sites to the west of the existing settlement are projected to be deep within flooding territory by 2050, as are numerous ones in the east as well. With 2050 now less than three decades away, and no sign of any imminent alteration in the path of climate change, development in any of the areas identified to be in potential flood plains today and in the near future must not be considered.


Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character?


The main concern that we have about the Coastal Protection Belt is that it only extends up until 2025 – other areas would need to be included past this date because, as we have mentioned previously, the flood plains across the Rochford district will be vastly different by 2050. It is our view that any and all housing developments proposed in flood plains, current and near future, must not be approved and those that are approved should be given the assurance of protection from flooding over the coming decades. Closer to home, we believe that the river front in Hullbridge should equally be protected for its special landscape character. We would also like to make it known we are very supportive and enthusiastic about the Central Woodlands Arc and the Island Wetland proposals.


Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?


Providing that the development is affordable and deliverable, and the cost is not lumped onto the buyer for many years to come then this is the right decision as the future rests in renewable energy. A solar farm in a place that will not impact its surroundings to solar panels ought to be considered and/or wind turbines on Foulness Island.


Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?


Ideally BREEAM Very Good or Good, as long as the brunt of the cost is not rested on the shoulders of the buyer and that these homes are affordable.

Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?


The installation of wind and solar power generators, in locations such as Foulness, would certainly assist in supporting the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy which is a necessity in the modern day.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
Yes, these should be settlement specific, to allow for the maintenance of the integrity and specific characteristics of each area, sufficiently detailed to avoid confusion, and widely distributed.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?


Yes, provided individual settlements are consulted and these are adhered to.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Yes, providing that each individual settlement is at the heart of it and considered as their own entities with their own individual characteristics. It is imperative that certain areas are protected completely, and that any future developers are aware of the identified characteristics of each area.

Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?


Design guides should be area specific under one singular guide which is inclusive to the whole district – providing it remains flexible to local conditions.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?

As long as the character and aesthetic are maintained concurrently with necessary growth, nothing else needs to be included.

Housing for All

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?


Meet the need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing (including Affordable, Social, Council and Specialist Housing) by requiring a standard non-negotiable mix of housing to be provided on all housing developments.
New homes should meet the standards set out in Parts M4(2) or M4(3) of Building Regulations.

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?

There is too much focus currently across the district on the provision of 4/5 bedroom properties. This focus needs to shift towards 2/3 bedroom properties which would benefit more local residents/families in search of their first home. "Affordable" homes should not only be flats/apartments but other property types also.
1/2 bed bungalows (or similar) should be a priority, as with an ageing population, there will be increasing demand for such properties when elderly residents are looking to downsize. RDC should actively discourage bungalows being converted into larger properties. Additional provision for residential care is also a priority.
These can all be accommodated within Strategy Option 3a.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?


Affordable homes and social housing to enable single persons or families buy or rent their own home.
Specialist homes for the disabled.
Smaller dedicated properties for the older generation, to enable them to downsize from larger properties, thereby freeing-up larger properties for younger families.

Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?


The failure to provide traveller sites has led to many unauthorised sites within the green belt being granted planning permission on appeal. With Michelin Farm no longer being an option, RDC needs to identify an alternative appropriate site(s) either from within its ownership or purchased specifically for the purpose. This site(s) should be located so that it (they) does not cause difficulties with established communities; fly-tipping and the impact on nearby residents being just one example. Perhaps, particular consideration of a contained site(s) within the Green Belt, so as to obviate the likelihood of unplanned, piecemeal and unauthorised sites fragmenting the green belt.
Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that there are different groups within the Traveller communities who do not want to be placed together and perhaps ways can be found to integrate these into everyday life and housing.

Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?


Some Traveller Groups tend to make their own arrangements to use owned land on a temporary basis. RDC needs to identify a site(s) either from within its ownership or purchased specifically for this purpose. It (they) would need to be sufficiently away from residences that they would not be disturbed or troubled by vehicles/caravans arriving or leaving. Perhaps a pre-payment/booking system could be introduced for this purpose and at the same time, reducing the likelihood of over-crowding.

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites?
Locate sites close to main roads to enable easy access for large vehicles, so that residential roads are not congested and nearby residents are not disturbed. Allow a little room for expansion and limit the likelihood encroachment onto neighbouring land.
Locate away from spaces of national, regional, local or community interest or recreation, so as not to spoil the visual amenity of the landscape.
The sites should not be closed and available to the whole Traveller community.

Employment and Jobs

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan?


In addition to employment option 11 which states: Working with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages, information should be collected and made available on where there are shortages or opportunities coming up. Offer advice to adults wishing to or needing to reskill. Provide local affordable adult education courses on the skills needed. Work with employers, education centres and Essex County Council.

With reference to employment option 4 that states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the delivery of new employment space alongside any new strategic housing developments. This should apply to the larger scale developments described in spatial strategy option 3. Employment option 4 goes on to specify live work units as an option. This would help with increasing numbers of people working from home. Also start up business centres and co-working spaces would be useful and there are many self-employed people and small businesses in this area. A sympathetic attitude is required towards people running a business from home provided that the impact on the surrounding area is minimal.

In all of this we need to be mindful of paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the green belt?


Consider any brownfield site for employment use these are currently mainly getting used for housing. There needs to be employment opportunities even in the smaller settlements if we are going to be greener and cut down on transport use. Employment option 6 states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the regularisation of informal employment sites such as those shown on figure 30. This would make employment accessible to people living in the rural communities especially if other farms able to do this could also be identified. Most of the sites are in the western half of the district it would be useful to identify a few more sites in the east to make this a policy that serves the whole district.

Any use that is not heavily disruptive to the surrounding area should be permitted. Planning officers should be able to permit reasonable adjustments requested by residents to make extensions and adaptations to their homes to accommodate working from home or running a business from home.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?


Our preferred spatial strategy option is 3a. Concentrated growth is required to bring the necessary infrastructure to make business and employment growth viable. There needs to be links to main roads to accommodate the commercial traffic required to service industry. Improvements to public transport to employment sites are needed.

Employment option 4 which states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the delivery of new employment space alongside any new strategic housing developments, could be delivered by strategy 3a.

Employment Strategy 6, which meets future needs by prioritising the regularisation of informal employment sites, would help deliver more businesses and employment. Employment option 3 refers to Saxon Business Park, Michelin Farm and Star Lane; we should continue to expand and improve these sites. However this needs to be done in conjunction with other options not as a stand-alone policy. These two strategies are needed and can be included in any of the spatial options.

Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?


Sites set aside for education and health uses in addition to the services they provide, they also provide good employment opportunities. Sites also for High and Low Technology. Foulness would be ideal for green industries.

Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?


Provide appropriate schools and colleges to serve the increase in population due to high development, but locate with public transport links and accessibility by walking or cycling in mind. Also work with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages as stated in employment option 11.

Work with bus companies and Essex County Council to make our existing employment sites as accessible as possible. Improve footpaths and cycle tracks using government funding applied for by Rochford District Council. Move away from planning employment sites in places that are designed to be accessed by car use. Some employment is going to have to be close to settlements. This of course would have to be take into account paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?


Protect the airport and encourage airport linked transport adjacent or close to the airport eg, existing airport industrial park and Saxon Business Park. Both airport growth and industry will promote jobs.

The transport system both road network and public transport needs to be improved to make these growing opportunities accessible for all.

Biodiversity

Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?


YES

While Hockley Woods does not seem to be mentioned here, we would have thought this ancient woodland (and similar woodland), and its important wildlife habitat should be included as it provides for a number of rare species including lesser spotted woodpeckers and hawfinches.

The lower Crouch Valley, the River Crouch and its banks are important habitats for fauna including birds that are on the endangered species red list. This includes curlews, whimbrels, and other wading birds. The pasture land flanking the Crouch towards Battlesbridge is an important habitat for skylarks and other species; these areas should be protected.
Restrict development in all other green belt areas, in order to protect nature. Alongside this, provide protection for nature reserves, parkland and areas fronting rivers.

Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection


Yes, as we have already stated, many areas provide habitats for endangered or rare wildlife and therefore are more than worthy of protection.

Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?

Onsite reduced developments in general will assist moving new developments to high unemployment areas.
We agree with the central woodlands arc and island wetlands proposals.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?


More investment is required in many areas of infrastructure, from roads to general services. It would be beneficial to green ideals to restrict or ban development in or near green belt sites and to keep development in the rural areas to a minimum.

Q33. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?


By lobbying central government to allow revision of RDC plans to support a quality green and blue infrastructure.
Q34. With referene to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?


Concentrate on brownfield and town sites in order to protect rural communities and the green belt – as previously alluded, options 3 or 4 mean less development in rural areas and are therefore more accommodating to the needs of smaller rural areas like Hullbridge, hence our choice of option 3a.

Community Infrastructure

Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?


Build property where there is existing infrastructure or where infrastructure can be expanded without encroaching on green belt etc.
A survey needs to be carried out on local roads to determine what is needed to be upgraded to achieve any sustainable way for traffic, both domestic and that which uses these as through roads.
With reference to Hullbridge much of it is unadopted roads and cannot support any development, let alone be able to accommodate the use of these roads as through roads for both building access and ultimate through road access to any development.

Provide schools for development areas and provide transport links to these schools. Local schools, both primary and secondary, are already struggling with the increase in pupil numbers coupled with limited capacity.

Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?


Funds were given via section 106 to expand Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and provide more school places - neither of these has happened. The section 106 money from the existing Malyons Farm development urgently needs to be made available to both the Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and the Hullbridge Primary School.
More development would make the situation untenable, particularly if further section 106 monies were withheld by RDC and not allocated to benefitting the local community where new developments are built.

Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these?

Even with section 106 grants, if made available, healthcare facilities in Hullbridge are severely restricted, especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage. Further development in Hullbridge would worsen healthcare provision and, even with section 106 grants if released by RDC, will not improve the situation.
Whilst this is outside the control of RDC, developments would cause serious issues particularly as Hullbridge traditionally has an ageing population - one which is obviously more reliant on healthcare, alongside the inevitability of new patients from current and any new developments.
There are currently inadequate or no existent bus and footpath links to areas east of Hullbridge, such as the Dome Area. Any development to the east of Hullbridge would have transport difficulty and also the impact on Lower Road would be unacceptable; this would be the case even bus links were improved.
The same approach needs to be taken with schools and highways and new residents could be short- changed without easy access to schools, healthcare and employment.
Open Spaces and Recreation

Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?


With reference to open spaces and recreation option 5, we should improve and maintain what we already have, using section 106 money for improvements. We should ensure that any section 106 money does get spent how and where it was intended. No section 106 money should end up being unused.

We should improve bus links to existing facilities in the district, for example Clements Hall where buses used to run in the past (at least in the school holiday periods). There should be an aim to provide permanent all year-round bus services to our main leisure sites.

The Hockley ‘Park Run’ is very popular. Should the proposed Central Woodlands Arc come into being it would be ideal for a park run. Orienteering could be an interesting additional activity; local scouting groups, and schooling groups too, would certainly benefit from this.

Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?


We should ensure that any proposal for a 3G pitch has the backing of local residents. For reference, in 2016 a 3G pitch was applied for planning permission by The Fitzwimarc School but turned down by Rochford District Council due the objections of local residents.
The Hullbridge Recreation Ground would be ideal for a new 3G pitch.

Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?


Primary Schools should also be considered along with any site that could host a hockey or a 5 a side pitch.

Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?


Our preferred spatial strategy option is 3a. The section 106 money that comes with the larger developments has more chance of providing good sustainable new facilities.
A bus service needs to be run to facilities like Clements Hall, at least during half term and school holidays, to enable young people to access it from areas where it is currently difficult to access by public transport; this has been done in the past to access sports and in particularly swimming facilities which are not available in Hullbridge or Rawreth.
Swimming facilities were excluded from the Rawreth Lane sport facility.

Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?


Hullbridge Recreation Ground. Our nature reserves, parks and woodlands to promote walking and other appropriate exercising activities.

Heritage

Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?


Protect village and rural areas from over or inappropriate development through careful planning considerations.

Compose a list of sites with local consultation. Then look maintain them with local residents and organisations.


Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section?


Villages fronting riversides: Hullbridge, Paglesham, Canewdon, South Fambridge.

Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?


As with protected sites a consultation needs to be done for each locality. With reference to Hullbridge, in addition to the old school, Shell Cottage and River Cottage are already listed. We would add the school house next to the school, Brick Cottages, Tap's Cottage and the Anchor Cottages if they are not already listed/locally listed buildings.

Town Centres and Retail

Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state]


Market forces are moving purchases online so town centres need to be more accessible and convenient to encourage day shopping, and also increase night time business where appropriate to take up capacity lost from retail.

Improve transport links to town shopping and amenities. There is no transport link from the Dome that would take their residents into nearby Hockley for example. There are no easy transport links from Hullbridge to Hockley or Rochford.

Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]


Protecting businesses generally will not work as commercially if they are not profitable, they will close and we will have empty shops. Rochford District Council needs to encourage business with free parking and reduced business rates.

Businesses should be encouraged to work together with a co-operative nature, or a number of shops all open a little later one night of the week to make it worth shoppers coming out in the early evening. Local eateries could offer special deals on those nights.

Community events that encourage shops and businesses to join in – fairs, celebrations, etc.

Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]


Keep streets clean and tidy, and repair and repaint street furniture regularly. Conserve the character of the town centres by avoiding high rise development and buildings that are at odds with the street scene.

Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]


Some existing ok but links to, e.g., Clements Hall from Hullbridge non-existent.

Businesses cannot be forced into staying unless benefits outlined in Q47 are adhered to which may encourage some business opportunities and current business to remain.

Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]


Spatial strategy 3a will give the most opportunity to expand retail both in terms of including retail space and bringing customers into the town centres nearest to the new developments. The document mentions a cinema. The best site for this would be Saxon Business Park. A bowling alley would work well with this alongside some eateries.

Transport and Connectivity

Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?


Certainly, prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that would deliver meaningful improvement to transport networks, including but not exclusively, cycle routes, walking pathways, public transport and roads. However, all these modes are currently completely stretched; modernisation and improvements to all need to happen before future housing developments are built. It should be noted that following the last developments in the Core Strategy, as far as Hullbridge is concerned (and almost certainly elsewhere also), the promised improvements have either not materialised, been completed or proven to be inadequate.
The plan needs to deliver improvements to public transport by working with bus companies to re-establish bus routes to isolated communities that have been either been terminated or severely curtailed. For example, ‘The Dome’ has a bus service twice a week. Residents regularly complain that they are isolated from everywhere else. It is also claimed that Hullbridge has its own bus service that runs 4 - 7 times a day. This is not the experience of Hullbridge residents and it only needs the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road for the service to either be even further curtailed or suspended entirely.
RDC need to continue to work with Government, Highways England, Essex CC etc to deliver meaningful road improvements to both the main road arteries and to the local road network. However, any large-scale bypass scheme such as the "Southend Outer Bypass" scheme needs to be opposed. Not only would it cut directly through the Green Belt but it would increase development along its course, which in turn would have enormous negative impact on the Green Belt itself, natural habitats and the environment generally.

Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?


Whilst some improvements are shortly to commence at the Fairglen Interchange and A130, further improvements are needed to the Junction of Rawreth Lane and the A1245. Perhaps also the A127 could be widened along its length from four lanes to six lanes.
Additionally, the bus service between Hullbridge and Rayleigh can be cut with the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road and this needs to be addressed urgently. When this happens it consequently results in more vehicles using Hullbridge road, which in turn exacerbates traffic congestion and leads to other problems such as pollution.
A bus service between Rochford and Rayleigh via Hullbridge and Hockley and Rayleigh via Hullbridge would serve to reduce traffic congestion along Lower Road, especially at "rush" hours. This would benefit residents of the Dome as well as properties along the length of Lower Road. It would also serve to provide access for Hullbridge students to access the Greensward Academy that does not exist currently.

Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Improvements to existing road networks. Large scale bypass schemes, such as the “Southend Outer” bypass would be unacceptable because of the hugely detrimental impact on the Green Belt and its physical and natural environment.
Small low top busses to link smaller communities with larger ones. Trams not a viable option for the more rural areas as roads are too narrow and winding; additionally, would increase congestion on existing roads.
Improvements to the cycle path network, extending and linking the network as and where appropriate and safe.

Green Belt and Rural Issues

Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided?


Yes, but not within the Green Belt and Rural and Village life must be safeguarded.
Any such sites must be small scale and have developments that prioritise genuinely "Affordable" homes and/or Social Housing that would benefit local residents/families most.

Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
Support changes that would require developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to s.106/CIL monies, that would go towards infrastructure improvements, particularly those affecting rural communities.

Planning for Complete Communities

Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?


N/A


Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?


N/A

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon?



N/A

Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance?

N/A

Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?

N/A

Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

N/A

Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?


N/A


Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A




Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A





Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


We do not agree with the wording or the aims of the provided vision statement for Hullbridge and have instead drafted our own (see below). We were sceptical about the suggestion that the river could be used for transport without consideration on the viability or environmental impact of this proposal.

Hullbridge will have expanded on its already self-reliant nature, boasting impressive local businesses and amenities – providing a perfect space for those who wish to enjoy their retirement as well as those with young families. Through small, localised and respectable developments, the thriving community and riverside aesthetic of the village remains as strong as ever; all of this has been achieved through the transparency and openness of different local authorities, residents, businesses and developers on any and all developments going forward.

Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


The biggest issue with further development in Hullbridge is the distinct lack of infrastructure – whether that be roads, schools, transport and other general services – and so, without even mentioning the fact that many sites lay within the projected 2050 flood plains, the suggestion that further development can take place on any considerable scale is untenable. Any consideration of commercial or community infrastructure, such as youth services, care facilities, or local businesses would equally need to be subject to the same discussion and scrutiny.

Q60c. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


All of the areas lie within the green belt, and many will be within the projected 2050 flood plains, and so general appropriateness is not met with any; numerous promoted sites are outside walking distance of the majority of services and as such would increase residents using vehicles and increase reliance on our already stretched local infrastructure.

Q60d. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


Significant portions of Hullbridge remain vital for local wildlife, its habitats, and the natural environment. As such, any and all developments along the River Crouch, the surrounding areas of Kendal Park and those that lie north of Lower Road should be protected from development.

Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there areas that require protecting from development?


Yes, all of those identified as such in Figure 48 are definitely areas of local significance and are correct to be identified as such. Other areas that should be outlined include the Rose Garden, the banks of the River Crouch and the upcoming green space and Memorial Gardens provided as part of the recent Malyons Farm development.

Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?


N/A


Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 49 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?


N/A


Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q62d. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A





Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A

Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]


N/A






Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]


No - All communities should have their own individual, locally determined vision statements, especially the more rural ones. Each settlement has its own distinct character and the vision statement would serve to aid the planning process in safeguarding their individual character.

Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


Yes in the broadest terms. We would want it to re-iterate that the individual character and seeming uniqueness of our rural communities needs to be, and will be, safeguarded. By extension, we would like to see more activity in this regard from all tiers of Government.

Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?


Respect the green belt that surrounds our rural communities and our higher tier settlements; thereby ensuring a buffer ("defensible boundary") that would actively prevent communities merging into one conglomeration.

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

Improve village roads, transport, educational and utility infrastructure. All of which are already in desperate need of improvement and renovation. For example, it is questionable whether the sewerage system in Hullbridge could cope with any further development without expansion and upgrading.

These representations have been prepared by Barton Willmore LLP on behalf of Bloor Homes (the ‘Promoters’). The Promoters have an active interest in a Site at Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell, which is identified in the Site Location Plan at Appendix 1.
This Site could provide much needed, deliverable residential development in a sustainable and appropriate location, and is considered suitable for allocation within the Rochford New Local Plan (RNLP).
1.2 This Report is submitted in response to the formal public consultation. Section 2 of this report provides comments on the Spatial Options Consultation Paper (SOCP)(2021); and Section 3 responds to the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA)(July 2021). These sections
are followed by Section 4, which provides an overview and assessment of the Site which is promoted for development at Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell.
1.3 A number of supplementary documents are appended to these representations which are referred to throughout. These include a landscape and visual appraisal (LVA) of the site (Appendix 2) of the site, and an indicative framework layout (Appendix 3). Additional
visuals are also included in appendices 4-9, which provide context and support to the LVA and indicative framework layout. A Transport Appraisal (with associated plans and figures) of the site is included within Appendix 10 confirming its sustainability in transport terms.
A Flood Risk and Drainage report is included within Appendix 11 which demonstrates how any flood risk and drainage matters associated with development of the site could also be addressed

[Due to size of full submission, please refer to attached document, along with individual representations to questions].

Summary and Conclusions:
Overall Bloor Homes is supportive of the proposed approach put forward within the SOCP and IIA documents and it is commended that a positive view is taken with regard to strategy option 4 and higher growth options.
Based on the information put forward within the consultation documents and the supporting evidence base we consider that strategy option 4 and the growth option should be pursued across the district in the interests of planning positively for the most sustainable patterns of growth across the district in its context with surrounding areas.
It is also considered that the Green Belt Study and Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity study papers be immediately reviewed in the context of this to realise positive opportunities for growth particularly in the case of greenfield and green belt sites that may be suitable for release.
Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell has the opportunity to deliver on the council’s objectives in a sustainable location in Hawkwell consistent with the approach outlined within strategy option 4. The delivery of the site could contribute to addressing the housing needs of the district and local area whilst securing a new defensible green belt boundary and compensatory improvements, alongside additional public open space,
sustainable transport connections, biodiversity net gains, and sustainable infrastructure. Bloor Homes would also be happy to engage with the council further to discuss this opportunity.

Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Mr G Marshall and in relation to Peggle Meadow, Rochford (‘the Site’).
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s the Call for Sites, and is reference CS095 in the Council’s plan-making process.
1.3 Representations were submitted to the Local Plan Issues and Options consultation in 2018 to further promote the allocation of the Site to help meet development needs
through a sustainable, proportionate extension to the south of Rochford, capable of delivering numerous benefits.
1.4 This representation should be read alongside the Vision Document that has been prepared in respect of the development of the Site, and which accompanies the
representations at Appendix A.
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 4
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?
2.1 We consider that Strategic Objective 1 could be clearer that the provision of homes to meet local needs entails providing housing close to existing communities. As currently drafted, it could be inferred that the priority is working with neighbouring authorities, rather than trying to meet local housing needs and support existing communities within the District per se.
2.2 Providing homes through extensions to existing settlements ensures local residents can remain within their local community and close to family, friends, and other informal social networks that form an important part of everyday life. It also ensures greater choice for
existing residents, and reduce the risk that existing members of the community may have to move elsewhere due to a lack of suitable housing.
2.3 We suggest that Strategic Objective 1 should be amended to:
To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs, through providing homes close to existing communities, utilising previously developed land and working with neighbouring authorities if required.
2.4 In addition, we suggest that objectives of the Local Plan should include to improve the affordability of housing for people of Rochford District.
2.5 The RLPSO notes (page 12) that:
“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times to average
annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”
2.6 We agree that affordability of housing is a very real local concern, and an issue the Rochford Local Plan must seek to address. The most recent data available1
reports that the median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’).
2.7 The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average.
2.8 In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69
– significantly below the District’s 11.57.
2.9 Additionally, and whilst empirical data is currently limited, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Early indications
are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, driven by what has been dubbed the ‘race for space’ – the desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas.
2.10 At the same time, the situation has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely anticipated that there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is expected that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.
2.11 As a consequence, it is anticipated that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London. As a consequence, the area may well prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes will be imperative if the Council is to tackle the issue of housing affordability in the District.
2.12 Strategic Objective 3 is proposed to be:
“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport,
serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”
2.13 We support this and, in addition, suggest this objective should recognise that the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house building would have for the District.
2.14 As the Local Plan Spatial Options recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.
2.15 Employment relating directly to the construction industry will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.
2.16 Development of additional homes in the District will also engender sustained local economic benefits relating to additional local expenditure, with additional expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers of new homes on first occupation, on home set up cost, and on an ongoing basis in local shops and services in the area.
2.17 Conversely, failure to deliver sufficient homes for the District would not only result in a failure to support the local construction industry and failure to realise the potential opportunities outline above, it would also likely significantly deter inward investment by potential employers, if insufficient, affordable accommodation was not available locally to provide a local workforce.
3.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 6
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
Growth of Rochford
3.1 It is important to recognise that Rochford District contains a number of settlements, each with their own character and communities. Whichever growth strategy is ultimately pursued, the Local Plan should ensure a proportionate level of growth is directed to the
District’s various settlements, having regard to their characteristics and sustainability to accommodate additional growth.
3.2 For the Local Plan strategy to be sound, we consider that it will need to direct a relatively large proportion of housing growth to Rochford.
3.3 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionallyconnected settlement home to around 18,000 residents. Between Rochford town centre and a number of neighbourhood centres located throughout the wider settlement, Rochford provides for a wide range of services and business spaces, including a number of specialist employment areas supporting nearby London Southend Airport.
3.4 The RLPSO also recognises that Rochford benefits from good walking access to most services, and that the only parts of Rochford with particularly poor access to services are around Purdeys industrial estate and the residential neighbourhoods of Ashingdon village.
3.5 Rochford / Ashingdon is characterised as a top tier settlement within the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the most sustainable settlements to which to direct
additional growth.
3.6 It is one of only three settlements in the District that benefits from a railway station.
3.7 In addition, it is also one of only three settlements in the District that benefits from a defined town centre.
3.8 The Local Plan strategy should direct a significant proportion of housing development to Rochford.
3.9 In respect of RLPSO Option 1 (urban intensification) we note that the RLPSO suggests this would involve no loss of Green Belt land, would minimise loss of greenfield, and would deliver 4,200 homes over the next 10 years.
3.10 The RLPSO describes Option 1 as “the minimum expectation of national policy” and states it is “likely to be required within every strategy option”.
3.11 It goes on to state that this option would entail making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations).
3.12 The RLPSO suggests that at least 4,200 homes will be built over the next 10 years under Option 1 and that the Urban Capacity Study suggests up to a further 1,500 homes could be built through a mixture of maximising the capacity of planned housing developments and taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in urban areas.
3.13 Whilst elements of Option 1 may be capable of being incorporated into a sustainable strategy for growth, it is clear that Option 1 cannot alone result in a sound Local Plan strategy.
3.14 Firstly, it is important to note that national policy places great emphasis on the need to
significantly boost the supply of housing and to meet local housing needs. Indeed, it is an express requirement of a sound Local Plan (as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF) that it seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, as a minimum. The RLPSO suggests a need to plan for at least 7,200 additional homes, and Option 1 would fall significantly short of meeting this.
3.15 Secondly, we consider that it is highly unlikely that 4,200 dwellings could be delivered through this option within the next 10 years. Such delivery would equate to an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa). The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20
states that between April 2010 and March 2020, the District achieved a total of 1,768 dwelling completions – an average of 177 dpa. This figure included homes that had been delivered on large allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan, and did not rely solely on redevelopment of previously developed land / urban intensification, yet was still significantly short of delivering 420 dpa.
3.16 Furthermore, the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 noted that of the 347 net dwelling completions achieved in 2019/20, 268 of these were from major schemes. A significant proportion of these were delivered on allocated settlement extension sites in
the adopted Development Plan. It reports that 55% of dwelling completions were on greenfield land and, separately, that only 81 net dwelling completions in 2019/20 were from windfall sites.
3.17 In addition, it must be remembered that there is only a finite supply of previously developed land suitable and viable for residential development, and it is likely that a
significant proportion of this has already been exhausted.
3.18 Thirdly, it cannot be assumed that such a level of urban intensification would be suitable or sustainable. To achieve such a level of urban intensification to deliver the number of new homes that the RLSPO suggests through Option 1 would likely result in densities of development vastly greater than existing, to the potential detriment of the amenity of existing residents and character of the District’s settlements; and / or requiring the
redevelopment of existing employment / retail / community uses for housing, with resultant negative social and economic impacts.
3.19 Fourthly, it is not clear where in the District such intensification / redevelopment of previously developed land would deliver housing, and what spatial distribution of homes this would provide. As noted earlier within this representation, it is important to recognise that Rochford District comprises multiple settlements, each with their own communities, and each with their own needs. Option 1 is unlikely to address such needs, and instead would simply focus housing where there happened to be opportunities to redevelop previously developed land.
3.20 Fifthly, it is unlikely that a strategy reliant on urban intensification / redevelopment of previously developed land will deliver the types of homes required or infrastructure improvements. It is unlikely, for example, that such approach would deliver as many affordable homes as alternative strategies, or be accompanied by any substantial infrastructure improvements, due to the likely limited scale of individual developments and potential viability challenges they would face.
3.21 It is manifestly clear that if the Local Plan is to be a sound plan that meets development needs in a sustainable manner, then it cannot rely wholly on RLPSO Option 1.
3.22 The NPPF confirms (at paragraph 136) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary. The NPPF also states that such alterations should only be made where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified; and that strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries.
3.23 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance. However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate
sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green
Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
 The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
3.24 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green
Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.
3.25 We also note that there are potential options for the District to explore designation of additional, new Green Belt – land on the eastern side of the District, at Foulness, is very much open and rural in character, and in addition subject to multiple constraints that
make it unsuitable for any significant scale of development. However, this area of the District is not currently allocated as Green Belt.
4.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 9
Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and
coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
4.1 We agree that the Local Plan should seek to direct development to Flood Zone 1 (land least at risk of flooding from tidal or fluvial sources).
4.2 In doing so, however, it is important that sites, part of which lie in Flood Zone 2/3, but which are perfectly capable of accommodating a quantum of development in Flood Zone 1, are not rejected on flood risk grounds. To do so would be patently unjustified, giving rise, ultimately, to soundness concerns.
5.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Questions 32 and 34
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the
plan?
5.1 It is considered that the allocation of additional sites for development gives rise to the potential to make significant enhancements to green and blue infrastructure.
5.2 For example, in respect of proposals for Peggle Meadow, Rochford, and as set out in the Vision Document that accompanies these representations, green and blue infrastructure enhancements are proposed.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
5.3 The development of Peggle Meadow, Rochford (CFS095) gives rise to the potential for green and blue infrastructure enhancements to be delivered, as set out in the Vision Statement that accompanies this representation.
6.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 46
With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How
can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant?
6.1 It is critical that the Local Plan seeks to direct sufficient growth to the District’s various
settlements such that inter alia local services and facilities can be sustained and supported.
6.2 We consider that the Local Plan should seek to support and enhance the vitality and vibrancy of the District’s town centres; and to sustain village and neighbourhood centres.
6.3 It should be recognised that towns such as Rochford contain smaller neighbourhood centres, as well as a town centre, and that these often perform an important function for the local community which planning should seek to support.
6.4 The town centre and neighbourhood centres both have important roles in such settlements, and the Local Plan should look to support both. In respect of South
Rochford, for example, it is considered that the Local Plan should seek to ensure that neighbourhood shopping along Southend Road is sustained, as well as acting to
enhance the vitality of the town centre. Support for both is not mutually exclusive – the direction of growth to South Rochford can help support local neighbourhood shops, as well as the town centre.
7.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 57b
With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
i. Housing
7.1 The Site (CFS095) is considered suitable, available and achievable for residential development in a highly sustainable location for additional growth, and without
undermining the strategic purpose of the Green Belt. This is discussed in further detail in response to this question.
7.2 In addition, the Vision Document for Peggle Meadow that accompanies this representation (Appendix A) details the sustainability and deliverability of the Site for
housing, and demonstrates how a high-quality development will be delivered on the Site.
South Rochford as a location for growth
7.3 The adopted Core Strategy (2011) identifies Rochford as a tier 1 settlement, noting that it is a local centre. Rochford is one of the largest settlements in the District and is home to a range of services, facilities, employment opportunities, and is well served by public transport. It clearly represents a sustainable location to which a proportion of the District’s growth should be directed.
7.4 The general location South Rochford was considered through the Council’s previous Local Development Framework process and Core Strategy as a general location for growth.
7.5 The Council’s reasons for rejecting South Rochford were set out in the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (2011) and were as follows:
“Location 2 [South Rochford] was not selected as it has the potential to engender coalescence with Southend, performed less well in sustainability terms compared with
West Rochford and would be less likely to deliver community benefits than development in South East and East Ashingdon”.
7.6 It is important to note that these concerns related to the general location of South Rochford, and not to any specific site.
7.7 The other reason to reject South Rochford as a general location was not that it was an unsustainable area for growth per se, but rather there were other areas that were considered more sustainable.
7.8 Firstly, it should be recognised that these areas have subsequently been developed, or their development is already been accounted for, and that there is still an outstanding need for housing.
7.9 Secondly, since adoption of the Core Strategy, Rochford District – jointly with Southendon-Sea Borough Council – adopted the London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP). The JAAP directs significant employment growth and
infrastructure improvements into the area commensurate with the general location of South Rochford.
7.10 In addition, a railway station has been delivered at London Southend Airport. This is accessible from a number of locations within South Rochford, and significantly enhances the sustainability of this area for growth.
7.11 Having regard to the above, it is clear South Rochford is considered a sustainable location for growth.
Peggle Meadow (CFS095)
7.12 Peggle Meadow, Rochford is site reference CFS095 in the Council’s current plan-making process.
7.13 It is located off Southend Road, at the southern end of Rochford. Peggle Meadow is a mall site on the edge of an existing urban area, with development immediately to the north and west.
7.14 The Site measures c.3.9 ha, is mostly grassland, resembling a horse paddock, and contains several storage sheds no longer in use.
7.15 Historically, the land was farmed as market gardening. However, it has not been in productive use for c.25 years and has been uncultivated during this time. The land is not currently in use and, indeed, is no longer viable for agricultural use.
7.16 The Site is located to the south of Rochford, and is subject to a significant degree of containment due to the existing residential development immediately to the north and west; and watercourses and their accompanying dense vegetation to the south and east.
Views into and out of the Site are very much restricted.
7.17 The Site is close to the District boundary with Southend Borough Council, with Warners Bridge Park to the south providing a substantial and robust green buffer between it and the built form of Southend-on-Sea.
7.18 Arable fields are located to the east of the site, though it should be recognised that the Site does not project any further eastwards than the existing built form to the north of the Site.
7.19 There are a range of shops, services and facilities within close proximity to this Site.
7.20 As set out in the Vision Document (Appendix A) that accompanies this representation,
the Site is within walking distance to a range of facilities, services, public transport connections, and employment opportunities; and benefits from excellent access to rail
and bus services, providing sustainable links to larger centres.
7.21 A retail park including both convenience and comparison shops is located approximately 400m from the site – well within walking distance. Additionally, a neighbourhood shopping parade is located to the north of the Site, and also within walking distance.
7.22 London Southend Airport and Southend Airport railway station (which provides links to Southend, Rochford centre, and London Liverpool Street), are located opposite the site and within walking distance.
7.23 In addition to being accessible to future employment growth at London Southend Airport, the site is well located in relation to existing employment areas at Temple Farm Industrial Estate and Purdeys Industrial Estate.
7.24 The Site is accessed via Southend Road – which provides a direct connection with Southend to the south; and Rochford town centre to the north, negating the need for vehicles travelling from the site to either of these centres to navigate through existing residential areas / the non-strategic highway network within the District.
7.25 Development of the Site is presents a number of opportunities, which are discussed in details within the Vision Document. In summary, these opportunities / benefits of the Site’s development include:
 Creation of a more robust and defensible Green Belt boundary.
 Minimal impact on the Green Belt, and would not engender coalescence.
 Landscape enhancements.
 Provision of homes in a location well related to facilities, services and employment opportunities; and with excellent accessibility to public transport services.
 Enhanced sustainable transport links for the wider area.
 Avoidance of impact on the District’s local highway network.
7.26 In relation to the Site’s ability to deliver improved sustainable transport links to the benefit of the wider area, the cycling and walking charity, Sustrans, have confirmed they expressly support development of the Site due to the sustainable transport
improvements it will enable. A copy of Sustrans’ letter is provided as Appendix B. We consider this is a factor that should be afforded significant weight in favour of the Site’s allocation.
7.27 Further to the Site’s excellent accessibility to public transport services (including rail and bus) it is important to note that the NPPF states:
“Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been
previously-developed and / or is well-served by public transport”. (Paragraph 142, emphasis added)
7.28 The Site has been considered by the Council through its Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) (2017) (as site referenceCFS095).This noted that the Site is not subject to any constraints that would prohibit its development.
7.29 The SHELAA (2017) considered the Site’s proximity to educational facilities; healthcare facilities; open space / leisure facilities; retail facilities; public transport facilities; and existing residential areas. Against all of these, with the exception to education, it found that the site’s proximity was ‘good’.
7.30 In respect of proximity to education it was rated as ‘medium’.
7.31 In respect of proximity to education, we note that the SHELAA (2017) does not consider that this renders the site unsuitable, but would nevertheless wish to emphasise that the Site is in close proximity to Southend Road along which run regular bus services which
connect the site to a number of schools (and, considering accessibility beyond educational facilities, to the town centre).
7.32 The SHELAA (2017) acknowledged that the vast majority of the Site is within Flood Zone 1 – land least at risk of tidal or fluvial flooding. Development of the site can be delivered without residential development taking place within Flood Zone 2 or 3.
7.33 The Site has been subject to a Flood Risk Assessment (July 2020), provided as Appendix C to this representation. Key conclusions of this Flood Risk Assessment include:
 All proposed dwellings will be located within Flood Zone 1. NPPF states that all uses of land are appropriate in this zone and the Sequential Test has been applied within
the site boundary and can be deemed as being passed.
 All built development and SUDS features will be located outside of the design climate change (35%) 1 in 100 year floodplain and climate change (65%) 1 in 100 year floodplain.
 Proposed dwellings will be set above the extreme climate change 1 in 1000 year flood level.
 Safe access/egress can be achieved during the peak of the event.
 It is considered that there is a low risk of groundwater flooding.
 There is a very low to high risk of surface water flooding which will be mitigated by ensuring that the proposed dwellings are set above the flood depth. 7.34 The SHELAA (2017) confirmed that the Site can be delivered without requiring significant infrastructure upgrades.
7.35 Vehicular access to the site can be achieved, as confirmed through an Access Appraisal
that has been undertaken, and previously submitted to the Council.
7.36 There are no physical constraints that prohibit the development of Peggle Meadow for housing.
7.37 The SHELAA (2017) concluded that the Site’s suitability for development will be dependent on a Green Belt assessment.
7.38 Subsequently, the Council published the Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’).
7.39 The Green Belt Study (2020) suggested that development of the Site would result in ‘moderate-high’ level of harm to the Green Belt.
7.40 Within this study, the Site forms a small part of the a larger parcel that was assessed as P65.
7.41 The Green Belt Study (2020) concluded that Parcel P65 makes a strong contribution to purposes 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Green Belt (to check the unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land). It concluded that it makes a weak contribution to purpose 4 (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns).
7.42 It is important to recognise the need to treat the results of any assessment of a larger parcel with caution when seeking to apply them to a smaller site within such a parcel. Clearly, smaller sites within a larger parcel may make a different level of contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, and the harm their development may cause to the purposes of the Green Belt may well be different to that of the larger parcel in which they
have been incorporated for the purposes of assessment. 7.43 A note provided by the Local Plan Examination Inspector to Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council in relation to its Local Plan and the approach to the review of the Green Belt underlines this issue, stating:
“The phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by
development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might
reasonably be considered further”. (EX39 of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan
Examination, December 2017).
7.44 As such, it is imperative to consider the Site itself: its contribution to the purpose of the Green Belt, and the extent of any harm to the purposes of the Green Belt that its development would entail.
7.45 In addition, case law confirms that in considering whether exceptional circumstances apply that justify alterations to the Green Belt, it is necessary to not only consider the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt development would engender, but also the degree to which such harm could be mitigated. The Green Belt Study (2020) fails to consider potential mitigation measures, and this will be something that the Local Plan
will need to consider.
7.46 A Green Belt Report (2020) has been prepared and submitted previously to the Council, and provided again as Appendix D to this representation. In addition, a site-specific Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) has been undertaken by James Blake Associates and provided as Appendix E.
7.47 As these studies confirm, when one looks at the Site in detail, it is clear that it only make a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.
7.48 The Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) considered the Site specifically, and in detail. In relation to Purpose 1 of the Green Belt (to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas) it noted that the Site is located in close proximity to the built up area of Rochford and would not result in encroachment. Rather, its development would result in limited ‘infill’ of the previous brownfield land. It also noted that the Site is well contained by strong physical features including the built-up area of Rochford, the Prittle Brook and the Harp House Ditch. Overall, it concluded the Site was of low importance to Purpose 1 of the Green Belt.
7.49 In relation to Purpose 2 (to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) found that the Site is physically and visually separated from Southend and as such would not result in any physical or visual
encroachment. Furthermore, it noted that Warners Bridge Park provides a gap between Rochford and Southend which is of substantial permanence, and that the gap which exists now between the two settlements will exist to no greater or lesser degree whether or not Peggle Meadow is developed. It concluded the Site is of zero importance to Purpose 2.
7.50 Regarding Purpose 3 of the Green Belt (to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment), the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) found that the Site is well contained by strong man-made features to the north and west, and and dense and mature green infrastructure to the east and south. It also noted that the proposed strategic green infrastructure will provide further containment. As the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) noted, it is also relevant that the Site has a degraded / neglected character. It concluded that the Site is of low importance to Purpose 3 of the
Green Belt.
7.51 In relation to Purpose 4 (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns) the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) concluded that the Site is not considered to form part of the landscape setting of a historic town, nor does it impact on any Conservation Areas or Listed Parks and Gardens. It went on to conclude the Site is of zero importance to Purpose 4.
7.52 In summary, the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) provided by James Blake Associates concludes the Site is of low importance to Purpose 1 and Purpose 3 of the Green Belt, and of zero importance to Purpose 2 and Purpose 4. It provided clear and
robust justification for reaching such conclusions.
7.53 In respect of the need to consider the potential to mitigate impacts on the Green Belt in addition to considering a site’s contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, it is relevant to note mitigation measures are proposed as part of the development of the
Site.
7.54 These include enhanced landscaping to reinforce the existing mature vegetation towards the southern boundary; and a loose-grained layout of dwellings towards the south and east of the Site (proposed to take a traditional form, and will be a scale and massing
which reflect the existing residential development in the locality, in order to minimise visual impact).
7.55 Additionally, and still in relation to the issue of Green Belt, the NPPF states that where Green Belt is released to meet development needs, as well as prioritising locations close to public transport links, plans should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. The PPG3
sets out the compensatory improvements that strategic plan-making authorities should seek to deliver in the event that it is necessary to release land from the Green Belt. These include the following:
 New or enhanced green infrastructure;
 Woodland planting;
 Landscape and visual enhancements (beyond those needed to mitigate the immediate impacts of the proposal);
 Improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital;
 New or enhanced walking and cycle routes; and
 Improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational and playing field provision.
7.56 A number of such compensatory improvements can be delivered through development of the Site. 7.57 In terms of new or enhance green infrastructure, in addition to the enhanced landscaping that is proposed, the proposed development also incorporates the creation of a new public open space to the north of the Site. This will also provide a recreational benefit.
7.58 Through development of the Site, ecological benefits will be delivered, with ecological enhancements to be delivered as part of the additional landscaping enhancements,
SuDS and open space provision.
7.59 In terms of cycle and pedestrian link enhancements, the Site represents a unique opportunity to deliver a cycle link which the Core Strategy (2011) promoted.
7.60 This link is discussed further within the accompanying Vision Statement, and to reiterate,
is supported by Sustrans.
7.61 This link will facilitate a safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle access to Warners
Bridge Park, Temple Farm Industrial Estate, and to Southend-on-Sea more generally,
for existing and future residents of Rochford.
7.62 It should be noted that this new link will also provide a safe and convenient pedestrian / cycle access for existing and future residents of Rochford to recreational facilities and playing fields at Warners Bridge Park.
7.63 The ability of the Site to deliver the above compensatory measures called for by national
guidance in instances where land is removed from the Green Belt, are factors which weigh very much in favour of removing this Site from the Green Belt.
7.64 The Site is clearly a suitable and sustainable site for residential development, and one through which a number of additional benefits, in addition to the provision of housing, can be delivered.
7.65 Turning In relation to deliverability, the Site is not subject to any legal or ownership constraints to its delivery for housing, and is being actively promoted for development by the owner. It is an available and achievable site for residential development, in addition
to being a sustainable one.
7.66 A Landowner’s Vision Statement has been prepared by the landowner, and accompanies this representation as Appendix F. This sets out the landowner’s desire for an exceptionally high quality development at Peggle Meadow, to provide a legacy for this Site, which has been in his family’s ownership for generations.

I am writing to provide a response of behalf of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EEAST) in relation to the consultation on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial Strategy Options and to confirm our commitment to working in partnership with the Council and Mid and South-East Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (MSE) (and any successor organization) to jointly plan the necessary infrastructure to help local community in Rochford prosper.
As part of joint health working, EEAST agree and support the points made by MSE in their separate response to the Strategic Objectives for Rochford.
As both a health partner and an emergency service, EEAST would hope to engage with the Council as the Integrated Development Plan is developed as a supporting document to the 2050 Rochford Local Plan. EEAST would request any developments adopt the jointly created emergency services Design Guide for Essex details can be found using the attached link: Engaging with the Emergency Services | Essex Design Guide (https://www.essexdesignguide.co.uk)
We welcome further discussions with the Council around how we collectively can mitigate the cumulative impact of housing and infrastructure developments across health services serving Rochford and where appropriate the surrounding area. Every effort is made to EEAST’s request for developer contribution is tailored to each individual development, or where less than 50 dwellings in each development, group of developments.

EEAST are in the process of developing an evidence-based formula to identify the impact of population growth for housing and infrastructure developments on ambulance services. This will include key projects to enable delivery of our services due to population growth on housing developments, nursing and care homes or over 55 developments. EEAST together with MSE would welcome further discussions around how the infrastructure impact of the Borough’s 2050 Local Plan can be collectively addressed and support net Carbon Zero, to deliver BREEAM Outstanding sustainability standards.

EEAST’s Estates Strategy (2020-2025) summary position is to provide cost effective and efficient premises of the right size, location, and condition to support the delivery of clinical care to the community served by the Trust. A range of national initiatives are underway aimed at improving performance and sustainability within the NHS across wider urgent and emergency system in all six counties along with Local Authorities and Councils, Universities, military establishments, and private providers of ambulance services. Addressing these changes requires the Trust to develop revised operating models and strategies for all aspects of its services, including operational support services such as the Estates Service. A key component of this process has been to establish the Trust’s future Operating Model and to commence planning for the resulting transformation of support services. Expansion to the existing Make Ready Hub and Spoke network will be required to meet the growing demographics.
Each Hub will have a network of Spokes termed Ambulance Station Response Posts (ASRP), tailored to meet service delivery and patient response specific to their local area. Other infrastructure developments such as road and rail also impact on EEAST as an emergency services provider, with requirements to meet nationally set response times.
The spoke network is determined by the changes to infrastructure and changes to local population health care needs through patient flow modelling and subsequently EEAST staffing requirements. The aim is to create demand-centric and agile spokes which are adapted to activity requirements (both permanent and temporary workforce requirements during significant infrastructure development construction periods) as these change over time.

Current East of England Ambulance Stations close to Rochford

Spokes can be made up of:
• Ambulance Station Reporting Base - 24/7 permanent reporting base for staff and primary response location for one or more vehicles
• Ambulance Station Response Post - primary response location which includes staff welfare facilities
• Standby Location - set in strategic locations where crews are placed to reach patients quickly. Facilities used by staff are provided by external organisations to EEAST.
The resulting estate configuration which consists of a network of up to 18 ambulance Hubs. Each Hub will incorporate:
• A make ready center from which the Make Ready Service is delivered
• Workshop facilities providing service, maintenance, and repair services for operations vehicles within the local spoke network, including Patient Transport Service (PTS) vehicles
• Consumable product stores, with stock-levels maintained on a just-in-time basis by direct supplier delivery
• Some Hubs will operate additionally as the bases for certain corporate, administrative and support services
• PTS facilities incorporated into the operational estate, primarily at the Hubs.
In addition, across the Trust’s region there are:
• Two Hazardous Area Response Team (HART) bases, located to best support the major airports within the Trust’s region
• A Trust HQ co-located within operational premises
• A regional training school providing staff professional training, co-located with driver training and supported by up to two satellite professional training locations plus general training facilities at each of the Hubs
• A fleet logistics center at one of the Hubs’, incorporating a 24-hour fleet logistics call-center
The Rochford area is covered by the Southend Hub which forms one of the 18 Make Ready Hubs across the region.
EEAST estates and development plans consider growth in demographics of population changes and therefore any increase in requirements to meet these changes will require modelling to account for the required increased workforce, equipment and vehicles. EEAST are currently participating in a service review to better understand what resources are needed to meet patient demand.

Acute, Mental Health, Social and Out of Hospital Services
As Integrated Care Systems deliver hospital services reconfiguration and transformation into new models of care, this means ambulance services will be impacted by:
• Ageing population and greater number of people living with long term conditions – creates greater demand on both emergency and commissioned patient transport services.
• An increased need for emergency ambulance services to deliver more out of hospital care, such as by expanding their “hear and treat” and “see and treat” services.
• Development of centralised care Hubs, such as vascular and stroke networks, may lead to increased conveyance times, but with improved outcomes for patients.
• Changes to discharge care models are likely to increase the number of patients discharged with more complex needs and are likely to require increased levels of care during transportation as well as effective and timely handover of care.
• Focusing on improvements to acute and ambulance service diagnostic and digital connectivity.
The provision of health and social care services out of hospital care into community and social care via diagnostic hubs and community locations will require changes to patient transport services.

Assessment of Rochford Local Plan 2050 Spatial Strategy Options

This section provides further assessment of the impact of each of the proposed options on EEAST Emergency Ambulance Services across the Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021 and the likely mitigations to be considered as part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan next year.

STRATEGY OPTION 1: Urban Intensification

Existing planned housing developments, including sites with planning permission, existing allocated sites and urban developments, involving around 4,200 new homes of which at least 800 will be affordable. Support utilisation of existing site and urban developments with provision of at least 800 affordable homes.

In relation to ambulance services providing support to this population growth, wherever possible this would be incorporated into existing ambulance Hubs or response posts, however this may not be possible and additional response or stand by posts may be required or relocated. This may be in larger primary care premises or jointly located with fire and police or other potential solutions.

EEAST would request any developments adopt the created principles in Essex: Engaging with the Emergency Services Essex Design Guide.

Potentially a further 1,500 homes by allowing higher density developments in urban areas and on existing allocations. As above
Existing planned employment developments, including sites with planning permission and existing allocated sites, involving a minimum of 120,000 m2 of permissioned employment space, including new high quality space at Airport Business Park and Michelin Farm As above
Capacity improvements to existing schools and healthcare centres, new onsite open spaces and sports facilities Any new health/medical premises would ideally provide the opportunity to explore an ambulance response post at this location including a suitable fast charging EV connection.

Potential requirement for financial contributions from developers.
Limited opportunities to deliver transformational new infrastructure as many of the developments would fall below the 50-home threshold to contribute to new infrastructure The combination of a number of small developments (<50 dwellings) affects ambulance service provision and consideration is requested to enable financial contributions from developers is assessed on a block basis to enable expansion or introduction of new response posts to retain the nationally mandated response times
Option 1 Urban Intensification EEAST does not have any particular preference for each sub-option, as any development option requires consideration of the suitable location of ambulance response and/or standby posts in order to meet the needs of the patient population growth which will impact on our ability to achieve national response times.

Our main consideration is the ability to access financial contributions from developers to support the expansion or relocation of ambulance stations/reporting/response and/or standby posts
Total 4,200 + 1,500 dwellings

STRATEGY OPTION 2: Urban Extensions
Option 2a: Focused on main towns
Option 2b: Dispersed to all settlements based on Settlement Hierarchy

An additional 3,000 – 5,000 homes relative to Option 1 of which at least 1,000-2,000 would be affordable Support utilisation of existing site and urban developments with provision of at least 1,000 – 2,000 affordable homes.

In relation to ambulance services providing support to this population growth, wherever possible this would be incorporated into existing ambulance Hubs or response posts, however this may not be possible and additional response or stand by posts may be required or relocated. This may be in larger primary care premises or jointly located with fire and police or other potential solutions.

EEAST would request any developments adopt the created principles in Essex: Engaging with the Emergency Services Essex Design Guide.

Up to 3 new primary schools, new medical facilities, open spaces, employment areas and transport connections Any new health/medical premises would ideally provide the opportunity to explore a response post at this location including a suitable fast charging EV connection.

Potential requirement for financial contributions from developers.

Opportunities to support rural services by directing some growth to villages with rural shops, schools or community facilities We support rural growth combined with regular appropriate public transport arrangements to support people getting to work/recreation/use of community facilities

The combination of a number of small developments (<50 dwellings) affects ambulance service provision and consideration is requested to enable financial contributions from developers is assessed on a block basis to enable expansion or introduction of new response posts to retain the nationally mandated response times.
Option 2a: Focused on main towns

Option 2b: Dispersed to all settlements based on Settlement Hierarchy
EEAST does not have any particular preference for each sub-option, as any development option requires consideration of the suitable location of ambulance response and/or standby posts in order to meet the needs of the patient population growth which will impact on our ability to achieve national response times.

Our main consideration is the ability to access financial contributions from developers to support the expansion or relocation of ambulance stations/reporting/response and/or standby posts
Total between 3,000-5,000 dwelling with 1,000 – 2,000 affordable

Option 3: Concentrated growth
Option 3a: Focused west of Rayleigh
Option 3b: Focused north of Southend
Option 3c: Focused east of Rochford

An additional 3,000 – 5,000 homes relative to Option 1 of which at least 1,000-2,000 would be affordable Support utilisation of existing site and urban developments with provision of at least 1,000 – 2,000 affordable homes.

In relation to ambulance services providing support to this population growth, wherever possible this would be incorporated into existing ambulance Hubs or response posts, however this may not be possible and additional response or stand by posts may be required or relocated. This may be in larger primary care premises or jointly located with fire and police or other potential solutions.

EEAST would request any developments adopt the created principles in Essex: Engaging with the Emergency Services Essex Design Guide.

Up to 1 new secondary school, 3 new primary schools, new medical facilities, open spaces, employment areas and new link roads Any new health/medical premises would ideally provide the opportunity to explore a response post at this location including a suitable fast charging EV connection.

Potential requirement for financial contributions from developers.
Greater opportunities to attract Government investment into existing and new infrastructure as part of the Thames Estuary Growth Area. Support growth opportunities
Greater opportunities to work with Basildon, Castle Point, Essex and Southend Councils to co-ordinate funding towards transformational transport infrastructure projects such as a new inter-urban rapid transit system or new link roads EEAST as an emergency service needs to be aware of and involved in transformational infrastructure projects as during the construction phase this may impact on our ability to achieve national response times.

Infrastructure changes also impact on any commissioned Patient Transport Services to ensure timely delivery and collection of patients for their appointments to acute hospitals/diagnostic hubs or other out of hospital services
Opportunities to deliver the eastern extent of the South Essex Estuary Park forming a new coastal country park in the east of the District Support opportunities to improve health and well -being of residents and visitors to the area
Option 3a: Focused west of Rayleigh

Option 3b: Focused north of Southend

Option 3c: Focused east of Rochford
EEAST does not have any particular preference for each sub-option, as any development option requires consideration of the suitable location of ambulance response and/or standby posts in order to meet the needs of the patient population growth which will impact on our ability to achieve national response times.

Our main consideration is the ability to access financial contributions from developers to support the expansion or relocation of ambulance stations/reporting/response and/or standby posts
Total between 3,000-5,000 dwellings with 1,000 – 2,000 affordable

Option 4: Balanced Combination
No sub-options

An additional 3,000 – 5,000 homes relative to Option 1 of which at least 1,000-2,000 would be affordable. Support utilisation of existing site and urban developments with provision of at least 1,000 – 2,000 affordable homes.

In relation to ambulance services providing support to this population growth, wherever possible this would be incorporated into existing ambulance Hubs or response posts, however this may not be possible and additional response or stand by posts may be required or relocated. This may be in larger primary care premises or jointly located with fire and police or other potential solutions.

EEAST would request any developments adopt the created principles in Essex: Engaging with the Emergency Services Essex Design Guide.

Up to 1 new secondary school, 3 new primary schools, new medical facilities, open spaces, employment areas and new link roads. Any new health/medical premises would ideally provide the opportunity to explore a response post at this location including a suitable fast charging EV connection.

Potential requirement for financial contributions from developers.
Greater opportunities to attract Government investment into existing and new infrastructure as part of the Thames Estuary Growth Area Support growth opportunities
Greater opportunities to work with Basildon, Castle Point Essex and Southend Councils to co-ordinate funding towards transformational transport infrastructure projects such as a new inter-urban rapid transit system or new link roads EEAST as an emergency service needs to be aware of and involved in transformational infrastructure projects as during the construction phase this may impact on our ability to achieve national response times.

Infrastructure changes also impact on any commissioned Patient Transport Services to ensure timely delivery and collection of patients for their appointments to acute hospitals/diagnostic hubs or other out of hospital services
Opportunities to support rural services by directing some growth to villages with rural shops, schools or community facilities. We support rural growth combined with regular appropriate public transport arrangements to support people getting to work/use of community facilities

The combination of a number of small developments (<50 dwellings) affects ambulance service provision and consideration is requested to enable financial contributions from developers is assessed on a block basis to enable expansion or introduction of new response posts to retain the nationally mandated response times
Opportunities to deliver the eastern extent of the South Essex Estuary Park forming a new country park in the east of the District Support opportunities to improve health and well-being of residents and visitors to the area
Option 4 Balanced Combination EEAST does not have any particular preference for each sub-option, as any development option requires consideration of the suitable location of ambulance response and/or standby posts in order to meet the needs of the patient population growth which will impact on our ability to achieve national response times.

Our main consideration is the ability to access financial contributions from developers to support the expansion or relocation of ambulance stations/reporting/response and/or standby posts
Total between 3,000-5,000 dwellings with 1,000 – 2,000 affordable

We hope this information provides a useful indication of the expected impact on health services for East of England Ambulance Services on the proposed Spatial Strategy Options set out in the Local Plan 2050 consultation document. We look forward to working with the Council, Mid Essex STP, police and fire colleagues throughout the development of the Local Plan 2050 and associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Countryside Properties and in respect of Land at Pulpits Farm, Hockley.
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s Call for Sites, and is reference CFS263 in the Council’s plan-making process (although also referred to as Site 272, in the Council’s Green Belt Study (2020))
1.3 This representation should be read alongside the Vision Document that has been prepared in respect of the development of the Site, and which accompanies the
representations as Appendix A.
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 4
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.1 We suggest that improving the affordability of housing for local people in Rochford District should form an objective of the Local Plan.
2.2 As the RLPSO rightly recognises at page 12, housing affordability is a particularly issue within the District.
2.3 ONS data on the affordability of housing reports that in 2020 the median house price was 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings. The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years, and is substantially worse than the
national average.
2.4 Without an increase in housing supply, we consider there is a very real risk that it will only worsen.
2.5 Not only do current projections suggest increased housing need in the District, but the longer term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic may well place additional pressure on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people.
2.6 Early indications are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a combination of a desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas; and people considering it less critical to live very near their place of work, given the increase in home working within a number of employment sectors.
2.7 This is of particular relevance to Rochford District, given that London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London.
3.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 6
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.1 We consider that a balanced approach that includes direction of a relatively significant proportion of the District’s housing needs to the higher tier settlements (including Hockley) would be the most appropriate strategy, for the reason set out below.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification
3.2 The RLPSO states that this option would entail making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). It is suggested this would involve no loss of Green Belt land, would minimise loss of greenfield, and would deliver
4,200 homes over the next 10 years.
3.3 The RLPSO describes Strategy Option 1 as “the minimum expectation of national policy” and states it is “likely to be required within every strategy option”.
3.4 We agree that it would be consistent with national policy to seek to promote the redevelopment of appropriate previously developed land to help meet development needs. However, we consider that a strategy which were to rely purely on this to meet development needs would be ineffective, unsustainable, incapable of meeting development needs in full as required by national policy, and result in a Local Plan that would be inherently unsound.
3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms (paragraph 35) that one of the requirements of a sound Local Plan is that it seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed development needs in full. The NPPF also emphasises the Government’s objective to significantly boost housing land supply (paragraph 60).
3.6 However, the RLPSO acknowledges that Strategy Option 1 would fall significantly short of meeting local development needs in full. Not only would this render the plan unsound and contrary to the NPPF, but it would likely result in significant negative social and economic impacts locally.
3.7 In any case, we consider that a yield of 4,200 dwellings over 10 years through urban intensification to be unfeasibly optimistic.
3.8 To achieve this quantum, it would be necessary to sustain an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) over a 10-year period. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 states that between April 2010 and March 2020, the District achieved a total of 1,768 dwelling completions over this particular 10-year period – an average of just 177 dpa. Furthermore, the delivery of these 1,768 dwellings was not solely through urban
intensification, but also included allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014). There is of course only a finite supply of previously developed land that is
suitable and viable for residential redevelopment, and it is considered that much of this has likely already been exhausted, particularly given the emphasis placed by national and local policy on utilising such sites.
3.9 In addition to Strategy Option 1 being unlikely to deliver anywhere near the number of new homes needed in the District, we would also question the appropriateness of such a strategy in any case. To make a meaningful contribution to housing needs over the
plan period, this strategy would likely require development at a significantly greater density than existing development in the District. Not only could this be harmful to the character of the District’s residential areas, but it may also result in loss of amenity for existing residents.
3.10 Furthermore, it is unclear if this approach would deliver the types of homes required where they are required in the District. Such a strategy is, for example, unlikely to deliver a high proportion of family homes.
3.11 For the above reasons, we do not consider that Strategy Option 1 is capable of resulting in a sound Local Plan and should be discounted.
Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4
3.12 Given Strategy Option 1’s inability to result in a sound Local Plan, this leaves Options 2, 3 and 4 as potential strategies.
3.13 Strategy Option 2 is to focus on urban extensions, with Option 2a entailing focussing such growth on the District’s main towns; and Option 2b dispersing to all settlements based on the settlement hierarchy.
3.14 Through Strategy Option 2 sustainable sites could be utilised at the edge of settlements, which should include Hockley, to deliver a range of housing developments, including the provision of much needed housing in the short term. This option provides flexibility to utilise smaller sites to deliver homes earlier alongside larger sites to meet the overall housing need.
3.15 We consider that Strategy Option 2b should include growth to Hockley, given that it is a top tier settlement in the adopted Development Plan’s settlement hierarchy.
3.16 In relation to Option 3, this suggests focussing growth on one of three locations (west of Rayleigh (3a); north of Southend (3b); and east of Rochford (3c)). We consider there is merit to strategic scale growth that can help deliver significant infrastructure improvements. However, this needs to be complemented by the delivery of a range of different sites (including those that can deliver in the short term and do not require
significant infrastructure improvements) and in a range of different locations that reflect the fact that the District comprises a number of distinct settlements with their own
identities and communities, all of which the Local Plan should seek to support.
3.17 The outcome of the Uttlesford Local Plan Examination provdes a warning regarding the dangers of over reliance on large strategic growth sites to meet housing needs. Recommending the submitted plan be withdrawn due to soundness issues, the Inspectors concluded:
“In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need to allocate more small and medium sized sites that could
deliver homes in the short to medium term and help to bolster the 5 year [housing land supply], until the Garden Communities begin to deliver housing. This would have
the benefit of providing flexibility and choice in the market and the earlier provision of more affordable housing”. (Paragraph 114 of Uttlesford Local Plan Examination
Inspectors’ letter of 10 January 2020)
3.18 This does not of course mean that the strategy cannot include strategic growth allocations, only that if it were to, they would need to be accompanied by a range of other small and medium sized sites.
3.19 Strategy Option 4 entails a mix of the other options, and rightly recognises that the alloction of strategic growth sites and the allocation of urban extensions are not mutually exclusive. We consider this option does have particular merit, and it is notable that it was scored positively by the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in relation to its social, economic and environmental impacts. This option will still allow for current housing
needs to be addressed in the short term, as the Local Plan is required to; as well as enabling provision of strategic allocations if so wished. It will also allow for proportionate growth to be directed to the District’s various communities through settlement extensions, including Hockley – something which we consider is essential for the Local Plan to do if it is to deliver sustainable development.
Hockley
3.20 We consider that, in order for the Local Plan’s spatial strategy to promote sustainable development, to be justified, and to be capable of being found sound, it will be essential for it to direct a proportion of the District’s growth to Hockley.
3.21 Hockley / Hawkwell is identified as a Tier 1 settlement in the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the settlements considered most sustainable to accommodate greatest levels of growth.
3.22 Notwithstanding this, the District has experienced considerably less housing development since adoption of the Core Strategy than the other two Tier 1 settlements.
It is recognised that this is in part due to aspirations for the redevelopment of the town centre not being realised, as conditions have changed; and also partly due to constraints to the settlement’s growth as a result of Hockley Woods and the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area to the south. Nevertheless, there are opportunities to deliver sustainable extensions to the existing settlement, particularly located away from the
more sensitive areas to the south.
3.23 Hockley is an established, vibrant community with a long history. It is important that planning helps support and enhance the vitality of the community, including by directing future growth to the settlement.
3.24 The RLPSO recognises that housing affordability and availability are key issues in Hockley. The Local Plan represents an opportunity to help address this issue, by
directing additional housing to this location. Conversely, failure to direct sufficient housing to Hockley is likely to result in housing becoming increasingly unaffordable for
local people. It is manifestly clear that if the Local Plan is to be a sound plan that meets development needs in a sustainable manner, then it cannot rely on RLPSO Option 1.
Alterations to the Green Belt boundary
3.25 It is evident that the District’s Green Belt boundaries will need to be amended in order to meet development needs and provide a sound plan for the future of the District.
3.26 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary.
3.27 The NPPF (paragraph 140 again) also states that such alterations should only be made where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
3.28 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance.
3.29 However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and  The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
3.30 The District is subject to an acute local housing need. The existing Green Belt boundary
is drawn tightly around the District’s existing settlements, and opportunities to meet development needs are severely restricted without alterations to the Green Belt
boundary.
3.31 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green
Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.
4.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 29
Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?
4.1 We agree that the Local Plan should seek to protect areas of locally important wildlife. Furthermore, we consider it should seek to deliver ecological gains.
4.2 However, the designation of such sites must be justified by robust evidence.
4.3 The 2018 Local Wildlife Review suggested a new Local Wildlife Site (R41) which
incorporates some of what is currently Local Wildlife Site R24, along with additional land to the west of this, including part of the Land at Pulpits Farm (CFS263 (‘the Site’).
4.4 The evidence for designating such additional land as a Local Wildlife Site is unclear.
4.5 It is not clear from the 2018 Local Wildlife Site Review what particular characteristics of the land forming part of CFS263 proposed to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site justify this land’s designation as such.
4.6 There is no evidence that a detailed survey of the Site was undertaken as part of the 2018 Local Wildlife Site Review that could justify its inclusion within a Local Wildlife Site.
4.7 The Site has been subject to an ecological constraints and opportunities survey, undertaken in 2020 by qualified specialist ecological consultancy, Southern Ecological Solutions.
4.8 This survey identified that the Site comprises habitats of varying value to biodiversity, with the most suitable habitat at the Site’s boundaries in the form of hedgerows, mature trees, rough grassland margins and watercourses. However, there was nothing to suggest that the Site merits any form of designation for its ecological value.
4.9 A copy of this initial survey is provided as Appendix B to these representations.
4.10 It is not the case that evidence must be provided to set out why the Site should not form part of the Local Wildlife Site. On the contrary, if this land is to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site, it is incumbent upon the Council to provide robust evidence justifying this.
4.11 We do not consider the Site merits designation for its ecological value, and would object to any proposals to do so. However, we do recognise that parts of the Site are of
ecological value. As part of the development of the Site, existing ecological features would be retained and, where practicable, enhanced.
4.12 It is important to recognise that development of land often has the potential to engender ecological benefits, and that would be the case in the development of site CFS263.
5.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 58
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
5.1 We agree with the vision for Hockley as proposed by the RLPSO.
5.2 In particular, we very much support the objective of improving housing affordability in order to ensure that local first-time buyers can afford to live locally.
5.3 If this vision is to be realised, it will be imperative to provide a sufficient number of new homes for Hockley, and of a variety of types and tenures, to meet all of the community’s needs.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing
5.4 Land at Pulpits Farm (CFS263, ‘the Site’) is suitable, available, and achievable for residential development as a sustainable extension to Hockley. The Vision Document
which accompanies this representation (Appendix A) sets out details regarding the Site’s ability to sustainably deliver a high-quality development.
5.5 The Site was considered through the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) (2020). The SHELAA (2020) considered the Site’s suitability in relation to a multitude of constraints, including policy, environmental, ecological, heritage
and physical constraints. In respect of the Site and potential constraints, this assessment concluded:
“Green Belt site that is currently in mixed use with residential and ancillary outbuildings, with some vacant grassland. There is an existing access with no
fundamental constraints to redevelopment of the site” [Emphasis added].
5.6 In summary, the only constraint to the Site’s development identified was its location within the Green Belt in the current Development Plan – a policy constraint.
5.7 In addition, the SHELAA (2020) assessed the Site’s suitability in terms of its accessibility to local services.
5.8 In relation to accessibility alone, it stated:
“There are two bus stops within c 0.3km of the site, however these are served by only two bus routes (No7/18). A private road connects the site to Greensward Lane, a C road which traverses the centre of Hockley before connecting to the wider strategic road network”
5.9 In addition to the points made within the SHELAA (2020) we would add that the Site is c.12 minutes walking distance from Hockley railway station. When considering
accessibility of this Site, and its appropriateness for allocation, this is clearly a key consideration.
5.10 In particular, it is important to note that the NPPF instructs Local Planning Authorities to prioritise sites that have good access to public transport when considering release of Green Belt to meet development needs. At paragraph 142 of the NPPF it states:
“Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previouslydeveloped and/or is well-served by public transport”.
5.11 The Green Belt is drawn tightly around the existing extent of residential development in Hockley. As noted in our response to Question 6, Hockley is clearly a sustainable location to accommodate a proportion of the District’s housing needs, and furthermore it is important that the vitality of Hockley be supported through the direction of sustainable growth to the settlement. It will be necessary to direct some growth to Hockley in order to ensure a sound Local Plan that delivers sustainable development, and to deliver this it will be necessary to alter the existing Green Belt boundary. In making such a revision, sites such as CFS263 which have good access to public transport should be prioritised for residential allocation.
5.12 The SHELAA (2020) considered the Site’s proximity to local services and stated: “A primary school sits c 1km to the east of the site, with a secondary school c 0.6km
to the west. A garden centres [sic] sits within C 0.3km of the site with a small number of shops along Greensward Lane”.
5.13 We consider the above significantly understates the range of local services and facilities that are in proximity to the Site.
5.14 In particular, the SHELAA (2020) appears to have overlooked that the Site is adjacent to
a GP surgery.
5.15 The Site is also well located in relation to a range of other services, facilities, employment opportunities and centres. As set out in the Vision Document that accompanies this representation, the following can be reached without use of a car within the following
journey times:
Walking:
Bus stop 1 minute
Greensward Surgery 1 minute
Greensward Academy Secondary School 5 minutes
Hockley Railway Station 12 minutes
Plumberow Academy Primary School 15 minutes
Convenience retail (Co-Op, Spa Road) 15 minutes
Hockley Post Office 15 minutes
Eldon Way 15 minutes
Approximate centre of Hockley Town Centre 17 minutes
Bus:
Approximate centre of Hockley Town Centre 5 minutes
Rochford Town Centre 14 minutes
Rayleigh Town Centre 16 minutes
Train:
Southend Victoria 27 minutes
London Liverpool Street 60 minutes
5.16 In 2014, sustainable transport charity Sustrans estimated that school traffic contributed,
nationally, to 24% of all traffic at peak times. The accessibility of both primary and
secondary schools from the Site without reliance on a car, and the potential to avoid
additional traffic that might be otherwise generated, is considered to be a factor which
weighs significantly in favour of utilising this Site to help meet housing needs.
5.17 The principal constraint to the Site’s development is that it is currently within the Green Belt.
5.18 In terms of the Site’s contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, it is relevant to note that is an edge-of-settlement Site, the character of which has been influenced by adjacent residential uses to the north, west and south. The Site is subject to a degree of containment provided by existing features, and its development would not give rise to unrestricted urban sprawl. On the contrary, it would allow for a new, robust Green Belt
boundary to be implemented.
5.19 The Council’s Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’ concluded that the western portion of the Site could be developed with only moderate harm to the Green Belt. This is before mitigation measures are factored in (which case law suggests must be considered in determining whether exceptional circumstances apply), and once potential measures are
accounted for (such as provision of landscape buffers) it is considered that the Site’s development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.
5.20 Use of the Site to provide market and affordable homes would result in a number of social, economic and environmental benefits, as set out within the Vision Document
(Appendix A). These include, in summary:
 Market and affordable homes to help meet acute local need;
 Highly accessible Site, with opportunities for future residents to access services and facilities without use of a car;
 Efficient use of land which lacks environmental constraints, reducing pressure to develop more sensitive sites to meet needs;
 Provision of variety of public open space across the Site, including informal open space, ponds, structural landscaping for wildlife;
Increased expenditure within the local area, supporting jobs and helping sustain local facilities and services;
 Creation of direct employment during construction, as well as indirect employment related to the supply chain;
 Landscape and ecological enhancements as part of development;
 Development within a location that will help sustain the vitality of Hockley Town Centre.
5.21 It is important that where Green Belt is released for housing, the Council can have confidence that such land will be delivered and contribute to meeting needs.
5.22 In addition to being suitable and sustainable, the Site is also available and achievable for residential development.
5.23 The Site is not subject to any legal or ownership constraints to development.
5.24 The Site is being actively promoted for development by an established housebuilder with a track record of delivery. The Council can be confident that the Site will be deliver, and through a high-quality development, if allocated through the Local Plan.
6.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment
Assessment Framework
6.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are
1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identity.
6.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
 Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
 Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
 Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
 Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
 Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?
6.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
6.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 –
significantly below the District’s 11.57.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Pegasus Group on behalf of Penland Estates Limited in respect of their land interests in Rochford District Council (RDC).
1.2 These representations are submitted in response to the current Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 ‘Spatial Options' consultation, which sets out the different growth
strategy options that could be pursued by the Council in the emerging Local Plan. The evidence base accompanying the Spatial Options document includes a Site Appraisal Paper which identifies the suitability of potential sites for allocation, including Penland Estate Limited's interests at:
• Site Reference CFS190: Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge
1.3 The purpose of these representations is primarily to respond to the questions raised by the consultation to ensure there is a sound basis for emerging policies, as well as to support the most sustainable growth options of those set out in the consultation. These representations also confirm the deliverability of the above site and the exceptional circumstances in support of a minor revision to the Green Belt alongside the provision of a site-specific policy that allocates Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, for residential development in the emerging Local Plan. The representations are supported by high-level technical assessments and an indicative Framework Plan.
1.4 These representations should be read in conjunction with the enclosed high-level technical assessments and an Illustrative Framework Plan, which explain further
the opportunities available to create a high-quality and sustainable residential development with the ability to contribute positively towards the District’s significant housing needs.

2. SPATIAL OPTIONS DOCUMENT
2.1 This section responds to questions posed by the Spatial Options consultation that are relevant to Penland Estate Limited's interests in Rochford.
Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
2.2 The technical evidence that has been prepared and is yet to be prepared by the Council is supported as being required to inform the production of a sound Local
Plan in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021).
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
2.3 Penland Estates Limited considers that the Draft Vision for Rochford District Council provides a sound basis for preparing a spatial strategy. Land to South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, will deliver upon the draft vision of Rochford District by providing a high-quality, well-designed development in a sustainable location with good
access to services and facilities which will foster vibrant and healthy communities.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.4 Penland Estates Limited broadly agree with the importance of adopting a range of separate visions for each of the District's settlements to help apply the district-wide vision and objectives at more localised settings. Nevertheless, there is likely to be considerable cross-over between the specific visions for individual settlement, and
as such, the benefits of this approach might not be fully realised.
2.5 Furthermore, this is likely to be quite a time-consuming exercise for the Council's Planning Policy Team to create separate visions for each of the District's
settlements. The Draft Local Development Scheme (2021-23) anticipates that the Local Plan could be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent
examination by Spring 2023, thus providing a short timescale to prepare and submit the emerging Local Plan. Therefore, it is considered that the resource of the
Planning Policy team is likely to be better deployed in other more pressing aspects of the emerging Local Plan process.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?
2.6 The Spatial Options document identifies five ‘Strategic Priorities.' Strategic Priorities one (meeting the need for homes and jobs in the area) and five (making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation, and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape) are of particular interest to our client's site.
2.7 Our client is promoting Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, for the allocation of residential development through the emerging Rochford District Council Local Plan (RDCLP). It is estimated that the site is capable of delivering up to 226 new homes towards meeting the housing need target for the RDCLP. In addition to delivering much-needed market and affordable housing, the site will deliver upon the draft strategic priorities of the RDCLP as follows:
2.8 Meeting the need for homes (Strategic Priority 1 and 2) – Penland Estates Limited prides itself on working with developers that deliver well-designed, highquality, and sustainable homes for all to enjoy. Any scheme delivered on the site would provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include affordable housing provision which would be tenure blind in terms of design and well-integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate community spirit. It is agreed that the
delivery of new homes sufficient to meet local housing need should be assigned great importance.
2.9 Climate change (Strategic Priority 5) – Any scheme would provide modern high-quality living with housing that meets the latest Building Regulation requirements in respect of energy and water consumption. In addition, the site is located in a highly sustainable settlement, within walking distance of a range of shops, services and pre and primary schools. The site’s location and proximity to
the local service provision in Hullbridge would assist in reducing travel by car and thus assist in reducing carbon emissions.
2.10 Natural environment (Strategic Priority 5) – Any scheme brought forward would aim to achieve a net gain in biodiversity through the retention, protection and enhancement of any on-site habitats, provision of extensive new public open space and high-quality landscaped areas. Existing vegetation at the site would be retained and enhanced through new planting to enhance the potential for habitat creation. In addition, drainage attenuation basins, required as part of the surface water drainage strategy, offer further potential to boost on-site biodiversity.
2.11 Furthermore, whilst the site is currently located in the Green Belt, the evidence provided in our representations and accompanying Green Belt Appraisal demonstrate that the site performs poorly against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and is capable of coming forward for development without unduly damaging the integrity of the Green Belt. The evidence gathered by the Council clearly illustrates that the District's housing need cannot be sufficiently met
through urban and previously developed land only. Some release of Green Belt land in appropriate locations should be recognised as being necessary where 70% of the
District is designated as Green Belt. The release of Green Belt sites such as Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, will allow the continued sustainable growth of existing settlements, and would be consistent with the NPPF.
2.12 Historic environment (Strategic Priority 5) – The evidence provided in our representations, the accompanying Heritage Appraisal (see attached at Appendix A) and the Council's Initial Heritage Assessment of Submitted Sites (October 2020)
demonstrates that the site does not adversely impact any nearby heritage assets either directly or indirectly.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.13 The Options Spatial Paper includes a draft settlement hierarchy based on the 2021'Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study,' which uses various factors (including population size, availability and range of services and transport accessibility) to assess the relative sustainability of the District's multiple settlements.
2.14 The Adopted Core Strategy (2011) categorises Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) as a second-tier (out of four) settlement, where there is considered to be a more
limited range of services and access to public transport is judged to be relatively poor. The Spatial Options paper shifts Hullbridge into tier three (out of four) of its
draft settlement hierarchy. This appears to be due to the sub-division of Tier 1 of the Adopted Core Strategy into Tier 1 and 2 of the draft settlement hierarchy, with
Rayleigh remaining in Tier 1 and Rochford (including Ashingdon) and Hockley (including Hawkwell) shifting down into Tier 2 2.15 In addition to Hullbridge, the new proposed Tier 3 includes Great Wakering and
Canewdon. Penland Estates Limited, as outlined below, considers that Hullbridge is better related to the Tier 2 settlement of Hockley in terms of access to services,
population, geographical size, and transport accessibility, compared to the Tier 3 village Canewdon:
2.16 Population – according to the Parish Council website, Hullbridge's population is approximately 7,300, which is markedly greater than that of Canewdon (Tier 3) at circa 1,100. The other Tier 3 settlement of Great Wakering (including Little Wakering and Barling) has a similar population to Hullbridge at circa 7,200.
However, it is recognised that Hullbridge has a growing population, particularly through strategic allocations, such as the 500 unit Lower Road development in southwest Hullbridge (adopted Policy SER6 – South West Hullbridge). It is also anticipated that Hullbridge's population will continue to grow through strategic
allocations in the emerging Local Plan, given the sustainability of the settlement and its ability to support continued growth. This means that the population of
Hullbridge is anticipated to move closer to the suggested Tier 2 population threshold of 10,000.
2.17 Access to public transport – Hullbridge is serviced by the frequent no. 20 bus route operated by Frist Group (every 30 minutes between 7.00 to 21.00 Monday
to Saturday) to Southend via Rayleigh, where wider connectivity into London via the Greater Anglia train service is available. Great Wakering is similarly wellconnected as Hullbridge to public transport links; however, Canewdon is only serviced every two hours by the 60 bus route to Southend via Rochford. It is
recognised that neither Hullbridge nor Great Wakering includes rail links, as available in the Tier 2 settlements. Nevertheless, the frequent bus journeys to these rail station destinations from Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) provide accessible sustainable transport options for residents of these settlements.
2.18 Range of services and facilities – the village of Hullbridge has a good range of services and community facilities capable of meeting the everyday needs of
residents. These include three convenience stores, a dentist, GP surgery, library, pharmacy, a pre-school and primary school and public houses, fast food outlets
and restaurants. In comparison, Canewdon does not possess any such range of services facilities, with only a primary school, a convenience store, and a public
house. Great Wakering has a few more facilities, including a primary school, medical centre, and pharmacy and two public houses, albeit not to the extent found
in Hullbridge.
2.19 It is recognised that Hullbridge does not include a secondary school. Nevertheless, the no. 20 bus route provides a regular service (every 30 minutes) to the
settlements of Rayleigh and Hockley, which contain secondary schools as well as higher order retail services.
2.20 Access to jobs – several small-scale businesses are positioned around Hullbridge and at the various facilities and services mentioned above, which could
accommodate some local employment opportunities. It is considered that such employment opportunities would not be available at the Tier 3 settlement of Canewdon.
2.21 On the above basis, it is considered that the range of existing services and facilities available in Hullbridge mean that the village is better related to Tier 2 of the
settlement hierarchy than Tier 3. It is important that the Council has due consideration of the sustainability of Hullbridge when determining what level of growth is appropriate. The designation of Hullbridge as a Tier 3 settlement should not in itself be taken as a reason for allocating a certain level of growth. This is especially important as the Spatial Options document recognises that Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) are larger settlements than Canewdon; the scale of new
growth that would be appropriate for the settlements would therefore differ.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.22 Penland Estates Limited strongly agree with the identification of a housing requirement of 7,200 homes based on the standard method, which is in accordance
with paragraph 61 of the NPPF. The acknowledgement that this housing requirement forms the minimum housing needs for the District is also strongly agreed with; the Council must explore all opportunities available to accommodate additional growth above the minimum requirement and take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities that are constrained in the level of housing growth they are able to deliver.
2.23 The Spatial Options Document recognises that there is potential for Rochford District to accommodate unmet need from neighbouring authorities. The District's
neighbours are burdened with constraints to identifying sufficient land for housing, such as significant areas of Green Belt land which envelops existing urban areas
and areas of high flood risk. The authorities located within the same housing market area as Rochford have also struggled with maintaining sufficient levels of housing
delivery, further highlighting the importance of this matter. We therefore consider it to be highly likely that there will be unmet need arising from neighbouring authorities. In particular, early evidence issued for the Southend-on-Sea Local Plan preparation has indicated that Southend will require some of their housing requirement to be delivered in Rochford District (Issues and Options consultation,
April 2019). It is therefore vitally important that Rochford District pursues a growth strategy that includes a buffer in excess of the minimum housing required to meet local needs.
2.24 On the basis of the above, Growth Option 1 should be discounted as the strategy would not secure the level of housing required to meet the identified minimum
housing requirement. A sound Local Plan could not therefore be produced following this strategy.
2.25 Of the remaining options which would deliver sufficient housing growth, Penland Estates Limited is strongly supportive of Option 2 (Urban Extensions), particularly Option 2b 'Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy.'
2.26 Firstly, it is recognised that Rochford District Council have had a historic record of housing under-delivery, which in 2020 resulted in the Council having to publish a
Housing Delivery Test Action Plan as their 2019 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) was calculated at 77%. The 2020 Action Plan noted that the delayed delivery of several
strategic sites was a key factor. In particular, this was due to prolonged landowner and developer negotiations, delays at the planning application stage, and the time
taken to discharge pre-commencement conditions. The growth strategy for the Local Plan should therefore limit any over-reliance on large-scale strategic urban
extensions for delivering the required amount of housing.
2.27 Consequently, our client considers that the Council should identify available and deliverable small and medium-sized sites (10 and 1,500 homes) dispersed to
settlements based on hierarchy. This approach would be consistent with Paragraph 69 of the NPPF (2021), which states that "small and medium sized sites can make
an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly." The delivery of sites at this scale also helps to
ensure sustainable growth can take place across the District in a dispersed manner that allows all settlements to grow organically. 2.28 The NPPF allows for revisions to be made to the Green Belt boundary through the
Local Plan process where there are exceptional circumstances. As explained earlier, release of Green Belt land is required if the Local Plan is to deliver sufficient housing to meet the local housing needs for the District. This forms the exceptional circumstances required for the release of land from the Green Belt in appropriate locations. The delivery of small and medium-scale sites released from the Green Belt, such as Land South of Pooles Lane, will also play an important role in the Council meeting their five-year housing land supply as required by paragraph 68 of the NPPF.
2.29 Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, is available and deliverable within the Local
Plan period and should be considered further by the Council. Secondly, Option 2b will support existing services by directing further growth to villages like Hullbridge to support the vitality of local services. This approach is consistent with NPPF 79 of the NPPF (2021), which outlines that "planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services."
Consequently, sites in sustainable locations with good access to a range of services and facilities (generally Tier 2 and 3 settlements) should be selected to ensure the
sustainable and effective growth of settlements across the District.
2.30 The Council's Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study assesses the relative sustainability of individual settlements by considering its 'completeness'. The
theory is that the more services a place has, and the easier to access those services are, the more complete that place is. The 'completeness' assessment is shown in
the form of a heatmap, and for Hullbridge, this is shown on Page 82 of the Spatial Options Paper. Land to the South of Pooles Lane adjoins the north-eastern
settlement boundary of Hullbridge, which benefits from a 'walking completeness score' of between 11 and 13, which is the highest score in Hullbridge and is in the
second-highest category overall.
2.31 This is because the north-eastern section of Hullbridge includes Hullbridge preschool and Riverside Primary School, Hullbridge Community Centre, and a bus stop providing a frequent bus service to Southend and Rayleigh (one bus every 30 minutes). These services and facilities are less than a five-minute walk from Land
to the South of Pooles Lane. Additional services and facilities, including convenience stores, a dentist, GP surgery, library, pharmacy, and other fast food outlets and
restaurants, are within a 10-minute walk from the site. By affording sustainable levels of growth to sites such as these, it will assist in safeguarding existing services, public transport links and infrastructure which local people currently rely upon and support vibrant rural communities.
2.32 For the reasons set out above, Penland Estates Limited strongly supports the pursuance of Growth Option 2b, with concentrated growth dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy. This includes allocating growth in high performing and sustainable Tier 3 settlements, such as Hullbridge.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
2.33 Penland Estates Limited supports the Council's ambition of ensuring future growth takes place in a manner that is aligned with the national objective of transitioning towards a zero-carbon economy. Penland Estates Limited intends to work with developers that will create high-quality, energy-efficient buildings, which could
incorporate energy generation and conservation technologies, in line with the Council's strategy to reduce carbon emissions.
2.34 Notwithstanding this, there needs to be a balancing act in order to meet this target against the need to deliver a viable scheme. It is clear that further consideration is
required regarding the expected capital uplifts in the emerging Local Plan to ensure that energy efficiency is considered alongside viability. In doing so, the guidance
should consider the Government's figures in their Draft Future Homes Standard which will be in place by the time homes allocated by the new Local Plan are likely to be built. Any policy brought forward on this matter should therefore be supported by appropriate evidence that has investigated potential impacts on viability. The policy itself should include wording to reflect the importance of considering the overall viability of a scheme when determining the application of energy efficiency
initiatives over and above that required by Building Regulations
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?
2.35 The Council should be consistent with the Government's Draft Future Homes Standard that proposes to remove the ability of local planning authorities to set higher energy efficiency standards than those in the Building Regulations. This is because the Government considers the situation confusing, particularly as the application of energy efficiency standards across local authority boundary lines often means that homes need to be built to different technical specifications. This inconsistency creates inefficiencies in supply chains, labour and potentially the quality of outcomes.
2.36 Nevertheless, Future Homes Standard outlines that changes to the Building Regulations are expected to mean that between 75- 80% fewer carbon emissions
are released into the atmosphere from new development compared to ones built to the 2013 Part L requirement. Requiring new developments to achieve energy
standards higher than the proposed changes to the Building Regulations would need robust evidence identifying the need for such a requirement.
13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of lowcarbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?
2.37 The Council should promote the idea of the Local Plan supporting renewable energy developments by designating appropriate locations within the District for lowcarbon and renewable energy generation projects. The Council could consider a
'call for sites' process for potential low carbon and renewable sites submitted by landowners, site promoters or developers. The Council could then assess the suitability of submitted sites using relevant criteria.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
2.38 Penland Estates Limited broadly supports the principles contained in the draft place-making charter, which sets out a number of key principles for how new
development is expected to be delivered in a way that contributes positively to their setting and wider environment. In taking this charter forward however, it should be made clear what weight will apply to the principles contained in the charter at the development management stage, as well as how the charter will interface with development management policies.
2.39 Penland Estates Limited prides itself on working with developers that deliver welldesigned, high-quality and liveable schemes for all to enjoy. Place-making and
creating a sense of identity is at the heart of the scheme design shown on the enclosed Development Framework Plan (see attached at Appendix B), with a
consideration of the opportunities and constraints of the site (see plan attached at Appendix C). New dwellings would be modern but sensitively designed to complement the character of the local area, and public open space would be delivered to a high standard to stimulate on-site recreation and interaction between residents. The development would be a positive and environmentally friendly place to live, work and play.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
2.40 The production of new design guides, codes or masterplans alongside the new Local Plan could provide applicants with clarity about design expectations at an early stage. However, there are two important considerations to take into account.
Firstly, site-specific design guidance is likely to be useful only in cases where the development proposed is at a strategic scale or there are unique constraints which
design guidance would help to overcome. For the majority of small and mediumscale development, development management policies relevant to urban design and placemaking are sufficient in securing a high-quality design.
2.41 Additionally, the production of design guidance requires time and staffing resources. The Council should consider the level of detail required in a design code
and the possible impacts of delays due to detailed discussions and negotiations between applicants regarding a scheme's compliance with a design code. Given the Council's historic under-delivery of strategic housing sites, which has in part been attributed to delays at the planning application stage, it is considered that with the preparation of design guides and masterplans is likely to slow housing delivery rates further if required for all sites.
2.42 The suggestion that design guidance is produced alongside the Local Plan preparation would also potentially delay the Local Plan process; which would mean further delaying the delivery of much-needed homes, given the delays experienced in the Local Plan process thus far. It would also require developers to invest in upfront work with no certainty that their particular site would be allocated in due course.
2.43 As such, Penland Estates Limited considers the preparation of design codes, guides or masterplans should be limited to large-scale strategic sites or sites with particularly complex delivery strategies only. All other developments can be brought forward appropriately without specific design guidance, as development
management policies related to design will ensure the correct design principles are followed.
4 Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
2.45 Penland Estates Limited recognises the importance of providing a mix of homes to meet the identified local housing needs. Option 2 is supported as providing a logical and flexible approach to ensuring that each new development provides a mix of housing that is appropriate to its location, taking into account all relevant sitespecific factors. This would ensure schemes can provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include an element of affordable housing provision which would be tenure blind in terms of design and be well integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate community spirit.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or offsite? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
2.46 National guidance outlines that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, offsite or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures. Schemes should come forward with the aim of achieving a net gain in biodiversity through the retention, protection and enhancement of any on-site habitats, provision of extensive new public open space and high-quality landscaped areas wherever
possible. However, the option of achieving net gain through off-site contributions or habitat creation should not be discounted, as there may be site constraints such
as viability which limit a site's ability to provide net gain on-site.
2.47 Existing vegetation at Land South of Pooles Lane site would be retained and enhanced through woodland belt planting to enhance the potential for habitat creation, as shown on the illustrative Development Framework Plan (Appendix B). In addition, surface water detention basins, required as part of the surface water drainage strategy, offer further potential to boost on-site biodiversity. All opportunities will therefore be taken to enhance the biodiversity of the site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
2.48 National policy outlines that strategic plans should take a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure to help promote active and healthy lifestyles, combat climate change and alleviate air quality issues. Well-designed green infrastructure can provide a sustainable alternative to car use through a connected network of
public rights of way and greenways. Proposed option 3 is supported, as the delivery of new and enhanced green infrastructure on new development sites will assist in
creating an improved network of green infrastructure throughout the District.
2.49 In reference to Option 2b ('Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy'), the Council should select sites that are in close proximity to the existing and proposed green and blue infrastructure networks to ensure that future residents have a sustainable alternative to car use. Land to the South of Pooles Lane is located within the Option 2b strategic area, and there is an existing 'secondary greenway' (ref PROW 287_6) approximately 300m to the east of the
site, running in a north-south direction as indicated on Figure 32 of the Spatial Options Document. To the north, this greenway connects to a network of existing and proposed coast paths along the River Crouch, which is less than a 5-minute walk from the site. To the south, this 'secondary greenway' connects to a network of primary greenways circulating Hockley.
2.50 The Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, promoted by our client Penland Estates Limited, is well placed to encourage a shift away from the private car. As shown by the submitted Framework Plan, any development at the Pooles Lane site will integrate into the existing highway network by providing vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access points. The Council's Site Appraisal (2021) recognises the accessibility of the site to existing walking and cycling infrastructure, as Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS03) is scored at level 5 (highest category), as the site is within 400m of an existing cycle or footway.
2.51 In contrast however, the Site Appraisal (2021) scores the site at level 2 for accessibility to public rights of way (the second-lowest category), as there are
adjudged to be no PROWs with 400m. However, a PRoW (ref 287_12) does indeed run along part of the site's eastern boundary, as indicated on the submitted Framework Plan and connects to the 'secondary greenway' (ref PROW 287_6), further to the south. Future residents of the site will significantly benefit from the existing and proposed green and blue infrastructure, which is directly connectable from the site. This inaccuracy within the Council's site assessment should be rectified to correctly reflect the sites accessibility in all ways, including to the PRoW network.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
2.52 There is the potential for new development to contribute towards the upgrade and maintenance of existing facilities. Penland Estates Limited would welcome the opportunity to engage with the Council and local stakeholders in Hullbridge to understand local community needs.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
2.53 In reference to Strategy Option 2b ('Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy'), the Council should support sites that can help improve open space or sports facility accessibility or provision. This would be in line with proposed option 4 for meeting open space needs through the Local Plan, which proposes requiring new developments to provide on-site open space or contribute towards improving existing recreational facilities.
2.54 Land South of Pooles Lane is located in the Option 2b settlement of Hullbridge. As identified in the 2009 Rochford District Council Open Space Study, Hullbridge has deficits against the local minimum standards of natural and semi-natural greenspaces (-2.05ha), amenity green space (-0.11ha) and children's play space (-0.01ha). Incidentally, Hullbridge has the second-highest deficit in the District for the provision of natural and semi-natural greenspaces. The provision of sports facilities is 0.53ha above the local minimum standards. It is recognised that the Open Space Study informing the evidence base is slightly dated. Nevertheless, it is
expected that the settlement's deficits (or low provision levels) of semi-natural greenspace and amenity green space, and children's play space are likely to still
exist in the village.
2.55 Taking this information into account, Land South of Pooles Lane has the potential to provide around 3ha of open space throughout the site, serving a range of
different purposes. Open space will be landscaped with a variety of natural and semi-natural areas, such as new woodland belt planting and mixed grassland areas
to promote biodiversity. Circular walking routes are provided, integrated into the wider network of public rights of way in the area. A centrally located locally equipped area for play (LEAPS) can also be provided. The open space would be delivered to a high standard to stimulate on-site recreation and interaction between residents. The development would be a positive and environmentally friendly place to live, work and play.
2.56 Land South of Pooles Lane achieves the highest score for access to public open space in the Council's Site Appraisal (2021) paper, given that Hullbridge Playing
Field is located directly opposite the site. Hullbridge Playing Field contains various existing sports facilities, including a BMX track, skate park, basketball court, sports pitch, as well as play equipment. Furthermore, Hullbridge Yacht Club, located on the River Crouch, is less than a five-minute walk, providing future residents with a wider range of sports and leisure facilities. The Council should consider allocating sites, such as Land South of Pooles Lane, in the emerging Local Plan that are well placed to provide accessible open space and sports facilities, either on-site or within
close walking distances.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
2.57 Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making,
which includes opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport. The importance of encouraging a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport is
recognised as this will assist in reducing climate change and congestion levels on roads.
2.58 The four options set out in the Spatial Option document are considered to be logical approaches to take in addressing transport and connectivity issues. The Rochford Local Plan should also promote sustainable forms of transport by allocating housing sites in sustainable locations in established settlements which possesses good quality public transport links, including; bus services, footways and cycleways. The preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan or Cycling Delivery Plan would provide clear evidence of the infrastructure improvements that may be required to further support and achieve sustainable development.
2.59 The Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, is exceptionally well placed to encourage the shift away from the private car. As shown by the submitted
Framework Plan (Appendix B), any development at the Land South of Pooles Lane site will integrate into the existing highway and pedestrian infrastructure by
providing vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access points in appropriate locations. 2.60 By utilising the proposed access points, residents of the scheme will have
convenient and sustainable access (via walking or cycling) to education, a range of shops, and services capable of serving their day-to-day needs. The public transport links available to residents of a scheme at Land South of Pooles Lane are summarised in the schedule below. Access to these services could be further
improved through new development resulting in an increased level of users.
Public Transport Links
Bus stops outside Riverside School, Ferry Road:
No 20 bus service from Hullbridge to Southendon-Sea via Rayleigh:
Monday to Saturday- every 30 minutes
between 7.00 to 21.00, and hourly between
22.15 and 23.15
Sundays- every 30 minutes between 9.00 to
21.30
(0.3km – to bus stop, 3-10 minute walk)
Hockley train station,
Station Approach Hockley SS5 4BG
(6.2 km, 19 minute cycle, 10 minute car)
Rayleigh train station, 1 Castle Dr, Rayleigh, SS6 7HT
5.1 km
(18 minute cycle, 9 minute car,15 minute bus)
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?
2.61 Penland Estates Limited broadly support the draft vision of Hullbridge becoming self-sufficient and accessible by sustainable means and to make the most of its location by opening up its coastline as a more attractive and usable space for both residents and visitors. Any development should respond to meeting the housing needs of local residents, and it should be acknowledged that the aims of meeting housing needs and Hullbridge becoming self-sufficient are interlinked. The growth of service provision would be supported by new housing and new customers, which would encourage new businesses as well as support the vitality of existing
businesses.
2.62 The vision currently references the need to provide suitable housing for the elderly, which our client supports. However, the vision should be expanded to incorporate
the needs of young families and parishioners seeking local and affordable housing to ensure a diverse and sustainable settlement can be maintained.
2.63 Land South of Pooles Lane would seek to provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include
a provision of affordable housing which would be tenure blind in terms of design and be well integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate
community spirit.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Other
2.64 As mentioned in answer to question 6 above, Penland Estates Limited supports Growth Strategy Option 2b. This strategy would provide new development in
sustainable locations across the settlement hierarchy, of a scale that is suitable to the services provision in the relevant settlement. Land South of Pooles Lane (ref
CFS190), promoted by Penland Estates Limited to provide a medium-sized housing scheme, is exceptionally well placed in this regard. It would adjoin the north-western boundary of Hullbridge and lead to the natural extension of this sustainable settlement. The site is incredibly well related to existing services as illustrated on
the walking completeness score replicated below. Development of the site offers the potential to increase permeability within this part of the village, improving
access for existing residents located north of Pooles Lane. 2.65 This accessibility has been reflected in the Council's Site Appraisal Paper (2021), which aims to provide an indication of the relative sustainability and suitability of potential housing sites. For example, the site scores in the highest accessibility (category five) for access to a primary school (less than 400m), a bus (more than 10 bus services provided per hour within 400m), and walking and cycling infrastructure (less than 400m from existing footway and cycle paths). This assessment is strongly supported as reflecting the location of the site in relation to services and facilities, as illustrated in the summary table below.
[see document for table]
2.66 However, the site scores poorly in the following categories: green belt impact (level two), agricultural land classification (level one), access to a train station (level one), access to a secondary school (level one), town centre (level one) and employment site (level one). Additional information is outlined below to provide a more robust assessment of the site's credentials against its poorly performing categories from the Site Appraisal Paper and demonstrate the deliverability of the site.
Green Belt
2.67 Given the extent of the Green Belt across the District and drawn tightly around sustainable settlements such as Hullbridge, it is vital that specific parcels of Green
Belt land adjacent to settlement boundaries are subject to a detailed Green Belt review process. Notwithstanding its Green Belt designation, this land will often provide a sustainable location for growth by virtue of its proximity to the local service provision and public transport links. We consider that this is the case of Hullbridge, where our client is promoting Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge.
Indeed, this is recognised in the Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study (February 2020) undertaken by the Council, which at paragraph 3.9 states that the most sustainable sites for allocation may be located in areas that make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes.
2.68 As explained earlier in these representations, the exceptional circumstances required to justify the release of land from the Green Belt are considered to exist
by virtue of the evidence base demonstrating there is insufficient non-Green Belt land available to accommodate the growth required during the Local Plan period. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF readily acknowledges that the plan making process can incorporate the review of existing Green Belt boundaries in exceptional
circumstances. Penland Estates Limited believe that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant such a review and consider that a modification is required in order
to deliver economic and housing growth which is recognised by the Government to be of national and potentially international importance.
2.69 Central to this review should be an assessment of specific parcels of land with development potential against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the
NPPF. Sustainable sites for housing growth which are found to not contribute to the five purposes of the Green Belt should be released and subsequently allocated for
development. It is strongly contested that this is the case for the Land South of Pooles Lane. The evidenced and justified release of this land from the Green Belt will allow development to come forward which will meet the objectives of achieving sustainable development as set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and assist in
delivering growth of regional and national importance.
2.70 In respect of Land South of Pooles Lane, an independent Green Belt Assessment of the site has been commissioned. The Assessment, produced by Pegasus Group, is appended to these representations (Appendix D). The Green Belt Assessment draws on the recently published Green Belt Study (February 2020) but applies a
finer-grain assessment in order to provide a comprehensive and robust, yet concise
assessment. The conclusions in respect of Land South of Pooles Lane contribution to the Green Belt purposes, is outlined below:
• Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/weak.
• Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Weak.
• Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Site Contribution is assessed as Moderate.
• Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Weak.
• Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Site Contribution is assessed as n/a.
2.71 The detail underpinning the above listed conclusions is evidenced in the Pegasus Group report. In light of the specific assessment against each Green Belt purpose,
the Green Belt Appraisal provides an overarching conclusion which confirms that Land South of Pooles Lane provides a low contribution to the NPPF Green Belt
purposes. In respect of bringing forward development at the site, the Appraisal concludes that:
2.72 “the Council agree that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of land from the Green Belt to accommodate development needs, then the Green Belt land immediately around Hullbridge – the site, would be suitable for such release.”
2.73 It is strongly recommended that the Council review the Green Belt Assessment alongside the other submitted evidence from their Site Appraisal Paper and Green
Belt Review study. The results of the Green Belt Assessment have strongly influenced the formulation
of the Framework Plan, in particular with regard to the incorporation of landscape mitigation measures. These take the form of a substantial landscape buffer along
the length of the eastern boundary, which will comprise new woodland planting and will integrate with and enhance existing vegetation. The landscaping strategy for
the site will aid in creating a strong defensible Green Belt boundary, as well as create a scheme that responds sensitively to the countryside character, with a soft
transition from built development to rural countryside.
Agricultural Land Classification
2.74 The Site Appraisal Paper (2021) scores Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS190) level one (the lowest category), as the majority of the site is adjudged to contain Grade 1-3 agricultural land (best most versatile or BMV). The other sites in Hullbridge also mostly score level 1, with a few scoring level 2 (i.e. any part of the site contains Grade 1-3 agricultural land). The assessment is based on Natural England Agricultural Land Classification mapping. However, the Natural England maps' scale is intended for strategic use and is not sufficiently accurate for the assessment of individual fields. Given that the site is currently used for arable grazing, it is unlikely that the land will be classified as BMV agricultural land.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the loss of some agricultural land will be necessary if Hullbridge is to continue growing in a sustainable manner. The sites available for
development in this area are of a similar agricultural value, and it is considered the benefits of sustainable development would be sufficient to outweigh the loss of
agricultural land.
Drainage
2.75 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk) as defined by the Environment Agency. The site is therefore considered sequentially preferable for residential development in flood risk terms.
2.76 The score of level two for 'critical drainage risk' appears to have been informed by a high-level review of the surface water flood risk for the site. Mapping on the
Environment Agency long term flood risk website illustrates that the majority of the site is in an area of low or very low surface water flood risk. There are small,
localised areas of medium and high surface water flood risk, associated with low spots within the site or near watercourses. 2.77 This is a matter that can be suitably addressed through any future planning application, which would be supported by a surface water drainage strategy
incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). The Framework Plan which has been produced has been informed by a high-level Flood Risk and
Drainage Constraints Plan (Appendix E) which illustrates how surface water flood risk can be appropriately mitigated through the inclusion of detention basins in
appropriate locations. The location and design of the basins will be subject to further detailed drainage assessment, however it is considered that a scheme can
be designed that effectively mitigates the risk of surface water flooding.
Access to a train station
2.78 The nearest train station to Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS190) is located in Rayleigh approximately 5.2km, which is just over the 5km threshold for a level one score. However, the assessment should take into account where opportunities exist for linked trips via other sustainable modes of transport such as by cycle or public
bus. Land South of Pooles Lane is located less than two minutes' walk from the nearest bus stop, where there is a frequent bus service (every 30 minutes) to Rayleigh railway station, with the journey taking approximately 15 minutes (including walking to the bus stop). This provides a very sustainable option for future residents of this site, and the Council should consider this factor when
assessing the site's sustainability.
Access to secondary school
2.79 It is recognised that Hullbridge does not include a secondary school, and as a result, the site scores level one in the Site Appraisal Paper. However, as mentioned above, the frequent no. 20 bus route (every 30 minutes between 7.00 to 21.00 Monday to Saturday) between Hullbridge and FitzWimarc School, in Rayleigh takes
approximately 15-20 minutes. This is considered to be an acceptable distance for secondary-aged pupils who often travel by bus, bike or even train to get to school.
The Council should therefore consider the accessibility of secondary schools by modes of public transport when assessing the relative sustainability of a site.
Access to a town centre
2.80 The nearest town centre of Rayleigh is around 6.2km from Land South of Pooles
Lane (ref CFS190), which is therefore within level one threshold, as the site is more than 2.3km from the town centre. However, it should be recognised that Hullbridge
contains a range of services, which could be found on a high street, with three convenience stores, medical centre, a pharmacy and other facilities. These services
are therefore capable of supporting the day-to-day needs of residents within Hullbridge, limiting the need to travel beyond the village on a frequent basis.
2.81 The site is also less than two minutes' walk from the nearest bus stop, where there are frequent bus services (every 30 minutes) to Rayleigh town centre, with the
journey taking approximately 15 minutes. This provides a very sustainable option for future residents of this site. Furthermore, due to the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic, there has been a greater focus on online retail shopping; thus, it is considered that the 2.3km threshold is unjustified adopted by the Site Appraisal Paper, particularly where residents of Land South of Pooles Lane could either access retail facilities by public transport or online.
Employment site
2.82 The nearest designated employment (Imperial Park) area is 4km from Land South of Pooles Lane in Rayleigh, which is just over the level one threshold of 2.3km.
However, this employment site can be accessed by frequent bus service (every 30 minutes), with the journey taking approximately 20 minutes, providing a
sustainable option for future residents of this site. The Council should also consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with increased levels of working from home
practices when considering the relevant proximity of employment sites.
Conclusion
2.83 Penland Estates Limited consider that Land South of Pooles Lane, is suitable, available and achievable for development, taking into account the evidence that it
has prepared to support the site’s promotion so far. The site should be allocated in order to achieve a sustainable and deliverable development strategy for Hullbridge,
consistent with the Local Plan strategy as a whole.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
GROWTH SOUTH EAST OF ROCHFORD & NORTH OF SOUTHEND.

Bellway Strategic and Cogent Land LLP, on behalf of the landowners, welcomes the identification of growth
on land South East of Rochford and North of Southend (Strategy Option 3b) in the Rochford District Council
(RDC) New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021. The delivery of this growth option will
unlock a new generation of highly sustainable communities that meet housing, employment and qualityof-life needs, while promoting innovation. Bellway Strategic, have acquired the subject landholding from
Cogent Land, and are committed to working collaboratively with the Council, key stakeholders and the
existing community to create an exemplar new community which sets the benchmark for development in
the region and for future generations.
Option 3b should be the priority location for strategic growth within the emerging Local Plan and is
fundamental in delivering RDC’s strategic priorities. This proposal will deliver the step change RDC is looking for to address the housing crisis in the District, along with ensuring the District keeps apace with the Thames Estuary objectives reinforced through the South Essex authorities partnership. Critical to this change in approach is delivering large scale strategic concentrated development in one location and moving away from solely ‘bolt-on’ schemes that fail to deliver the much-needed infrastructure and the benefits for the existing community. This aligns with the Framework which
identifies that in delivering large numbers of new homes significant urban extensions are preferrable
provided they are well located and supported by the necessary infrastructure (including a genuine choice of transport modes). Through existing characteristics in terms of the site’s location on the edge of Rochford and adjacent to Southend Airport, along with proposed infrastructure enhancements, the proposal will satisfy the Framework in this regard crucially ensuring that people have the choice to walk, cycle and access reliable and frequent public transport.
RDC need to find a solution to deliver housing in the short term, in addition to planning for the medium- and long-term. In terms of developing balanced growth across the Plan period, our client endorses Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination - supporting the delivery of a blend of sites which will ensure the Council can meet their identified housing needs across the Plan period. The preferred strategy will involve making best use of urban capacity (Option 1), building the identified growth option on land south east of Rochford and north of Southend (Option 3b) and a number of smaller urban
extensions (Option 2).
The Council’s previous engagement with local communities has identified the need for improvements
to services and utilities, supporting local employment opportunities, development of sustainable transport options, and improvements to strategic infrastructure as key community concerns. Option 3b will deliver a range of major new infrastructure, including highways improvements, investment in community infrastructure including schools, health centres, the eastern extent of the South Essex Estuary Park, along with sporting facilities and will provide substantial investment in the public realm.
This proposal has the potential to enhance and diversify employment and business opportunities in the local area, enabled by access to high-speed broadband. The scale of development and variety of uses presents opportunities to coordinate energy generation, and to achieve net-zero carbon.

Strategy Option 3b – South East of Rochford & North of Southend will deliver:
Sustainable Communities
New villages within Rochford which respond to the landscape and the morphology of existing settlements

New Homes for Rochford
4,600 homes in total, with 1,850 homes by 2040

Meeting Local Affordable Housing Needs
Deliver c. 650 affordable homes by 2040 (35%) and 1,600 affordable homes in total

Strategic infrastructure improvements delivered alongside growth
Improved eastern access to London Southend
Airport Rail Station, Temple Farm and Purdeys
Industrial Estates, and address congestion pinch points including Bell House Junction, Priory Crescent and Warners Bridge.

Job Creation & Employment Land
Deliver c. 11 ha of employment land concentrated in close proximity to existing employment to the south east of Rochford / Southend Airport; together with enhanced
digital connectivity to support home working

Benefits for Existing Residents
Enhanced transport and social linkages to existing villages in Rochford

Genuine choice of transport modes
New green, sustainable transport corridors providing a link between the two train lines (Southend Airport and Thorpe Bay)
Encourage cycling and walking by designing 15-minute neighbourhoods and ensuring high-quality cycle networks to serve existing and future communities.

Community Infrastructure
Delivery of two new primary schools, healthcare and community services in the Local Plan period;

Green & Blue Infrastructure
Utilising the unique natural assets for the benefit of existing and future residents including delivering the eastern extent of the South Essex Estuary Park forming a new coastal country park in the east of the District

Environmental Benefits
Retention and enhancement of historic woodlands and the identification of locations for new woodland for greater biodiversity and wildlife, rewilding, green infrastructure corridors, private food growing and vertical
farming will add to the Biodiversity Net Gain

Tourism Strategy
Harness the untapped potential of Rochford as a tourism destination

Climate Change
Be carbon neutral by 2040 and achieve netzero carbon emissions by 2050 through a host of measures including building design and specifications and encouraging growth of active travel

01. INTRODUCTION & SITE CONTEXT
1.1. Iceni Projects on behalf of Bellway Strategic and Cogent Land wish to submit representations to the Rochford District Council New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021. Bellway has acquired an interest in land south east of Rochford / north of Southend and is actively engaged with key stakeholders to bring forward growth in this location, incorporating a mix of uses including housing, community, health and employment uses through the plan-making process. Cogent Land have been promoting the subject site for sustainable growth for almost two decades and wholly support the preparation of the new Rochford Local Plan.
1.2. Bellway Homes is one of the UK’s leading home builders. Bellway began as a small family business in
1946 - with a passion for building exceptional quality homes in carefully selected locations, inspired by the needs of real families. Bellway has grown from a local family firm into one of the country’s leading residential developers. Bellway have this year been awarded 5 star builder status by the Home Builders Federation for the fifth year running.
1.3. The designs of Bellway homes and construction techniques blend tradition with innovation, creating
well-built homes with modern living standards. With a reputation for high quality developments in prime locations, Bellway Homes strive to create sustainable new developments. The homes are designed with more than seven decades of experience and craftmanship, to create a new generation of properties that meets the aspirations of today’s homebuyers. Bellway homes
feature exterior finishes that reflect the character of the local neighbourhood with an enhanced specification, both inside and out.
1.4. The extent of the land under the control of our client within the RDC boundary is detailed in Appendix 1. The landholding lies to the north of the A13 and A1159, with London Southend Airport & Rail Station and Sutton Road sitting to the west. Temple Farm and Purdeys Way employment area, as well as employment opportunities associated with the Airport, are closeby. The River Roach lies to the north and is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area.
1.5. In addition, our client has interests on adjoining land to south which falls within the Southendon-Sea Borough Council boundary. Given that the landholding straddles both Council boundaries the conceptual design studies undertaken to date have considered the land holistically, as many of the Council’s evidence base documents have also done. In this respect, these representations should be read alongside the Potential Growth Options in Rochford and Southend, Proof of Concept, 22.07.2021 attached at Appendix 2. Nonetheless for the purposes of this Local Plan and ensuring the Rochford Local Plan can be found sound in its own right, these representations
focus on the land within Rochford and the proposals that can be delivered within this Local Plan.
1.6. These representations will demonstrate that Bellway, and their appointed consultant team, have prepared a vision for this location to deliver positive growth for the District which will be sensitively designed to connect with the surroundings, will foster social and economic relations with the existing communities, will contribute towards biodiversity net gain, minimising carbon
emissions and protect the environment.
1.7. These representations are structured as follows:
ƒ Section 2 details the main policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework including the support for large scale growth options and the required approach for plan making in releasing land from the Green Belt;
ƒ Section 3 summarises regional matters in respect of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities, the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan and the Thames Estuary Growth Commission;
ƒ Section 4 assesses RDC’s housing and employment needs;
ƒ Section 5 considers the strategic matters in Local Plan making;
ƒ Section 6 details the key findings from the RDC landscape impact and green belt evidence base;
ƒ Section 7 sets out the vision for land south east of Rochford and north of Southend;
ƒ Section 8 provides a response to the relevant questions raised in the consultation; &
ƒ Section 9 in conclusion details the economic benefits of Option 3b to Rochford District.

02. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
2.1. The National Planning Policy Framework was recently updated in July 2021. The purpose of this section of the representations is to highlight the key policy matters of relevance to Option 3b.
PLAN LED APPROACH
2.2. The National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to:
ƒ meet the development needs of their area;
ƒ align growth and infrastructure;
ƒ improve the environment;
ƒ mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects.
2.3. This element of the Framework and specifically how the proposal at South East of Rochford and North of Southend will assist the Council in delivering a sustainable pattern of development is considered in detail at Section 5 of these representations.
2.4. Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision for housing, infrastructure, community facilities and conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment. These policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to
address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning for and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area.
LARGE SCALE GROWTH
2.5. The most recent revisions to the Framework include the requirement:
‘Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery’.
2.6. This is applicable in respect of the current proposal at Option 3b and is detailed in full at Section 7 of these representations.
2.7. The Framework at para 73 considers that

“The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes). Working with the
support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policy-making authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way”. (Our emphasis)

This is key in Rochford as acknowledged in the Spatial Options Consultation, that the only way to deliver the Council’s strategic objectives such as addressing current infrastructure deficits is through large scale growth. Growth of a strategic scale will ensure that the housing numbers are delivered but also that the necessary infrastructure, including transport, is delivered alongside
the new homes.
2.9. The Framework advocates that in identifying suitable locations for such development, strategic policy-making authorities should consider a host of factors which are detailed in the table below, alongside a review of the relevant features of growth at South East of Rochford and North of Southend. The policy requirements set out in para 73 of the Framework provide the basis for
assessing the potential and suitability of growth in south east of Rochford and north of Southend.

[See attached document for table format]
Table 2.1 Review of Spatial Option 3b against the criteria set out in Para 73 of the Framework
Para 73 NPPF – Criteria for Large Scale Growth
[followed by] Assessment of Growth Option – South East of Rochford and North of Southend
a) consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure, the area’s economic potential and the scope for net environmental gains

The site’s location on the edge of Rochford and Southend, and adjacent to Southend airport offers a
major opportunity for inward investment which can
be maximised through growth in the right locations.
At a regional level, Rochford’s location within the
Thames Estuary Growth Corridor, along with the
proximity to London and the Lower Thames Crossing
makes this area an economically competitive area
attractive to inward investment. The development
of this region is a national priority as reaffirmed in
the Government’s Response to the Thames Estuary
Growth Commission.
Moreover, planning for growth at scale will leverage
investment in order to deliver new and upgrade
existing infrastructure in the district. Given the extent of land under the control of Bellway it is considered that significant environmental enhancements can be achieved.

b) ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an unrealistic level of self-containment), or in larger towns to which there is good access;
The proposals provide for four distinct neighbourhoods which are specifically designed to be of a scale so that they are self-sufficient in terms of local services centred on the principle of 15-minute neighbourhoods. There is a swathe of land close to the airport and the existing industrial estates identified for employment uses, and in
addition each neighbourhood will include local employment.

c) set clear expectations for the quality of the places to be created and how this can be maintained (such as by following Garden City principles); and ensure that appropriate tools such as masterplans and design guides or codes are used to secure a variety of well-designed
and beautiful homes to meet the needs of different groups in the community;
Design is key in order to deliver upon the vision of
creating high quality aspirational housing which benefits from the unique location of the site. The Growth Option 3b will be based upon a holistic masterplan framework which establishes a range of different character areas and is genuinely landscape led.
The proposal will deliver a range of housing to achieve diversification in accordance with the recommendations of the Letwin Review including:
ƒ Differing Tenures - Affordable homes; including
affordable rented housing will be provided alongside affordable home ownership on each phase.
ƒ House type and size – Within each phase a broad
range of house types and sizes will be delivered.
ƒ Housing for specified groups and custom build – older people’s housing and plots sold for custom or self-build for individuals on Rochford’s self-build register will also be delivered. Student accommodation will also be explored.

d) make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development
corporations)
The footnote (37) linked to this policy states ‘The
delivery of large scale developments may need to extend beyond an individual plan period, and the associated infrastructure requirements may not be capable of being identified fully at the outset. Anticipated rates of delivery and infrastructure requirements should, therefore, be kept under review and reflected as policies are updated’

The main factor influencing delivery rates will be the
delivery and funding of infrastructure. There are
significant infrastructure requirements needed in order to deliver growth in the District which will have implications on the housing delivery rates. Bellway are keen to collaborate further with the Council in this respect in order to establish the funding and timing of infrastructure which will address existing congestion issues in Rochford and the environs and unlock growth to the east.

e) consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining new developments of significant size.

As detailed in the illustrative concept plans, the proposals will be designed based on defensible boundaries, logically defined by the landscape framework

VITALITY OF RURAL COMMUNITIES
2.10. The updated Framework at Para 79 states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.
2.11. There are a range of existing rural communities in the vicinity of the proposed growth option. The emerging Masterplan and all future proposals will ensure that the character and identity of these existing settlements is retained, while also delivering new infrastructure and services which will be of benefit to the established rural communities. These existing communities do not currently have a genuine choice in terms of travel option, with the private car for many people the only form of transport available. The Local Plan, and the proposals for large scale growth, have the potential to address this through substantial investment in public transport in the district.
2.12. Para 141 of the Framework requires that before concluding exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. This includes maximising potential of brownfield land, optimising density within urban areas and discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could
accommodate some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
2.13. Section 13 ‘Protecting Green Belt land’ identifies that Green Belt boundaries can be altered where
exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. The required process is for strategic policies to establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries and subsequently detailed amendments to those boundaries may be made through non-strategic policies. The Spatial Consultation recognises that RDC are unlikely to have
sufficient urban and brownfield sites to meet the need for housing, employment or community facilities, and neighbouring authorities have advised they are unlikely to be able to accommodate any of Rochford’s needs themselves. Given this context it is considered that there are exceptional circumstances in which to release land from the Green Belt in Rochford.

DUTY TO COOPERATE
2.14. The Framework restates that planning authorities are under a duty to cooperate with each other, and with other prescribed bodies, on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
Strategic policy-making authorities should collaborate to identify the relevant strategic matters which they need to address in their plans. Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively
prepared and justified strategy. It is evident that there has been close collaboration between RDC and SSBC in the preparation of the evidence base supporting the Local Plans to date which is welcomed.
2.15. In particular, joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere. In order to demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, strategic policymaking authorities should prepare and maintain one or more statements of common ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these.
2.16. The Framework at para 128 requires Planning Authorities to prepare design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. Design guides and codes provide a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places with a consistent and high quality
standard of design.
2.17. National policy in respect of design has been detailed further at Para 129 of the Framework which
states that:
“Design guides and codes can be prepared at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site specific scale, and to carry weight in decision-making should be produced either as part of a plan or as supplementary planning documents. Landowners and developers may contribute to these
exercises, but may also choose to prepare design codes in support of a planning application for sites they wish to develop”.
2.18. The requirement for design codes is considered at Section 8 of these representations.

03. REGIONAL POLICY MATTERS – CONTEXT FOR GROWTH.

INTRODUCTION
3.1. The Association of South Essex Local Authorities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (January 2018) setting out their commitment to build on the existing strong foundations of cooperation developed through the Duty to Cooperate, and within the wider context of the South Essex 2050 Ambition to move to a more formal approach to strategic planning. This will
be developed through a ‘portfolio’ of plans, with a Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) setting out strategic spatial and infrastructure priorities that are of mutual benefit, prepared alongside a suite of ‘local delivery plans’ to manage delivery within each of the local planning areas. As detailed at Figure 6 of the RDC Spatial Options Consultation, the South Essex Plan is a non-statutory Framework which sits above the Rochford Local Plan.
3.2. The JSP will provide the ‘effective strategic planning mechanism’ to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Duty to Cooperate, with the existing joint work, evidence base and shared governance through ASELA demonstrating that cooperation is proactive, positive and ongoing.
There is a clear commitment to meeting the full housing needs across the sub-region. ASELA have confirmed that they are committed to work collectively in the interests of South Essex detailing that the “joint spatial plan will provide a strong framework to build on and deliver the sound individual local plans and provide the future strategic context for them”.
3.3. The ASELA Productivity Strategy provides a framework for addressing some of the challenges
across the region, outlining that the future of work is changing and higher-skilled, knowledgebased work will drive future economic activity. It sets out opportunities to attract, retain and develop highly skilled knowledge workers, including through skills development; encourages B2B collaboration and development of local supply chains; and identifies opportunities to use data and leverage connectivity to grow the economy through both growth of indigenous SME businesses and attracting inward investment. It emphasises the importance of town centres as centres for economic activity which offer a rich social experience and space for interaction and can accommodate a range of economic activities.
SOUTH EAST ESSEX STRATEGIC GROWTH LOCATIONS ASSESSMENT 2019
3.4. RDC, SSBC and Castle Point Borough Council (CPBC) have worked together to consider potential spatial options for future strategic scale residential development, jobs and supporting infrastructure. The South East Essex Strategic Growth Locations Assessment has considered and assessed six broad locations of undeveloped land adjoining the built-up area of Southend and considered their potential to accommodate strategic scale development of approximately 6,000 – 8,000 homes, together with employment and supporting infrastructure. The report
considered six broad locations, Sectors A-F and identified that only Sector D has the potential to
accommodate strategic scale development. Option 3 b sits within the Sector D area.
3.5. The Plan’s evidence thus identifies Sector D – land north of Fossetts Farm, Garon Park and Bournes Green Chase - as the only area in Rochford which adjoins Southend’s urban area which offered the potential for strategic scale development. This area was found to have the least environmental constraints. The landscape was found to be of medium sensitivity, and development
would need to have regard to this as well as listed buildings and heritage assets in the area.
3.6. The Assessment found that significant investment in public transport, road and cycling infrastructure would be needed to support sustainable development. This included congestion concerns along the A127 and at Warners Bridge. It found synergies with nearby employment locations and existing recreational resources including around Garons Park. Major development would need to avoid coalescence with Rochford and maintain a buffer to the villages of Barling, Little Wakering and Great Wakering to the east.

SOUTH ESSEX STRATEGIC GROWTH LOCATIONS STUDY 2020
3.7. The 2020 South Essex Strategic Growth Locations Study1 reinforces the findings of the 2019 study, which has undertaken a strategic review of land availability and development constraints across South Essex and considered potential locations where urban extensions and new settlement-scale growth could be explored. This Study has assessed the potential for urban extensions to each of the District’s main settlements - Hockley, Rayleigh and Rochford – as well as Southend; together with the potential for new-settlement scale growth north-east of Southend and at Fairglen where the A127, A13 and A130 join.
3.8. The Study shows that transport infrastructure capacity is a particular constraint to growth at a sub-regional level with a highways network largely at capacity at peak times. An appropriate response to this is to locate growth at accessible locations, preferably where there is fixed public transport and this is a key component of the ‘sequential approach’ adopted in the Study to identifying potential locations for strategic scale growth. The Study includes an assessment of the relative accessibility of different options, having regard to proximity to major routes and local congestion; and public transport accessibility. Hockley scores poorly, and Rayleigh is moderate in this respect; while Rochford and Southend together with the potential for strategic growth south east of Rochford are identified as having good accessibility. Fairglen is identified as having very poor accessibility by public transport currently and would require delivery of a new station to support strategic development.
3.9. The Study concludes that the best scope in the medium term is for strategic growth at Southend North East and West Horndon. This reflects the less constrained nature of these locations relative to other areas considered and the greater potential for sustainable access even in the short to medium term. This issue of sustainable access is critical given the constrained nature of the existing highway network in South Essex and the fact that strategic growth must have viable non-car access. There are however still significant challenges in these locations, including the requirement for substantial supporting infrastructure and further studies are required.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE THAMES ESTUARY 2050 GROWTH COMMISSION 2019
3.10. In the Budget 2016 the Government asked the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission to set out an ambitious vision and delivery plan for North Kent, South Essex and East London. The Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission published their report on 25th June 2018. In the response published on the 25th March 2019, the government welcomed the Commission’s vision, and sets out national commitments to the Thames Estuary.
3.11. The government’s response is a clear demonstration of the commitment to growth in the Thames Estuary and identifies that this is a national priority which is of importance to all of the United
Kingdom. The response acknowledges the tremendous potential of the Thames Estuary to power growth for the benefit of local communities and the entire country. It highlights however that the region does not fully deliver on its great potential and “A bolder approach is needed to realise this vision and the potential of the region”.
3.12. In addition, the Government agrees with the Commission that the scale and pace of delivery will need to increase to meet demand for housing across the Estuary. The report further states that the Government is prepared to offer bespoke support through initiatives such as housing deals, to support those places willing to be ambitious in their approach to building more homes.
Government would expect places across the region might want to go further in order to take account of higher demand and fully enable them to meet their economic growth ambitions.
3.13. This report wholeheartedly confirms the Government’s commitment to this region. The Local
Plan has the opportunity to utilise this support from a national level to ensure that the region fulfils its full potential in terms of new homes and jobs through a plan-led approach. This is an unprecedented opportunity for the region and RDC must capitalise on this to ensure they fulfil their ambitions.
3.14. Rochford is located within the South Essex Foreshore, and within this context the Commission’s
vision for the area is :
“The rich patchwork of places which form the South Essex Foreshore will be celebrated. Empowered by a statutory Joint Spatial Plan the area will go beyond ‘business as usual’. Locally driven town centre transformation will help create lively places that people choose to work, live, learn and play in. These policies and local initiatives will see development unlocked, postindustrial landscapes restored, and the filling of empty business spaces to create a thriving and
creative economy”.
3.15. This vision aligns with the positive approach outlined in the RDC Spatial Options which states that “The scale of housing growth required in Rochford presents opportunities to do things very differently and harness much greater investment in infrastructure than has been possible before”

04. REGIONAL POLICY MATTERS – CONTEXT FOR GROWTH.
Current Situation
4.1. In Rochford District, the housing crisis is stark. Rochford is one of the least affordable regions in
England and house prices are continuing to increase at an unprecedented rate. Many people who want to own a home in Rochford simply cannot afford to do so. The exorbitant increase in house prices and also rents indicates an imbalance between supply and demand. In addition, a growing population, including a largely elderly population, will place significant pressure on the demand for different types of housing and services over the next 20 years.
4.2. The ratio of local house prices to earnings is far in excess of historic levels and above the national average, creating real difficulties for local people to afford a local home, particularly for first time buyers. On this basis it is evident that the current status quo to housing delivery is not working and a bolder approach to housing is required, urgently.
Future Housing Needs & Supply
4.3. Government Local Housing Need Standard Method identifies that a minimum 360 houses are needed annually, 7,200 new homes by 2040 in RDC. To meet minimum local housing needs there needs to be an uplift of +60% on historic delivery rates. The RDC Spatial Options considers a further growth scenario comprising the Standard Method + 50% Buffer which would result in
10,800 new homes by 2040, which the Council states could help to drive local economic growth or address unmet need from elsewhere. Moreover, the SHMA highlights the need for 238 affordable homes a year. Only 1 in every 9 households on the housing register are likely to ever be rehoused based on current projections.
4.4. The Council is under a Duty to Cooperate, requiring plan makers to consider issues which affect not just Rochford but other neighbouring authorities. The Duty to Cooperate is a legal requirement. The emerging evidence provides a strong indication that SSBC will not be able to meet its development needs for housing and employment in full within its borough boundaries.
Southend has a constrained supply of land which also limits its ability to deliver family housing.
Given the close-relationships between Rochford and Southend, with people moving home, commuting and travel to access education and services between the two authorities, the Council needs to consider and test the degree to which it can contribute to meeting unmet needs from Southend in preparing the Local Plan.
4.5. Local Plans get independently examined before the Council can adopt them and must meet relevant legal and ‘soundness’ tests. A failure to effectively address these issues is the major reason why local plans are unable to progress or are found unsound at the Examination stage.

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR ORIGINAL DIAGRAM OF ROCHFORD HOUSING CRISIS]
- Average house price in Rochford 2021: £426,000 (12% increase since 2020)
- House price growth 2011-21: £136,000
- House prices 11.5 times average earnings. Amongst the least affordable areas in the country
- Average rents grown 18% over last 5 years
- 1,000 households awaiting affordable housing in 2021 (grown by 20%)
- Average housing delivery 205 dwellings per annum (2011 – 2021)

4.6. In this respect, the Planning Practice Guidance provides clarification on the standard method
reiterating that it provides the minimum starting point and details the circumstances actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates, stating:
Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:
• growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable, for example where funding is in
place to promote and facilitate additional growth (e.g. Housing Deals);
• strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed locally; or
• an authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities, as set out in a statement of common ground.
3.7. Set against this, the Council’s Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment considers
the potential supply of land based on the application of current planning policies. It identifies potential land which is capable of accommodating 4,500 dwellings over the plan period on sites which are currently deliverable or developable or through windfall development. This includes sites which have been allocated for development in previous plans, sites with planning permission and other sites identified within existing settlements in the District. This falls substantially short
of the District’s housing needs, meaning that the Plan must consider the potential review of Green Belt boundaries.
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR TABLE COMPARING LAND SUPPLY TO HOUSING NEED]

4.8. Available and suitable land for housing in Rochford is scarce, with the majority of open land being
designated as Metropolitan Green Belt, extending from London across the South Essex subregion. Significant parts of the District are also protected for their ecological value, landscape value or because they are at risk of flooding.

ECONOMY
4.9. As with many other areas across the country and internationally, Rochford’s economy has been harmed by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Local Plan needs to set out a strategy for economic recovery.
4.10. Prior to the pandemic, the evidence pointed to :
ƒ a relatively modest-sized economy with 29,000 workforce jobs based in the District (2018).
ƒ The percentage of jobs available per resident is much lower than the national average, leading to a greater reliance on out-commuting for our residents and leakage of spending and investment
ƒ Significant out-commuting of residents to work, totalling over 14,000 people per day in net terms, both to surrounding employment centres such as Southend and Basildon and to London.
ƒ Self-employment had been growing, reaching almost 16% of working-age residents.
ƒ Local employment opportunities were focused more towards lower paid/skilled roles, with the proportion of residents with NVQ 4+ skills (equivalent to degree level) below the regional average, and an under-representation in higher value-added sectors borne out in average earnings for those employed in the District which were around 7% below the East of England average.
OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
4.11. The 2017 South Essex Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) identified a need for 27 ha of employment land across Southend and Rochford to 2036. Quantitatively it identified sufficient supply to meet this. The evidence base will need to be updated to reflect changes in economic circumstances and the longer plan period. However it is likely that some additional
employment land provision is needed in the local area to support growth in local SME businesses in manufacturing, construction, trades and related sectors including in providing grow-on space; and to contribute to addressing the significant out-commuting from the District. National planning policy and guidance is clear that both quantitative and qualitative factors should be
considered in considering employment land provision.
4.12. The Covid-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns have ushered an unprecedented change in the way people work, almost overnight. The Local Plan needs to facilitate these changes by providing opportunities to work more locally for those that might have historically commuted out to work, and ensuring high quality broadband infrastructure is in place.

[See document for original diagram re benefits of meeting housing need]
- Delivering affordable housing
- Family housing for local people
-Supporting the local economy
- Supporting funding and delivery of infrastructure
- Supporting town centres
- Supporting public services

RETAIL AND LEISURE
4.13. Rochford District’s main retail provision is within the centres of Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley.
However, none of these are major classified centres and Rochford achieves a very low market share of retail provision in comparison to the rest of South Essex. In particular, retail expenditure for comparison goods is generally lower in the District than it is for convenience goods, demonstrating that residents will often do their regular shopping (such as food) more locally but travel to other commercial centres, such as Southend, for comparison retail shopping such as for household items, electrical goods and clothes.
4.14. The Retail and Leisure Study Update 2014 recommended that the District seek to increase the
market share of comparison retail to a minimum maintain market share in South Essex. The South Essex Retail Study 2017 sets out that the District would benefit from further retail provision to promote sustainable shopping patterns, with retail provision aligned new housing growth.

E-commerce had been growing before the pandemic, but Covid-19 is likely to have accelerated this, and this is a particular challenge for the District’s town centres which therefore need to evolve. Housing growth within the District together with an evolution of the town centres’ offer will be important to supporting the vitality and viability of the District’s town centres.
TOURIST ECONOMY
4.15. The tourism economy in Rochford District is currently underdeveloped – there is a lack of infrastructure such as quality accommodation, restaurants and cafes, visitor attractions and activities. The District has a distinctive character – it benefits from a world-class natural environment with internationally significant estuaries, namely the Crouch and Roach and an extensive coastline, including the RSPB’s Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project. These geographical features give rise to the potential to explore opportunities to promote tourism, particularly a green tourism offer. Rochford also has a range of heritage assets with untapped potential.
4.16. The Tourism, Leisure and Recreation Strategy for South Essex 2020-2038 sets a vision “to make South Essex a renowned major tourism destination comprising a corridor of quality interrelated tourism, leisure and recreation attractions. An expanded visitor offer will
encourage people to stay and enjoy our culture, resorts, countryside, market towns and coastline. In turn this will add to the area’s vibrancy and make us a more attractive place to live, work and start up a business”.
4.17. It identifies that there are some structural weaknesses that exist, such as the lack of a ‘stand out’
single attractions. A key conclusion that is drawn is that there is a number of exciting and attainable opportunities which can be the focus of future strategic action. This would help the area to bounce back from Covid-19 and reposition the area in the domestic visitor market.
4.18. There is a clear opportunity for the District to increase the value of the tourism economy over the
Local Plan period in the following ways:
ƒ increasing visitor spending by providing high-quality facilities and attractions and supporting infrastructure;
ƒ increasing the number of linked trips to Southend and other locations in South Essex;
ƒ converting a proportion of day trippers into overnight stays;
ƒ increasing the share of holiday makers as opposed to people visiting friends and relatives;
ƒ Capitalising on the ‘staycation’ market;
ƒ capturing the untapped potential of the district’s assets, including the historic environment, the countryside and coast; and
ƒ developing the business tourism offer and overseas visitors to capture this higher value market segment linked to London Southend Airport.
4.19. The Tourism, Leisure and Recreation Strategy for South Essex outlines objectives to provide a planning framework to facilitate development, including co-ordinating the development of appropriate Local Plans that support the development of tourism, leisure and recreation. The preparation of the Rochford Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for achieving this.

ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF OPTION 3B
4.20. Our economic analysis points to the following opportunities:
ƒ The local economy across Southend and Rochford is structured around the delivery of goods and services to local people and visitors. The economic strategy for the Option 3b will tie into this, and deliver job opportunities in everyday services, health and education on site, but also recognise and encourage spending from residents on shops and services in Rochford Town Centre.
ƒ Southend Airport is also an important local employment driver in the medium-to-long term,
with potential growth of both direct jobs on site and in the supply chain and aviation-related activities in the surrounding area. There is a good spatial relationship to this.
ƒ The scale of the development opportunity provides an opportunity for transformational change and can act as a major economic driver in its own right. The scheme will support sizeable population growth creating demand for goods and services within the local economy. It can
deliver employment in traditional employment space, support home-based working, and create/support employment opportunities in health, education and local services.
ƒ If the scale of development is comprehensively considered, there is a strategic opportunity to shift the skills and jobs profile towards higher value-added activities. Delivery of high-quality housing, with space to work, and better employment opportunities have the ability to attract higher paid/ earning individuals to avail of the benefits of coastal life.
ƒ Self-employment in the area is high and has been growing. There are many small business and self-employed enterprises in the area. The office market is focused on local SME occupiers.
Local centres within the scheme should be designed in a way in which they can accommodate flexible workspace in local work hubs which can cater for local micro-businesses, can provide workspaces for people that might commute into London less or who work principally at/ hear home. Provision of high-quality broadband and telecommunications infrastructure will also be key to supporting this and facilitating the growing trend in home working. As working patterns change as a result of Covid and technological improvements, there is a major opportunity to create an attractive residential environment with local workspace which responds to this.
ƒ There is a concentration of industrial space in the area with low current vacancy levels. There is a strong relationship between the site and existing key employment and industrial sites in the local area, including Purdeys Industrial Estate, Temple Farm, Stock Road, Rochford Business Park and the Airport Business Park. There are opportunities to deliver high quality connections to these.
ƒ The development offers potential to help diversify the area’s visitor / tourism offer and to increase tourism spend, including in exploring the potential of the River Roach, provision of a high-quality hotel and/or visitor resort offer.
ƒ There is a good opportunity to deliver different types of housing, including: family housing both market and affordable, specialist/ embryonic sectors, Build to Rent, third age living including a range of care products and the self-build sector. Diversity in the housing offer, and recognition of the relative role of growth here vis-à-vis what is delivered within the urban area (focused more on higher density / smaller units), is important to supporting overall housing delivery rates, a balanced population profile and attracting higher skilled/ earning households.

05. STRATEGIC MATTERS IN LOCAL PLAN MAKING.
5.1. The Framework at para 11 requires Plans to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
For plan-making this means that all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to:
1. meet the development needs of their area;
2. align growth and infrastructure;
3. improve the environment;
4. mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects.
5.2. This section of the representations considers these strategic matters in a Rochford context and considers how growth on land south east of Rochford and north of Southend will assist RDC in delivering a sustainable pattern of development.
MEETING THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF THEIR AREA
5.3. RDC propose to take a positive approach to growth locally, help to create a more inclusive housing market, avoiding the emergence of housing-related issues including homelessness and concealed households. A number of strategy options have been identified that could form the basis of the plan’s approach to housing growth over the next 20 years and beyond.
5.4. These representations wholly endorse Strategy Option 3: Concentrated growth » Option 3b: Focused north of Southend which lies within our client’s land interests. It is not purported however that this strategy will meet Rochford’s full housing need over the lifetime of the Plan, thus Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination is the preferred approach. The Consultation states that
Option 4 could make best use of urban capacity (Option 1), building one or two large growth areas (Option 3) and a number of smaller urban extensions (Option 2).We support Option 4 which will provide a varied supply of sites to make the local housing market as diverse as possible delivering a range of choice and competition to the market, thus offering the greatest chance that housing will be consistently delivered over the whole plan period. Crucially the Plan needs to incorporate large scale strategic growth, as a Local Plan strategy that relies solely on smaller sites, or sites spread more evenly through the District will not have the potential to fund new infrastructure and provide betterment to the current challenges facing the District.
5.5. It is submitted that in order to deliver the ambitions of the Local Plan, large scale growth focused in one location as per Option 3b is required. Strategic growth at this location is embedded within the evidence base which supports this Local Plan including the South East Essex Strategic Growth Locations Assessment (2019) and the South Essex Strategic Growth Locations Study (2020).
5.6. Option 3 b is the only option which will:
ƒ Provide the “critical mass” needed to secure transformational new infrastructure to mitigate the impact of future development and critically to address the chronic congestion currently experienced within the District
ƒ improve affordability
ƒ address the decline in home ownership
ƒ support a sustainable shift towards higher wage/skilled jobs.
5.7. The Government have also been clear in their funding decisions that they will help fund infrastructure
where it is supporting their growth ambitions. Option 3b will make a substantive positive contribution to the Government’s ambitions for growth across the Thames Estuary Area. The Government’s Response to the Thames Estuary Growth Commission (HM Government, March 2019) states that it will support regeneration and growth within the area through a range of measures, including negotiating Housing and Infrastructure Deals with groups of ambitious local authorities. Option 3b provides the greatest potential to capture funding through such deals.
ALIGN GROWTH AND INFRASTRUCTURE
5.8. The Council’s previous engagement with local communities has identified the need for improvements to services and utilities, supporting local employment opportunities, development sustainable transport options, and improvements to strategic infrastructure as key community concerns alongside concerns regarding the number of homes. Strategic growth provides an
opportunity to address these issues. The vision for land south east of Rochford and north of Southend is that the development brings positive benefits to all residents including through the delivery of new infrastructure for sport, recreation and leisure; the provision of new high quality employment opportunities; and in supporting the delivery of strategic transport infrastructure which helps to improve accessibility across the area including addressing existing congestion bottlenecks in Southend and Rochford and delivering new high quality public transport links and opportunities for walking and cycling.
5.9. The Planning Practice Guidance requires Authorities in Plan-making to set out a positive vision for the area, but the plan should also be realistic about what can be achieved and when. This means paying careful attention to providing an adequate supply of land, identifying what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. A collaborative approach is expected to
be taken to identifying infrastructure deficits and requirements, and opportunities for addressing
them. In doing so they will need to:
assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, and its ability to meet forecast demands.
Where deficiencies are identified, policies should set out how those deficiencies will be addressed; and
ƒ take account of the need for strategic infrastructure, including nationally significant infrastructure, within their areas.
5.10. The government recommends that when preparing a plan strategic policy-making authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an Infrastructure Funding Statement. Where plans are looking to plan for longer term growth such as significant extensions to existing villages and towns, it is recognised that there may not be certainty and/or the funding secured for necessary strategic infrastructure at the time the plan is produced. In these circumstances strategic policy-making authorities will be expected to demonstrate that there is a reasonable prospect that the proposals can be developed within the timescales envisaged.
Our client is keen to work with the Council and their appointed consultants in respect of the infrastructure requirements for growth Option 3b to accommodate future growth, and crucially ensuring betterment for the existing residents in the district.
Genuine choice of transport modes
5.11. Rochford’s peninsula location creates issues for connectivity with relatively limited sustainable travel options available, particularly north-south, leading to notable congestion along key roads. Given the existing level of traffic within the District and how this affects the road network, future strategic highway decisions and plans must consider how changes in working habits and future technology can help promote innovative but realistic transport solutions.
5.12. It is essential that public transport connections to the stations and key employment locations in the sub-region are improved to provide realistic and viable option to residents from commuting and other journeys. This can help reduce congestion. In addition, whilst there are a number of existing cycle routes within the District, these routes are often found in isolation. Whilst there are routes along Ashingdon Road, Hall Road and Cherry Orchard Way, these are not continuous. Future investment should look to ensure integration and improvement of existing cycle routes where possible and ensure cycling is considered as a key mode of travel from the outset.
5.13. The District cannot however be considered in isolation and the continued expansion of development in the adjoining Southend Borough has led to an increased propensity for vehicles to find alternative routes to the A127 (A1159), often resulting in growing pressures on Rochford’s own network. The Authorities will need to work collaboratively to address these issues - ensuring
unnecessary trips on the network are removed and essential trips are accommodated along appropriate existing or new infrastructure.
5.14. The concept of ’15 minute neighbourhoods’ can help to achieve this. These are based on ensuring that residents to access the majority of their day-to-day needs – such as everyday shops, schools, medical facilities, pubs, cafes and leisure opportunities - within a 15-minute walk or cycle. This has been shown to build sustainable communities and reduce private car use throughout the world.
5.15. Future communities proposed on land south east of Rochford and north of Southend will be designed to encourage cycling and walking by promoting 15-minute neighbourhoods and ensuring high-quality cycle networks are provided to link up with both existing communities’ and other future communities. This integration is key to help promote active travel. For locations and routes where high levels of cycle use are expected, green corridors for example, we will look to promote segregated spaces for other cyclists and pedestrians to ensure safety and encourage active travel.
5.16. Consideration will also be given to how other forms of powered micro-mobility can be promoted such as, e-scooters or powered skateboards. The Council is keen to lead the way with new technological solutions and ensure developments have electric charging for not only for
vehicles, but the bicycle, moped and e-scooters. This might include a new e-scooter and e-bike hire scheme in Rochford and Rayleigh which could take the form of autonomous e-scooters, improving the efficiency of their operation.
A New Travel Corridor Network
5.17. A key constraint that is recognised in the transport evidence is that despite the sustainability imperative to reduce car use, local people continue to use their car for short journeys and tolerate the time lost in congestion. It appears there is a general resident’s desire locally to continue using their cars for most journeys and expected new infrastructure that supports it.
5.18. The local network is currently congested. Access by car is broadly restricted geographically to the west along the A13 and A127. Once these routes penetrate the borough boundary, they quickly become congested. This has resulted in rat-running, even for local journeys. Capacity improvements have taken place along the A127 which include improvements to Progress Road, Kent Elms, Tesco roundabout and Cuckoo Corner. Works are currently underway at the Bell House Junction. The distribution of employment zones in the area has contributed to congestion and created a poor environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
5.19. Rochford is formed of a number of towns, villages and standalone employment locations. Improving the east-west connections will not only help those leaving the District as part of their commute but will also ensure that existing businesses within the District are seen as viable
locations for employees.
5.20. It is also important to optimise the opportunities associated with London Southend Airport as an
economic driver and a rail station. It is essential that surface access and access to both the local and strategic highway network is improved. By doing this, the Airport can help support economic growth in both the district and the wider South Essex area. To help achieve this access to the station from the east will be required.
5.21. Strategy Option 3b will deliver strategic infrastructure improvements alongside growth including improved eastern access to London Southend Airport Rail Station, Temple Farm and Purdeys Industrial Estates, and address congestion pinch points including Bell House Junction, Priory Crescent and Warners Bridge. Strategic growth will enable the delivery of a new green, sustainable transport corridor providing a link between the two train lines Southend Airport and
Thorpe Bay.
5.22. If strategic growth is delivered between Southend and Rochford, changing the design characteristics of infrastructure from what has previously been provided is key to delivering a solution that fits both travel behaviours now and in the future. Through a forward-thinking
approach we ensure that any hard infrastructure provided in the District cannot only make use of new technologies as they become available but are also not held back by building solely for the problems at the time. For example, in the short term, a green corridor could be formed of a
two-lane dual carriageway. However, as working behaviours move towards a more home-based approach or as more local employment opportunities become available, the need for two-lanes will be reduced. As such, one lane in each direction could be converted to a bus lane.

IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT
5.23. In the recently updated Framework, the environmental objective wording has been strengthened
with a requirement to ‘protect and enhance’ the environment and ‘improve biodiversity’. The key issue for consideration is crucially how the proposals will protect and enhance the environment.
5.24. By way of context, over 70% of Rochford is designated Metropolitan Green Belt with over 15%
protected for its biodiversity value. The subject landholding south east of Rochford and north of Southend lies within the Green Belt but is not covered by any statutory environmental designations. The River Roach lies to the north and is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of conservation and Special Protection Area; with land in this northern
part of the area falling within Flood Zones 2 and 3.
South Essex Estuary Park
5.25. The RDC Open Space Study 2020 revealed that the current quantity provision of all open spaces in the District is at 8ha per 1,000 people. This falls below the Fields in Trust benchmark. This provides a further opportunity for the new Local Plan to address this shortfall of which the proposals for the South Essex Estuary Park are integral to.
5.26. The South Essex Strategic Green and Blue Infrastructure Study (2020) was prepared on behalf of
ASELA and sets out a vision for green and blue infrastructure across South Essex and provides high-level objectives, strategic opportunities and policies driven by a co-ordinated approach.
The Study defines an integrated green and blue network, that will provide multiple benefits and which merits prioritisation and significant investment as well as defining a spatial arrangement to create the South Essex Estuary Park (SEE Park) - a network of green and blue assets across the
region. Growth Options 3 b have the potential to deliver the eastern extent of the SEE Park.
5.27. Figure 5.1 extracted from the Green and Blue Infrastructure Study shows indicative opportunities
which could help to deliver a regional green and blue infrastructure resource. Island Wetlands is identified as one of these landscapes, as shown below, which extends from Wallasea Island to Southend. Initiatives around Wallasea Island will create a large wetland nature park, with designated areas accessible to people. The southern part of the park shown - closer to Southend – indicates the potential for the creation of green corridors linking urban areas, the countryside and coast and
providing much needed green open space for existing and future residents. The proposal could contribute towards delivering these ambitions. The ambitions for the green and blue infrastructure need to be aligned with the growth options to maximise the benefits that can arise.
5.28. Figure 5.2 details our interpretation of the ambitions for the parkland and how the strategic blue and green infrastructure will influence the design of the growth option south east of Rochford and north of Southend.
Figure 5.1 Sub-Regional Green and Blue Infrastructure Study – Indicative Opportunities [SEE DOCUMENT FOR MAP]
Biodiversity Net Gain
5.29. The proposals will maximise opportunities to enhance and protect local ecosystems and green
infrastructure will be exploited to achieve a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain. This will ensure that biodiversity is improved across the District through new development, minimising incumbent losses and restoring ecological networks.
Figure 5.2 Indicative proposals for strategic green and blue infrastructure on land east of Rochford and north of Southend [SEE DOCUMENT FOR IMAGE]
MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADAPT TO ITS EFFECTS
Active Travel
5.30. It is no secret that the emissions generated by fossil fuel-based vehicles are contributing climate change. The Local Plan should guide development and investment in the District to supports the Government’s target of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, as well as the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) aim to be carbon neutral by 2040. To help meet these targets, Rochford must show leadership in promoting the use of electric cars and buses to its
residents and encouraging growth of active travel.
5.31. We are also on the brink of a new transport revolution, with numerous technologies coming forward - in both the short, medium and long term - each having their own impact of personal travel options. It is therefore important to consider how travel will change over the plan period. In recent years, many residents have commuted to work 3-5 days a week using a fossil fuel burning vehicle, however, by the end of the plan period, residents might only commute to work twice a week (with a 60% reduction in capacity demand); use electric vehicles, which could in time be self-driving; or make use of a high-quality public transport option. It is clear that the technological and transport solutions to accommodate likely travel behaviours at the start of the plan will not match those at the end of the plan in 2040. Getting this aspect of future development wrong could lead to large roads being built that are far too big for the expected travel patterns at the end of the plan period and we are left with huge barriers, severing communities unnecessarily.
Building Design
5.32. The National Housing Federation states England’s homes produce more carbon emissions every year than all the country’s cars thus decarbonising housing is an urgent priority. At a building level, this means designing buildings with highly efficient building fabric to reduce demand for energy and associated energy bills. Bellway’s homes will aim to be fossil fuel free where possible, using
innovative and renewable forms of energy production and storage to make the most of the UK’s increasingly decarbonised electricity supply.
5.33. Building homes with a ‘fabric first’ approach means high levels of insulation, reduced air permeability and reduced cold bridging, and uses passive design to retain heat within buildings by minimising losses to the outside. This is the basis of the PassivHaus scheme, which has been shown to result in homes with very low levels of energy demand due to good passive design to minimise heat loss. The benefits of this approach to design include low heating bills, reduced risk of obsolescence, not
having to retrofit to improve insulation levels and homes that are futureproof.
5.34. Where appropriate, waste heat from industrial processes can provide heating for new and existing homes, making the most of our existing energy resources. Opportunities to partner with industry to generate renewable electricity at scale on suitable sites across the District will also be explored, meeting wider climate change objectives and providing an income to the Council.
Alternative Fuels
5.35. There are opportunities to make use of sustainable hydrogen, either for building heating or vehicle
transportation. Hydrogen has the potential to partially replace natural gas within our existing gas infrastructure. Although the majority of current hydrogen production methods are not sustainable, the growing levels of renewable electricity in the national grid mix will mean that sustainable hydrogen can be produced more widely in suitable locations throughout the country.
Lifestyle
5.36. New and innovative technology will play its part in helping to decarbonise Rochford. However we also need to help our residents to live more sustainably, by demonstrating that sustainable lifestyles lead to better quality of life. By encouraging people to participate in active travel, walking and cycling where possible, residents will see benefits to their health and wellbeing. Local air quality will be improved. Our roads will be safer. We will get to know our neighbours better.
5.37. Taking account of the District’s rural character, consideration can also be given to the use of land for sustainable food production. This could vary from the provision of allotments by residents to grow their own food to the use of new, innovative farming techniques, such as vertical farming which maximises food production on a smaller footprint.

06. LANDSCAPE & GREEN BELT EVIDENCE BASE.
6.1. In order to meeting minimum housing needs, RDC will need to release land from the Green Belt.
Rationale for Strategic Green Belt Release
The evidence base indicates that Strategic Green Belt release is required through the preparation of Rochford’s Local Plan as:
ƒ Meeting development needs is an important component of achieving sustainable development – the key aim of the planning system. The evidence shows that this cannot be achieved across the sub-region without reviewing Green Belt boundaries. The aim of Green Belt policy is not to restrict meeting development needs. It is to direct development to sustainable locations;
ƒ Green Belt release is required to meet the identified local need for market and affordable housing and improve housing affordability, a key feature of Government policy, as well as to deliver family housing – the need for which is not being met through urban sites in the sub-region;
ƒ Strategic growth is required to support economic recovery and sustainable economic growth – key policy ambitions at a national, sub-regional and local level. It will support growth in the workforce, attract skilled workers and attract higher paid employment
opportunities as identified in the ASELA Productivity Strategy.
ƒ The evidence base identifies key infrastructure deficiencies. Strategic growth will support the funding and delivery of strategic infrastructure including transport infrastructure to promote more sustainable travel and address existing congestion.
ƒ It is appropriate that consideration is given to meeting unmet need from Southend in locations which have a strong spatial and functional relationship to in a context in which there are strategic constraints to development at a sub-regional level.
6.2. The Joint Green Belt Study (February 2020), covering Rochford and Southend, assesses the
performance of Green Belt land in meeting the purposes of Green Belt. The strongest performing Green Belt is land within the Upper Roach Valley between Rayleigh, Thundersley and Southend. Only small areas of land on the urban fringe are identified as having a low performance against Green Belt purposes. These areas of land alone will not provide sufficient land to meet development needs;
indicating a need to consider land with one or two strong ratings against Green Belt purposes.
6.3. The south-eastern part of the Green Belt – adjoining the urban boundary with Southend - has two strong ratings, which is likely a reflection of its purpose to prevent urban spawl. It should not be assumed that a site that weakly contributes to the Green Belt is automatically a good candidate for development, nor that a site which strongly contributes to the Green Belt is automatically a poor candidate for development. In making decisions regarding Green Belt release, performance against
Green Belt purposes however needs to be considered alongside wider factors which influence what
constitutes sustainable development – including access to services and employment opportunities.
The purpose of Green Belt is to support sustainable patterns of development.
Figure 6.1: Green Belt Performance – Southend and Rochford
[see attached document for map]
6.4. The area south-east of Rochford which has been identified as a potential strategic growth location falls into parcels AA153-AA158 of Stage 2 of the Green Belt Study. In most scenarios, these parcels are considered to have a high harm if they were to be released from the Green Belt.
There are however some scenarios where if certain smaller parts of this wider area were released, the harm would be reduced to moderate-high. This would only be the case if these smaller parcels were released in isolation.
6.5. Whilst the ideal would be to minimise harm to the Green Belt, it may be that the most sustainable
locations for development will result in high harm to the Green Belt. Conversely, the release of Green Belt land likely to result in low harm may not be appropriate or sustainable. In each location where alterations to Green Belt boundaries are being considered, planning judgement will be required to establish whether the sustainability benefits of Green Belt release and the associated development outweigh the harm to the Green Belt designation.
ROCHFORD AND SOUTHEND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER, SENSITIVITY AND CAPACITY STUDY (2020)
6.6. The Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study prepared for Rochford and Southend sets out the value and sensitivity of landscape character areas in the two LPAs and their potential capacity for development to inform strategies for the area.
6.7. The majority of the land at the strategic growth location Option 3b is within the Coastal Farmland Landscape Character Type, specifically parcel C5 (Stonebridge). The landscape value, sensitivity along with the landscape capacity and recommended development scale are detailed in the table below. The Study identifies that this land parcel had medium to high
capacity for development.
Figure 6.2 Landscape Capacity extracted from the RDC Landscape Character Study
[see attached document for map]

[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR TABLES DETAILING LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ATTRIBUTES]

07. THE VISION FOR LAND SOUTH EAST OF ROCHFORD / NORTH OF SOUTHEND.

CONTEXT
7.1. The RDC Spatial Option Consultation identifies a number of strategy options that could form the basis of the plan’s approach to growth over the next 20 years and beyond. These representations endorse Strategy Option 3: Concentrated growth » Option 3b: Focused north of Southend.
7.2. As detailed in these representations, Option 3b is required in order to deliver the ambitions of the Local Plan with large scale growth focused in one location which will provide a sufficient critical mass in order to deliver the required infrastructure for the District. Strategic growth at this location is embedded within the evidence base which supports this Local Plan including the South East Essex Strategic Growth Locations Assessment (2019) and the South Essex Strategic
Growth Locations Study (2020).
7.3. This location provides the opportunity to deliver strategic development at scale which includes new homes and employment land, new strategic transport infrastructure, local services and associated community facilities and additional open space and recreational facilities. The strategic rationale for growth is to:
ƒ Contribute to meeting the strategic housing need for market and affordable housing in Rochford and also potentially unmet needs from Southend in a location close to where the need arises;
ƒ Locate growth at a sustainable location close to the concentration of existing employment opportunities at and around London Southend Airport, Temple Farm and Purdeys Industrial Estates, Fossets Way and Gardon Park, to reduce the need to travel and achieve a high
proportion of travel by sustainable modes;
ƒ Provide strategic scale development where housing can be brought forward alongside local employment opportunities, schools, healthcare facilities, local shops and services in line with the principles of 15 minute neighbourhoods in order to reduce the need to travel;
ƒ Deliver concentrated strategic growth which reduces the scale of incremental growth of the District’s existing towns and villages which can place pressure on their local infrastructure and adversely affect their character;
ƒ Enable strategic infrastructure improvements alongside growth including improved eastern access to London Southend Airport Rail Station, Temple Farm and Purdeys Industrial Estates, and address congestion pinch points including Bell House Junction, Priory Crescent and
Warners Bridge.
Figure 7.1: Land South East of Rochford & North of Southend Broad Location for Growth
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
THE VISION
7.4. There are a number of themes which have informed the vision for the subject site -
ƒ A sequence of new neighbourhoods – the proposals include four individual, future facing neighbourhoods in Rochford, which contain mixed-use neighbourhood centres and the key community infrastructure and services required to support residents needs and reduce the need to travel, that can be brought forward alongside one another with a distinct identity and character. The character of these neighbourhoods can vary and respond to their location – with new hamlets and villages within Rochford which respond to the morphology of settlements in the area.
ƒ A Connected Place – the neighbourhoods will be physically connected by new green, sustainable transport corridors which also provides a link between the two train lines (Southend Airport and Thorpe Bay) and encourage sustainable transport choices. Proposed infrastructure will also help redress existing capacity constraints on the highways network.
Digital infrastructure is also at the forefront of the strategy to deliver connectivity. The proposals will help to deliver new strategic infrastructure which addresses existing congestion issues along the A127 and A1159 Eastern Avenue;
ƒ A Place with Identity – the proposals seek to identify and establish a character that draws from that of the surrounding context and is informed the existing site features. This involves drawing out local character and distinctive features associated with the area. .
ƒ A Working Place – the proposals are underpinned by an economic strategy to help transform the profile of the local economies, by attracting a more highly skilled demographic looking to locate here as a lifestyle choice, supported by employment floorspace provision.
7.5. This vision reflects the new requirement introduced through the Framework for larger scale developments ‘policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years),
to take into account the likely timescale for delivery’. The draft policy demonstrates the level of growth that is anticipated during this Local Plan (up to 2040) and also considers the longterm potential of this growth option up to 2050 and beyond. The emerging Masterplan has been
designed as such to allow for the delivery of individual villages which can all be connected in time but equally allowing for the villages to be independent in their own right with sufficient services and infrastructure to meet their needs without reliance on future growth to deliver infrastructure.
DRAFT POLICY: LAND SOUTH EAST OF ROCHFORD & NORTH OF SOUTHEND STRATEGIC
ALLOCATION
Land south east of Rochford, east of London Southend Airport and north of Eastern Avenue is allocated as a cross-boundary strategic growth location with potential to deliver around 10,000 homes on land in both Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea. Mixed-use development is
envisaged to deliver a minimum of 4,600 homes in Rochford District together with necessary community, employment, transport, green and blue infrastructure; of which approximately 1,850 dwellings are expected to be delivered in the plan period to 2040.
Development should include:
ƒ Housing - a minimum of 4,600 homes in Rochford District to including market and affordable housing, specialist housing for older persons, and self- and custom-build homes;
ƒ Employment – around 11 ha of employment land to include provision for flexible commercial floorspace or workspace hubs (Class E) within neighbourhood centres and industrial land located east of London Southend Airport; together with infrastructure to support home working;
ƒ Social and community infrastructure – including provision for local shops and services, multi-use community space, health and education infrastructure to be structured around 15 minute neighbourhood principles;
ƒ Enhanced transport infrastructure – including high quality bus services to key employment locations, town centres and rail stations, high quality infrastructure for walking and cycling and strategic highways infrastructure to enhance east-west connectivity and mitigate impacts.
Development should include a buffer to prevent coalescence with and maintain the separate identities of the settlements of Great Wakering, Little Wakering and Barling.
To guide development a Framework Masterplan SPD should be developed jointly with the Councils, local community, site promoters and infrastructure providers to ensure the comprehensive integrated development of land in both Rochford and Southend and to coordinate the delivery of infrastructure. This Masterplan should include:
ƒ A Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy providing a coordinated framework for provision of publicly-accessible formal and informal open space, play space and other sport and recreational facilities and provide new green corridors linking the Southend Urban Area to
the River Roach.
ƒ A Transport and Movement Strategy which should prioritise cycle and pedestrian movements and public transport through development of a comprehensive pedestrian and cycle network including green sustainable transport corridors providing links to major trip generators and London Southend Airport Rail Station and linking the two rail lines; and wider measures to promote sustainable travel. The Strategy should address the
phasing of development with highways improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of development.
ƒ A site-wide Energy Strategy detailing how the range of land uses and associated infrastructure across the masterplan will combine to achieve a site-wide net-zero carbon target. The scale of development and variety of uses presents opportunities to coordinate energy generation, transference and consumption, together with carbon sequestration to achieve net-zero carbon.
ƒ Infrastructure Delivery Plan - to coordinate the funding and delivery of development and on- and off-site infrastructure and addressing long-term stewardship of community infrastructure
Planning applications for development should be accompanied by a Phasing Strategy addressing the phasing of development and infrastructure; and a Sustainability Strategy outlining measured to be taken to achieve a net zero carbon development, high quality
digital connectivity, biodiversity net gain and to future proof development to achieve long-term sustainability.
Figure 7.2: Concept Masterplan for Land South East of Rochford & North of Southend
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

CONCEPT MASTERPLAN
7.6. The ambition is to deliver a sequence of new ’15 minute walkable neighbourhoods’ with local services and a strong character and identity set within a high quality green network which connects Southend’s existing urban area and the new areas of growth through to the River Roach, whilst protecting important Estuary and wetland environments, historic environments and biodiversity. We want to deliver a vibrant place to live, work and visit which successfully integrates and improves coastal, rural and urban environments, delivers family housing in strong local communities and helps to deliver transformational change and growth in the local economy and new strategic infrastructure.
7.7. This approach embraces environmental, climatic, technological, social and economic resilience, aiming to futureproof the development and provide flexibility to accommodate design changes resulting from new ways of living, working and playing.
7.8. Considering the scale of the site and potential growth that can be accommodated in this location, it is anticipated that the scheme will be built out over many years. In order to provide a high-quality built environment that caters for the needs of people both now and in the future, it is necessary to develop a set of key framework principles that will underpin every masterplan
developed for the site.
7.9. Incorporated within this approach are a number of key factors that are certainties given current national policy objectives and personal lifestyle choices. Other factors are less clear, and a flexible approach will therefore have to be adopted to ensure the masterplan is capable of adapting to changing technology and trends as it is developed.
7.10. The certainties the masterplan will have to accommodate include;
ƒ Being digitally connected with high-speed internet access
ƒ Being ready for the net-zero carbon economy
ƒ Being socially connected
ƒ Being mobile

PHASING
7.11. The following section of these representations detail the key phases to the proposed growth option on land southeast of Rochford and north of Southend. It should be noted that these options are indicative only at this stage and we welcome the opportunity to develop these proposals in further detail with the Council, key stakeholders and the local community.
Figure 7.3 – Potential Phasing Sequence for Land at South East of Rochford and North of Southend [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
Early phase : 1-5 years. (Phase 2b)
ƒ East of Southend Airport: 1050-1100 dwellings, a primary school, a local centre including health uses and 10.35Ha of flexible employment land.
Middle phase : 6-15 years. (Phase 3b)
ƒ North west of Garon Park: 710-770 dwellings, a local centre including a small employment hub and health uses.
Late phase : 16-30 years (Phase 6a, 6b & 8)
ƒ (6a and 6b) Southwest of Little Wakering: 2,000 – 2,100, a primary school and a local centre including a small employment hub and health uses.
ƒ (8) West of Little Wakering: 850– 900 dwellings, a primary school and a local centre including a small employment hub and health uses.
KEY DESIGN ATTRIBUTES - EARLY PHASE : 1-5 YEARS. (PHASE 2B)
East of Southend Airport: 1050-1100 dwellings, a primary school, a local centre including health uses and 10Ha of flexible employment land.
ƒ To provide a new east-west transport link in the location of Warners Bridge next to the Airport.
ƒ To provide a new junction to allow Temple Farm and Purdeys Indus¬trial Estate vehicles to pass
through the area without impacting residential areas
ƒ To allow the continuation of the east-west transport link as a green corridor public transport route eastwards
ƒ To provide easy walking and cycling access to support the vitality of Rochford Town Centre
(1.2miles convivial walk)
ƒ To provide a mixed-use village core with school, shops, health care and village square
ƒ To provide flexible expansion space for Temple Farm employment area and in close proximity to the new east-west transport link and railway bridge.
ƒ To provide the first phase of a wider community park that will in¬crease biodiversity along Prittle Brook to Sutton Road
Figure 7.4 – Early Phases of Strategic Growth with Rochford District Council
[SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

KEY DESIGN ATTRIBUTES - MIDDLE PHASE : 6-15 YEARS. (PHASE 3B)
North west of Garon Park: 710-770 dwellings, a local centre including a small employment hub and health uses.
ƒ To allow the continuation of the east-west transport link as a green corridor public transport route eastwards
ƒ To respond to the existing planning proposals for the Fossetts Farm area including the masterplan for Southend Football Stadium, the Homes England residential area of Prittlewell Camp and the Fossetts Way East residential area.
ƒ To provide highway connections from the east-west transport link to Fossetts Way and Eastern Avenue (A1159) allowing stadium traffic additional access opportunities.
ƒ To provide early access from Fossetts Way B&Q roundabout across Garons Park established access. This would allow the east-west transport link to be delivered as early infrastructure whist the opera¬tional needs of Garon Park and Golf Course continue without interruption through the development process.
ƒ To provide bus connection to Shopland Road, Stonebridge and The Wakerings.
ƒ To provide the second phase of a wider community park that will increase biodiversity along the brook to Shopland Road
Figure 7.5 – Middle Phase of Strategic Growth with Rochford District Council [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]
KEY DESIGN ATTRIBUTES - LATER PHASE : 16-30 YEARS (PHASE 6A & 6B)
(6a and 6b) Southwest of Little Wakering: 2,000 – 2,100, a primary school and a local centre including a small employment hub and health uses.
ƒ To allow the continuation of the east-west transport link as a green corridor public transport route westwards and southwards.
ƒ To reserve land for a future phase secondary / academy school (a separate 9.45Ha parcel of land).
ƒ Integrate the farms and small holdings of: Barrow Hall Farm, Abbotts Hall Farm, Oldbury Farm, Morley Nurseries.
ƒ Integrated the setting of Stonebridge village.
ƒ To provide the third phase of a wider community park that will in¬crease biodiversity along the brook to Shopland Road.
ƒ To allow for not less than 450m off-set distance to properties of Little Wakering.
ƒ To retain the existing water reservoir for agricultural use Figure 7.6 – Later Phases of Strategic Growth with Rochford District Council [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

KEY DESIGN ATTRIBUTES - LATER PHASE : 16-30 YEARS (PHASE 8)
West of Little Wakering: 850– 900 dwellings, a primary school and a local centre including a small employment hub and health uses.
ƒ To allow the continuation of the east-west transport link as a green corridor public transport route westwards and southwards.
ƒ To integrate a reconfigured golf course that will sit within Rochford and Southend.
ƒ Integrate the farms and small holdings of Beauchamps.
ƒ Integrated the water bodies serving surrounding farmland.
ƒ To provide additional bus corridor south to allow access to Garons Park sports and leisure uses.
ƒ To provide extensive landscaped community parkland.
ƒ To ensure the setting of the village is not visually intrusive on the landscape
Figure 7.7 – Later Phases of Strategic Growth with Rochford District Council [SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT]

08. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE CONSULTATION.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help
guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
8.1. Yes, we agree that a range of separate visions for each of the settlements is a helpful guide to decision making. In any event a separate vision will be required for the growth areas as required in the recently updated Framework which stipulates that for larger scale developments ‘policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery’. A draft vision for South East of Rochford and North of Southend is
detailed at Section 7 of these representations.

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing
from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
8.2. We support and endorse the five main strategic priorities set out in the Consultation, which are follows:
ƒ Meeting the need for homes and jobs in the area
ƒ Making suitable and sufficient provision for retail, leisure and other commercial development
ƒ Making suitable and sufficient provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications,
waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat)
ƒ Making suitable and sufficient provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities
ƒ Making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape
8.3. These form the foundation for the Local Plan in which all growth options should be tested against to ensure that future development will deliver the strategic priorities and objectives of RDC.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please
state reasoning]
8.4. These representations wholly endorse Strategy Option 3: Concentrated growth » Option 3b: Focused north of Southend which lies within our client’s land interests.
8.5. It is submitted that in order to deliver the ambitions of the Local Plan large scale growth focused in one location as per Option 3b is required. Strategic growth at this location is embedded within the evidence base which supports this Local Plan including the South East Essex Strategic Growth Locations Assessment (2019) and the South Essex Strategic Growth Locations Study (2020).
8.6. Option 3b is the only option which will:
ƒ Provide the “critical mass” needed to secure transformational new infrastructure to mitigate the impact of future development and critically to address the chronic congestion currently experienced within the District
ƒ improve affordability
ƒ address the decline in home ownership
ƒ support a sustainable shift towards higher wage/skilled jobs.
8.7. It is not purported however that this strategy will meet Rochford’s full housing need over the lifetime of the Plan, thus Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination is the preferred approach. The Consultation states that Option 4 could make best use of urban capacity (Option 1), building one or two large growth areas (Option 3) and a number of smaller urban extensions (Option 2).We support Option 4 which will provided a varied supply of sites to make the local housing market as diverse as possible delivering a range of choice and competition to the market, thus offering the greatest chance that housing will be consistently delivery over the whole plan period. Crucially the Plan needs to incorporate large scale strategic growth as a Local Plan strategy that relies solely on smaller sites, or sites spread more evenly through the District will not have the potential to fund
new infrastructure and provide betterment to the current challenges facing the District.

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and
renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply lowcarbon or renewable energy?
8.8. Bellway have committed that all new homes will be ‘zero carbon ready’ by 2025 and net zero by 2050 as part of the Future Homes Task Force road map published in July 2021 entitled The Future Homes Delivery Plan. The headline goals include:
ƒ homes that are zero carbon ready and sustainable by 2025
ƒ production and construction methods that are net zero and sustainable by 2050, with substantial progress by 2025 and 2030;
ƒ businesses operations that are net zero by 2050 with a 50% reduction by 2030.
8.9. The roadmap sets a series of goals and milestones that need to be met along the way, incorporating government policies such as the Future Homes Standard and Biodiversity Net Gain.
8.10. The proposals on the subject site afford the opportunity to provide an exemplar new community
which sets the benchmark for development in the region and for future generations in terms of the low carbon / renewable energy. Our client is keen to explore the potential to set up a Rochford Energy Supply Company and how this could be achieved.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies?
Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different
areas? [Please state reasoning]
8.11. Yes, a charter should be included to ensure relevant place-making principles are applied to
different areas. The land in the Roach peninsula is precious, unique and has great potential for combining new neighbourhoods within an important landscape setting. It is a land asset that will require careful decision making and one that will enhance the legacy opportunities for the Council.
8.12. Our intention is to develop a long-term vision and planning strategy for the site, rather than to identify immediate development opportunities. We therefore have the opportunity to lay down the foundations for future plans. A charter can help this. With such a long term project, it can allow for changing stakeholders over many years to ensure greater consistency to long term goals.
8.13. Our approach will necessarily be ambitious, complex and multi-faceted. It will be a collective
endeavour from many and over many years. The charter can inspire each and every one involved. It can serve as a benchmark and help guide decision-making, particularly at those moments when what appears urgent in the short term, threatens to overshadow what its truly important in the long term.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new
Local Plan? Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas? Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning]
8.14. We support the preparation of design codes. Design codes provide briefing for consistency, from
site wide to detailed design. As such, each phase will require its own design code and each time a phase is complete, a review of the completed phase will inform the production of the design code for the following phase.
8.15. Typical content of a design code shall include -
ƒ Movement strategy where appropriate
ƒ Access and street hierarchy where appropriate
ƒ Landscape and open space strategy
ƒ Land use and mix
ƒ Density
ƒ Heights
ƒ Number of homes
ƒ Identity and character of buildings and public spaces
ƒ Employment

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
8.16. Development of Land at east of Rochford and North of Southend and Rochford provides major
opportunity to:
ƒ Support workforce growth in the area
ƒ Attracting new employers –who will come because there is a large labour force in the catchment area, and it has some capacity within it.
8.17. In the absence of such growth, there are structural challenges which will loom large: with a growing elderly population which creates costs for the public sector –including in health, social care, pensions etc –but a declining number of people and businesses which are contributing to this through taxation. With an ageing population, housing growth is going to be important to
supporting the local economy and ensuring that local businesses can find staff over the mediumand longer-term.
8.18. The scale of growth envisaged at Option 3b is a potential major economic driver in its own right. As with other development schemes, it will support growth in the population which supports employment in consumer-related sectors (as well as supporting the construction sector over a sustained period).
8.19. In addition, it also provides the opportunity to transform the area’s wider investment appeal by
improving the skills profile through diversifying the housing offer and delivering family housing with space to work in an attractive residential environment with access to the coast, countryside and local facilities together with local work hubs which offer facilities. A lifestyle offer which attracts higher skilled residents can over time improve Southend and Rochford’s skills profile and
investment offer to businesses.
8.20. In an environment in which we are seeing shifts in how people work –and will no doubt see shifts in the sectoral structure of the economy –the potential for a high quality lifestyle, at a location which is well connected (to London and other parts of Europe) is one of the important ways in which Rochford can stand out.
8.21. Self-employment is significant and has been growing in the district. There is potential for further
growth in this area, and a need for infrastructure to support this. With changes in how we work, some of those who currently commute out to higher paid jobs elsewhere may spend more time working at home or locally. The digital infrastructure (and potentially some local workspace) is needed to support this.
8.22. There will still be jobs in schools, education, local shops and services. Development on land at Southend and Rochford will support jobs in these areas. There will also still be jobs in offices, on industrial sites and at Southend Airport.
8.23. Mixed-use development is envisaged in all neighbourhoods, which includes provision of flexible
commercial space in neighbourhood centres as well as delivery of the technology infrastructure to support home-working and home-based businesses.
8.24. In addition to this, provision of over 10 ha of employment land is envisaged in on the western side
of the site, providing opportunities for both growth of SMEs and for grow-on space for existing
businesses in Southend and Rochford.
8.25. Equally, this large area of employment land could provide the right location for a Southend University Hospital Relocation subject to wide ranging consultation. This new location could serve Rochford and Southend as it is halfway between the two town centres. A&E Blue light routes would also be more rapid as they could rely on the new sustainable transport corridor and avoid congestion.

GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
8.26. As detailed in these representations, the ambition is to deliver a sequence of new ’15 minute walkable neighbourhoods’ with local services and a strong character and identity set within a high quality green network which connects Southend’s existing urban area and the new areas of growth through to the River Roach, whilst protecting important Estuary and wetland
environments, historic environments and biodiversity. We want to deliver a vibrant place to live, work and visit which successfully integrates and improves coastal, rural and urban environments, delivers family housing in strong local communities and helps to deliver transformational change and growth in the local economy and new strategic infrastructure.
8.27. It is considered that that new strategic green and blue infrastructure is essential in order to create the community envisaged in this location. We support the delivery of the South Essex Estuary Park and The Island Wetlands. In order to ensure these landmark green and blue infrastructure projects can be delivered this will need to be balanced with the Council meeting their strategic needs. The provision of growth in southeast of Rochford and north of Southend will enable investment into strategic green and blue infrastructure projects in the location. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Council in terms of the extent and location of the green
and blue infrastructure.
OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver
improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
8.28. A critical aspect in delivering a new community such as that proposed at Option 3b will be the
delivery of high quality public open space. The initial design work has considered green fingers separating the series of neighbourhoods as illustrated at Figure 5.2. Our client is keen to work with the Council to explore how the proposed scheme can contribute towards and assist in the delivery of the South Essex Estuary Park. Moreover, the proposed is of such a scale and critical mass that
will ensure each neighbourhood provides generous public open space and sports facilities.

HERITAGE
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best
address heritage issues through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
8.29. Rochford is identified as one of the top five local authorities in England as having heritage potential as defined by the Heritage Index 2020. This means that the District has untapped heritage potential and suggests that local heritage is a further asset for consideration to achieve the goal to grow the tourism economy. There is an opportunity through delivering growth in the district to celebrate the heritage assets of Rochford.
8.30. The Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission aims to utilise opportunities in existing sectors,
environmental assets and planned development to create a ‘tapestry of productive places’ along a global river. These assets present an opportunity to support the attractiveness of Rochford as a place to live, work and visit, and contribute to the potential for growth of the tourism economy in the District.
TRANSPORT AND CONNECTIVITY
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take?
[walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]

8.31. We are on the brink of a transport revolution as a result of both technological advances and changes to social behaviour. For example, new technologies such as autonomous vehicles can help improve traffic flow or reduce the need for car ownership and changes in working habits may allow more people to work from home or closer to home. Both of these, when added to numerous other changes, will reduce the need and size for large highways infrastructure projects which will
cost large sums of money and have ecological impacts and may be over designed for behaviours in 20-30 years.
8.32. The scale of Option 3b is such that development in this area will deliver significant enhancements to public transport which will not only serve future residents but crucially provide local services to the existing community.
8.33. We need to ensure that high-quality public transport options are available for those that need
it, for example, high-quality dedicated bus services linking major growth locations in the Plan to local train stations ensuring that a realistic low carbon option for travel. The availability of highquality options for travel by sustainable modes must be key to encouraging people to leave their cars behind.
8.34 A Transport and Movement Strategy will be prepared for the proposals which will prioritise cycle and pedestrian movements and public transport through development of a comprehensive pedestrian and cycle network including green sustainable transport corridors providing links to major trip generators and London Southend Airport Rail Station and linking the two rail lines; and wider measures to promote sustainable travel. The Strategy will address the phasing of development with highways improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of development.

Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted
sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of
Sutton and Stonebridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
8.35. As detailed in the submitted proposals it is envisaged that this area south east of Rochford and north of Southend could be developed for a new growth location which will deliver a range of services and community infrastructure to serve the future residents and also due to the close proximity to the existing settlements of Stonebridge and Sutton will serve the existing community. The Masterplan has been designed to ensure that the existing settlements retain their own identity as proposed in the Draft Vision, however residents of these places should have greater access to services close at hand, including by sustainable means.

09. ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO ROCHFORD
OF OPTION 3B

This infographic provides an overview of the economic benefits that could be delivered through the development of a minimum of 4,600 dwellings together with approximately 11ha of employment space, as well as education, community and healthcare uses within Rochford District. The proposed expansion is expected to deliver a range of economic benefits during both the construction and operational phases which will make a positive contribution to the local economy.
[see document for full infographic]
the construction phase benefits:
Injection of private sector investment
Supporting direct construction jobs
Supporting indirect jobs in the supply chain
Contribution to Economic Output (GVA)

the occupational benefits
First Occupation Expenditure up to £25.4m
Resident Expenditure c.£131.7m
Direct operational employment 5,900
Direct operational employment 6,700
Indirect operational employment 1,700

the fiscal benefits
Business Rates £4.2m
Council Tax £9.6m
New Homes Bonus £26.5m

BASILDON BOROUGH COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE ROCHFORD DISTRICT
COUNCIL REGULATION 18 NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS
DOCUMENT 2021

Thank you for inviting Basildon Borough Council to provide comments as part of Rochford District Council’s consultation on its Regulation 18 New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021.

It is recognised that this current consultation will inform the preparation of a Preferred Options Document, which will be made available for consultation next Spring 2022.
Basildon Borough Council has considered the consultation document, and strategic and cross boundary matters which are covered by the Duty to Cooperate and wishes to make a series of observations in light of this.

Duty to Cooperate

At this stage in the plan-making process for the New Local Plan: Spatial Options Paper, there are no general concerns with the approach being taken in its preparation
with regard to the Duty to Cooperate. The aspiration to align the work of the Rochford New Local Plan with the preparation of the South Essex Plan is welcome.
Basildon

Borough Council will continue to engage with Rochford District through ASELA, and on the South Essex Plan and other related projects.

Overall Approach

Basildon Borough Council considers that the Draft Vision and Strategic Priorities and Objectives for the Rochford New Local Plan aligns with the requirements of national
policy and guidance. At this stage in the plan-making process, there are no general concerns with this approach which clearly embeds the principles of sustainable development.

Spatial Strategy Options

Basildon Borough Council has considered the four Strategy Options under consideration by Rochford District Council for inclusion in its New Local Plan and
understands that the identification of sites within the consultation document does not mean these sites will necessarily be allocated in the future. Having regard to the spatial opportunities facing Rochford District and as set out in the Spatial Options Document, it is recognised that Rochford is constrained, and that urban and other non-Green Belt land is unlikely to be sufficient to meet local development needs in full.

Figure 17: Map of Key Strategy Options which illustrates the relationship between these strategy options and those sites being promoted for development as part of the Rochford New Local Plan identifies land to the west of Rayleigh to accommodate more than 1,500 dwellings. The site is located adjacent to the border with Basildon Borough.

Given the potential impacts that growth in this location would have on Basildon Borough in terms of access and connectivity to the Wickford urban area, as well as
highway impacts and demand for infrastructure and services within Basildon Borough, Basildon Borough Council will object to any development in this location in the shortterm.

Basildon Borough Council has submitted the Basildon Borough Revised Publication Local Plan (2014 – 2034) to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public. The
Basildon Borough Revised Publication Local Plan identifies the area to the south of Wickford as a broad location for potential housing growth. The broad location covers the area of land between the settlement of Wickford to the north and the A127 to the south, and adjacent to the land west of Rayleigh. Whilst a large amount of land within this area had been promoted for development during the preparation of the Basildon
Borough Local Plan, there are a number of constraints affecting this area which prevents it from being identified as a specific development location within the plan,
including matters related to sustainable access to local services, highway access and ensuring that proposals for improving the A127 can be delivered unhindered.
However, the Council recognises that there may be opportunity to bring forward comprehensive schemes for this area if existing constraints can be addressed and
overcome. As a result, the Council has made a decision that it will reconsider these locations for housing growth in the next Local Plan review, allowing time for
sustainable development proposals to be identified and proposals for the A127 to be further developed.

Whilst the potential cross-boundary opportunity within land to the west of Rayleigh is recognised, this will need to be progressed alongside the work that Basildon Council intends to undertake to bring forward proposals for the south Wickford broad location, given that both sites are adjacent the joint borough boundary. In addition, land to the west of Rayleigh is more closely related to the Wickford urban area than it is to Rayleigh in terms of proximity to services and infrastructure. Consequently, it is essential for Rochford District Council to work more closely with Basildon Borough Council to determine the impacts future development proposals may have on infrastructure and services in the Basildon Borough; how development options of this nature may need to support the upgrade of services and facilities in Basildon Borough; and the extent to which development in this location would meet the needs arising from both local planning authorities should it continue to progress. However, until such a time that the Council can agree sustainable development proposals for the south
Wickford broad location, the Council will not support additional development on land to the west of Rayleigh as such an approach is likely to undermine Basildon Borough’s spatial strategy within its submitted Local Plan, with implications on the Local Plan’s soundness and delivery.

In light of the above, it is important that any future decisions on the Rochford New Local Plan spatial strategy and preferred sites reflect the relationship with Basildon Borough. It is recognised that this may need to occur as part of the process of preparing the South Essex Plan in order that the cumulative impacts of growth are captured. Basildon Borough Council welcomes further engagement with Rochford District Council to ensure that the points raised in this response are addressed and to continue working together on cross-boundary strategic priorities.

We trust this consultation response is of assistance to you in taking forward the Rochford New Local Plan. If you wish to discuss any of the matters raised further,
please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Strategy and Implementation team using the details provided at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Christine Lyons
Head of Planning

Firstly your website is not very clear as to how you are meant to participate in the online consultation.

I want to express concerns over the proposed development of land north of Merryfields Avenue. I live in Clayspring Close so will be directly impacted by this development.

The RDC strategic priority 5; ‘making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the historic and natural environment including landscape.’ Especially Strategic objective 20; ‘to protect, maintain and enhance our districts natural environment’ are in contradiction to this proposed development.

This land is a woodland, although privately owned and inaccessible to the public, it is still essential that it is preserved. This is of environmental and ecological importance. It is also an area which backs onto the Maryland’s nature reserve which will be ruined by the building of these houses.

The most worrying thing is that work on this area has already commenced, there are work trucks arriving most days clearly carrying building material and building noise can be heard from this area.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the Rochford District Council Spatial Options Consultation. As part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) is the
estate expert for defence, supporting the armed forces to enable military capability by planning, building, maintaining, and servicing infrastructure.

Background
The MOD has significant land interests within the district of Rochford, known as MOD Shoeburyness. MOD Shoeburyness is owned by the MOD and operated by
QinetiQ Ltd under a Long-Term Partnering Agreement (LTPA). MOD Shoeburyness offers a broad array of weapon and military equipment test, evaluation and training over land and firm tidal areas.
The Range covers a land area of 7,500 acres with 35,000 acres of tidal sands. MOD Shoeburyness consists of 21 operational firing areas and unique capabilities for Demilitarisation and Environmental Testing of Live and Inert stores. This unique terrain enables the over-water recovery of munitions up to a range of 22km, groundto-ground firings of up to 27km, long-range direct fire up to 3.5km, sea danger areas
up to 35km, and large radial safety areas for explosives trials.
MOD Shoeburyness is a centre of excellence for environmental testing of Ordnance, Munitions and Explosives (OME) and houses the largest Environmental Test Centre in the UK for the testing of Live stores as well as some unique demilitarisation facilities.
60% of MOD Shoeburyness’s 7,500 acres is made up of eight farms and 74 residential properties (let to civilians) in two hamlets and is required to support the operational areas and outputs through the provision of a safe area in which Test & Evaluation activities can be conducted. The site is only accessible through Landwick Gate which is a secured access point.
All access to MOD Shoeburyness is on a formally permitted basis (other than to the public highways and byways) through the Landwick Gate security gate.

National Planning Policy Framework
The Council will be aware of the requirements of paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy (NPPF) as quoted below:
“97. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:
b) recognising and supporting development required for operational defence and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of other development proposed in the area.”

Spatial Options: Existing Open Space
It is acknowledged that there is an area of existing open space within MOD Shoeburyness defined within the current adopted plan and this area of land is proposed to continue to be defined as open space within the Spatial Options Report.
In studying this piece of land (to the west of Bridge Road), we wonder whether there has been a drafting error as this appears to be an isolated area of land unconnected to any existing community. Instead we question whether the intention was to define the fenced play area between no.s 4a and 19 Churchend?
It is important to note that due to access to the site being on a permitted basis only, it should be acknowledged that this fence play area would not be available for use by
the wider population.

Spatial Options: Other Open Space
It is noted on the interactive map that an area of land to the west of 2 Churchfields is proposed to defined as other open space within the new local plan and has been
informed by the Council’s emerging work on open spaces. The MOD does not consider this area of land meets the criteria to be considered as open space as
defined within the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance. This land is a grass field that is not subject to any regular mowing schedule by the landowner, there are no formal pathways or paraphernalia. Residents under their tenancy agreements are not permitted to access this area. It is noted that the existing fenced play area between no. 4a and 19 Churchend is within easy walking distance from the existing community.
Therefore, it does not appear to us that the land is demonstrably special to the local community, provides particular beauty or holds a particular local significance, has recreational value, tranquillity or a richness of wildlife to be defined as open space.

Spatial Options: Promoted sites
There are a number or parcels of land immediately abutting and in close proximity to the MOD boundary that are being promoted for development. The Council will be
aware of the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (safeguarded aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas) Direction 2002
(Circular 01/2003). Safeguarding zones have been designated at MOD Shoeburyness to safeguard its capacity as a military technical site/explosive storage
area and maps have previously been issued by Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government to the Council. Within these designated areas the MOD is a
statutory consultee and would expect to be consulted on planning applications. For the avoidance of doubt please find attached the latest safeguarded areas (a copy of
the GIS data can be provided upon request). In accordance with Circular 01/2003 the outer boundary of safeguarded areas should be indicated on proposals maps accompanying local plans and the plan should state why the area has been safeguarded.
It is noted that a number of the promoted sites fall within the safeguarding zones and therefore development within this area could be at risk of harm from MOD activities.
In addition, potential development of these sites could require a change to MOD activities so that MOD can continue to be a good neighbour. This could include, as a
result of a third party development, restricting operations in certain facilities, requiring the implementation of additional engineered safeguards, constraining the ability to manage any future change and restricting the potential of future development requirements – all to the cost of the public purse. In such circumstances this operational defence site could be affected adversely by the impact of development proposed in the area, contrary to paragraphs 97 and 187 of the NPPF.
The Council may consider it prudent (considering paragraph 97 of the NPPF) to include a further Strategic Objective within Strategic Priority 4 to specifically
recognise and support development required for operational defence and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the
impact of other development proposed in the area.
The Council may also wish to propose a specific planning policy for MOD Shoeburyness that provides and protects both on-going and future operational defence needs for the site and serves to ensure that any neighbouring development does not adversely impact upon these operations or, in turn, would be affected by
the established use. For example, any policy could include that proposals associated with defence and military operations at this existing site will be supported where they would enhance or sustain operational capabilities. The MOD will be seeking to modernise buildings and facilities across the site to improve their energy efficiencies, ensure they are resilient to climate change, contribute to climate change objectives and for residential buildings make sure they are fit for modern living. It would be beneficial for any policy to support these environmental improvements. Any policy should also ensure that for any non-military or non-defence related development within or in the areas of a defence or military site will not be supported where it would
adversely affect military operations or capability.

Spatial Options: Regional Parkland
Large parts of the proposed Regional Park includes land within MOD ownership. The South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy (SEGBIS) says that Regional
Parks are lands reserved to protect and conserve areas in natural or modified landscapes but are also suitable for sustainable public recreation and enjoyment.
Due to the ongoing operational need of the estate and the associated activities the landholding would not be suitable for any public access over and above that
currently permitted by the existing public rights of way. The MOD is aware that part of the estate is either directly within or adjacent to Foulness SSSI, Foulness Ramsar
and Foulness SPA designated sites and recognise that restricted public access assists with conservation of these areas. The MOD is cognisant of its stewardship
obligations in regard to the management of these designated sites and it works closely with Natural England, the Environment Agency, tenant farmers, the RSPB, Foulness Area Bird Survey, and other members of the MOD Shoeburyness Conservation Group to ensure that key habitats and species on the site are monitored, maintained, and where appropriate, enhanced.
It is important to recognise that the landholding is required for the purpose of national defence and the planning process serves to protect such national infrastructure. The MOD’s land holding would not provide public recreation or enjoyment to meet the criteria of a Regional Park. In addition, the proposed boundary to this designation does not follow easily identifiable and physical features on the ground for the boundaries of the Regional Park to be permanent and to endure throughout and beyond the plan period. For assistance a copy of the MOD ownership boundary has been included. We would strongly recommend that the proposed boundary is
amended to avoid any of the MOD ownership.

Flood Zone
Whilst the site is within Flood Zone 3 it does have the benefit of a flood defence which would need to be considered within any planning applications within the area as mitigation.

I hope the above is of assistance and reflects the MODs position at the time of this letter. Should you need any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.
We would be pleased to be included within any further consultation events as the plan progresses

Persimmon Homes is a FTSE 100 housebuilder with a national presence. In 2020 the Group delivered 13,575 new homes, down from 15,855 in 2019 (largely in part due to the impact from Covid-19 on operations), although the selling price increased by about seven per cent.
Persimmon Homes has a strong presence in Rochford, having an option to deliver site CFS087: Land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road Rayleigh, and are actively seeking additional sites in Rochford to deliver much needed housing and regeneration in the Borough. Persimmon Homes welcomes the opportunity to comment on the New Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021.

In the short term, Persimmon Homes is aware that Rochford’s existing Local Plan is now out of date, as per the tests of the NPPF. Ensuring that an adequate supply of housing is provided is a key policy requirement of the NPPF. The Rochford District Core Strategy, which was adopted in December 2011, fails to meet the requirements of the NPPF. Therefore, it is imperative that the draft Local Plan continue to be progressed to allow it to be adopted as soon as possible so that the District can continue to plan effectively to meet the District’s ongoing needs.

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?

The technical evidence that Rochford is preparing is comprehensive, though we would suggest the following additional evidence (which may be included within the evidence base documents listed) will also be required to inform the new Local Plan:

Heritage

An ‘initial Heritage Assessment’ is listed, which is vague, which is not sufficiently detailed or robust to properly consider the relationship of heritage assets and emerging site allocations. Persimmon Homes is, in particular, concerned that it identifies site CFS087 as having a ‘moderate-adverse’ impact on the Grade II listed Weir Farmhouse, despite this asset being located some distance from site CFS087 and screened from view (as would have been evidence if Place Services had undertaken site visits) by existing mature vegetation and twentieth century housing developments. The heritage asset listed within Place Services report therefore has no relationship with our allocated site, and cannot be seen from the site.

It is recommended therefore that the Council’s Heritage Evidence Base will need to be properly updated to include, at a minimum, some or all of the following:

• A Heritage Asset Review, to assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment;
• Lists of Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest;
• Conservation Area Character Appraisals Programme – noting that these were last reviewed in 2008 and therefore these need updating so that the Council have up to date evidence and therefore able to properly consider applications affecting these assets;
• Historic Environment Characterisation Studies; and
• Heritage Impact Assessments, and Archaeological Evaluation Reports, where relevant, on each allocated site. We would strongly recommend that these are prepared in accordance with each site developer and will need to involve site visits, rather than relying on a simple mapping exercise.

Highways

An ‘initial Transport Assessment’ is listed as being provided, which is a vague description and does not specify the required level of detail to support the Plan. It is recommended that this will need to include, at a minimum, some or all of the following:

• Transport evidence for the new Local Plan;
• Transport evidence mitigation;
• Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy;
• Cycling Action Plan/Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan/Cycling Delivery Plan;
• Transport modelling of key strategic routes/junctions – the Spatial Options Document goes on to highlight the congestion affecting the road network, and identifies the improvements already planned for the A127 and Fairglen Interchange; and
• Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Housing

Alongside the HELAA and SHMA, we would recommend the following:

• Self-Build Custom Build Housebuilding Register;
• Housing Implementation Strategy;
• Settlement Capacity Studies;
• Brownfield Land Registers;
• Schedule of Brownfield Sites and Extant Permissions; and
• Housing Trajectories.

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included?

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.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?

Persimmon Homes would agree that separate visions for each settlement would help guide decision making and notes, for example, the wide character as detailed within the settlement profiles from page 71 onwards of the Spatial Options paper. This confirms that Rochford ranges from Tier 1 Settlements such as Rayleigh with 34,000 residents, to isolated hamlets such as Paglesham and Stonebridge of only 250 residents. Clearly, the type and level of development is going to differ and a set of visions for each settlement would provide clarity to developers on the type, and level, of development that would be appropriate. Such vision statements could usefully be informed by the following:
 Historic Environment Characterisation Studies;
 Heritage Impact Assessments;
 Settlement Capacity Studies;
 Transport Studies and Strategies;
 Green Belt Studies;
 Strategic Land Availability Assessment;
 Flood Risk Assessments;
 Design and Development Briefs; and
 Masterplanning Studies

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?

The Spatial Options Paper lists 23 Strategic Options and Persimmon Homes broadly agrees with these, though we would have the following observations to make:
 Strategic Objective 1 – Persimmon Homes understands the Council’s reasons for looking to prioritise previously developed land first. However, the Paper goes onto confirm at page 29 that previously developed land will not be able to meet the Council’s housing targets in full; therefore there is no justification in prioritising previously developed land first. In many cases, greenfield sites are able to be brought forward quicker than previously developed land, particularly in the case of previously developed land having existing uses that need to be relocated first, or contaminated land that requires remediation. Accordingly, this objective could be reworded as follows:
“To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs, through working with our neighbours in South Essex and encouraging the redevelopment of previously developed land alongside suitably located greenfield sites to ensure the plan requirements are met in full.”
 Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 – these objectives could usefully reference the change in remote working patterns and confirm that Rochford will promote the use of flexible working practices to meet the needs of the ‘new normal’ arising from Covid-19, as well as offering flexible work
spaces to meet the needs of the 21st Century Office;
 Strategic Objective 6 – we would disagree with the phrasing ‘highest attainable quality’ as this is vague and imprecise; design is, to a large degree, subjective (particularly moreso where Local Authorities lack design codes and guides to guide the design of built form). We would therefore recommend the following revised wording:
“To ensure that all new homes and commercial premises are built to a high quality design and sustainability standard with a good level of access to green space and the countryside.”
 Strategic Objective 13 – this objective could usefully highlight Governments’ requirement to direct development to Flood Zone 1 (i.e. areas at the lowest risk of flooding);
 Strategic Objective 23 – the sole objective relating to climate change could usefully reflect Governments’ Future Homes’ requirement (being introduced in 2025).

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think
are required?
Persimmon Homes would agree with the settlement hierarchy presented, which demonstrates that growth should be predominantly located at Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford. As Rayleigh is the sole ‘Tier 1’ settlement, it is logical that as the Plan progresses, that Rayleigh takes a larger proportion of development than other settlements.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

The NPPF makes it clear at para 61 that Local Planning Authorities should be looking to use the Standard Method to determine how many homes are required, stating, “To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance…”.
Accordingly, it is confusing at Figure 15 that it includes a ‘current trajectory’ scenario of only 4,500 homes when this scenario will not deliver the Standard Method requirement of a minimum of 7,200 homes. The Council could, therefore, be clearer in this regard and confirm that this Scenario cannot be taken forward in isolation.
The Plan presents four options; Persimmon Homes would support a combination of Options 1 and 2.
Our comments of which are as follows:
 Strategic Option 1 – The Paper itself acknowledges that this Option will not be able to fully meet the Standard Method requirement, as well as acknowledging that it will not be able to deliver the brand new infrastructure that is required alongside new homes.
It is also identified within the Integrated Impact Assessment that the lower growth options will not deliver the required levels of growth, stating on page 25 that:
“The lower growth option will not meet the needs of all people in the district during the plan period. The medium and higher growth options will meet the needs of all people in the district and improve accessibility to housing, employment, training, health, and leisure opportunities.
The higher growth option is more likely to meet the needs of not only people in the district but beyond, as well and encourage the integration and interaction of cross-boundary communities through the delivery of large-scale developments. The medium and higher growth options are also considered for their overall potential to deliver a wider range of housing types, tenures and
sizes, particularly catering for the needs of groups with protected characteristics, such as specialist housing for the elderly and disabled.”
Furthermore, the Integrated Impact Assessment states that: “…smaller scale development proposals bring less opportunity for strategic infrastructure improvements, and may place increased pressure on local road networks.”
The Paper also identifies that said option to increase densities in urban areas are unlikely to be compatible with historic centres and local character, as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment, which states:
“…it is recognised that the lower growth option will focus development in existing urban areas, with a higher potential in this respect to impact on historic centres.”
It also goes on to confirm
"Option 1 would not deliver sufficient housing to meet local needs over the Plan period, in this respect it is also likely to deliver less affordable housing and long-term negative effects can be anticipated.”
Again, we would request that the Council undertake updated Conservation Area Appraisals and Settlement Surveys so that the Council has the required evidence base to consider if increased densities, taller buildings etc. would be appropriate in the historic centres and urban areas, as this would help inform the actual number of dwellings available under this option.
We would also question that this Option uses sites that have retained site allocations from the 2011 Core Strategy, and would question why these sites have not been developed by now – are these sites developable and deliverable as per the tests of the NPPF. This is something that the District Council should review.
Accordingly, this option cannot be taken forward within the next stage of the Local Plan on its own, though it is acknowledged that some level of urban intensification on appropriate sites may be suitable to help meet the Standard Method.
 Strategic Option 2 – Option 2a proposes Urban Extensions focused in the main towns; as Rayleigh is the Districts sole Tier 1 settlement, it is logical and sensible that urban extensions should be focused in Rayleigh. Furthermore, it benefits from not being restricted by any flood zones, being sequentially preferable to many other settlements in the District.
The Spatial Options document identifies that this option would be able to deliver new infrastructure; meet local housing needs; and deliver quickly; all of which Persimmon Homes endorses.
This Option would also deliver the required level of growth required for employment needs, as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment:
“The medium and higher growth options are more likely to have a significant positive effect on this IIA theme through the delivery of new employment land and retail floorspace. These options are also likely to deliver more new infrastructure upgrades and sustainable transport routes to attract further inward investment. Further to this, the higher growth options could contribute to the delivery of sub-regional improvements to green and blue infrastructure, which could have a positive effect on the tourism economy. Whilst positive effects are considered likely under all options, the lower growth option is considered less likely to lead to positive effects of
significance.”
It goes on to state:
“Urban extensions under Options 2a and 2b provide large scale development opportunities that can deliver new infrastructure provisions to support both existing (particularly those in edge of settlement locations) and future residents.”

It concludes:
“Significant positive effects are considered likely under Options 2a, 2b and 4.”
The delivery of sites under the medium and higher levels of growth would also allow for the delivery of climate change measures that are required and discussed later in the Spatial Options Document. The delivery of these measures may not be possible through reusing
existing buildings (Strategic Option 1) as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment:
“…the delivery of large-scale growth that is more likely to come forward under the medium and high growth options present more opportunities for the delivery of low carbon infrastructure through economies of scale compared to the lower growth option.”
On the same theme, the medium and higher levels of growth options are much more likely to be able to deliver the biodiversity and green infrastructure improvements and contributions required, than on existing brownfield sites, as also confirmed within the Integrated Impact
Assessment:
“The medium and higher growth options are also noted for their potential to support the delivery of strategic green infrastructure provisions and associated biodiversity net gain. This includes improvements being explored in the green infrastructure network across the sub-region through the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study (2020), such as the Regional Parkland.
The Regional Parkland has the potential to act as alternative greenspace targeted at reducing recreational pressures at designated biodiversity sites. These options thus provide a greater contribution to the principles of the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance &
Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).
The lower level of growth will mainly result in the delivery of new homes on urban and brownfield sites so has greater potential to avoid designated sites and support urban greening to some extent. The urban focus however is less likely to bring forward strategic mitigation, such as the Regional Parkland to mitigate the recreational pressures on designated biodiversity resulting from a growing population. As a result, the medium and higher growth options are considered more likely to perform better overall in relation to this IIA theme; however, the potential for a significant effect is uncertain as will be dependent on the location of growth.”
It continues:
“…the potential for larger-scale development under Options 2a and 2b is recognised for the potential for greater net gains in biodiversity.”
The site that Persimmon Homes is promoting – site CFS087 – would be capable of being delivered under this Option.
 Strategic Option 3 – The Spatial Options document identifies a number of significant ‘Cons’ which would impact upon the delivery of this option (and thus threaten the delivery of the plan as a whole), all of which we would agree with and would therefore recommend that this option is not progresses as:
o The plan identifies that this option involves complex land ownership issues which is likely to be difficult to resolve and address;
o Significant redrawing of the Green Belt boundaries, including proposing development in more sensitive Green Belt locations than other strategic options;
o Focussing development in a single location/settlement would deprive other settlements of being able to accommodate development, and thus potential infrastructure improvements.
On Environmental impacts, the Integrated Impact Assessment identifies that harm that this option would have on Environmental Quality, stating that:
“…extensive countryside development proposed through the concentrated growth options (Options 3a, 3b and 3c); which is considered highly likely to lead to negative effects of significance in this respect. Options 3a and 3b are also likely to intersect the flood plains of the Crouch and Roach tributaries, and development will need to ensure appropriate mitigation to avoid impacts on water quality…Negative effects of significance are considered more likely under Options 3a, 3b, 3c and 4 given the extent of concentrated growth development locations
in the countryside.”
 Strategic Option 4 – This option proposes a ‘balanced combination’ of all three; we would recommend a balanced combination of Options 1 and 2 represents the most suitable Spatial Strategy going forwards for the reasons given above and indeed as detailed within the Spatial Options document, and the Integrated Impact Assessment, which concludes:
“Option 4 is noted for its potential to perform better against a wider range of the IIA themes than the remaining options. This predominantly relates to the flexibility provided in a tailored approach, essentially combining the best performing aspects of each individual approach (urban intensification, urban extensions and concentrated growth).”

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?

Southend are currently consulting on its ‘Local Plan - Refining the Plan Options’, with the Consultation running through until 26 October 2021. The NPPF is clear that Local Authorities should also plan to meet housing needs that cannot be met within neighbouring authority areas (para.61), stating that, “In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for”.
In this regard, it is noted that within their Plan proposes a ‘Development Opportunity D’ of c.10,000 homes, of which 4,900 homes lies within Rochford.
It is imperative, therefore, that Rochford works alongside Southend to understand if it needs to plan for these 4,900 new homes alongside its own minimum of 7,200 homes, which would need to be reflected within the next stage of the Rochford District Local Plan.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?

Persimmon Homes would request that further spatial themes topic papers are required, or updated, for:
 Place Making and Urban Design – further questions within the Spatial Options paper deal with design (Q14 – Q16), but as yet a corresponding topic paper has not been published to consider this issue. The NPPF places an increasingly strong emphasis on design, with the recent 2021 revision further emphasising the Governments’ commitment to building ‘beautiful’ homes and places, to be underpinned by Design Codes and guidance. Understanding how Rochford District Council intends to interpret this requirement will be key for Developers as the plan progresses and beyond.
 Flood Risk and Drainage – Briefly discussed within the Climate Change topic paper, but this issue needs to be sufficiently evidenced as the plan progresses.
 Landscape and Visual Impacts – As above.
 Heritage – The Heritage Topic Paper confirms that existing Conservation Area Appraisals date back to 2007 (if they exist at all) and that these, along with the ‘Local List’ may be updated as the Local Plan progresses. Persimmon Homes would strongly support this evidence being undertaken as understanding heritage impacts is often key, which cannot be understood without up to date evidence.
 Duty to Co-Operate and Strategy Options – As identified at Q7, these topic papers do not address the potential for Rochford needing to meet Southend’s housing needs, as is currently presented as a potential option within their new Local Plan ‘Refining the Plan Options’ consultation.

Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?

Persimmon Homes strongly recommends that Rochford take the sequential approach to Flood Risk as required by paragraphs 161-162, confirming that new development should be directed to areas with the
lowest risk of flooding from any source.
The flood map at Climate Change and Resilient Environments Topic Paper identifies that the four
settlements least impacted by Flood Zones are Rayleigh, Hullbridge, Hockley and Ashingdon, and therefore these settlements are sequentially preferable for residential development to meet the Local Plan needs than those settlements that lie within Flood Zones 2 or 3 (such as Great Wakering).
We would also take this opportunity to identify to the Council that the site that Persimmon Homes is
promoting (Site CFS087: Land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh) lies within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore sequentially more preferable than those sites being promoted that lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply lowcarbon or renewable energy?

Climate change is a principal risk for Persimmon Homes and a significant issue, with more extreme weather events such as heatwaves, rising sea levels and flooding being experienced and resulting in impacts of both global and local significance. Society is more environmentally conscious with the international community and Government taking a leading role to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting and legislating ambitious targets for all to achieve.
As one of the UK’s leading house builders we acknowledge our role in supporting these common aims.
We understand the risks and challenges that climate change presents to our business and the wider industry. We are proactively working with all stakeholders to more effectively integrate climate change issues within our operations and ensure that sustainable improvements are managed in a pragmatic and robust manner.
We recognise that we have a key role to play in minimising our contribution to climate change, through
our own operations, our supply chain and by striving to ensure that the homes and communities we build are sustainable, inherently energy efficient and encourage our customers to live in a way that minimises any impact to climate change. We are committed to working alongside all stakeholders to achieve this.
Working with the Carbon Trust, a global climate change and sustainability consultancy providing specialist support to assist businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, Persimmon has set ambitious targets to be net zero carbon in our homes in use by 2030 and in our operations by 2040.These targets are supported by interim science based carbon reduction targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations by 46.2% (2019 baseline) and our indirect operations (i.e. those from our homes in use and our supply chain) by at least 22% per m2 completed floor area by 2030 (2019 baseline).
Referring back to the Spatial Strategy Options, the delivery of sites under the medium and higher levels
(Strategy Options 2 & 3) of growth would allow for the delivery of climate change measures that are required. The delivery of these measures may not be possible through reusing existing buildings (Strategic Option 1) as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment:
“…the delivery of large-scale growth that is more likely to come forward under the medium and high growth options present more opportunities for the delivery of low carbon infrastructure through economies of scale compared to the lower growth option.”

Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?

Persimmon Homes would support new homes being built to meet the new Future Homes Standard (being introduced from 2025), which proposes an ambitious uplift in the energy efficiency of new homes through changes to Part L (Conservation of fuel and power) of the Building Regulations. This will ensure that new homes produce 75-80% less carbon emissions than homes delivered under current regulations.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies?
Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?

As the Spatial Options document identifies, Rayleigh is diverse area with a mix of character and vernacular. Accordingly, a ‘Place-Making Charter’ would be welcomed as an overarching theme to guide all new development in the area during the plan period. Persimmon Homes welcomes the Government’s increasingly strong emphasis on design and place making, noting and agreeing with the Government’s statement at paragraph 126 of the NPPF that, “high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.”
Accordingly, the more guidance on this that Rochford can produce (noting that design is often, subjective and without suitable guidance, decisions can be delayed), would only assist developers in understanding the Council’s aspirations in this regard. This would be supported by paragraph 126 of the NPPF, which states that, “being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential for achieving this.”
It would also assist decision making in local residents and members are involving in the creation of
place-making charters and other design guidance; to ensure that design is properly considered by members and local residents at an early stage in the process and to ensure their views on design and place making are heard early; rather than such views being made during the application process (such as at Committee) which will delay decision making.
This would also identify if the same principles should apply throughout the District, or if certain settlements have specific principles and design, requirements that only apply to their settlement for example. Such an approach would be supported by paragraph 127 of the NPPF (“Design policies should be developed with local communities so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area’s defining characteristics.”)
As above, the more guidance that can be produced, and the more involvement and agreement with local residents/members, can only guide and aid the decision making process.
Of the principles identified within Spatial Options paper, the majority of these would apply everywhere in the District, albeit on some sites certain principles may not apply (impacts on the historic environment for example).
On Design Codes, the NPPF confirms at paragraph 128 that, “all local planning authorities should prepare design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences. Design guides and codes provide a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places with a consistent and high quality standard of design. Their geographic coverage, level of detail and degree of prescription should be tailored to the circumstances and scale of change in each place, and should allow a suitable degree of variety.” Persimmon Homes would support Rochford District Council in the preparation of
Design Codes in the District.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?

Persimmon Homes would broadly support the draft Place-Making Principles, as they would provide a
broad framework for future Design guidance and policy produced by the Local Authority. We note however that there is not a principle relating to Biodiversity; given the Government’s commitment to ensure that development pursue opportunity for net gains to Biodiversity, it may be appropriate to reflect this within the place-making charter.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?

Persimmon would welcome the use of design guides, codes or masterplans, which would be supported by the NPPF:
“Being clear about design expectations, and how these will be tested, is essential…” (para. 126)
“Plans should, at the most appropriate level, set out a clear design vision and expectations, so that applicants have as much certainty as possible about what is likely to be acceptable.” (para. 127)
“To provide maximum clarity about design expectations at an early stage, all local planning authorities should prepare design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, and which reflect local character and design preferences.” (para.128)

Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?

Persimmon Homes would refer to paragraph 129 of the NPPF:
“Design guides and codes can be prepared at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site-specific scale, and to carry weight in decision-making should be produced either as part of a plan or as supplementary planning documents. Landowners and developers may contribute to these exercises, but may also choose to prepare design codes in support of a planning application for sites they wish to develop.
Whoever prepares them, all guides and codes should be based on effective community engagement and reflect local aspirations for the development of their area, taking into account the guidance contained in the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code. These national documents should be used to guide decisions on applications in the absence of locally produced design guides or design codes.”
However, given the variety of settlements and styles within Rochford, we would suggest that separate
Design Codes be created for each settlement.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?

The National Model Design Code, published July 2021, confirms that the preparation of a Local Design Code should follow seven steps:
1. Analysis.
1A - Scoping: Agreeing on the geographical area to be covered by the code and the policy areas that it will address.
1B – Baseline: Bringing together the analysis that will underpin the code and inform its contents.
2. Vision.
2A – Design Vision: Dividing the area covered by the code into a set of typical ‘area types’ and deciding on a vision for each of these area types.
2B – Coding Plan: Preparing a plan that maps out each of the area types and also identifies large development sites from allocations in the local plan.
2C – Masterplanning: On larger sites working with land owners and developers to agree a masterplan for each of the development sites establishing the key parameters and area types.
3. Code.
3A – Guidance for Area Types: Developing guidance for each area type by adjusting a set of design parameters.
3B – Code Wide Guidance: Agree on a set of policies that will apply equally across all area types.
We would advise the District Council to use the Model Design Guide as the basis for the production of
all Design Codes in the District.

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?

Of the options listed, Persimmon Homes would support:
 Option 2 – requiring a suitable or negotiable mix of housing that is response to the type or location of development;
 Option 5 – all homes to meet NDSS;
 Option 6 – all homes to meet M4(2); and
 Option 7 – a proportion of homes to meet M4 (3).
Option 1 listed proposes a non-negotiable mix to be provided on all housing developments. Clearly, this
option is unworkable in practice as certain sites are unable to deliver certain types of housing. For example, Brownfield sites in the urban areas are unlikely to be able to deliver suitable proportions of larger dwellings; likewise, heritage constraints in certain areas may influence the size of dwellings that a site could deliver to satisfy historic environment consultees. It is therefore more appropriate to require housing mix to be agreed during pre-application discussions, having regard to site and location characteristics, with the latest SHMA evidence used as a broad guide to inform those pre-application discussions.

Similarly, option 3, which proposes to allocation specific sites for certain types of housing, such as affordable homes, would have the potential to result in ‘ghettos’ and not created mixed inclusive communities (as required by paragraph 92 and 130 of the NPPF; good place-making would be achieved by requiring all developments to deliver policy compliant levels of affordable or specialist housing (subject to viability etc.) and to ensure that housing is of the same build quality/appearance as the
market housing.

Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?

Guidance confirms that net gains should normally be delivered on site. However, where achieving biodiversity net gain is not possible on site whilst still delivering a viable project; developers have the option to contribute at a local or regional scale to off-site Offsetting or Compensation. This approach can often successfully result in greater gains for biodiversity than could be provided within a constrained development site. It supports delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategies and is consistent with the central conclusion of the 2010 report ‘Making space for nature’, that we need more, bigger, better and joined up habitats.
Referring back to the Spatial Strategy Options, the medium and higher levels of growth options are much more likely to be able to deliver the biodiversity and green infrastructure improvements and contributions required, than on existing brownfield sites, as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment:
“The medium and higher growth options are also noted for their potential to support the delivery of strategic green infrastructure provisions and associated biodiversity net gain. This includes improvements being explored in the green infrastructure network across the sub-region through the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study (2020), such as the Regional Parkland. The Regional Parkland has the potential to act as alternative greenspace targeted at reducing recreational pressures at designated biodiversity sites. These options thus provide a greater contribution to the principles of the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance & Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).
The lower level of growth will mainly result in the delivery of new homes on urban and brownfield sites so has greater potential to avoid designated sites and support urban greening to some extent. The urban focus however is less likely to bring forward strategic mitigation, such as the Regional Parkland to mitigate the recreational pressures on designated biodiversity resulting from a growing population.
As a result, the medium and higher growth options are considered more likely to perform better overall in relation to this IIA theme; however, the potential for a significant effect is uncertain as will be dependent on the location of growth.”
It continues:
“…the potential for larger-scale development under Options 2a and 2b is recognised for the potential
for greater net gains in biodiversity.”

Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?

Persimmon Homes would support a combination of option 1 and 3 listed on page 55 of the Spatial Options document to address green and blue infrastructure through the Local Plan:
 Option 1 – Allocating specific areas of land for strategic infrastructure appears a sensible and logical strategic objective to deliver tangible green and blue infrastructure through the course of the Local Plan. Strategic policies to the enhancement and protection of these areas would
be required to provide a policy framework for these specific areas (the coastal path project and South Essex Estuary Park for example), and contributions towards funding these projects could be secured, where required/relevant etc., through S106 contributions or CIL;
 Option 3 – Development sites of a certain scale (particularly edge of settlement, greenfield sites) are typically capable of being able to deliver on-site green and blue infrastructure; of providing connections to green and blue infrastructure through their site; or of securing financial contributions to improving green and blue infrastructure in the local area. With reference to our
site at Western Road, Rayleigh, the site benefits from an existing public right of way running through the centre of the site, and informal footpaths running along the southern boundary along the woodland edge. These informal paths have to be managed yearly in order to maintain these paths for the use of existing residents; without this regular maintenance these footpaths
would not be usable. The development of the site therefore look to retain these links and provide permanent, sustainable connections and to enhance these where possible, providing improved footpaths and links to the surrounding area, including to Kingley Woods to the west of the site. Access to the wider countryside can also be promoted through the development as
existing footpaths can be improved and maintained. There is scope to enhance the Green Infrastructure Network in the locality by providing more formalised and accessible links through the green spaces.

Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?

With reference to the four options, we would comment as follows:
 Option 1 – support the protection of existing school and healthcare facilities through specific allocations.
 Option two – support the allocation of specific sites for the creation of new community infrastructure (providing that site is being allocated for that use or would not conflict with other site promotions).
 Option 3 – Broadly support requiring new developments to deliver new community infrastructure on site, though would caution that this would only apply to sites of a certain scale.
For example, the Essex County Council Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions highlights that developments with an individual or cumulative size of 1,400 homes are likely to be required to deliver a new two-form entry primary school, whilst developments with an individual or cumulative size of 4,500 homes or more will need to provide a new two-form entry secondary school. It would be simpler for the LPA to identify new sites for community infrastructure (new schools/extensions to existing schools, new surgeries/extension to existing surgeries etc.), and require developments to contribute towards those new facilities (with reference to para.34 of the NPPF requiring that Local Plans should clarify the level of contributions expected from new developments).
With reference to the Spatial Strategy Options, the Integrated Impact Assessment states:
“The medium and higher growth options are more likely to have a significant positive effect on this IIA theme through the delivery of new employment land and retail floorspace. These options are also likely to deliver more new infrastructure upgrades and sustainable transport routes to attract further inward investment. Further to this, the higher growth options could contribute to the delivery of sub-regional improvements to green and blue infrastructure, which could have a positive effect on the tourism economy. Whilst positive effects are considered likely under all options, the lower growth option is
considered less likely to lead to positive effects of significance.
We would also question whether the Council intends to progress with a Community Infrastructure Levy, to fund the development of new infrastructure in Rochford, as no reference is currently found on the Council’s website (and no reference is made to CiL within the Spatial Options Document). CIL is seen by many as creating a more transparent contributions system, whereby developer contributions can be calculated upfront (which assists developers with viability calculations, as well providing clarity to local residents/interests groups on the level of funding provided by new development and where that funding is directed towards).
Persimmon Homes would support Rochford District Council in the development of a Community Infrastructure Levy.

Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?

Persimmon Homes would request that the Conservation Area Appraisals be updated as part of the emerging Local Plan process; these were last produced in 2007 so by the time the plan is adopted, these will be over 15 years old. The Local Authority are aware that settlements and areas change over time, and as such, it would assist greatly for these documents to be regularly reviewed.
Persimmon Homes are also concerned that our site at Western Road, Rayleigh (ref. CFS087) is marked poorly in the accompanying Site Appraisal Paper due to impacts on Built Heritage. This appears to have been assessed purely on the basis that there is a listed building – the Grade II listed Weir Farmhouse (List UID: 1322351) – but that this assessment has seemed to be have been undertaken purely as a mapping exercise and without any consideration to the sites relationship to this asset on the ground. The listed building is located a considerable distance from our site, and is screened from view not only by existing twentieth century development but also by considerable mature trees (which would be retained as part of any development proposals); therefore development of our site (ref. CFS087) would have no impacts on the setting of this listed building, as is fully confirmed within the Heritage Statement that accompanies these representations.
With reference to the Spatial Strategy Options, the Spatial Options Paper identifies that said option to
increase densities in urban areas are unlikely to be compatible with historic centres and local character,
as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment, which states:
“…it is recognised that the lower growth option will focus development in existing urban areas, with a higher potential in this respect to impact on historic centres.”
We would therefore recommend that all assessments of built heritage impacts be fully assessed by up to date evidence, noting that the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisals haven’t been updated since 2007 and therefore may not accurately reflect existing site conditions.

Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
Persimmon Homes would support the four options listed to address transport and connectivity through the plan.

Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]

With reference to, our site at Western Road, Rayleigh (ref. CFS087), and the site is within a very sustainable location being walking distance to local amenities including schools (0.6 miles) and a train station (1.1 miles). A main bus route also runs in very close proximity to the site. The wider main road network is also easily accessible.
The development will provide betterment to existing footpaths, creating enhanced foot and cycle links to services and employment areas for new and existing residents. The existing PROW could be upgraded into a cycle link and a formal path that can connect to an east/west foot/cycle link that runs from Western Road to Weir Farm Road. This will allow a good connection to High Road and therefore services/employment/further transport networks. As previously stated, existing footpaths running through the site are informal and could be upgraded as part of the redevelopment proposals for the site to provide permanent, sustainable connections for existing and new residents.
Access to the wider countryside can also be promoted through the development as existing footpaths can be improved and maintained.

Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
Persimmon Homes agrees with the vision for Rayleigh. As the District’s only Tier 1 settlement, it is correct that it should take large proportion of the District’s Plan Requirements during the Plan Period.

Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other

Persimmon Homes is promoting site CFS087 for residential development. This 10-acre site is located
north of the A127 by Rayleigh Weir. The site is contained between the current residential area defined by the southernmost extent of Western Road and Eastern Road with the A127.
The majority of the site comprises rough grassland, which has no beneficial use. There is a Public Right
of Way (No25) running south from Eastern Road. The development offers the opportunity to formalise footpath links from Western Road. It would also offer the opportunity to create recreational routes through to Weir Farm Road. The allocation has the potential to enhance the Green Infrastructure Network in the local area.
The site benefits from being closely related to the existing built up area of Rayleigh, its town centre, train station, bus routes and key services. The Vision is that the site will add to the growth of Rayleigh, providing homes in a sustainable location close to existing services, transport links and accessible green space.
The site is located immediately south of the Main Settlement of Rayleigh and north of the A127.
Rayleigh Town Centre is within a 10-minute walking distance and the Train Station, with a direct link into London, is only 1.1 miles walking distance. A main bus route linking the town centre/train station, Southend, Basildon and Canvey Island runs through High Road. This is in close proximity of the site. The site has good access to the wider main road network.
The site is within walking distance to the nearest Primary and Secondary School (0.6 miles and 1.1 miles respectively).
The development of the site would provide beneficial enhancements to the public open space provisions
and improved walking/cycling links across the site to encourage new and existing residents to use
sustainable modes of transport.
The site does not serve the five purposes of Green Belt (as confirmed within the Council’s evidence base) and would benefit from housing development to allow for improved biodiversity creation and management. Development of the site would also provide an enhanced settlement boundary to the A127 and provide an improved setting for Ancient Woodland and Local Wildlife Site.
Development of the site will allow for delivery of required housing in a sustainable location.
Persimmon Homes are currently preparing an updated Promotional Document to support the allocation of the site for residential development, which will be submitted shortly.

Conclusion
The adoption of the new Local Plan (2023) remains, optimistically, 2 years away. The Council does not
have a published strategy for bolstering housing land supply in the period up to the adoption of the new Local Plan. The Council need to identify a strategy to boost significantly the supply of housing in the period up to the adoption of the development plan, such measures should include the early identification of suitable new sites and seeking to pro-actively work with landowners and developers to bring such sites forward.
The Council must ensure that a new development plan is taken forward without further delay. The continued lack of an up to date development plan is significantly hampering delivery and the regeneration imperative.
Persimmon Homes have an interest in site CFS087: Land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road
Rayleigh, which the Site Appraisal Paper confirms suitable, deliverable and available for residential
development, and are actively seeking additional sites in Rochford to deliver much needed housing and
regeneration in the Borough. Further details of this site, along with plans, are submitted as part of this submission to support its allocation within the Local Plan for development.

Rochford Council – New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation
Representations on behalf of Manor Oak Homes
On behalf of our client, Manor Oak Homes, we are pleased to enclose representations to your New Local Plan:
Spatial Options 2021 consultation. As a housebuilder with an active interest in land in the district, Manor Oak
Homes is extremely grateful for the opportunity to comment on the emerging plan.
While we appreciate that the Council’s preference is for respondents to complete the online response forms, our
client’s response is a detailed one that raises a number of inter-related issues and is supported by a package of
documents. The response is contained in the accompanying statement by Armstrong Rigg Planning, which is structured to correspond with the questions asked in the consultation document and is supported by the following enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Red Line Location Plan
Enclosure 2: Constraints & Opportunities Plan
Enclosure 3: Indicative Masterplan
Enclosure 4: Flooding & Drainage Note prepared by MAC Consulting
Enclosure 5: Landscape & Visual Assessment prepared by Aspect Landscape
Enclosure 6: Ecology Note prepared by Aspect Ecology
Enclosure 7: Arboricultural Note prepared by Aspect Arboriculture
Enclosure 8: Built Heritage Note prepared by Asset Heritage Consulting
Enclosure 9: Accessibility Note prepared by MAC Consulting

In addition to providing Manor Oak Homes’ response to the questions posed in the consultation document, this
submission also provides additional information in support of the allocation of land within their control to the
north of Great Wheatley Road in Rayleigh. Their land comprises one of the ‘promoted sites’ referred to in the
‘Planning for Complete Communities’ section of the consultation document and identified on Map 44: Map of
Rayleigh – Site Ref. CFS077. Manor Oak Homes welcome the invitation to comment further on the site, and following further technical work, are pleased now to enclose additional information explaining its merit as a future location for housing.
We trust that due regard will be had to these representations. Should you have any queries or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me or my colleague, Geoff Armstrong.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This statement sets out the response on behalf of our client, Manor Oak Homes (MOH), to the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation 2021. The consultation paper seeks views on three components - Strategy Options, Planning Themes and Planning for Complete Communities – posing specific questions on each. This statement has been structured to provide a response under those headings to the specific questions asked with reference, where appropriate, to the evidence base documents and topic papers.
1.2 In preparing this response, particular consideration has been given to the tests of soundness required to be met as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, including whether the options put forward would result in a Local Plan that is: positively prepared; justified; effective; and consistent with national policy.
1.3 In addition to providing Manor Oak Homes’ response to the issues raised in the consultation paper, this
submission also provides additional information in support of the allocation of land within their control
to the north of Great Wheatley Road in Rayleigh (Enclosure 1). Their land comprises one of the
‘promoted sites’ referred to in the ‘Planning for Complete Communities’ section of the consultation document and identified on Map 44: Map of Rayleigh – Site Ref. CFS077.
1.4 Further information specifically relating to the site is set out at Section 5 and is supported by the following documents:
Enclosure 1: Red Line Location Plan
Enclosure 2: Constraints & Opportunities Plan
Enclosure 3: Indicative Masterplan
Enclosure 4: Flooding & Drainage Note prepared by MAC Consulting
Enclosure 5: Landscape & Visual Assessment prepared by Aspect Landscape
Enclosure 6: Ecology Note prepared by Aspect Ecology
Enclosure 7: Arboricultural Note prepared by Aspect Arboriculture
Enclosure 8: Built Heritage Note prepared by Asset Heritage Consulting
Enclosure 9: Accessibility Note prepared by MAC Consulting.

2.0 SPATIAL VISION
ROCHFORD IN 2050
Q2: Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included?
2.1 MOH support the Draft Vision, welcoming in particular the Council’s wish to plan positively and to set a longer-term vision to 2050. Setting a longer-term vision would be consistent with paragraph 22 of the NPPF, but if this vision is to be achieved, then the new plan must be up-to-date and fit for purpose. It is vital therefore that the need for growth is embraced positively and that the most sustainable and deliverable options to achieve this are pursued so that the needs of the area are fully met, including any shortfall in past delivery, and where the need to travel is reduced and the benefits for both existing and future residents are maximised. Recent experience has shown that a number of neighbouring
authorities (e.g Castle Point) will struggle to meet their needs in full, and therefore, opportunities to assist them should also be explored upfront at an early stage and provision made accordingly to ensure that Rochford’s new plan can be found sound at the earliest opportunity.

Q3: Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our
settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.2 MOH support the adoption of a set of settlement-based visions. The work undertaken by the Council as
part of the Role and Hierarchy Settlement Study shows the extent to which the role and function of the
settlements in the district differ and the adoption of settlement-based visions would enable this
individuality to be reflected and the strategy for each to be appropriately tailored. Indeed, in a
primarily rural authority like Rochford, each settlement performs a different role for its population and
hinterland and the capacity it has to accommodate sustainable new growth will vary according to that
role or other physical or policy constraints. It is considered that visions that reflect and respond to
these individualities would provide greater certainty regarding the role each settlement is expected to
perform moving forward enabling the needs of the district to be met.

I am sending you a letter with our responses to the questions relevant to the Croudace development in Rochford. I have also attached a copy of the area Croudace propose to build on in relation to Question 57b. I hope you find these comments constructive and informative.

Spatial Options Consultation

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
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.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with Strategic Priority 1, Objective 1, facilitating the delivery of high quality and sustainable homes that meet your local community needs. Whilst we agree that previously developed land should be an important part of meeting needs for development, the council needs to be realistic about how much of the district’s need for development can be accommodated on previously developed land.
We agree with Strategic Objective 2 of Priority 1 which states that Rochford need to plan for a mix of homes to support current and future residents. It is important that the council take into account the types of dwellings required when allocating sites, considering the likely sizes and types of dwellings likely to be accommodated on any given site. Sites such as that at Hall Road, Rochford, being promoted by Croudace, offers an important opportunity to provide a diverse portfolio of housing, addressing the affordability issue that Rochford currently struggles with. From 2016-2019 Rochford only delivered 677 of the 876 new dwellings set out in the housing delivery test (2020). This rate of delivery also falls short of the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment of May 2016 and June 2017 which stated that between 331 and 361 new dwellings should be delivered per annum up to 2037.
We agree with Strategic Objective 6 of Priority 1 which states that the council want to ensure that all new homes “are built to the highest attainable quality, design and sustainability standards”. Croudace prides themselves on the quality and design of the housing they build and we are certain we will meet the council’s standards for development.
We agree with Strategic Objective 11 of Priority 3 which wants to encourage sustainable travel within the district such as walking and cycling. Croudace’s two sites, CFS081 and CFS082 at Hall Road in Rochford, are within walking distance of Rochford town centre, encouraging residents to walk or cycle to the town centre. This factor should be given significant weight when appraising possible Greenfield and green belt releases.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with the settlement hierarchy presented as we think it is reasonable to have Rayleigh, the largest town should be at the top of the hierarchy with Hockley and Rochford in tier 2 and the smaller settlements in the tiers below.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
Of the identified strategy options we believe Option 2b should be taken forward by the Plan. Option 2b would see urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy. We agree that spreading the housing supply across a number of builders is the correct and less risky strategy and means that more housing can be delivered sooner, relieving Rochford of its affordable housing supply shortage. We believe that some of the better sites for sustainable development are within the greenbelt so as Option 2b states, some Green Belt land will need to be released. Option 2 would deliver 3,000 – 5,000 more dwellings than Option 1, which already delivers 3,000 – 5,000 homes, with 1,000 – 2,000 of these new houses being affordable, giving a potential total of 10,000 new houses of which 4,000 are affordable houses. We believe this is the correct solution to solving the affordable housing issue in Rochford. As stated in the 2021 draft Local Plan for Rochford, for every 10 additional homes the local community sees the benefit of creating or sustaining 9 local jobs and bringing in £250,000 in additional local spend from new residents.
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning]
For residential development, the Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 012) is clear that any energy performance standard required by a local policy should not exceed the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The building regulations remain the most straightforward way of the country as a whole meeting the challenge of climate change. The Government is working on its Future Home Standard for significantly reducing the carbon emissions of homes, with a challenging but achievable timetable for introduction over the period to 2025. Local policies on the subject can add value where there is a locally-specific justification or opportunity, but the council needs to be clear that the policies it proposes on this front are justified, will add value, and will be capable of implementation without creating substantial duplication of work for both council and applicant that is more simply administered through the building regulations system.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
The plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies. However, the same principles should not apply everywhere in the district because some policies would not be relevant in a residential development for example.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]
The principles set out in the draft place-making charter are commendable but it is important that the Council set out in policy what they require regarding place-making in the district. These policies will have to be financially budgeted for and may slow down development.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
It would not be necessary to create new design guides, codes or masterplans alongside the new Local Plan as this would create an additional burden on the council and potentially delay the release of the new Local Plan. Any design guides, codes or masterplans could be created once the new Local Plan was published.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing? [Please state reasoning]
The best method to ensure Rochford Council can deliver different types, sizes and tenures of housing is to allocate different types of sites to be available for builders to buy. Ranging from brownfield sites in urban areas to Green Belt land being released for new housing developments, making available different types of sites will ensure a mix of housing types, size and tenure are built. It is also important to take into account when creating policy regarding the development of housing that the demand for different type, size and tenure will fluctuate as the demographic and requirements in relation to services of the district change. For this reason, it is important that some flexibility be designed into the policy when determining what size, type and tenure of housing is to be built on a site and that this be determined when the application is received taking into account the current local housing context. With regard to affordable housing, we expect the council to calculate how many affordable houses they need for a given period so as to not slow down the application process with lengthy negotiations. We also want to raise the issue of all the other policy measures and building regulations that builders have to comply with when assessing the number of affordable houses that need to be built, and taking into account the financial feasibility of these requirements.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas? [Please state reasoning]
For Sites CFS081 and CFS082 at Hall Road, Rochford, Strategy Option 2b would be suitable for the specific housing approach which would see a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom houses built on these parcels of land. The suitable housing tenure for these sites would be a mixture of owner occupation and affordable houses falling under affordable rented tenure and intermediate (shared ownership) homes. What is required to meet the housing needs in these areas are an increased land supply to provide more housing for Rochford. Rochford has become one of the most unaffordable district counties in the country, with house prices increasing by 70% in the past 15 years. The 2016 and 2017 South Essex SHMA calculated that Rochford district council needed to build at least 360 houses for the next 20 years, however, Rochford currently build on average 166 new houses per year, which falls below the government requirement set out in the SHMA. If Rochford continue to undersupply new dwellings, housing-related issues such homelessness and concealed homes, where young people are forced to stay or move back in with their parents longer than they would want to, will become an increasing issue within the district.
Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
By providing well designed, high quality and affordable housing Rochford will be able to attract more potential workers and businesses to the district and prevent young people moving away from the area in search of affordable housing. This will ensure a stable and able work force whilst also providing jobs to the local population during the construction period of the new dwellings.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
The foundations of long-term economic growth is through having affordable housing young people can afford. This will decrease the likelihood that they will move away, taking their skills with them, whilst also attracting potential businesses to the area to provide services. Providing this housing will also create new jobs during the construction phase which can up-skill workers over a prolonged period of time.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
We believe net gains for biodiversity are best delivered off-site. This ensures there are no unforeseen costs during a development and we believe it is more beneficial to the environment to have biodiversity in specific areas than have it spread through developments.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]
We think the best plan to ensure Rochford’s town centre remains vibrant is through option 6, specifically providing sustainable connections from any large-scale new housing development to Rochford town centre. Building new housing developments within a 20 minute walk of the town centre is a method of providing sustainable connections to existing town centres, and sites CFS081 and CFS082 fall within these parameters. Additionally, providing accommodation for more residents will provide greater footfall to the businesses within the town centre, further sustaining the services and employment opportunities for Rochford district.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with your vision for Rochford and Ashingdon, however, the allocation for housing has not been covered. Providing new housing will support Rochford and Ashingdon’s town centre business and provide more sustainability to services.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other
We believe that site CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 (as shown on the attached plan) should be made available for housing market falling under Strategy Option 2b. This could improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon by providing the required ‘critical mass’ in terms of housing density for additional services such as a more frequent bus services or an additional bus stop on the proposed site. This will improve the site assessments access to a bus service from a 1 to a 5 and improve the access to bus services assessment. Site CFS082 is missing from Figure 45 when it is included on the Interactive Consultation Map. We propose to build on half of the total site, preventing Rochford and Hawkwell coalescing and retaining and protecting part of the metropolitan green belt. With these two sites combined, over 600 houses could be delivered for Rochford, which would provide three main benefits. The first benefit would be to local businesses, as an increasing population would bring additional income to the business, which would allow local businesses to grow. The second benefit is that with an increasing population, other firms would view the district as a viable location to establish themselves in, further increasing employment opportunities in the district and providing more services to the area. The third benefit would be Rochford and Southend Borough District would avoid housing-related shortage issues such as homelessness and concealed households. Building more housing would also prevent young people moving away in search of housing they can afford, preventing an ageing demographic which would present its own challenges to the district.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Sites CFS081 and the Eastern half of site CFS082 should be presumed appropriate for development as they are within sustainable walking distance to Rochford town centre, and therefore offer a highly sustainable way of accommodating the housing needs of the town, a factor which we believe has been given inadequate weight in the council’s published site assessments. As well as meeting housing needs, building these developments would provide jobs over the construction period and prevent homelessness and concealed households becoming an issue within the district. These developments would also increase footfall for local businesses, making local businesses more sustainable, and potential businesses seeing Rochford as a viable area to locate their business. These factors bring the added benefit of greater sustainability to the local businesses and employment opportunities to the wider community.
We acknowledge that sites CFS081 and the eastern half of CFS082 are currently in the green belt. As we are only proposing building on the eastern part of site CFS082, the green belt harm assessment should be re-examined for this site to ensure that it has been fairly appraised relative to all other sites being considered. Limiting development to the eastern part of CFS082 reduces the potential harm caused to green belt purposes, preventing Rochford and Hawkley merging into one another in line with paragraph 138 subsection b of the 2019 NPPF.
The recent development of 620 homes to the east of sites CFS081 and CFS082 has demonstrated that growth of Rochford town in this direction can be successfully accommodated. There is a strip of land along the western edge of that development which remains designated as green belt, providing public open space. We believe the council needs to assess sites CFS081 and CFS082 (east) in light of the fact that the open space there is now not countryside, but is meeting the open space needs of the urban area. If sites CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 were to be released from the green belt they would effectively continue the urban area around this open space.
We also question the impact on Built Heritage assessments for sites CFS081 and CFS082 labelled at 1 and 2 respectively. We can only conclude that this low score is due to the nearby Pelham’s Farmhouse, which is a grade II listed building. However, on a site the size of CFS081 there is scope to plan the open space on site so as to minimise direct impacts which may arise to that heritage asset.
We question the assessment for site CFS081 in regards to the access to bus stop being scored at 2. CFS082 assessment scored a 4 and we propose linking the two sites allowing site CFS081 better access to bus stop services, and the area is closer on foot to the town centre. CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 are also large enough that they would reasonably be expected to make contributions toward new bus stops and improving bus services. We would also like the access to bus services re-appraised if were given permission to develop on the two sites as the increase in population density may provide the ‘critical mass’ to make the sites viable for the Rochford SS4 1NL bus service to come more frequently then it currently does. This would improve the appraisal score and make the development more sustainable.
The access to secondary schools for site CFS081 is appraised at a level 4 whereas site CFS082 is appraised at the lowest level of 1. With these two sites side by side, with access to the same road network as each other, we question why site CFS082’s access to secondary schools was appraised so low. If needs be, we can provide a financial contribution to a local secondary school to improve the facilities and size of the local secondary school.
We would like the access to town centre for site CFS082 to be reappraised as it is only a level 1 whereas site CFS081 is appraised at a level 4. With the two sites being developed on, a pathway through site CFS081 could be created for site CFS082 allowing it better access to Rochford town centre. The two sites fall within a 20 minute walk of Rochford town centre which should mean the appraisal for site CFS082 is higher.
We also question the appraisal for the access to employment site for site CFS082 at level 2 when CFS081 is appraised at level 4. With both sites having access to the same road network, these appraisals should be the same. We also question if the town centre has been considered as an employment site as it often is a major source of employment within a town. The town centre is only a 15 minute, 1 mile walk away or a 3 minute drive so the access to employment site for site CFS082 should be appraised higher.
We question why both sites CFS081 and CFS082 are appraised at levels 3 and 2 respectively for distance to strategic road network when both have access to the A127 being only 6 minutes away and 2 miles in distance via Cherry Orchard Way.
We would also like the appraisal for access to train services for site CFS082 to be reappraised as site CFS081 is appraised at level 3 whereas the former is at level 2. Through the development, site CFS082 will have access to Rochford train station like site CFS081. Rochford station is only a 15 minute walk or 3 minute drive away from the sites, at a distance of 1 mile from both sites. We therefore argue that the appraisal for access to train services for both sites should be higher.
We would also like the appraisal for site CFS082 proximity to water apparatus to be reassessed as it is a level 1 whereas neighbouring site CFS081 is appraised at a level 5. The River Roach does flow south of both sites and there is Rochford Reservoir only 1 mile away.
The assessment for Critical Drainage Risk for site CFS082 can be improved from a level 2 with implemented drainage systems for the proposed development.
We also question the level two assessment of impact on Ancient Woodland for site CFS082 being at a level 2 when the site is currently used as an agricultural field with no Ancient Woodland currently existing on the site. Site CFS081 with no ancient woodland on it as well was assessed at level 5 for impact on Ancient Woodland.

Seetec – Introductory Comments
With our head office in the Rochford district, we are one of the UK’s largest employee owned businesses, employing over 2,000 people and committed to building our history of service.
We help people in the UK and Ireland to increase their social and economic stake in society. We do this by providing skills, training and support services that people need to reach and exceed their ambitions, creating positive change for the communities we serve
Our aim has always been to change lives for the better. Founded more than 35 years ago as a small charity, we first taught IT skills to 30 unemployed young people at a former primary school in Hockley. From these humble beginnings, we now help hundreds of thousands of people find work, learn new skills and take ownership over their lives.
We understand the needs of the people we support. As employee owners, we now want to drive further improvements and continue to generate enduring positive outcomes for the people and communities we service.
As a B-Corp organisation we are business committed to social value by reducing inequality, working toward lower levels of poverty, a healthier environment, stronger communities and the creation of high quality jobs with dignity and purpose.
We care passionately about the District, its environment, open spaces, heritage and sustainable living. Our business has made a long term contribution to the District and this response is intended to reflect our on-going ambition to make Rochford district a first class place for health & wellbeing, work, learning and leisure. The choices the Council makes over the next 35 years will be key to this ambition.

Consultation Representations
Our responses and representations to the questions from the above consultation are set our below. We have replied to some specific questions and used cross references where appropriate to avoid duplication.
• Introduction
o
 Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
Agree
 Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
Agree
• Strategy Options
 Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We prefer taking forward Option 4 Balanced Combination with the following comments, preferences and concerns regarding risks.
In general, the preference is for a ‘selective’ ‘Strategy Option 4’ approach by combining Strategy Option 1 Urban Intensification; Option 2 Urban Extensions and Option 3a Concentrated Growth in the west of Rayleigh. This would need to be in specific sites and it will be easier to quantify for housing targets if we were to identify sites that we would not support.
We would not support Option 3b North of Southend and 3c Focused East of Rochford and the land allocations from Rochford to Hockley in the 2017 Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability as well as some other sites in Lower Hockley and Rayleigh. These are transport infrastructure and risk related objections whilst there are others that negatively impacting heritage, character and setting.
The specific areas of allocations of concern are listed below:
CFS035 land west of Rochford hall 1.25 hectares
CFS041 Lee valley farm 2.54ha
CfS074 land south of Mount Bovers Lane 14.22ha
Cfs077 land north of Great Wheatley’s Road 7.5ha
CFS084 land south of hall road 7.16
CFS085 land west and north of Hall Road 2.22
CFS087 land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road 3.08
CFS121 land north of A127 38.48
CFS150 land on the north side of Victor Gardens 1.73
EXP12 land adjacent 44 Great Wheatley Road 0.12
These will exacerbate the B1013 ‘rat run’ causing huge congestion and comprised emergency evacuation with the potential risk of:
• global warming repeating ‘1950’s scale flooding’ in South East Essex,
• nuclear contamination (Bradwell) and
• airport / rail disaster.
Any development must be matched by adequate transport solutions. Until this document is available then it is difficult for consultees to make informed representations and the Council to make evidence based decisions. The whole approach is somewhat ‘chicken and egg’. The transport solution should be the first document given the historic challenges and earlier consultation responses. Once this is available, the context of spatial options can be evaluated on sound evidence as community and population safety will be of paramount concern.
Assuming there is no radical bypass, which we would not support anyway given the intrusion into Crouch Valley conservation, solutions must be found to the key rail bridges and Rayleigh Weir underpass. These are high risk pinch points for local population and egress in particular:
Rochford Bridge / Hall Road
Hockley Bridges (Greensward Lane & Church Road)
Rayleigh station (London Road)
A127 Weir underpass
As a minimum, solutions must be found to these bottle-necks - widening the bridge underpasses, flyovers etc. If certain developments were to go ahead, flooding and the increased congestion of Options 3a, 3b and the proposed allocations along B1013 will potentially lock-in and lock-out population from their homes, shops, work and living in safe communities.
• Employment and Jobs
 Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
Any growth must be contingent on the transport infrastructure comments in this representation, without this future growth is limited. In addition, it is important for quality of living that night flights are stopped and pollution and noise controls are enhanced.
• Green and Blue Infrastructure
 Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
We refer you to our comments and sites outlined at Q6.
• Heritage
 Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
Remove allocations that threaten the key heritage sites in the District e.g. CFS035, CFS084, CFS085
 Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
Grade 1 Rochford Hall and setting.
Rochford Conservation Zone
Crouch Valley
• Town Centres and Retail
 Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
As regard Hockley town centre we have previously stated our preference to develop an imaginative town setting that brings Hockley Woods into the town e.g. shop ‘timber’ facades, woodland street furniture etc thus celebrating the setting of Hockley in its ancient woodlands and Spa.
• Transport and Connectivity
• We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

 Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

• Planning for Complete Communities

Rayleigh
 Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS77, CFS087 and EXP12
Rochford and Ashingdon
 Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS035, CFS084, CFS085 (see Q43 response above)
Hockley & Hawkwell
See representations at Q48
 Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS041, CFS074, CFS150

1.0 Introduction

1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of M Scott Properties Ltd (‘Scott Properties’) in relation to Land North of Doggetts Close, Rochford (‘the Site’).

1.2 The Site has previously been submitted into the Call for Sites, reference CFS217, with representations submitted to the Issues and Options consultation in 2017.

1.3 Scott Properties is promoting the Site for specialist accommodation for the elderly to meet an identified need. The benefits of such accommodation include the provision of the homes themselves, and that it enables people to ‘rightsize’, releasing typically larger family homes back into the general market.

1.4 The Site is currently located within the Green Belt, this being the only significant constraint in bringing forward this land for specialist accommodation. The Site is otherwise unconstrained and is in a sustainable location, particularly for the specialist homes proposed.

1.5 These representations are also accompanied by a Summary Vision Document (Appendix A) to provide further information on the Site and the proposals for specialist accommodation.

2.0 Response to Spatial Options Consultation Questions

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?

2.1 Strategic Objective 2 refers to providing a mix of homes, including support for the ageing population. However, this is referred to as being through the provision of private and social care schemes.

2.2 Whilst some older people will need to utilise a care scheme, many do not and simply need access to more appropriate housing. This includes the provision of bungalows, which can provide an attractive option for people as they age and as mobility may become more challenging.

2.3 Age-restricted bungalows sold on the open market also provide residents with an opportunity to retain the freehold ownership of their home, something that Scott Properties has found is desired by many older people.

2.4 Providing such housing gives people an option to ‘rightsize’ into suitable accommodation at an earlier stage in their life and can help avoid unnecessary falls and mobility issues later in life, when moving home can also become more of a challenge.

2.5 Strategic Option 2 should recognise the importance of providing such homes alongside the provision of care schemes.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?

2.6 Rochford is home to a wide range of services and facilities and we agree that it should be highly ranked within the settlement hierarchy. As one of the larger settlements in the District, it is important that this is recognised so that proportionate growth reflecting its characteristics can be directed to it.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

2.7 Any option taken forward should also recognise the importance of providing suitable homes for older people. With the ageing population in the District and a 46% increase in over 70s by 2040 compared to current levels, it is particularly important that suitable housing is provided.

2.8 Specialist homes should be located in sustainable locations so that residents have easy access to services and facilities within close proximity. To reflect this, such sites should be within or at the edge of existing settlements, in locations that provide easy access to local amenities.

2.9 There are limited potential sites within existing settlements, and these are in any case often either too small to accommodate specialist housing as part of a mix of dwellings, unsuitable for such a use, or unviable. Edge of settlement sites are ideal for providing specialist housing schemes as they are well located in relation to services whilst being large enough to deliver a sufficient quantum of homes to create a local community, and more likely to be viable for such development.

2.10 As part of any strategy for growth, in order for the Local Plan to be sound, it will be necessary to direct a relatively large proportion of housing growth to Rochford. The Rochford and Ashingdon area is categorised as a top tier settlement within the current Development Plan, i.e. it has been confirmed as one of the most sustainable settlements to which to direct additional growth.

2.11 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionally-connected settlement home to around 18,000 residents. Between Rochford town centre and a number of neighbourhood centres located throughout the wider settlement, Rochford provides for a wide range of services and facilities.

2.12 The RLPSO also recognises that Rochford benefits from good walking access to most services, and that the only parts of Rochford with particularly poor access to services are around Purdeys Industrial Estate and the residential neighbourhoods of Ashingdon village.

2.13 Development around Rochford and Ashingdon forms part of Strategy Options 2 and 3, with a potential urban extension under Option 2 and larger scale concentrated growth under Option 3. Under Option 4, it could also form part of the strategy, with this comprising a mix of previous options.

2.14 Given the existing size of Rochford and the services and facilities available, it will be important for any option taken forward to include growth directed to Rochford. This is of further importance given the need for housing in the short and medium term, with housing adjacent to the existing settlement of Rochford able to be delivered quickly given the infrastructure already available.

2.15 In relation to Option 1 (urban intensification), we do not consider this to be a realistic option on which to base the Local Plan strategy.

2.16 The RLPSO describes this option as making best possible use of existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations).

2.17 The RLPSO suggests that at least 4,200 homes will be built over the next 10 years under Option 1 and notes the Urban Capacity Study suggests up to a further 1,500 homes could be built through a mixture of maximising the capacity of planned housing developments and taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in urban areas.

2.18 Clearly, it will be appropriate for the Local Plan to encourage an element of urban intensification and the efficient use of previously developed land to help meet housing needs. However, the approach cannot be relied upon to meet development needs in full.

2.19 The NPPF (paragraph 60) stresses that it is a Government objective to significantly boost the supply of housing and to meet local housing needs. Furthermore, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF, it is a specific requirement of a sound Local Plan for it to seek to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, as a minimum.

2.20 Option 1 alone cannot meet objectively assessed needs in full. The RLPSO suggests a need to plan for at least 7,200 additional homes, but that Option 1 would only deliver 4,200 homes over 10 years. This would leave the District significantly short on housing.

2.21 In any case, we question whether it is realistic to project delivery of 4,200 homes over 10 years through such an approach. To provide this number would require an average of 420 homes to be delivery per annum over a 10-year period. The Council reports that between 2010 and 2020 the District average was 176.8 dwelling completions per annum. It also reports that this number included contributions from strategic site allocations made by the Rochford Allocations Plan. It is totally unfeasible, therefore, to suggest that this rate can be more than doubled without any further allocations, particularly when one considers that there is only a finite supply of previously developed land suitable and viable for residential redevelopment, much of which is likely to have already been redeveloped.

2.22 One of the tests of soundness for a Local Plan is its effectiveness – whether it is deliverable. We do not consider that a strategy which relied on urban intensification to deliver 4,200 homes would be effective.

2.23 A further concern with a strategy that relies principally upon urban intensification is its ability to deliver the types and tenure of homes that are required. It is likely urban intensification would deliver primarily smaller dwellings and on individual sites each comprising a relatively small number of dwellings. As such, this approach is unlikely to provide a range of different accommodation types to meet the needs of all future residents. Furthermore, it is unlikely that this approach would deliver a range of different tenures of accommodation, including affordable housing, in a manner that may be expected from larger developments. Additionally, it is unlikely that such sites will be able to deliver other community benefits on top of housing, or significant infrastructure improvements.

2.24 We would also question whether a strategy that sought to significantly increase densities would be appropriate for the District. Such an approach is likely to be of detriment to the character of the District’s settlements, and potentially harmful to the amenity of existing and future residents.

2.25 We consider that in order to ensure a sound Local Plan, deliver sustainable development that meets the needs of all of the District’s residents, and to formulate a Local Plan that complies with national policy, it will be necessary to revise the existing Green Belt boundaries and allocate additional sites for development.

2.26 It is entirely appropriate for revisions to the Green Belt boundary to be made through the Local Plan, as the NPPF confirms at paragraph 140. The NPPF also states that alterations to the Green Belt should only be made where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified; and that strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries.
2.27 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance. However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:

• the scale of the objectively assessed need;
• constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
• difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
• the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
• the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.

2.28 Given the scale of the District’s objectively assessed need, and the inability to sustainably meet the range of different needs without revising the Green Belt boundary, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alterations to the Green Belt through the Rochford Local Plan. The Local Plan will need to make revisions to the Green Belt boundary in order to provide a sound, sustainable strategy for the District.

2.29 As such, this directs the Local Plan towards Options 2, 3 or 4.

2.30 Under Option 2, sites could be utilised at the edge of sustainable settlements, which should include Rochford, to deliver a range of housing growth. This option provides the flexibility to utilise smaller sites to deliver homes earlier alongside larger sites to meet the overall housing need.

2.31 Both Options 2a and 2b include development to the east of Rochford, which we consider is appropriate and necessary to assist in meeting the housing need, direct growth to sustainable locations and provide choice for residents.

2.32 Option 3 comprises concentrated growth of 1,500+ dwellings. A potential location is shown to the east of Rochford, Option 3c. Whilst this scores negatively in the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in relation to landscape, environmental quality and natural resources, some of these impacts will depend upon the exact scale of development chosen and there are likely to be opportunities to utilise smaller sites which can come forward sooner and may have less of an impact.

2.33 In relation to environmental quality, this negative effect seems highly uncertain given that the impacts on air quality cannot be known at this time, especially considering that mitigation could be provided if needed.

2.34 Option 4 comprises a balanced combination of the previous options. This scored most highly within the IIA given the flexibility to provide a tailored approach.

2.35 We agree with this conclusion and consider that Option 4 will provide the best approach to meeting housing, and other needs, within the District. For specialist homes for older people in particular, it is important that specific sites are allocated in sustainable locations to meet this high need. A balanced approach under Option 4 gives the flexibility to be able to do this.

2.36 The Site promoted by Scott Properties is in a sustainable location and can deliver specialist housing for older people (in the form of bungalows) early in the Plan period. The location of the Site adjacent to the existing developed area of Rochford enables it to utilise existing infrastructure and it could form part of Options 2, 3 and 4.

2.37 Whichever option is taken forward, the allocation of the Site to provide housing for older people should form a key part of this to deliver much needed homes to meet the requirements of the ageing population of Rochford.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?

2.38 Any place-making charter should reflect that areas of Rochford District are different to one another and that different forms of housing have their own characteristics and requirements.

2.39 Providing specialist housing for older people, for example, requires a different approach to traditional family homes, with different requirements and character of development. Bungalows require a greater land take than two-storey homes, with it important to consider and reflect this to ensure that design is not stifled and schemes can respond to their surroundings and individual requirements.
2.40 Should the Council wish to provide a place-making charter, it will be important that this is through engagement with stakeholders, including developers, especially in relation to specialist housing.

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?

2.41 To provide suitable specialist homes for older people, it is important that these are carefully considered and specifically allocated for.

2.42 Whilst requiring all new homes to be built to Part M4(2) and a proportion to Part M4(3) of the Building Regulations can help ensure homes are available for a wide range of people, it does not specifically ensure provision of homes to meet the needs of older people, as the NPPF instructs. At paragraph 61 of the NPPF, it emphasises the need to ensure the housing needs of different groups, including but not limited to older people and people with disabilities, are met.

2.43 It is necessary for the new Local Plan to specifically consider the housing requirements for older people, and make specific provision, rather than meeting this through a requirement for housing to be generally in compliance with Parts M4(2) or M4(3).

2.44 The best way to plan for housing for older people is to allocate specific sites to meet this need. This then allows such sites to come forward without needing to try and compete with developers seeking to build general open market housing, which specialist housing providers are often unable to do.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?

2.45 The recognition of the need to plan for specialist housing is welcomed.

2.46 However, this should include housing for older people.

2.47 The housing needs of older people have often been overlooked, to the detriment of older people, as well as the housing market more generally. The housing needs of this ageing population are not being met at a national level. A 2020 study by the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation found that since 2000, retirement housing has only accounted for 2% of all new homes built nationally – around 125,000 homes. However, each year approximately 700,000 people in the UK turn 65.

2.48 Separately, the increasing under-occupation of the national housing stock caused by a rapidly ageing population has been blamed for a dysfunctional housing market, in which first-time buyers find it difficult to get on the housing ladder and families find moving to larger homes prohibitively expensive.

2.49 The NPPF requires (paragraph 61) planning to meet the housing needs of different groups, including but not limited to older people and people with disabilities, are met.

2.50 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear on the importance of planning for housing to meet the needs of older people. The PPG expressly states:

“The need to provide housing for older people is critical” (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626, emphasis added).

And;

“The provision of appropriate housing for people with disabilities, including specialist and supported housing, is crucial in helping them to live safe and independent lives.” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 63-002-20190626).

2.51 The NPPF recognises that ‘older people’ are not a homogeneous group, but that older persons have a variety of differing accommodation needs. It defines older people for the purposes of planning as:

“People over or approaching retirement age, including the active, newly retired through to the very frail elderly; and whose housing needs can encompass accessible, adaptable general needs housing through to the full range of retirement and specialised housing for those with support or care needs”. (NPPF Annex 2)

2.52 The PPG confirms the need to recognise that there are multitude of different types of specialist housing designed to meet the diverse needs of older people, and that needs cannot be met simply through extra-care or sheltered housing. It notes that specialist housing for older people includes age-restricted general market housing. It states that this type of housing is generally for people aged 55 and over and the active elderly, and that it may include some shared amenities such as communal gardens, but does not include support or care services.

2.53 The PPG also states that specialist housing for older people can include retirement living, with limited communal facilities and generally without care services, but with some support to enable independent living (for example, the potential for 24 hour on-site assistance through an alarm system).

2.54 Many people do not require care but wish to ‘rightsize’ into a more suitable homes, often releasing equity in the process. With the ageing population expected to significantly increase in the District, as the RLPSO acknowledges, it is important that suitable homes are provided accordingly.

2.55 Currently residents are often left with no choice but to remain in larger family homes, sometimes as a single person household. Scott Properties’ proposal seeks to provide older people with an option at a point in their life before they require care.

2.56 Providing suitable homes in, and close to, existing settlements allows people to remain within their local community in more suitable housing. Providing a cluster of specialist homes together can create a community within the scheme itself, a further benefit of allocating specific sites.

2.57 In addition to the obvious benefit to older people who would directly benefit from the provision of such accommodation, an attractive rightsizing option for older people which still allows them to live independently and own their own home can help reduce the under-occupancy rate of the existing housing stock, and free-up larger dwellings for families currently in housing need.

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing?

2.58 Whilst we agree with the principles of the vision, it should also include the provision of suitable homes for older people to enable them to live in appropriate housing in their local community, reflecting that this is evidently an important issue for the District and one the NPPF instructs Local Plans to address.

Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?

2.59 The Site promoted by Scott Properties (CFS217), should be made available for specialist homes for older people.

2.60 As set out above and reflected in the Spatial Options document, the District has an ageing population and it is important to deliver new homes to meet this need, as required by the NPPF.

2.61 The provision of specialist homes also has a further benefit that it releases larger family homes back into the general market as residents move out of those homes and into more suitable homes.

2.62 To reflect the differing needs of older people in respect of housing, the Site should be allocated to provide specialist housing in the form of bungalows.

2.63 The Site is located in a sustainable location close to existing services and facilities, with many within walking distance. As a triangular and relatively small arable field it is currently underused and could be utilised much more efficiently to provide homes suitable for older people.

2.64 New residents on the Site would bring an additional benefit in terms of increased spend in the local area, helping to maintain the vitality and viability of Rochford town centre and support the proposed Vision Statement for the town centre as set out in the RLPSO.

2.65 It should be recognised that the development of the Site for specialist housing for older people would have a very different impact on local infrastructure than a general residential allocation. For example, it does not have any impact on early years, primary or secondary school infrastructure. In addition, it has a very different impact on the highway network, generating very little additional traffic at peak times compared with a general residential development. Not only are there likely to be significantly fewer vehicular movements associated with commuters generated by this development, but there will also be a lack of traffic generated associated with the school run. This is of particular relevance given the significant impact vehicular movements associated with transport to and from schools has – the sustainable transport charity Sustrans estimated in 2014 that school traffic contributed, nationally, to 24% of all traffic at peak times.
2.66 The Site itself is currently constrained by being designated as Green Belt, but has no other constraints as recognised in the SHELAA 2020. This recognised that the Site is deliverable, achievable and potentially suitable (subject to Green Belt review).

2.67 The Stage 2 assessment within the Council’s Green Belt Study 2020 states that the Site’s designation within the Green Belt limits harm to the Green Belt beyond. However, this is not a reason for keeping the land within the Green Belt. If the Council considers the wider land necessary to remain within the Green Belt that is a different consideration to whether the Site itself should be released from the Green Belt, and this should not be a reason for keeping the land as Green Belt.

2.68 In respect of the purposes of the Green Belt, the Site is contained by a Local Wildlife Site to the west and north, Doggetts Chase to the east and Rochford itself to the south. The Site is not located in close proximity to another settlement and its development would not result in actual or perceived coalescence.

2.69 Whilst Rochford does have numerous listed buildings, development of the Site will not adversely impact these and is such would not harm the historic setting of the town.

2.70 Whilst the current boundary to Doggetts Chase itself is relatively open, the hedgerow to the east of the track does provide a defensible boundary and there is an opportunity to provide significant new landscaping and a new boundary to the open countryside beyond.

2.71 A Green Belt Report in respect of the Site has previously been prepared and submitted to the Council, and is re-provided again here for completeness as Appendix B.

2.72 Overall the Site is in a sustainable location and well-placed to provide much-needed specialist homes for older people. Its removal from the Green Belt will enable this unconstrained Site to start delivering homes in the early part of the Plan period to meet the needs of the ageing population, with other resultant benefits for the District.

2.73 As set out above, the allocation of the Site can form part of strategy Options 2, 3 or 4. It could be an urban extension under Option 2, form part of larger scale development under Option 3, or either Option under 4. Whilst we consider that Option 4 is the most appropriate, the allocation of the Site to meet a specific need should be part of any option taken forward, as any sound strategy will need to include sites that can sustainably deliver in the short-term, and sites that can meet the needs of older people – allocation of CFS217 does both. 

3.0 Response to Integrated Impact Assessment

Assessment Framework

3.1 We welcome the recognition within the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) (at A.3) that “delivery of suitable homes for an ageing population…is a particular issue for the district”.

3.2 Furthermore, we agree with the findings of the IIA at A3 that medium and higher growth options provide greater opportunity for a wide range of different types of homes to be delivered, including specialist housing for older people.

3.3 However, we are concerned that, despite the recognition of this as being a particular issue for Rochford District, there is otherwise very little within the IIA regarding the need to ensure appropriate accommodation for older people is delivered.

3.4 Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) sets out the assessment framework for the IIA. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are 1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identify. We support these objectives.

3.5 The IIA then sets out assessment questions intended to be used to assess whether options will meet these objectives. This includes:

Will the option / proposal promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?

And

Will the option / proposal meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?

3.6 We suggest that, given the requirements of the NPPF and PPG to address the diverse range of accommodation needs for older person, together with the acknowledgement that delivery of suitable homes for ageing population is a particular issue for the District, the IIA should include an assessment question which specifically asks whether options / proposals would help meet the accommodation needs of older people.
 
4.0 Conclusion

4.1 These representations have been submitted in relation to Land North of Doggetts Close, Rochford, to promote the allocation of the Site to provide much needed specialist accommodation.

4.2 The Site has previously been submitted into the Call for Sites, reference CFS217, with representations submitted to the Issues and Options consultation in 2017.

4.3 As set out, we consider that Strategy Option 4 will be the most appropriate to utilise a range of different options across the District and seek to provide housing across the Plan period. Option 4 should include some smaller sites in already sustainable locations which can start delivering earlier in the Plan period, being highly important given the high housing needs.

4.4 Being located adjacent to the existing developed area of Rochford, Scott Properties’ Site at Land North of Doggetts Close is one such site that is in a sustainable location and capable of delivering homes quickly.

4.5 The only significant constraint to the Site is the current Green Belt designation. As detailed above, the Site does not make any meaningful contribution towards the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt, with this designation preventing a sustainable site from delivering much needed homes for older people. The Local Plan provides an opportunity to rectify this and remove the Site from the Green Belt.

4.6 As recognised within the RLPSO, the District has an ageing population and, as set out in national policy and guidance, it is important for the Local Plan to seek to meet the needs of this age group. Whilst some older people will unfortunately require a care home or sheltered housing, many people simply wish to ‘rightsize’ whilst maintaining their independence. The Local Plan must reflect this and allocate specific sites to meet this need, as otherwise it risks failing to meet an identified need contrary to national policy.

4.7 Scott Properties’ Site at Land North of Doggetts Close is well located to provide bungalows for older people to help meet this need, providing residents with a choice of housing whilst enabling them to live independently in their local community. The accompanying Summary Vision Document provides further information about the Site and the proposals but we are also keen to discuss further with the Council to support its allocation.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Generator Group and in respect of Stewards Elm Farm, Great Stambridge (‘the Site’).

1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s Call for Sites, and is reference CFS141 in the Council’s plan-making process.

1.3 The Site is being promoted for residential development to form a sustainable and proportionate extension to the village of Great Stambridge.

1.4 Detailed proposals have yet to be prepared for the Site, instead, we would welcome further discussions with the Council regarding what scale of development is considered appropriate to help sustain the vitality of the village, and what other benefits to the community are sought which development of the Site could assist in delivering.



 
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation Questions

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?

2.1 The RLPSO recognises that affordability of housing is an issue in the District, stating on page 12:

“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times the average annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”.

2.2 The ONS reports that the median house price in the District in 2020 was 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). This suggests affordability of housing in the District is significantly worse than the national average.

2.3 The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 – significantly below the District’s 11.57.

2.4 Additionally, and whilst empirical data is currently limited, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Early indications are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more urban to less urban areas; and for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas.

2.5 At the same time, the situation has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely anticipated that there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is expected that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.

2.6 As a consequence, it is anticipated that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London.
2.7 As a consequence, the area could prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability, particularly for the District’s more rural communities.

2.8 We support Strategic Objective 4:

“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport, serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”

2.9 We suggest that, in addition, this objective should recognise the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house building would have for the District.

2.10 As the RLPSO recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.

2.11 Employment relating directly to the construction of the development will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.

2.12 Development of additional homes in the District will also engender sustained local economic benefits relating to additional local expenditure, with additional expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers of new homes on first occupation, on home set up cost, and on an ongoing basis in local shops and services in the area.

2.13 Conversely, failure to deliver sufficient homes for the District would not only result in a failure to support the local construction industry and failure to realise the potential opportunities outlined above, it would also likely significantly deter inward investment by potential employers, if insufficient, affordable accommodation was not available locally to provide a local workforce.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

2.14 Given the market and affordable housing needs, affordability issues and heritage and environmental constraints in the District, it is important that the overall strategy seeks to provide a wide range of housing options throughout the Plan period in suitable locations. As such, the strategy should utilise a range of different sites to maximise options to bring forward these new homes and associated infrastructure. It will be important that, for whichever spatial strategy is ultimately chosen, the Local Plan directs a proportion of growth to the District’s smaller settlements.

2.15 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) calls on policies to enable smaller settlements to grow and thrive, and for growth to be located in rural areas where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

2.16 In order for the Local Plan to promote sustainable development, it is necessary for it to direct a proportion of the District’s housing growth to its smaller settlements – the NPPF is clear that planning should support smaller rural communities, and allow them to thrive.

2.17 Great Stambridge is an established rural community with a population of 700 (as per Census 2011). As such, it is important that the Local Plan allows it to grow and thrive, including by directing some growth to the village.

2.18 The RLPSO recognises Great Stambridge as an important settlement for its key centre of population. It benefits from a good level of services / provision facilities / service provision for a settlement of its size, noting that it has a primary school, church and village hall. In addition, it also benefits from a public houses and bus services to larger nearby centres, including Rochford and Southend. It is important for the village and its existing community that such facilities are sustained, and the provision of some growth to the village will greatly assist in this regard. The danger is that, if the Local Plan fails to direct any growth towards such smaller settlements, then like many villages in recent years, it will struggle to retain the services it does have. The loss of such facilities / services would of course be of significant detriment to existing residents, as well as the vitality and sustainability of the remaining community.

2.19 The RLPSO suggests that the vision for Great Stambridge includes that it should remain an independent village with its own sense of community. To achieve this, we suggest it will be important to direct some housing growth to the village over the plan period.
2.20 Any strategy which seeks to ensure any additional housing is directed to Great Stambridge would require alterations to the Green Belt boundary, which is currently drawn tightly around the existing residential envelope in the current Development Plan.

2.21 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which the make alterations to the Green Belt boundary, provided there are exceptional circumstances which are fully evidenced and justified.

2.22 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance.

2.23 However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:

• The scale of the objectively assessed need;
• Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
• Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
• The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
• The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.

2.24 The District is subject to an acute local housing need. The existing Green Belt boundary is drawn tightly around the District’s existing settlements, and opportunities to meet development needs are severely restricted without alterations to the Green Belt boundary. This is clearly demonstrated through Spatial Option 1, which sets out that around 4,300 homes could be provided without releasing land from the Green Belt, being a shortfall of around 3,000 homes compared to the identified need. Furthermore, only 800 of these are expected to be affordable homes. With an affordable need of up to 296 homes per year, this would only meet 2.7 years of the need.

2.25 To meet both market and affordable housing needs, it is clear that the District can only feasibly achieve this through the release of Green Belt land.

2.26 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.

Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing?

2.27 We support the broad thrust of the propose vision for Great Stambridge, but suggest it would benefit from making specific reference to seeking to ensure the existing facilities and services in the village are sustained and, where possible, enhanced; and that the vitality of the community is also supported.

Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge? i. Housing

2.28 National policy is clear on the importance of promoting thriving rural communities. The NPPF states at paragraph 79 that:

“Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services”.

2.29 In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes that housing in rural settlements can be important in ensuring their sustainability, and that villages in rural areas often face issues relating to housing supply and affordability. It states:

“People living in rural areas can face particular challenges in terms of housing supply and affordability, while the location of new housing can also be important for the broader sustainability of rural communities”.

2.30 Great Stambridge is considered an established rural community. Within the Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study (2021) Great Stambridge is categorised as ‘Tier 4: Other Villages’. However, as stated within the RLPSO, the ‘Tier 2’ Rochford and Ashingdon Town is less than a mile from the western edge of the village and provides an important service base for the population of Great Stambridge.

2.31 Such locations that already benefit from infrastructure and services with easy connectivity to higher scoring settlements are the type of rural settlement the NPPF encourages new housing to, to support the vitality of the area. As such, we consider it important that the Local Plan ensures the sustainable, proportionate growth of Great Stambridge as part of any option taken forwards.

2.32 To take advantage of the existing services and facilities, it will be important for any development to be well located in relation to the existing developed area of Great Stambridge. Such an approach also allows development to commence quickly given that significant infrastructure is not required to be delivered, which will be important to help meet housing need in the short and medium term.

2.33 In relation to Great Stambridge, Land at Stewards Elm Farm (reference CFS141) is located immediately adjacent to the existing developed area and is a logical extension to the settlement. It should, therefore, be utilised to provide new market and affordable homes to help meet identified needs and maintain the vitality of the rural area.

2.34 The Site comprises Stewards Elm Farm and surrounding grassland located to the west of Great Stambridge. It measures approximately 11.2 hectares in total and is relatively flat and featureless, with the exception of ponds and trees in the north-west; and trees / hedgerows around the site boundary.

2.35 The Site is not subject to any additional landscape-related policies that seek to restrict development other than the Green Belt, which is pertinent given the Coastal Protection Belt to the east.

2.36 Together with the Green Belt designation, parts of the Site are identified as being within Flood Zones 2 and 3. As stated above, detailed proposals are yet to be prepared for the Site but we are confident that development can be accommodated with suitable mitigation where necessary.

2.37 In terms of the designation of the Site within the Green Belt, it is important to consider the contribution it makes towards the Green Belt purposes. Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’) considered the Site as part of Parcel 79 in the Stage 1 Assessment. Parcel 79 is a large area of land covering the entire eastern side of Rochford and Ashingdon. Clearly an assessment of this size parcel of land has limited use when assessing specific sites given that the characteristics are very different. We would caution the Council against giving this weight in the assessment process. Instead, as identified through the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, it is important that Green Belt is considered at a sufficient fine grain. In the Examination of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan, the Inspector advised as follows:

“The phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further”.

2.38 The Green Belt Study (2020) Stage 2 assessment did not consider the Site specifically in detail, with it considered as part of assessment area AA126. However, only a brief assessment was provided with an overall conclusion on the level of harm rather than a detailed assessment against each purpose of the Green Belt.

2.39 The Green Belt Study (2020) found that the Site makes a strong contribution to preventing encroachment on the countryside as it was considered predominantly uncontained, open and undeveloped and to have a strong relationship with the wider countryside due to a lack of significant boundary features. However, it should be noted that the Site does contain an existing dwelling and numerous large agricultural buildings. Further, it must be recognised that for any site not already within a built up area, these conclusions are highly likely to be similar.

2.40 The Site is bounded by existing residential development to the east, with formal tree lined and fenced boundaries to the south and west. As such, the boundaries of the Site are currently defined and through the development of the Site, these could be enhanced through new planting. As such, it is considered to have low potential to lead to unrestricted urban sprawl when considered against purpose 1 of the Green Belt.

2.41 In relation to purpose 2, the Site is some distance from the nearest other settlement, being approximately 1 mile from the edge of Rochford to the south west. Its development would not have any risk of either actual or perceived coalescence of Great Stambridge with any other settlement.

2.42 In respect of purpose 3, there is no existing, strong defensible boundary between the urban area and adjoining countryside. There are tree lined and fenced boundaries to the south and west but no dominant landscape features. Existing development is present and visible within the landscape, with the Site providing an opportunity to reframe this edge. The Site is not currently considered to strongly assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

2.43 The Site is not subject to any heritage or ecological designations, but is in proximity to a Grade II listed building to the south east. This listed building is nestled amongst the existing built up residential area and separated from the Site by numerous existing buildings. Therefore, redevelopment of the Site would not be harmful to its immediate or wider setting. The Site makes no contribution towards preserving the setting and special character of historic towns in respect of purpose 4.

2.44 In respect of purpose 5, this is only applicable where development needs can be met in full on previously developed land. For Rochford District, this is not an option as the amount of market and affordable homes that could be delivered is significantly below the identified need.

2.45 Overall it is considered that the Site makes limited contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt, and its residential development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.

2.46 The Council’s SHELAA 2017 considered that the Site is available and achievable, with the suitability dependent on an assessment of the Green Belt purposes. It was considered suitable in other regards subject to flood risk mitigation. As set out above, the Site is considered to make limited contribution towards the Green Belt purposes and detailed proposals for the Site would identify suitable flood risk mitigation where necessary. It should, therefore, be considered suitable, available and achievable.

2.47 The Site can deliver homes early in the Plan period to meet local and wider needs, whilst providing an important role in helping to maintain the vitality of the rural area and provide choice and new homes for local residents.

2.48 Overall, we consider that a balanced combination of utilising appropriate small scale and larger sites, on both brownfield and greenfield sites is the best approach to seek to meet identified housing needs within the District. This balanced approach provides opportunities to deliver housing close to existing communities, making use of existing sustainable locations whilst providing new homes for people in their local community.
 
3.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment

Assessment Framework

3.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are 1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identify.

3.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:

• Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
• Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
• Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
• Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
• Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?

3.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.

3.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 – significantly below the District’s 11.57.

3.5 In addition, affordability is a concern in more rural areas of the District where limited housing growth and often ageing populations further exacerbate affordability issues.

3.6 The NPPF recognises the important of providing housing in rural areas, being clear that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and that policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive (paragraph 79).

3.7 The NPPF further recognises that housing growth in rural areas can support services, both in the local area and in nearby villages. The RLPSO recognises Great Stambridge as an important settlement for its key centre of population, benefiting from a good levels of services for its size. As recognised by the NPPF, it is important for the Local Plan to reflect the importance of these services and assist in maintaining their viability in the longer term. Providing additional housing to Great Stambridge provides an opportunity to do this, encouraging existing residents needing new housing and/or new residents to live in the area and spend money in the local economy.

3.8 The assessment questions in respect of objective 1 should therefore include recognition of the importance of providing housing in rural areas, to provide choice for residents, improve affordability and to support the vitality of services.

3.9 In respect of the assessment of the spatial strategy options within the IIA, under the population and communities theme it does not mention supporting rural communities. It refers to using brownfield land under option 1 and ‘transformative’ opportunities under options 2 and 3, referring to larger scale development. It does not consider or reflect that small scale development could be undertaken in rural areas and the importance of this for areas such as Great Stambridge.

3.10 The importance of providing housing in existing settlements and not relying on large allocations was highlighted in the recent examination of the Uttlesford Local Plan. The letter from the Inspectors highlighted that the proposed strategy of relying upon large Garden Communities could restrict housing delivery in the short to medium term and ‘would be likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of services in existing towns and villages and result in a lack of housing choice in the market’ . This highlights the need to plan for housing in existing settlements, including smaller areas like Great Stambridge. Such considerations should be included in the assessment of spatial strategy options to be able to understand their impact across the District as a whole.