Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

Canewdon Parish Council is concerned that Canewdon has been included in Tier 3, it seems, based on the fact that it has in excess of 1,000 residents. The actual population is only just over that threshold, not the 6,000 referred to in the simplified document on page 148. CPC considers that the character & amenities of Canewdon are entirely different to Wakering & Hullbridge in the same tier & that it would be unacceptable to consider the potential for development in the same way for Canewdon as for Wakering & Hullbridge. Canewdon residents have to rely heavily on private transport, as public transport is not good, & also need to leave the village to access anything other than the village shop & 1 public house. Whilst some development may help to sustain the limited amenities, residents wish to see the rural character of Canewdon retained.

We agree with the settlement hierarchy as illustrated in Figure 13 and as explained in the supporting text.
In addition to the range of facilities and services referred to for Rayleigh, we would also add that the town has the benefit of high quality public transport opportunities, with a comprehensive bus network and the railway station. Whilst Rochford and Hockley also provide good rail and bus services, the strategic location of Rayleigh on the western side of the district, rather than the east side, offers the greatest opportunities for the use of public transport for access to the so-called Tier 0 settlements such as Basildon, Chelmsford and London.

Yes – Separating settlements by population and service provision is sensible.

I agree

The villages of Little Wakering and Barling should not be included with Great Wakering. The facilities within Great Wakering are skewed to the East of the settlement away from the interface with LW and Barling. This does not represent the area correctly and give an incorrect view of the communities involved.

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 would expect to see reference to:
• The Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan
• Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
• Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan
These plans are needed to assess the long-term sustainability of any proposed sites. Without these I find it difficult to make any comments.
Evaluation of the impact of current development on Hullbridge
I cannot comment on the suitability of the sites in the plan without the Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan which I have been told is being undertaken at present. In my opinion it is premature to consult without these.
I would expect it to see reference to
i) the main Roads and the principal junctions and exit points to Hullbridge on Lower Road, Watery Lane and Hullbridge Road as well as the junction with Rawreth Lane.
ii) Consultation with the schools in Hullbridge, Hockley and Rayleigh to accurately asses capacity, too often there are no places in specific school.
iii) Consultation with Doctors and Pharmacies as well the local Healthcare Trust, currently the Riverside Medical Centre are not moving forward with expansion proposals due to high costs.
iv) Air Quality Management - too many parts of the District have poor CO2/CO readings
Any such Plan would need agreement with Rochford District Council, Essex County Council, and Southend Borough Council as they are all affected.
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]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless (sofa surfers) or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area. No provision for emergency housing.
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]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.
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]
No comments.
Q5.
Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
Broadly yes. But it is important that the hierarchy is not changed through developments and cross boundary development must be carefully planned.
Q6.
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. A single large urban development, possibly shared with Wickford could allow a more environmentally friendly development. A development that allows the infrastructure to be developed in advance of the housing.
Q7.
Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state reasoning]
Small development and windfall developments should be included in housing count.
Q8.
Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please state reasoning]
Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, houses, and businesses but also natural areas as well. The district needs good defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming. New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc. All building should be carbon neutral.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. All coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a risk of flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas and the proposed Regional Park to the West of 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?
Yes.
New developments should be able to produce all energy requirements from zero carbon sources.
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].
Yes. The World is suffering a climate crisis, without higher standards we will not be able to reduce carbon sufficiently to avoid the crisis.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Solar and heat pumps in all new development as standard.
Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
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 district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and again, SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.
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]
Yes, but they must be kept to.
Q16.
a.
Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Yes.
b.
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? [Please state reasoning]
You need different design guides as this district is both unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all" would be detrimental to its character and charm.
c.
What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
You need to ensure that the character and heritage of the settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.
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]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
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]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is small, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold.
We should safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families .
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.
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? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.
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? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20
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? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20.
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]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour.
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? [Please state reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a potential to expand or continue effectively.
Q25.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26.
Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. Improve manufacturing base and revisit the JAAP to make the airport Business Park a technological park.
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?
Other forms of sustainable transport (Tram), gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. No new roads.
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? [Please state reasoning]
The airport brings little to the economy, It could be better used as an expanded technological park or for housing.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings.
These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
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]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
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?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off 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? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
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? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes.
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]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Most of the District feels overcrowded; the road network is no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are often issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39.
Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered.
Q40.
Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
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?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42.
Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back. There are too few areas of accessible open space.
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]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44.
Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
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]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies.
Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 4 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47.
Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q48.
With reference to Figures 38-40, 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. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
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]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size.
Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the area. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. I feel that some of the sites out forward in Rayleigh, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the area.
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? [Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention.
Q52.
Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a proper cycle network as part of the plan. A tram system. No new roads should be built.
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.]
Better links to the Chelmsford perhaps through a tram system, new roads must not be built. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport.
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? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55.
Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a.
Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
No Comment
b.
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?
No Comment
c.
Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing large scale development.
d.
Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e.
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?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.
Q57.
a.
Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
No Comment
b.
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?
c.
Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
d.
Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Hockley Woods
Rayleigh Town Council. Spatial Plan Response 17 V 2.0 Published 13th September 2021
Q60.
a.
Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
No. This has been written by someone with no awareness of Hullbridge. I support the Parish Council Vision.
b.
With reference to Figure 48 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 Hullbridge?
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 2040 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.
Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
c.
Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
All of the areas lie within the green belt, and many will be within the projected 2040 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.
d.
Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
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.
e.
Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.

Please find below my response to the RDC Spatial Options Consultation.

Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.

Spatial option 3b North of Southend is most feasible site.

Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.

Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management.

Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.

Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy - New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.

Settlement Hierarchy: Rayleigh is the largest town in the district, but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.

Planned Forms of Housing: Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of Lifetime Homes specifically adapted homes for the disabled and elderly, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.

From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.

Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan.
This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where it was intended.

Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.

Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered under any circumstances.
Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Civic Suite, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
Rayleigh is clearly already overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are at or near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. The majority of the town is inaccessible for wheelchair users. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres. The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian, and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport.
Ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by landowners and are kept free from debris. Assess paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look at offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in a car park.

Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing, exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open space is at a premium. All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.
All Conservation areas, green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on the call for sites must be protected from Development.

Local Wildlife Sites review: RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas need to be updated. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators to future proof our own existence.

Promoted Sites - Reasons against Development
CFS105 (Land North of Hambro Hill) would negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt between Rayleigh & Hockley. Rochford Green belt study states this parcel of greenbelt has a ‘Moderate’ rating for Purpose 1, and a ‘Strong’ rating for 2 & 3. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another, and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

It was put forward by an Agent or Developer, not the Landowner. Legal constraints already identified. Landowner recently had planning application (20/00826/FUL) approved so extremely unlikely to support any development: Change of use of land from Commercial to combined Agricultural and Equine use. Site was originally used as part of a landfill tip by the former Rayleigh Urban District Council which ceased around 1960.

Grade 1 Agricultural Land Successfully farmed family business for over 50 years (wheat, barley & rape crops.) Fallow agricultural land, equestrian related grazing & woodland. Portion diversified for Equestrian Centre & agricultural barn for storage.

Infrastructure / Transport Overloaded road with a dangerous junction & poor visibility. Low bridge impact public transport – no double decker buses. No cycle paths or means to incorporate one. No pavements near the access road. Public right of way (PROW 298_48) poorly maintained at entrance to the site.

Heritage Assessment by Place Services ECC Minor Adverse / development of this site will cause harm to a heritage asset. The Historic Environment Record notes various finds from the pre-historic period.

Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country RDC should be doing EVERYTHING it can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. RDC should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. RDC must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.

Rayleigh Civic Suite & Mill Hall Arts & Events Centre
Dr Jess Tipper (Historic England)
Rayleigh Castle survives well both as earthwork and buried archaeological remains. It survives as a prominent earthwork in the centre of the town, with wide views across the landscape to the west. The inner bailey is located to the east of the motte and the outer edge of the inner bailey ditch forms the west boundary to the proposed development site.
The proposed development site is within the outer bailey of the castle, which is believed to have been constructed in the late 12th century AD. This is (currently) a non-designated heritage asset with high potential for below-ground archaeological remains; previous archaeological evaluation within the outer bailey had defined evidence of occupation dating between the 10th and 13th centuries, i.e. pre-dating the construction of the outer bailey. Bellingham Lane follows the outer edge of the outer bailey ditch.
The development has the potential to cause substantial harm to below-ground archaeological remains within the development site. The remains of occupation deposits in this area, functionally related to the castle, may be of schedulable quality. Buried artefacts and palaeoenvironmental remains will also have potential to increase our knowledge of the social and economic functioning of the castle and its relationships with the surrounding medieval town and landscape.
We have, therefore, recommended that the Council commissions an archaeological evaluation, to be undertaken by a specialist archaeological contractor, at the earliest opportunity to establish the significance of surviving archaeological remains in this area. Essex CC Place Services provide archaeological advice on behalf of the District Council on non-designated heritage assets and we would expect them to lead on the brief for this work.
The impact of any proposed development at this location on the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets, including the Grade II Listed windmill, will also require robust assessment - to assess the significance of heritage assets, their settings and the contribution their settings make to the significance, and to assess the impact of the proposals on the significance of the designated heritage assets.

Essex CC Place Services High-Level Heritage Assessment for Rochford District (Oct-2020)
The development of these sites will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset. There are likely no options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be avoided.
Built heritage - Lies within the Rayleigh Conservation Area and & medieval town extent. Civic Suite site contains GII Listed Barringtons [1168536]
Archaeological impact - The Civic Suite needs archaeological investigation & any development on the Mill Hall Site impacts the scheduled Monument of Motte and Bailey

The Mill Arts & Events Centre is situated within Rayleigh Mount Conservation Area, between main entrance to Rayleigh Mount (National Trust Scheduled Ancient Monument) & Rayleigh Windmill (Grade II Listed Building.)



It has been a hub of the community in Rayleigh Town for 50 years up until the time it was closed in March 2020 due to the COVID 19 pandemic Lockdown. This year is the Mill Halls’ Golden Jubilee, built in 1971, paid for by the Community.

RDC must approve nomination for the Mill Hall to be classed as an Asset of Community Value.

The Mill Hall showcases local Artworks within its Foyer, and has a permanent mosaic completed by children of our schools. From the first step within the building, visitors can immediately feel the sense of culture and creativity. A large noticeboard of all events, shows and clubs available is straight ahead, plus the ‘tourist board’ style information desks is immediately welcoming and accessible for all.
The Mill Hall is popular with residents and visitors to Rayleigh, with a coffee shop and facilities to use after a visit to the many Heritage sites within the Town Centre. This includes the Windmill (open for weddings & tours), Rayleigh Mount, The Dutch Cottage, Rayleigh Museum, and King George’s park when Fair arrives in Town.
The Mill Hall has the performance provision for staging Theatre, Musical Concerts, Comedy shows, Live Bands etc. The venues’ size is ideal for large scale events in the main hall including Professional Wrestling, Dances, Boxing, Children’s exercise classes (Jumping Beans). Upstairs, the smaller hall has capacity and versatility to cover social events including art exhibitions, Exercise Classes, craft fairs. The Mill Hall is frequently used for wedding receptions, birthday parties, funeral wakes, Charity social nights (including Rayleigh British Legion) and local school Proms.

It is utilised as a social meeting place by a significant number of community organisations, groups, clubs, and exercise classes. They make regular use of the Mill Hall throughout the day, as well as evenings and weekends. Consequences of the decision by the Council to keep the Mill Hall closed, some organisations have dis-banded and others have become less well supported.
The Mill Hall helps to put the town on the map as a tourist destination, improving the local economy and supporting other businesses including the many restaurants & pubs in the area prior or after an Event.


Rayleigh’s position within the District - and its proximity/travel links to Southend-on-Sea and Chelmsford - mean it is well placed to attract tourists and visitors who want to visit, eat out and then enjoy an event/show at the Mill Hall, without a long train journey home. The free parking after 1pm on Saturdays already brings in visitors to Rayleigh for shopping, so this would be ideal for evening shows/events at the Mill Hall.
The Mill Hall has excellent potential once renovated & refurbished. More focus/marketing placed on its Theatre staging ability. It could be a magnet for touring theatre groups and become part of the East of England theatre circuit, much like Chelmsford & Norwich.
Objections have been raised throughout the Asset Strategy Delivery Program by non-Administration District Councillors and residents with Rochford District Council over plans to demolish the Mill Hall and redevelop the site with housing. More than 4,000 people from the District have signed a petition opposing the demolition of the Mill Hall and building housing in the Rayleigh Conservation Area.
The Theatre’s Trust - the national advisory body for theatres and a statutory consultee within the planning system, has written to RDC in support of maintaining the Mill Hall performance venue.
Sustainable development as defined through the NPPF (2019) includes a social objective to support social and cultural wellbeing. Paragraph 92 seeks planning decisions to plan positively for facilities and to guard against unnecessary loss.
We do not consider there to be sufficient justification demonstrating the existing Mill venue and the live events it hosts are no longer required.

We would also suggest the economic impact on the town should be considered in terms of loss of audience spend in other businesses when attending shows and events. There will be significant harm to social and cultural wellbeing through the loss of existing events held at the Mill Hall.

Local Authorities are the biggest funder of arts and culture in England. They support cultural activity in their areas in order to provide their residents with a better quality of life, to promote tourism, stimulate the local economy, and build their area’s reputation – creating a unique sense of place. The Partnership Panel meeting earlier this year requested Officers research funding for the Mill Hall via Arts Council. Has this been completed and what opportunities are there to support this fantastic venue?

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.

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. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rochford District Council is seeking feedback from interested parties on its identified ‘Options’ in the
New Local Plan: Spatial Options document.
1.2 Lee Evans Planning have been instructed to make representations on behalf of Ms Suzanne Redwood,
Mr Roger Lambourne and Mr Colin Humphries.
1.3 Section 2 sets out relevant extant Planning Policy considerations.
1.4 Section 3 reviews and comments on the Spatial Options document, including providing responses to
Questions outlined in the Consultation.

2. CURRENT POLICY POSITION
National Planning Policy Framework
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the meaning and role of sustainable development and how planning can help to achieve it. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
2.2 A rising population and longer life expectancy requires growth and an increase in the volume and
choice of housing. The NPPF identifies the need to complement this growth with high standards of
design and to protect our built, natural and historic environments. The NPPF also highlights the
fundamental role that sustainable development plays in the plan-making and decision making process.
So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development
2.3 The NPPF serves to provide a framework around which the community and the councils can produce
the local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of the community.
The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
2.5 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF reiterates the role of the planning system and the contribution it must make to realising sustainable development. Sustainable development has three dimensions to it; economic,
social and environmental.
• an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and
coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
• a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and
• an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate
change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
2.6 The NPPF considers in further detail the need to protect and improve the quality of the built, natural and historic environment. One aspect of this aim is to widen the choice of quality homes. This can be achieved through the plan-making process, as discussed in paragraph 11.
Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that:
a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development
needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;
b) 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, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
2.7 Paragraph 60 notes the need to boost the supply of homes through land allocation. To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.
2.8 Paragraph 61 outlines the approach to determining housing need. The New Local Plan; Spatial Options
document is unclear on the degree to which the duty to cooperate has been explored with neighbouring areas, suggesting that at present the assumption should be made that all identified housing need must be delivered within the district.
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 which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. 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.
2.9 Each year the local planning authority will identify their supply of specific deliverable sites to provide the next five years of housing with an additional 5% buffer. This will allow for both choice and competition in the market. Developable sites that can accommodate for years 6-10 of the plan period and beyond will also be identified.
2.10 A 10% buffer should be provided “where the local planning authority wishes to demonstrate a five year
supply of deliverable sites through an annual position statement or recently adopted plan, to account for any fluctuations in the market during that year”.
2.11 A 20% buffer should be provided “where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the
previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the planned supply”. The NPPG elaborates
by stating that “A 20% buffer will apply to a local planning authority’s five-year land supply if housing delivery falls below 85%”.
2.12 If a five year supply of deliverable housing cannot be demonstrated policies relating to the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date. All housing applications should be considered on the basis of a presumption in favour of sustainable development as has been discussed above. The most recent Authority Monitoring Report (draft 2019-2020), suggests that there exists a district housing need of 1,800 homes over a five year period (equating to 360 homes per year) and that the Council could at that time illustrate a 6.32 year housing land supply at a 5% buffer level, and 5.53 year supply at the 20% buffer, albeit it is noted that this was only draft and requires updating for the 2020-2021 period. The current supply is unknown but the Spatial Options document notes that the need for 360 homes per
year over the course of the Plan (20 years), equating to 7,200 homes total, remains. This figure does not include for assisting other districts in the duty to cooperate or any 5/20% buffer, so could well be higher. Notwithstanding this, there is a clear need to increase the allocation of housing land in the new Local Plan to illustrate the potential for 7,200 homes to be delivered.
2.13 Paragraph 73 highlights the opportunity for larger scale development and the benefits of this approach
in achieving the necessary supply of housing. It is possible that new settlements or extensions to
existing settlements can provide a route to sustainable development.
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).
2.14 Paragraph 23 notes that Local Plans should plan positively for development by allocating sites for
development and identify land where development would be inappropriate due to its environmental or historic significance.
Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic 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 or and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area
2.15 Paragraph 138 of the NPPF refers to the purposes of the Green Belt;
Green Belt serves five purposes:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2.16 Local Plans will be examined by an independent inspector before they are adopted. To be considered
ready for adoption they will need to be shown to be ‘sound’, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF;
Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been
prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are
‘sound’ if they are:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks 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 where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) 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 d) 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. Rochford District Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan
2.17 The key strategic documents in the local development plan are the adopted Core Strategy 2011 and the Allocations Plan 2014. These are both dated documents and would be considered out of date where
the content conflicts with NPPF policy. Nonetheless, they provide a useful basis against which to subsequently consider the options in the New Local Plan consultation.
2.18 The following exerts are of interest;
District
2.41 “Failure to provide affordable housing that meets the needs of the District’s residents may lead to
continued out-migration, to the detriment of the vitality of local communities.” (p31)
Rayleigh
“The largest settlement is Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people (38% of the District’s
residents at that time).” (p28)
Housing Development
2.39 “As well as directing housing growth to areas of need/demand, and away from unsustainable
locations subject to constraints, the Council must consider the relationship of housing growth to areas
of employment growth.” (p30)
Vision – Medium/Long Term “A range of high-quality, sustainable new dwellings that meet the needs
of local people of all social groups are in place and integrated into communities. The vast majority of
the District’s Green Belt remains undeveloped. New infrastructure has accompanied new residential
development, meeting the need of local communities.” (p41)
Policy H1 – the efficient use of land for housing
“The remaining housing requirement that cannot be delivered through the redevelopment of appropriate previously developed land will be met through extensions to the residential envelopes of existing settlements as outlined in Policy H2.” (p45)
The Green Belt
Housing Objective “Prioritise the redevelopment of appropriate brownfield sites for housing, to minimise the release of Green Belt land for development” (p41).
“In order to fulfil the requirements of the East of England Plan and to meet the housing need of the District, the Council is required to allocate additional land for residential development, including land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt, due to the limited supply” (p45).
“it must be also mindful of the need to maintain Green Belt as far as possible.” (p46)
2.19 The extant Core Strategy outlines a strong protection of the Green Belt, as per national policy. However, this was predicated on an old housing need and supply, which is now out of line with current demand
and what can be achieved through existing permissions, allocations, brownfield sites and windfall forecasts. Rayleigh is considered a focal settlement and one that has both a sizeable population already and the infrastructure to service those residents.
2.20 Notwithstanding the above, the Council recognised the need to review the designation of the Green Belt in the face of the relatively low housing need at the time the Core Strategy was drafted. It states;
The Council will continue to support the principles of restricting development in the Green Belt, as set out in PPG2, and will preserve the character and openness of the Green Belt. However, a small proportion of the District’s Green Belt will have to have its designation reviewed to allow the development of additional housing and business premises, taking account of the very limited
opportunities to accommodate further development within existing settlements.
2.21 This position regarding housing need and lack of land supply (before moving onto Green Belt land), will
be felt more acutely during the drafting of this new Local Plan.

3. NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS QUESTIONS
3.1 It is noted that in its introductory section the Spatial Options document considers the need to “coordinate the delivery of much needed housing”. It also states that;

“Rochford should consider every opportunity to meet its own housing needs within its own authority
area, with a focus on genuinely affordable housing that meets genuinely local needs”
3.2 Given the extent of Green Belt in this part of South East Essex, it is considered likely that as in Rochford,
surrounding districts will find it difficult to deliver their full quota of required housing land supply within
existing settlements and on brownfield land, i.e. there will be a need to use Green Belt. To this end it is
submitted that they will be unable to offer assistance to Rochford in providing surplus land to accommodate housing delivery. We support the Spatial Options document in the above assertion.
3.3 This will necessitate a review of Green Belt designation to a greater extent than that previously carried out with the adopted Core Strategy. As noted above, Green Belt serves 5 purposes; “to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to
assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.” It is submitted that where these matters are less acutely felt, and in those areas of lesser
landscape quality, new housing land allocations could be proposed within the currently designated Green Belt, to assist with achieving the necessary housing land supply. The Core Strategy acknowledges this approach;
The term ‘Green Belt’ refers to a planning designation and is not necessarily a description of quality of
the land. Land designated as Green Belt can include, primarily for historical reasons, developed land and
brownfield sites. As such, whilst it is considered that all land currently designated as Green Belt helps achieve the five green belt purposes as set out in the NPPF to at least a degree, some green belt land is less worthy of continued protection.
3.4 This is acknowledged in the New Local Plan: Spatial Options document, which considers 4no. spatial
options for delivery of necessary development and infrastructure. All but Option 1 would necessitate
the use of Green Belt.
Question 5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think
are required?
3.6 We support the settlement hierarchy presented. This focuses development at the most appropriate
settlements in the order of their ability to support new development. Rayleigh benefits from a strong existing resident mass and thus has a viability for growth and expansion of businesses and communities. We would submit that the majority of new development, and residential site allocations, should be around Rayleigh.
Question 6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.7 We support Strategy Option 2 and in particular Option 2a. This option provides a balanced response to the housing need of 7,200 – 10,800 dwellings (delivering between 8,700 to 10,700 dwellings), the necessary mass to support a good level of new infrastructure and facilities, and the need to minimise as much as possible the release of Green Belt for development.
3.8 Option 1 would not deliver the required housing land necessary to respond to the identified housing
need over the course of the Plan, and as discussed, it is considered unlikely that other surrounding districts would be able to assist with additional land. Option 3 would necessitate a significant release of Green Belt and would have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding Green Belt due to the size of a new villages/towns. As with to Option 3, Option 4 would require a sizeable release of Green Belt and significant impact on surrounding land around any new villages/towns.
3.9 Figure 23 of the Spatial Options document provides a Sustainability Appraisal of the various Options and this illustrates the balance that Option 2 provides, albeit it is noted that Option 4 scores best.
However, due to its mix of strategies for the delivery of development we would note a concern that it would pose significant complexities in implementing. In order to achieve the development required the full mix of strategies would be required, and if one were to fail or be delayed (as is a real risk with new villages/towns), a shortfall in housing or employment space could result, putting the Council’s position at risk.
Question 56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
3.10 We support the vision for Rayleigh. It is and should remain the only Tier 1 settlement given its existing
population mass, infrastructure/facilities provision and ability to accommodate significant growth relative to other settlements. The growth and expansion of Rayleigh with urban extensions would generate a sizeable portion of the housing quota required to respond to the identified housing need. Through the development of the majority of those sites submitted for consideration around the edges of Rayleigh, this focal settlement could alleviate pressures on more rural settings and larger swathes of
Green Belt throughout the rest of the district.
Questions 56b, 56c, 56d and 56e.
3.11 It is submitted that land at Call for Sites references CFS044 and CFS256 would offer an opportunity to
contribute to identified housing need delivery in a Green Belt location that could maintain the five purposes of Green Belt and in a location that has reduced landscape quality but is also well screened from surrounding areas. The attached initial Scoping Landscape Statement and Transport Planning Technical Note support that proposal.
3.12 The Council have carried out an initial assessment of these sites, as below.

[SEE DOCUMENT FOR IMAGE]

3.13 Whilst the appraisals above highlight the impact upon Green Belt, as discussed it is submitted that most
virgin sites put forward will impact upon that designation. It is considered that a sequential assessment
of the districts Green Belt would be appropriate in this regard and could highlight those sites that would
have a lesser visual impact and still maintain the purposes of Green Belt as best possible. The above
sites are expected to respond positively in both regards. The accompanying Scoping Landscape Statement concludes thus;
The landscape is subdivided into paddocks and is not of the highest visual quality, but the structure is strong and there are valued elements within it. The site is well contained by woodland and hedgerows, which should be used to inform design work for any forthcoming development proposal. Development of the site would take place within the current Green Belt designation / boundary, but the impact of development upon the openness of the Green Belt would be limited, due to the site's location adjacent to the existing urban area, its location within an enclave of landscape defined by the urban area and the A127, and the fact that the site's character is already enclosed, offering few publicly
accessible viewpoints.
Development of the site would not bring about coalescence of settlement, due to the strong landscape
barrier represented by the A127 itself, and the extensive Pound Wood Nature Reserve to the south of it,
separating the site from Daws Heath. Should the site be brought forward for development, design work should be informed by a full understanding of local landscape and visual character. The enclosed and compartmentalised character of the site should be retained and used as a constraint for design.
3.14 The Sustainability Appraisal also scores the sites low on ‘Existing site access’. However, the
accompanying Transport Planning Technical Note identifies 3no. possible accesses to the site, two of
which would be new accesses. It comments thus;
A number of options have been identified as having good potential for providing vehicle access to the site to unlock its development potential and deliver between 200 and 300 residential dwellings as part of the new Rochford Local Plan.
Providing a sustainable transport link from the site to the north is considered important to unlock the full sustainable development potential of the site as there are a number of local facilities and services on this section of A1015 Eastwood Road including bus stops.
3.15 It is submitted that in other key criteria the sites score well in the Sustainability Appraisal and in
combination would provide a high scoring option as a residential/housing allocation (including market
and affordable).
3.16 It is submitted that generally the area of these sites is well suited to accommodating a moderate
amount of new development. It is well enclosed by existing built form with the edge of Rayleigh to the
immediate north and the A127 to the immediate south. As such it would not lead to an interruption of
open land and countryside to the detriment of the landscape and quality of Green Belt. Furthermore,
this area scores well in terms of its Walking Completeness Score, in particular the two sites identified,
which are adjacent to land scoring of 8-10.
3.17 In combination with other similarly sized sites in this location to the south east of Rayleigh, a good level
of housing land supply could be achieved across numerous parcels (each able to provide in the region
100 to 400 dwellings). This would not necessitate significant new infrastructure but rather upgrades to
existing. Furthermore, the delivery of this volume of dwellings across several parcels would allow for
the retention of important green spaces and structural planting in between, which could serve to
maintain the green character of this urban/rural fringe and complement the Green Belt beyond.
3.18 We Support the allocation of Open Space and Local Wildlife Sites to the east of Rayleigh. It is
submitted that development on or adjacent to these protected sites could negatively impact upon
them, through increased light/air/noise pollution and walker/visitors (in the case of the wildlife sites).
There is an added logic in retaining these sites as open space and wildlife sites (for their intrinsic value)
as they could double as Green Belt.

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.

We live in Barling Magna and have done so for 35 years and never have we been so concerned about an issue.

I have serious concerns around the consultation document itself, it uses place names like ‘Stonebridge’ rather than a ward name, it has omissions of current ongoing developments , which when completed will add to the general congestion on some roads. Because, I was informed, they have consent they do not need to be shown as this reflects a call for new land. But surely we need to now about them to assess the overall amount of development in an area before we can assess if we can accept more.

It says, and Rochford has confirmed, ‘infrastructure first’, but there is no indication as to how or where this infrastructure would be - whether it be first or last, so how can one assess a site without knowing where the new road would go to get there?

The Council should not reach any conclusions until Government Housing Policy and numbers to be found has been confirmed.

The consultation has divided large swathes of offered land up into small parcels and invites comments on the parcels rather than the overall principal of a development in that area. This contributes to a very difficult to follow consultation made far worse by poor software running the consultation.

On the above points alone I question the validity of this consultation.

The consultation invites comments on the future categorisation of land, residential, employment, green etc. However, most of the land that has been put forward is currently green belt land, and it’s development would be against current RDC policies.

“The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt.” There are exceptions but these do not include house building on anything other than a minor scale.

I suspect that most of the residents would wish it to remain green belt. What is the point of having green belt land if, just because it is easier to build on than brownfield it becomes an option in the next consultation etc. Government policy has indicated that the use of green belt land should not be assumed and indeed this classification could be sufficient to rule out its use other than for minor applications.

Now, more than ever, development should look to be sustainable, indeed it is beholden on our Cllrs and our Council Planning Dept to ensure that it is.

Sustainability comes in many shapes, from the loss of a land use, through the materials used for building plus a plethora of issues like heat pumps, solar, glazing etc and this must include the sourcing of such items, through to accessibility, congestion, new roads needed and reliance on various forms of transport, easy access to work, education, health etc. Economic sustainability must also be assured and this goes beyond economic delivery but also includes the longer term economic viability for both new and current residents.

Based upon the above I would make the following comments-

• No housing development, from Rayleigh eastwards, in the current green belt or on agricultural land should be permissible on sustainability grounds other than small infill of ribbon development areas, extension to existing dwellings in green belt and ‘granny flats’ where space and neighbour privacy permits etc. Allow residents to make the most of their properties rather than needing to move.
• All current green belt land adjoining woodland, parkland, ancient copses etc should be retained and reinforced as protected green space and backfill towards these important wildlife havens and CO2 catchments should be prohibited.
• The destruction of arable land should not be permitted. We need to be as self sufficient in food matters as we can be, importing from Canada or France for example is far less sustainable and could become more difficult in the future.
• Access to and through Hockley, Ashingdon and Rochford is beyond capacity and cannot be expected to take any more traffic. A journey that 15 years ago took 15 mins now takes 30 minutes minimum and often more. Traffic around Rochford is often at a standstill due to parking, deliveries etc and at the morning and afternoon busy times it is totally snarled up.
• Brown field sites and intensification of existing dwelling areas should only be developed with a very light touch unless easy access to jobs, schools etc without adding to road congestion can be imposed and maintained.
• Rochford should not accept development that is accessed by highways that are not within the district or where necessary facilities including jobs are not able to be provided within close proximity preventing the need for more vehicle movements on already over congested roads.
• Reliance on Southend facilities, the A127 within Southend and Bournes Green Chase etc. should not be countenanced. Southend has high unemployment in many wards and high deprivation in the central wards, good jobs that provide good incomes are scarce in Southend, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering, Barling, Paglesham etc. Thus any new residents moving into the area will be driving in and out each day or trying to access trains with limited parking.
• The lack of suitable employment the further east you go is also a major factor in the sustainability of the economic issues. Barling on good run is 30 mins from Rayleigh Weir, more development can only slow this even more.
• All construction materials will have to get to the east of Rayleigh via already tired and congested roads causing yet more delays, polluted air and disruption for residents and importantly businesses in the east of Southend. The greater the congestion into Southend the fewer returning tourists and the fewer jobs in Southend!

On a more positive note and in recognition that RDC, BDC and SBC all have to provide some new dwellings that will probably not be able to be fully accommodated within the town centres or brown field sites there are a few areas where I consider development would be sustainable,
• Along the north side of the A127, accessed by a new slip road off the A127.
• Land adjoining or close to the A130 in the south Rawreth area, (CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 ) here sufficient development could take place in conjunction with Basildon and Southend to absorb much of the dwelling numbers currently required by Government whilst at the same being large enough to sustain education facilities, healthcare, small retail and supermarkets etc alongside leisure and sports. Good access is here for work with A130 to Chelmsford, A127 to Basildon and Rayleigh, A13 to Thames corridor etc and those commuting by train can access Rayleigh Station relatively easily (or even a new station). As when and if the A127 is ever upgraded into Southend adequately and as when and if their unemployment rates improve then more work opportunities will open up.

• I support strategy option 3a a massed development west of Rayleigh, indeed I see a small new garden town as the only sensible, sustainable and long term economic option. This would not destroy the country side around existing villages nor lead to more traffic and congestion issues east of Rayleigh. It also allows for co-operation from different authorities to work together for benefit of their residents.
• I do not support the other strategy options as a means to provide any significant numbers of dwellings.

More specifically


CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS161, and any further development along or requiring access to the roads Church Road, Folly Lane, Folly Chase, High Road, Main Road, Aldermans Hill etc and all the way through to Rochford Town Centre via Hall Road and Stroud Green should be considered as over-development and an undesirable change of use.
These roads cannot be improved to accommodate the already excessive traffic. Some sites along or close to these roads are encroaching on potential wildlife areas and others are on the periphery of woodland etc. None of these sites would generate enough to provide the necessary highway improvements, even assuming this were possible, Rayleigh has singularly failed to sort out its traffic congestion problems despite many attempts to do so. Nor would they generate sufficient for the other infrastructure contributions that would be needed to make these areas better, more attractive areas to live in for both new and existing residents. The result would be a significant loss of amenity and worsening living conditions for the existing residents.

CFS004, Barling, this site could take a few houses as extension of ribbon development but the land would be better suited to be used as woodland or wild flower meadow to the rear, and form parking for the school to the front of the site if agriculture is no longer viable. The numbers suggested to be built on this site are way more than sensible, not least due to the location near a school, the specifics of the road there, the very difficult parking in the area and the risk of flood. 29 new homes means at least 29 if not far more vehicles going into and out of the village each day, more school places etc,.

All development in Barling, Little and Great Wakering on greenfield or agricultural sites should not be considered further. I have already discussed the sustainability of areas to the east of the district and here more than ever that is important. Also, however, this land offers a real buffer against the muddling of Southend and Rochford, which is intrinsic to the identity of the 3 areas and also offers open space and leisure for Southend residents in the east of the borough . Green space is hardly prolific in this sector of Southend. I also disagree with the ‘convenient’ adding of these three areas together to form a tier, Barling is not part of nor similar to the Wakerings and should be considered along with tier 4 villages.

The roads in the Barling area are small narrow roads often without pavements, there are sharp bends and ditches etc, these are rural roads and should remain so.

Most of us live in these areas and especially in Barling because we like the rural feel of the area. We want to preserve that way of life and major developments
taking years to build and then thousands of residents with cars causing congestion and poorer air quality will destroy it forever. Given the way the estuaries divide up our district we need to preserve the countryside within each estuary sector. Thames - Roach and Roach - Crouch.

I trust you will carefully consider the above points when deciding the outcome of the consultation and that you realise the strength of feeling of residents.

Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns and suggestions

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.

Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.
Spatial option 3b North of Southend is most feasible site.
Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management.
Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy - New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
Settlement Hierarchy: Rayleigh is the largest town in the district, but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.
Planned Forms of Housing: Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, Adapted homes for the disabled, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan.
This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where it was intended.

Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.

Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered.
Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Civic Suite, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
Rayleigh is overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres. The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian, and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport.
Ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by landowners and are kept free from debris. Assess paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look at offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in a car park.
Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing, exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open space is at a premium. All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.
All Conservation areas, green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on the call for sites must be protected from Development.
Local Wildlife Sites review: RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas need to be updated. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators to future proof our own existence.
Promoted Sites - Reasons against Development
CFS105 (Land North of Hambro Hill) would negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt between Rayleigh & Hockley. Rochford Green belt study states this parcel of greenbelt has a ‘Moderate’ rating for Purpose 1, and a ‘Strong’ rating for 2 & 3. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another, and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


It was put forward by an Agent or Developer, not the Landowner. Legal constraints already identified. Landowner recently had planning application (20/00826/FUL) approved so extremely unlikely to support any development: Change of use of land from Commercial to combined Agricultural and Equine use. Site was originally used as part of a landfill tip by the former Rayleigh Urban District Council which ceased around 1960.


Grade 1 Agricultural Land Successfully farmed family business for over 50 years (wheat, barley & rape crops.) Fallow agricultural land, equestrian related grazing & woodland. Portion diversified for Equestrian Centre & agricultural barn for storage.

Infrastructure / Transport Overloaded road with a dangerous junction & poor visibility. Low bridge impact public transport – no double decker buses. No cycle paths or means to incorporate one. No pavements near the access road. Public right of way (PROW 298_48) poorly maintained at entrance to the site.

Heritage Assessment by Place Services ECC Minor Adverse / development of this site will cause harm to a heritage asset. The Historic Environment Record notes various finds from the pre-historic period.

Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country RDC should be doing EVERYTHING it can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. RDC should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. RDC must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.

Rayleigh Civic Suite & Mill Hall Arts & Events Centre
Dr Jess Tipper (Historic England)
Rayleigh Castle survives well both as earthwork and buried archaeological remains. It survives as a prominent earthwork in the centre of the town, with wide views across the landscape to the west. The inner bailey is located to the east of the motte and the outer edge of the inner bailey ditch forms the west boundary to the proposed development site.
The proposed development site is within the outer bailey of the castle, which is believed to have been constructed in the late 12th century AD. This is (currently) a non-designated heritage asset with high potential for below-ground archaeological remains; previous archaeological evaluation within the outer bailey had defined evidence of occupation dating between the 10th and 13th centuries, i.e. pre-dating the construction of the outer bailey. Bellingham Lane follows the outer edge of the outer bailey ditch.
The development has the potential to cause substantial harm to below-ground archaeological remains within the development site. The remains of occupation deposits in this area, functionally related to the castle, may be of schedulable quality. Buried artefacts and palaeoenvironmental remains will also have potential to increase our knowledge of the social and economic functioning of the castle and its relationships with the surrounding medieval town and landscape.
We have, therefore, recommended that the Council commissions an archaeological evaluation, to be undertaken by a specialist archaeological contractor, at the earliest opportunity to establish the significance of surviving archaeological remains in this area. Essex CC Place Services provide archaeological advice on behalf of the District Council on non-designated heritage assets and we would expect them to lead on the brief for this work.
The impact of any proposed development at this location on the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets, including the Grade II Listed windmill, will also require robust assessment - to assess the significance of heritage assets, their settings and the contribution their settings make to the significance, and to assess the impact of the proposals on the significance of the designated heritage assets.

Essex CC Place Services High-Level Heritage Assessment for Rochford District (Oct-2020)
The development of these sites will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset. There are likely no options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be avoided.
Built heritage - Lies within the Rayleigh Conservation Area and & medieval town extent. Civic Suite site contains GII Listed Barringtons [1168536]
Archaeological impact - The Civic Suite needs archaeological investigation & any development on the Mill Hall Site impacts the scheduled Monument of Motte and Bailey

The Mill Arts & Events Centre is situated within Rayleigh Mount Conservation Area, between main entrance to Rayleigh Mount (National Trust Scheduled Ancient Monument) & Rayleigh Windmill (Grade II Listed Building.)

It has been a hub of the community in Rayleigh Town for 50 years up until the time it was closed in March 2020 due to the COVID 19 pandemic Lockdown. This year is the Mill Halls’ Golden Jubilee, built in 1971, paid for by the Community.

RDC must approve nomination for the Mill Hall to be classed as an Asset of Community Value.
The Mill Hall showcases local Artworks within its Foyer, and has a permanent mosaic completed by children of our schools. From the first step within the building, visitors can immediately feel the sense of culture and creativity. A large noticeboard of all events, shows and clubs available is straight ahead, plus the ‘tourist board’ style information desks is immediately welcoming and accessible for all.
The Mill Hall is popular with residents and visitors to Rayleigh, with a coffee shop and facilities to use after a visit to the many Heritage sites within the Town Centre. This includes the Windmill (open for weddings & tours), Rayleigh Mount, The Dutch Cottage, Rayleigh Museum, and King George’s park when Fair arrives in Town.
The Mill Hall has the performance provision for staging Theatre, Musical Concerts, Comedy shows, Live Bands etc. The venues’ size is ideal for large scale events in the main hall including Professional Wrestling, Dances, Boxing, Children’s exercise classes (Jumping Beans). Upstairs, the smaller hall has capacity and versatility to cover social events including art exhibitions, Exercise Classes, craft fairs. The Mill Hall is frequently used for wedding receptions, birthday parties, funeral wakes, Charity social nights (including Rayleigh British Legion) and local school Proms.
It is utilised as a social meeting place by a significant number of community organisations, groups, clubs, and exercise classes. They make regular use of the Mill Hall throughout the day, as well as evenings and weekends. Consequences of the decision by the Council to keep the Mill Hall closed, some organisations have dis-banded and others have become less well supported.
The Mill Hall helps to put the town on the map as a tourist destination, improving the local economy and supporting other businesses including the many restaurants & pubs in the area prior or after an Event.
Rayleigh’s position within the District - and its proximity/travel links to Southend-on-Sea and Chelmsford - mean it is well placed to attract tourists and visitors who want to visit, eat out and then enjoy an event/show at the Mill Hall, without a long train journey home. The free parking after 1pm on Saturdays already brings in visitors to Rayleigh for shopping, so this would be ideal for evening shows/events at the Mill Hall.
The Mill Hall has excellent potential once renovated & refurbished. More focus/marketing placed on its Theatre staging ability. It could be a magnet for touring theatre groups and become part of the East of England theatre circuit, much like Chelmsford & Norwich.
Objections have been raised throughout the Asset Strategy Delivery Program by non-Administration District Councillors and residents with Rochford District Council over plans to demolish the Mill Hall and redevelop the site with housing. More than 4,000 people from the District have signed a petition opposing the demolition of the Mill Hall and building housing in the Rayleigh Conservation Area.
The Theatre’s Trust - the national advisory body for theatres and a statutory consultee within the planning system, has written to RDC in support of maintaining the Mill Hall performance venue.
Sustainable development as defined through the NPPF (2019) includes a social objective to support social and cultural wellbeing. Paragraph 92 seeks planning decisions to plan positively for facilities and to guard against unnecessary loss.
We do not consider there to be sufficient justification demonstrating the existing Mill venue and the live events it hosts are no longer required.

We would also suggest the economic impact on the town should be considered in terms of loss of audience spend in other businesses when attending shows and events. There will be significant harm to social and cultural wellbeing through the loss of existing events held at the Mill Hall.
Local Authorities are the biggest funder of arts and culture in England. They support cultural activity in their areas in order to provide their residents with a better quality of life, to promote tourism, stimulate the local economy, and build their area’s reputation – creating a unique sense of place. The Partnership Panel meeting earlier this year requested Officers research funding for the Mill Hall via Arts Council. Has this been completed and what opportunities are there to support this fantastic venue?

Ref Spatial Options Paper
Rochford District Local Plan response / comments
Question numbers followed by comment
Q1 I believe that RDC should conduct a study to check the validity of the government’s target of 7,200 to 10,800 homes with the Rochford District. The study should check whether facilities and infrastructure have kept pace with development over the last 5 decades (not whether the infrastructure can be stretched further to cope but has it increased in line with development in the past).
Q1 RDC must take a proactive role in studying traffic increase when developing the Local Plan, not simply rely on Essex County Council advice.
If the government’s requirement, which could easily increase the District’s population by 30%, were found to be at odds with the infrastructural and facility capacities of the district then RDC should vigorously challenge government targets and seek a reduced more appropriate level of development during the plan period.
Q1 RDC should study opportunities to impose solar panels and other environmental features on all new developments. Recent and current development show no sign of adopting such measures therefore we cannot rely of a voluntary code. This must become an RDC Planning Policy with conditions imposed on all new approved applications. If support from central government required then they should be approached as a matter of some urgency.
Q1 RDC should conduct an air quality study throughout the district, not just at a very limited selected locations (all main roads and junctions in particular).
Q2 Draft Vision is far too optimistic and does not address the realities of current situation and challenges of the future.
Our vision should include respect for residents views – especially when consulted (which should be frequent).
Our Vision should include more infrastructure and facilities for existing communities which have already grown to a capacity population eg Rayleigh during recent waves of development. This infrastructure must be in place before new development is permitted
Rochford District vision should aim maintain green boundaries of individual communities - no merging of towns and villages at the boundary.
Our vision should include a desire for no further substantial boundary developments in and around Rayleigh and Rawreth, no more urban extension. The logic is that the old main roads (B roads etc.), that support the town are overburdened and cannot cope with additional traffic.
Our vision for the Plan period should be that if additional development is proved to be necessary within the Local Plan, then it should be sited in a separate ‘Garden Village’ development away from existing communities (separate from towns, villages and hamlets), with new infrastructure and roads connecting to existing main roads such as Eastern Avenue with its nearby facilities and retail opportunities.

Q5 Rayleigh is the biggest town in population and is currently undergoing yet another round of significant additional residential development in the form of urban expansion. It is therefore of deep concern that public facilities such as Mill Hall and Council Chamber are proposed to be removed from Rayleigh. It is suggested that the Council Debating Chamber be relocated to a town lower down in the hierarchy list. This is against overwhelming public opposition expressed in the Public Consultation (Engagement). Therefore the Local Plan review should consider whether hierarchy refers to population the Council serves or some other measurement which dictates where public facilities should go.

Q6 in view of public concern in most of the communities in the district, a new Garden Village Development in the east of the district, away from existing communities, should become policy, even if it regrettably it encroaches on greenbelt/agricultural land (most development will be on agricultural land anyway unless sufficient existing brownfield sites can be identified. Sites within the District that should be considered for a Garden Village new settlement are CFS155, CFS260Z, CFS260AE, CFS260AE, CFS260H, CFS260AK, CFS071, CFS071, CFS260G.
Urban extension of our existing communities is no longer acceptable in the RDC area.
Q10 Answer is NO, I do not agree. We are obliged to consider all areas if we are forced to accept new development by government. No such policy should be approved.
Q11, Q12 + Q13 RDC should demand solar panels and other environmental additions for all new housing schemes and industrial and commercial developments. The large ‘sheds’ in industrial / commercial areas would be excellent location for solar energy collection. However RDC need to do something positive about it and uphold robust planning policy on the subject not merely refer to it in the minor text of reports.
Where solar farms and wind farms are approved on agricultural land. The developers must be legally obliged to re-instate as agricultural land when their solar or wind farm etc. use is withdrawn / removed / not commenced. It should be a policy of RDC to demand legal guarantees regarding the same.
Q16 in particular item b, design guidelines should be just that – guidelines. It is not appropriate to have neo Georgian or pastiche Victorian dormers imposed on a 1960’s or mid 20th century properties. 50,60 and 70 year old property will be the heritage properties of the near future. Although not a strict rule this also applies to our town centres, shops and conservation areas.

Q18 modest starter homes for local people required, including some social housing. This is contrary to developer’s normal practice of building high value / high profit homes. RDC should challenge national government about this if they have a problem with adopting this as policy.
RDC should avoid flats especially in our crowded town centres and should generally stop all residential development in town centres, in particular Rayleigh Conservation Area, other than already accepted policy of change of use for rooms above shops as per current Local Plan.
Q20 it is important to have a well regulated Travellers Site approved, away from our communities, in order to avoid uncontrollable development of other land (as seen in recent times).
Q21 previously identified site close to A1245 / A127 junction (west side)
Q22 Travellers sites should be well regulated with clear unbreachable green boundaries.
Q23 Town centre and commercial land should not be used for housing.
Q25 the recent move to home working from former city based office working in London etc, should be carefully considered when predicting future work patterns. The change will inevitably lead to new commercial opportunities within the district that will require flexibility and commercial opportunities in our town centres and industrial estates. These sites should not be used for housing.
Q29 open/agricultural land on the edge towns and villages is very important to conserve. However the strict protection of remote agricultural land at the expense of open land close to our communities should be opposed. We have for too long sacrificed our communities on the altar of green belt protection in remote areas.
Q30 a few special sites should be protected (SSI’s etc), but the current boundaries of our towns must also be protected. They too preserve wildlife and precious environmental assets. Town and village boundary green spaces give opportunities for our population to enjoy recreation without resorting to driving to distant green locations.
Q34 A Garden Village in the east of the district away from existing communities is the best option for any essential future development. Reasoning: we have already had too much urban extension, time to do something different for future decades of growth.
Q35 & Q36 new Garden Village with new infrastructure paid for by developer.
Q37 There is very little additional capacity Rayleigh in particular, also in all other towns and villages generally in the RDC area. The burden of traffic on centuries old roads causes delay and further air pollution problems. Leaving Rayleigh at many busy times can often take as much time as a 20 mile journey after leaving the town.
Q44 It is vital that Rayleigh’s existing Conservation area be protected from housing development, views of the listed Windmill and Mount must be protected. The Civic Suite our link with local democracy with it’s historic Council Chamber should preserved and used. It is the top town in the hierarchy as stated in the draft Local Plan, with the biggest population. Therefore it is illogical to remove these facilities from the town. The beautiful gardens to the rear of Barringtons / Civic Suite – a significant part of the Rayleigh Conservation Area – should be protected.
Rayleigh’s Conservation Area should also be extended to the south as far as Rayleigh Weir under the Local Plan review. Although there are a small number of less attractive shops and restaurants close to the Police Station (buildings of their time), which could be designated an improvement area, this quickly changes to grand historic buildings of significance; the Library, Salvation Army chapel, Love Lane School, the old Post Office, former Elephant and Castle pub on the corner of Castle Road, the Baptist Chapel from the late 18th century, the Paul Pry which is not listed, the grand Rayleigh House and cottages opposite (none listed), right down to the Beautiful Weir Farm. It is not just the buildings that make a conservation area, fine trees and vegetation, in abundance at these locations, also make an important contribution in this area. . We should value High Road - the entry into Rayleigh – to a much greater extent. It should be incorporated into an enlarged Rayleigh Conservation Area. There has been survey evidence of resident approval of an extension to the Conservation Area (I can provide details if required).

Q45 Additional buildings local list buildings in Rayleigh Mill Hall, Civic Suite with Council Chamber, Rayleigh Library,( Paul Pry pub, Rayleigh House and old Post Office if not already on the List). The principle of adding to the list is a good one and should be considered during the Local Plan process with public input.
Q46 keep all parking spaces, make them easily accessible and affordable, maintain town centre facilities and shops. Do not allow residential development in Rayleigh Conservation Area which will lead to downgrading of shopping facilities and the loss of community assets like Mill Hall and Civic Suite.
Q47 the natural hierarchy of Rayleigh is threatened by proposed housing development of COL07 and COL20.
Q50 we must protect Rayleigh with it’s vibrant town centre with shopping and other facilities. The biggest threat to Rayleigh Town Centre and Conservation Area is the District Council’s own plan to demolish and promote residential development on sites COL07 AND COL20. RDC has a vested interest in these development sites. This must not sway their impartial creation of a Local Plan.
Q51 RDC must retain all its Rayleigh town centre car parking.The Rayleigh car parks are unusually attractive and do not receive adequate recognition of their contribution to the town’s Conservation Area, views of historic buildings, parks and gardens. They add significantly to the the town centre vitality. Building on any part of them should be forbidden.
Q53 safe cycle routes requires more attention and support in the new RDC Local Plan.

Q56 Vision statement ignores major traffic problems in Rayleigh. I would challenge the optimistic words about walking distances. Rayleigh has grown to such an extent that walking to the town centre is impractical for many of the new developments. There must be no further urban extension developments in / around Rayleigh / Rawreth.
All potential development areas around Rayleigh and Rawreth should be excluded from development sites in the new Local Plan. This is important in view of the enormous amount of urban expansion during past decades and lack of infrastructure and facilities. I strongly object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as future residential development sites.

Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.

Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).

Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.

The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 and COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.

The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents

Q63 Greater Rawreth has also sustained huge amount of development and has significant flood issues. Rawreth has no facilities. No further development should be permitted in in the Rawreth parish area.

Q65 C. Sutton and Stonebridge. I would not support additional development as extensions of these existing communities. However, the Sutton Parish does hold potential for a Garden Village site which could join onto main access roads and facilities nearby. Included in this is the opportunity of access to nearby retail and other facilities in Southend.
Sites within Sutton Parish that should be considered are CFS155, CFS260Z, CFS260AE, CFS260AE, CFS260H, CFS260AK, CFS071,CFS071, CFS260G.

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.

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.

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 Council would expect to see specific reference to:
• The Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan
• Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
• Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan
These plans are vital to the long-term sustainability assessment of any proposed sites. Without these
we are unable to comment
Evaluation of the impact of current development on the town of Rayleigh
Rochford District Council should produce its own estimate of Housing need with which to Challenge the figures imposed by Westminster, it is known that the nearest neighbours have all done this.
The Town Council cannot comment on the suitability of the sites in the plan without completion of an
Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan which is being undertaken at present, why has this consultation been undertaken before this is available. RDC, ECC, and SBC,
I would expect it to see specific reference to
i) the main Roads and the principal junctions and exit points to Rayleigh, there is potential in this
plan is to build on London Road, Eastwood Road, Hockley Road and Hullbridge Road simultaneously.
ii) Consultation with the actual schools in Rayleigh as to capacity, too often there are no places in
specific school.
iii) Consultation with Doctors and Pharmacies as well the local Healthcare Trust, again there is
evidence of no capacity in certain parts of Rayleigh.
iv) Next level HealthCare such as Hospitals, need consulting, as they are overstretched.
v) Air Quality Management - too many parts of Rayleigh have poor CO2/CO readings
Any such Plan would need agreement with Rochford District Council, Essex County Council, and
Southend Borough Council as they are all affected

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]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for
the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able
to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses
to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
No provision for emergency housing.

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]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.

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]
No comments.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy
presented? If not, what changes do you think are
required? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of
the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you
consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please
state reasoning]
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for
cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening
in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. A single large
"garden" village, possibly shared with Southend could allow a more environmentally friendly
development. A development that allows the infrastructure to be developed in advance of the
housing.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state
reasoning]
Small development and windfall developments should be included in housing count.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we
have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please
state reasoning]
Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.

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? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, their houses and businesses but also the natural areas as well. The district needs adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas.
New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc.
The plan must include or identify a flood plane that is protected from development.

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? [Please state reasoning]
All the coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a significant risk of
flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all
natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas

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?
Yes.
New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources.

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].
Yes. The Town Council believes that you should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and
encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. You must plan for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher! Keep the technology under review to capitalise on new development.

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? [Please state reasoning]
Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install
solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs;
there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without
damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain
whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a placemaking 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 district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered
in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and again, SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.

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]
They are, as long as they are adhered to.

Q16.
a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or
masterplans should be created alongside the new
Local Plan?
Yes.
b. 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? [Please state reasoning]
You need different design guides as this district is both unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all"
would be detrimental to its character and charm.
c. What do you think should be included in design
guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are
suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
You need to ensure that the character and heritage of the settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.

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]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities,
residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will
be achievable.

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]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are
met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold. The Council would like to safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families.
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.

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? [Please state
reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.

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? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.

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? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20

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? [Please state
reasoning]
See answer to Q20.

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]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour

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? [Please state
reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a
potential to expand or continue effectively.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
employment facilities or improvements to existing
employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or
business accommodation that you consider Rochford
District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. (We need to find funding for this
as it is important!) HGV training school and modern transport training. Improve manufacturing base.
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?
Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs
at the end of training. CCTV where appropriate.
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? [Please state reasoning]
No comments.
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? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing
development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings. These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are
the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
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]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
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?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off
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? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as
well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
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? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced. Existing sites must be retained
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]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities
within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning
and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or
improved community infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
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? [Please state reasoning]
Rayleigh is overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer
capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify
a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
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?
[Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment
the right ones? Are there other locations that we
should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should
be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
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?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be
protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have
an opportunity to make specific comments on open
spaces and local green spaces in the settlement
profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back.
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]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage
list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they
have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to
those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be
considering for conservation area status beyond those
listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered

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? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
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]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe
offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local”
business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their
businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies. Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 5 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new
business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, 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. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
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]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the
area.
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?
[Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport
connections are needed? What could be done to help
improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes
proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is
now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a
cycle network as part of 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.]
As the preferred strategy option is 3b, this could create opportunities for improved links to Southend. You should also consider more and smaller buses to link the towns and villages. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a
complete review of sustainable transport.
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? [Please note you may wish to
comment on the use of specific areas of land in the
next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
[Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
The plan is adequate so far is it goes, but you have more work to do. You must plan for a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. More attention is needed to initiatives that design-out crime and fear of crime, and this needs to be functional, sustainable and viable. The Draft Vision Statement ignores the over-development, the lack of infrastructure and facilities we already suffer. Indeed, Rochford District Council’s stated aim within their Asset Strategy and the plans of other Public Service providers is to reduce facilities in the Town further. This is at the same time as demand is growing from a sharply increasing population. This is particularly relevant for the growing elderly population. This will make the next 25 years very challenging.
1/ Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a carcentric highway use. We regret we do not because it is unrealistic, our response must be to inject a note of realism looking forward based on RDCs policies and past action. This goes to the heart of the new Local Plan.
We regret a realistic Vision Statement based on the current trajectory of further development recommended in the Draft Local Plan will be rather more dystopian. We could see a Rayleigh chocked by traffic. Although pollution should decrease with electric vehicles the advent of driverless vehicles, both domestic and commercial, servicing an ever-expanding population could result in gridlock. Pollution will increase from fossil burning home heating systems in many of the new homes. Failure to support public transport will inevitably maroon older residents in their homes far from those few
facilities and shops that remain in our town centre.
Public services offered by police and council (most likely giant unitary council catering for half million people based far away in an urban area), will seem very distant to most people. Most of the green open spaces not in public ownership, also some that are publicly owned, will be built on and have disappeared by 2050. Many public facilities and local public service providers will be taken away and sold off to property developers. The town centres will cease to be the shopping and social areas we know today as a result of Council plans and changing shopping habits. Rayleigh retail business will have closed and online and out of town retail parks will prosper with their free parking facilities. In the same way that London boroughs developed through the decades and centuries, the traditional housing we know today, with private gardens will be replaced by blocks of flats with large vehicle parking areas with recharge points.
2/ Another vision could be forged with the right policies in an enlightened Local Plan. RDC could opt for a garden village settlement away from all the Districts Towns and villages. Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made
cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary
shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Council Offices, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive
through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
b. 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?
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary
shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.
c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called
windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing
large scale development.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e. 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?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets
Q57.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Hockley Wood
Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and
Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
Q58.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing
EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. You must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
[Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the
Governments home building targets
Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Protection needs to be given to development that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significant amount of green belt land left to separate the two areas to prevent urban sprawl. Rawreth Lane gets heavily congested at peak times, and with Wolsey Park still not complete this is likely to increase. If there is an accident or breakdown on the road network, it has a huge knock on through Rayleigh and the surrounding areas and Watery Lane isn’t a reliable back up for when there are issue. Therefore, further development on the boundary or
otherwise could be detrimental to not only local residents but the wider District too. RDC should be supporting farmers wherever possible to continue to grow their crops in the district and protect suitable farm land in the area. We do not want to lose the local producers

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]
At this time – yes, but we feel they should have some consideration in the future, in order to protect
them. It would be for the communities to decide their vision statements and we would be happy to
support them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural
communities? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could
take to improve the completeness of our rural
communities?
Listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific; travel links, facilities, affordable housing and so on. Empower Parish and Town Councils to take
relevant local actions

1.0 Summary
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson in support of Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Rayleigh (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) for consideration in the Rochford District Council (“RDC”) Spatial Options Local Plan (“the emerging Plan”) consultation of September 2021. Appendix 1 contains a Site Location Plan which shows the extent of the
boundaries of the Site.
1.2 The site comprises approximately 42.4 hectares of greenfield land with the potential to deliver a proportion of Rochford District Council’s local housing need. The Vision Statement in Appendix 2 of these representations contains an indicative masterplan layout which has been led by an assessment of the constraints and opportunities.
1.3 Green Belt release is recognised as necessary within the emerging Plan, where it is acknowledged that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield sites within the District to meet the full identified housing need. As an unencumbered greenfield, Green Belt site, Lubards Lodge Farm represents a sustainable and logical extension of Rayleigh and an excellent opportunity for residential development in the most sustainable settlement in the district according to the Council’s proposed settlement hierarchy.
1.4 Crest Nicholson is an award-winning national housebuilder with the means, experience and proven
track record to deliver sustainable development in partnership with RDC, so the residential
development of the Site would be ensured if it is allocated in the emerging Local Plan.
1.5 We support the identification of Rayleigh as the single Tier 1 settlement at the top of the proposed
hierarchy.
1.6 We note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the standard method. This is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and it is clear that neighbouring Southend Borough Council will need support from Rochford District Council to deliver its housing need.
1.7 We support Spatial Options 2 and 4 insofar as they are relevant to the growth of Rayleigh and development of suitable available deliverable sites in sustainable locations that would enhance the completeness of Rayleigh, such as the Land at Lubards Lodge Farm.
1.8 We consider that Lubards Lodge Farm should be allocated for housing, with supporting community
infrastructure. The accompanying Vision Statement confirms that there are no overriding technical constraints to development, specifically in respect of landscape, highways, drainage, ecology and utilities. The Vision Statement demonstrates how a masterplan could deliver a balanced new community in the region of 500 new homes in this sustainable location, together with a new home for Rayleigh Boys and Girls FC, a new Country Park, integrated water management systems and
enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the existing surrounding area.
1.9 We look forward to working with RDC, relevant stakeholders and the local community to help deliver our vision for Land at Lubards Lodge Farm.

2.0 Responses to the Spatial Options Questionnaire
Hierarchy of Settlements
Question 5 – Do you agree with the Settlement Hierarchy presented?
If not, what changes do you think are required?
1.1 Yes, we agree with the Settlement Hierarchy. It suitably recognises the availability of services and connections within each of the settlements and appropriately categorises them into tiers based on how the towns and villages perform in relation to both sustainability and employment.
1.2 Rayleigh is identified as the Tier 1 settlement and we consider this is entirely appropriate in light of its significantly larger population than any other settlement in the district, and that it contains by far the widest range of local and regional services. It would therefore be appropriate for a large proportion of the District’s growth to be directed to Rayleigh.

Spatial Strategy Options
Question 6 – Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.1 As a general comment, we note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the
standard method. However, this is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and the Council will need to carefully consider whether a higher housing requirement isnecessary to support economic growth, infrastructure improvements or address the needs arising
from neighbouring authorities.
2.2 In particular it will be important for the Council to work closely with Southend Borough Council (SBC) which has a minimum housing requirement of 1,180 new homes per annum using the standard method. As the Council will be aware, SBC set out in its latest consultation that even with Green Belt release, it is only able to deliver around 20,000 new homes to meet its total
requirement over the plan period of 23,620 homes. It is clear that SBC will need support from Rochford and other neighbouring boroughs to meet its housing needs in full. Rochford District Council should therefore plan for a level of housing growth that meets both their own needs as
well as the unmet needs of SBC.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification – we do not support this option.
2.3 In light of our comments above, this option must be ruled out as it fails to meet the needs of Rochford district, let alone neighbouring areas.
2.4 This option alone would not provide the necessary quantum of land to meet the identified housing need. This strategy requires the least use of greenfield land and, by definition, would involve no further release of land from the Metropolitan Green Belt. We recognise that focusing purely on brownfield and under-utilised land provides opportunities for infill development, however this does not allow for the necessary larger scale development options, would fail to deliver new
infrastructure, and is not a sufficient option to provide the unit numbers and infrastructure Rochford requires.
Strategy Option 2 - Urban Extensions – we support option 2 insofar as it is relevant to the larger scale urban extensions proposed in Rayleigh.
2.5 Option two is split into two sections. Section 2a focuses urban extensions in main towns. Option 2b looks to deliver a hybrid approach whereby the larger urban extensions would be focused on the main towns including Rayleigh, whilst some of the residual urban extension growth would be dispersed to other lower order settlements based on the hierarchy.
2.6 Option 2 provides significantly better opportunities to deliver the housing and infrastructure targets than Option 1. Option 2a ensures development is focused in sustainable locations where transport connections are established and sustainable to support the development, including Rayleigh. New urban extensions focussed on the main towns in Option 2a gives the opportunity to provide additional services and facilities and provide improvements to existing infrastructure to support the new development in addition to the existing communities.
2.7 Insofar as this option is relevant to Rayleigh, we support the proposals in Option 2a to direct growth to suitable deliverable sites in and on the edge of Rayleigh.
2.8 Insofar as it is relevant to Lubards Lodge Farm, we would be supportive of Option 2b provided that large scale growth is not directed towards the lower order settlements at the expense of the most sustainable and deliverable sites in Rayleigh, including Lubards Lodge Farm.
Strategy Option 3 - Concentrated Growth – we do not support this option.
2.9 A strategy option that seeks to deliver the whole local plan requirement for housing in a concentrated development (or concentrated developments) runs the very serious risk of being undeliverable. Too often local plans focus allocations on a small number of large strategic sites that inevitably come forward later in the plan period, or worse, fail at Examination. Whilst such
sites can be an important part of housing supply, their allocation should not be to the detriment of deliverable large scale (but not strategic scale) sites, such as the Site at Lubards Lodge Farm.
2.10 A clear example of the risks of concentrated growth is the North Essex Authorities, where three new Garden Communities were proposed to deliver a proportion of housing across three local authorities later into the Plan period. In 2020, following the Examination, the Inspector concluded that two of the three garden communities were not viable and therefore not deliverable, leaving
the authorities without 37,500 planned new homes for the Plan period and beyond.
2.11 Another current local example of this is in Maldon, whose Local Plan (adopted in 2017) places a substantive reliance on the large-scale Garden Suburbs. The latest 5-year housing land supply statement confirms that the supply of housing arising from these allocations is falling below the previously anticipated trajectories. This means that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing 2.12 We therefore consider that this option runs the very serious risk of non-delivery and is unlikely to be capable of being found sound at Examination.
Strategy Option 4 – Balanced Combination – We support this option insofar as it relates to the allocation of suitable available greenfield sites on the edge of Rayleigh.
2.13 Option 4 provides a balanced approach, allocating a variety of sites both in terms of size and location which would have far greater potential to deliver a wide mix of housing types and style whilst also ensuring homes come forward consistently across the whole Plan period.
2.14 This Option also provides good opportunities for sustainable growth within Rayleigh with an appropriate scale of development based on the settlement hierarchy. This option is not restrictive on the location or scale of development.
2.15 Based on the response set out above we are supportive of Options 2 or 4 insofar as they direct
proportionate levels of growth to the higher order settlements in the hierarchy, including Rayleigh.
Our support for either of these two options is conditional on the proposed allocation of the Site at Lubards Lodge Farm, which is suitable, deliverable and sustainably located.

Planning for Complete Communities
Question 56a – Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh?
2.16 Yes, we agree with RDC’s vision for Rayleigh. We note that the Vision Statement says that Rayleigh should be a “thriving town with a wide range of shops and services”, vibrant town centre, functional and reliable transport system with all residents living within walking distance of a local green space. It should provide for a diverse range of housing and job opportunities
meeting the needs of all in the community, whilst retaining its strong historic and cultural character.”
2.17 The best way of ensuring this vision is realised is by allocating significant land for residential development on the edge of Rayleigh. Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is capable of providing development of a scale to support the vitality of the town centre, the local bus routes, providing for diverse range of housing and retaining the town’s strong historic and cultural character.
2.18 Significant new housing growth in Rayleigh, through the allocation of greenfield land, is the only way of ensuring this.

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? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
2.19 Yes, we consider that the Lubards Lodge Farm site, which forms a part of site CFS164 (excluding the brownfield land in CFS164 which falls outside of the control of Crest Nicholson and is not associated with these representations), should be allocated for housing, with supporting community infrastructure including a Country Park and a new outdoor sports area. The
release of this site from the Green Belt would accord with the settlement hierarchy, and Spatial Options 2 and 4. It is suitable, available and deliverable within the Plan period. Crest Nicholson has the means, experience and track record to deliver the development.
2.20 To deliver the necessary level of housing growth identified for the Plan period it will be necessary for RDC to focus its attention on the allocation of a large-scale greenfield site(s) on the edge of the higher order settlements in the district, including the single Tier 1 settlement – Rayleigh. The Site is one of only a small number of large-scale sites on the edge of Rayleigh and, because it is unconstrained and accessible, in light of RDC’s housing need and that Rayleigh is the only Tier 1
settlement, it therefore naturally means that the Site should be allocated for housing development through the Local Plan. The extract from Figure 44 below exemplifies this.
2.21 The proposed development onsite is market led residential housing, with supporting community
infrastructure including a new country park and onsite high-quality playing pitch provision for outdoor sport. As the Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is a greenfield site, it can accommodate a policy compliant quota of affordable housing and a package of proportionate infrastructure
provision only a greenfield site of this size within the sole control of a major national housebuilder could deliver. This is extremely important if RDC wants to realise its planning policy objectives by delivering healthy balanced communities with a range of supporting infrastructure, access to local employment opportunities, provision of public open space, biodiversity net gain and an enhanced new home for Rayleigh FC back in Rayleigh, where the Club belongs. This is unlikely to be possible on smaller scale allocations because they would be unable to deliver transformational infrastructure. It would be undeliverable on strategic scale allocations because the extent of funding required to deliver the necessary infrastructure would be likely to have significant impacts
on the ability to deliver on other planning policy objectives, such as affordable housing provision.
2.22 Taking account of the above, there are few comparable alternative suitable sites in Rayleigh that
are capable of delivering what is proposed by Crest Nicholson at Lubards Lodge Farm. For ease of reference an extract from Figure 44 of the consultation document showing the range of sites put forward for development around the edge of Rayleigh is shown below.
[see attached document for map]
Above: Extract from Figure 44 of the consultation document showing the promoted sites around Rayleigh in blue.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is available and deliverable
2.23 Lubards Lodge Farm is in single ownership and is wholly within the control of Crest Nicholson. Crest Nicholson’s due diligence to date suggests that there are no reasons why development of the site could not be delivered. This is further demonstrated under the technical sub-headings as set out in the accompanying Vision Statement.
2.24 Crest Nicholson has been building new homes for over 50 years and is firmly established as a leading developer with a reputation for creating vibrant sustainable new communities. Crest Nicholson’s contribution to the built environment has been recognised with a strong of awards, including The Queen’s Award for Enterprise in Sustainable Development. This award is testament to Crest’s continued emphasis on producing high quality developments that champion the very best principles in sustainability. More recent awards include winning Sustainable Housebuilder of the Year at the Housebuilder Awards 2016, and Large Housebuilder of the Year in 2015.
2.25 The Site is therefore available and deliverable.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is suitable
2.26 The Site is a suitable location for development, is free from constraints and is unencumbered in all respects. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Statement prepared in support of these representations. To supplement this assertion, we have extracted the Appraisal for the wider CFS164 site from the Site Appraisal paper in RDC’s evidence base – see below.
[see attached document for table]
Above: extract from RDC’s Site Appraisal paper for CFS164 Lubards Lodge Farm
2.28 Against the assessment criteria in the Site Appraisal paper, site CFS164 scores comparatively well against other Rayleigh sites. It is noted as being developable (subject to policy) and deliverable for housing and/or commercial development. We agree with this assessment, as there are no overriding constraints to development. Similarly, the site is attributed high scores (4 or 5 out of 5, i.e. well performing) against most of the assessment criteria, including flood risk (the site is within Flood Zone 1) air quality, various forms of utility infrastructure, access to transport options and facilities. This all corroborates with the evidence contained within our accompanying Vision Statement for the development of the Site.
2.29 The Appraisal attributes scores of 1 out of 5 (i.e. worst performing) against the Green Belt and Agricultural Land Quality measurements. In respect of Green Belt harm, we must draw to RDC’s attention two matters in particular that must be noted in order for these “issues” to be properly viewed in context:
● It is inevitable that the development of any greenfield Green Belt site would cause harm to the Green Belt. Any harm to the Green Belt arising from development needs to be balanced against RDC’s need for new homes, which cannot be delivered wholly on brownfield land in
the district because there are not enough previously developed sites.
In accordance with NPPF guidance and established case law1, where exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land are justified, it is necessary to consider,
amongst other factors:
− Whether the Plan could achieve sustainable development without the use of Green Belt land,
− Whether the nature and extent of Green Belt harm would be minimised through the site selection process by selecting sites that contribute the least to Green Belt purposes, and
− The extent to which consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent, through the redefinition of the Green Belt boundary via physical features that are likely to be permanent, and through scheme design. The extent of harm to the Green Belt, by reference to the Appraisal paper’s score for the Site, is therefore not in itself a reason to discount it from consideration.
● The Appraisal for the CFS164 site considers the Site in its entirety. It should however be noted that the Green Belt Review Stage 2 assessment for CFS164 splits the site into two distinct assessment parcels, identifying that the south-eastern part of the assessment parcel has a lower Green Belt sensitivity. An extract from the site assessment is shown below.
[see document for image]
Above: Green Belt Review Stage 2 assessment – CFS164 is split and assessed as two parcels
Against the south-eastern half of the assessment area for CFS164, the Green Belt review identifies that “release of the land in the southern and south eastern Moderate-High corner of the assessment area up to and including the developed site 163 is significantly more contained by urbanising development. Consequently its release would have a more limited impact on adjacent Green Belt land. Whilst it would lead to the breaching of a strong
boundary along Rawreth Lane, development has already taken place to the north of this road to the west and east of the parcel.”
It is demonstrated that a blanket assessment of the site in its entirety does not accurately reflect the way in which the impact of development could be ameliorated by a reduced development coverage. Added to this, NPPF paragraph 143f) states that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent”. We consider that any residual harm to the Green Belt can be addressed through masterplanning and landscape mitigation. Crest
Nicholson has the means, experience and track record to ensure this. Indeed, the southeastern parcel within CFS164 broadly corresponds with the masterplan proposals we have put forward within our accompanying Vision Statement. This can be refined as necessary in
due course, should RDC consider it necessary to do so.
2.30 Taking account of the above, it is considered that harm to the Green Belt caused by the development of the Site can be appropriately mitigated. We look forward to working with RDC to ensure that effects can be minimised in this respect.
2.31 The Site Appraisal identifies a high degree of harm under the Agricultural Land Quality criteria. However, as with the Green Belt matter, the Paper identifies at paragraph 70 that the nature of the District has “a relatively scarce supply of brownfield land” which means that if the district’s identified housing need is to be met in full, greenfield land would need to be released. It is
therefore inevitable that some “best and most versatile” agricultural land would need to be lost if RDC wishes to achieve wider sustainability objectives, in accordance with the Strategic Objectives and the draft Vision for Rayleigh. We consider that there are therefore sustainability factors that would outweigh the loss of BMV land.
2.32 Taking account of the above, we consider that the Site is entirely suitable for development. Land at Lubards Lodge Farm would enhance the completeness of Rayleigh
2.33 The NPPF states at paragraph 142 that when drawing up Green Belt boundaries, the need to
promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. At paragraph 105 the NPPF states that “the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of [sustainable transport] objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine
choice of transport modes”.
2.34 The supporting text to the Draft Vision statement for Rayleigh says that “as can be seen from the
completeness mapping, Rayleigh benefits from a good standard of walking access to most dayto-day services. The areas of Rayleigh with the best walking access to services are around its town centre, with other strong areas to the west along London Road. Overall, even those parts of Rayleigh outside of the walking catchment of services benefit from good levels of access overall,
particularly along the spines of Rawreth Lane, Hockley Road and Eastwood Road” [Bidwells emphasis]. This is shown on the Completeness map for Rayleigh, an extract from which is shown below
[see document for image]
Above: extract from the consultation document’s Completeness map of Rayleigh
2.35 Lubards Lodge Farm is well located to enable sustainable transport choices and is within a 10-
minute walk of the following local facilities:
● Asda supermarket;
● Down Hall Primary School;
● St Nicholas C of E Primary School;
● Sweyne Park Playground;
● Employment uses at Lubards Farm to the north; and
● Rayleigh Leisure Centre.
2.36 Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is comparatively closer and more accessible to Rayleigh town centre than other large-scale sites on the edge of town and therefore offers better opportunities to make use of sustainable forms of travel. It offers the opportunity to strengthen the existing bus route along Hullbridge Road, together with potential to enhance existing non-frequent public
transport along Rawreth Lane thereby bringing enhancing the sustainability and accessibility to
residents of the existing community, as well as future residents.
2.37 Completeness benefits would not only be limited to walking and public transport options. The provision of cycle routes in Rayleigh is currently limited, however, several proposed routes are identified in the Rochford District Cycling Action Plan (published by Essex County Council in 2017) but which do not yet appear to have been taken forward. These include Proposed National
Cycle Route 135 passing the Site along Hullbridge Road and Rawreth Lane, and an extension of an existing route along Priory Chase to Rayleigh Rail Station via St Nicholas Church of England School and The Sweyne Park School (proposed route IDs 24 and 23). These are shown on the Cycling Acton Plan map extract below
[see document for image]
Above: extract from the Rochford Cycling Action Plan
2.38 Cycle routes would be provided within the development, and there is the potential to connect to
these proposed routes and contribute to improvement works to facilitate a safe route to local schools and the rail station. Provision of connections from the Site into the existing and future planned cycling infrastructure offers further potential to enhance the completeness of Rayleigh.
A new home for Rayleigh Boys and Girls FC
2.39 Rayleigh Boys and Girls Football Club has been running since 1976 and is regarded by the Essex Football Association as the largest youth football club in Essex with more than 65 teams, 12 of which are Girls teams. It is the aim of the Club to promote a safe Environment for Children of all ages to learn, develop and enjoy playing football. Despite the Club’s key role in the community, with player registrations increasing year on year, it has been very difficult for the Club to secure match-day (grass) and training (all-weather) pitches locally due to the lack of available land and funding.
2.40 The Club relies on the dedication of volunteers to organise the rental of pitches, many of which have limited facilities and require long journeys outside of Rayleigh for the children, for example the Chichester Ground in Rawreth which is only accessible by car. To-date the Club does not benefit from any form of building or clubhouse to manage operations from and allow teams and their families to interact before/after matches.
2.41 The proposals for a sustainable neighbourhood at Lubards Farm provide a unique opportunity to accommodate new training and match day pitches, and a permanent new facility in Rayleigh that the Club can finally call home. Not only would there be significant benefits for the Club’s 800+ players and families, but the facility could also be available during weekday school hours for the wider Rayleigh community (including local schools) who currently do not benefit from an allweather pitch, despite being the largest town in the District. Crest Nicholson specialises in delivering community-led, high quality new homes and is proud to be working with the Club to inform the proposals from the outset.
Lubards Lodge Farm would deliver green and blue infrastructure
2.42 There is an opportunity to incorporate managed green infrastructure to the north of the site in the
form of a Country Park, to enhance the already strong natural defensible Green Belt boundary and to ensure the maintenance of the gap between the settlements of Rayleigh and Hullbridge, to help prevent coalescence in accordance with Green Belt policy. It would also ensure that opportunities to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, as redrawn, could be maximised.
2.43 As the Site is currently private land it does not benefit from the same potential that its allocation for
residential development would bring in this regard.
2.44 Within the rationale provided by the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study, the Country Park established in the north of site would become a multifunctional greenspace with areas of high value habitats as well as recreational areas. The park would include a range of circular walks and dogs-off lead areas as well as public rights of ways connections to adjacent greenspace. The Country Park would integrate SuDS and swales within habitat links to create well-connected
wetlands. There are opportunities to maximise connectivity with adjacent habitats. Enhanced habitat connectivity will be created through strengthened linkages and ‘stepping-stone’ areas across the site; for example, grassland, hedges and other linear features, and water features. The proposals will maximise connectivity for species such as bats with the adjacent golf course and priority habitats to southeast (woodlands) and west.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm benefits from recently delivered highways improvements
2.45 A new 3-arm compact roundabout has been built in the location of the former mini roundabout between Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road, directly adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the Site, where there is the opportunity for the Site’s vehicular access to be taken from.
2.46 Financial contributions towards the cost of improvement works were secured by Essex County
Council to build the roundabout to relieve congestion at the local bottle neck. Work was commenced in January 2021 and was completed in the summer of 2021.

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.

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.

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.

ROCHFORD NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION- SUBMISSION OF REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN & REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Claremont Planning Consultancy have been instructed by Southern and Regional Developments Limited to prepare and submit representations to the new Local Plan: Spatial Options consultation.
Southern and Regional Developments are in control of two sites within the Rochford District; the land at Lower Wyburns Farm, Rayleigh, and Sutton Road, Rochford, with both sites previously promoted to the Council through the 2018 Call for Sites exercise for the emerging
Local Plan. For clarity, it has therefore been considered prudent to prepare and submit representations to the Spatial Options consultation separately considering each site separately.
As such, please find the following sets of representations enclosed:
• Lower Wyburns Farm representations to Spatial Options- Location Plan and Illustrative
Masterplan enclosed.
• Sutton Road representations to Spatial Options - Location Plan enclosed
We trust that these representations are clear and will be duly taken into consideration, however, if Southern and Regional Developments or Claremont Planning can assist with providing any further information in relation to the sites at Lower Wyburns Farm and Sutton Road, or the content of the representations submitted, please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below.

Rochford District Council – Lower Wyburns Farm, Rayleigh
Representations to the Spatial Options
1. Introduction
1.1. On behalf of Southern and Regional Developments Ltd, Claremont Planning Consultancy has been instructed to prepare and submit representations to the Spatial Options consultation being undertaken by Rochford District Council to inform the emerging Local
Plan.

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

2.1. Claremont Planning, on behalf of Southern and Regional Development’s Ltd, are supportive of the settlement hierarchy proposed. The identification of Rayleigh as the only ‘Tier 1’ settlement within the District is supported, finding this proportionate to the settlement’s larger population and comprehensive service base, which is of both local and regional prominence. The proposed settlement hierarchy correctly recognises the strategic location of Rayleigh which affords the settlement a functional relationship with the adjacent
Southend, Basildon, Chelmsford, and London Districts.
2.2. It is recommended that the spatial strategy advanced by the emerging Local Plan be strongly informed by the proposed settlement hierarchy. The proposed hierarchy of settlements evidences that Rayleigh benefits from a wide range of retail, employment, and community facilities and therefore represents a highly sustainable location for development. In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 16 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF), development plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. As such, it is advisable that the overall distribution of growth is informed by this imperative, and a larger quantum of
growth apportioned to those settlements which are identified by the hierarchy as being most sustainable, chiefly Rayleigh. To accommodate the necessary growth of Rayleigh a full review of the settlement boundary should be undertaken through this plan review process, with Green Belt release of suitable sites promoted to ensure that Rayleigh can accommodate the level of growth its position in the settlement hierarchy requires.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
Strategy Option 1: Urban Intensification
2.3. It is advised that Strategy Option 1: Urban Intensification is not advanced on its own. The current standard method identifies a housing requirement of 7,200 dwellings for the district across the next 20 years, however the consultation document establishes that only 4,500 new dwellings can be delivered through Option 1. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF identifies that Plans must provide a strategy which as a minimum seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs in order to be found sound. Delivering development through Strategy Option 1 will result in a substantial shortfall in housing delivery and will unlikely be considered sound by the Inspector when the Plan is examined.
Strategy Option 2: Urban Extensions
2.4. It is recognised that Strategy Option 2, which seeks to spread development across several development sites of between 10 and 1,500 homes adjoining existing towns and villages, could deliver a sustainable distribution of housing growth. The dispersal of urban extensions based on the settlement hierarchy is supported, where this would see growth delivered at the most sustainable settlements in the District. In accordance with the proposed settlement hierarchy, the allocation of urban extensions at Rayleigh, the District’s largest and most sustainable settlement, should be prioritised if this option is taken forward. When considering urban extensions, they should not prohibit the appropriate review of a settlement’s boundary and site releases from the Green Belt for development elsewhere. Co-ordinating urban extensions that are typically large scale developments
alongside smaller site allocations will facilitate the delivery of small to medium sites as advised by the NPPF at Paragraph 69; which will enable the continual supply of housing through a maintained trajectory.
Strategy Option 3: Concentrated Growth
2.5. Concentrating growth in one or more locations of 1,500+ dwellings, as promoted within Strategy Option 3 is not supported on its own at this time. Large allocations and the development of new settlements, by virtue of their complexity and infrastructure requirements, have much longer lead in times for delivery and therefore would be likely to contribute towards meeting housing needs towards the end of the Plan period and beyond.
As such, pursuit of this Strategy Option alone will not deliver sufficient housing to meet the Authority’s housing needs in the earlier years of the Plan, leaving the Authority vulnerable to speculative development which is not Plan lead particularly if delays in the delivery of
these allocations arise. Topic Paper 9: Housing prepared in support of the Spatial Options Consultation 2021 illustrates that over the last 10 years Rochford’s historic rate of housing delivery is 227 dwellings per annum, requiring an uplift of around 60% in annual housing
completions to meet the local housing need identified for the new Local Plan. The Authority should note that paragraph 69 of the NPPF advises against the concentration of growth as proposed within Strategy Option 3, instead recommending that development plans should seek to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare. Given the uplift in housing delivery which will be required to meet housing need, it would be prudent that the Council also consider the allocation of small and
medium sized sites, such as the promoted land at Lower Wyburns Farm, which can contribute directly to the next 5 year supply and be delivered quickly, making a more
immediate contribution to housing supply alongside this Strategy.
Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination
2.6. Strategy Option 4 advances a balanced combination of the various Strategy Options presented, including making the best use of urban capacity (Option 1), building on one or two large growth areas (Option 3), and a number of smaller urban extensions (Option 2).
Claremont Planning strongly recommend that the Authority pursue the blended approach promoted within Option 4. It is considered that Option 4 represents the most sustainable means of meeting the District’s housing requirement, by maximising sites available within the existing urban area, and delivering smaller urban extensions at sustainable locations in accordance with the proposed settlement hierarchy. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF establishes that a blended approach which allocates small, medium, and larger sites for development is advisable, ensuring that any potential delays in the delivery of larger allocations do not
adversely affect housing delivery in the District.
2.7. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF sets out the tests for ‘soundness’ of development plans, establishing that plans should, as a minimum, seek to meet their areas objectively assessed housing need and be informed by agreements with other authorities so that any unmet need from neighbouring areas can be accommodated where it is practical to do so. The southern and northern parcels of the land promoted by Southern and Regional
Developments at Lower Wyburns Farm have been recognised by the Council within their Site Assessment Paper 2021, with references CFS068 and CFS069 respectively; for their potential to deliver growth through Option 2, small urban extensions. Claremont Planning
strongly support the Council’s recognition of the land’s potential and note that the land occupies a highly sustainable location adjacent to the District’s only Tier 1 settlement.
Furthermore, the promoted site should be recognised as a suitable location which could contribute towards unmet need arising from neighbouring authorities due to its close geographical proximity to adjacent districts, particularly to the Castle Point Borough and
Southend-on-Sea Districts, whilst also benefitting from a close functional relationship these due to its proximity to the strategic highway network, namely the A127.

3. Spatial Themes
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?

3.1. National policy, chiefly paragraph 161 of the NPPF, is clear in its expectations that development plans apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development which includes taking into account all sources of flood risk as well as current and future
impacts of climate change. As such, it is agreed that a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change should be adopted by the Plan, and this would be a sound approach that is consistent with national planning policy. As recognised by the Council, much of the
District is affected by Flood Zone 3 with flood risk likely to be subject to coastal change as a result of climate change. As such, it is recommended that development opportunities within areas at lower risk of flooding are fully considered by the Authority. Approaching flood risk and coastal change sequentially would also accord with the proposed settlement hierarchy, concentrating development at the main settlements of the District, including Rayleigh which are the areas within the District at lower risk of flooding.
3.2. The land at Lower Wyburns Farm, Daws Heath Road represents one such suitable location for development if the sequential approach to flood risk is adopted. With respect to the parcel of land south of Daws Heath Road, only a very small area along Daws Heath Road, is affected by Flood Zone 2. With respect to the promoted parcel of land north of the road, this is more heavily influenced by flood risk, being completely covered by Flood Zones 2 and 3. Previous representations submitted to the Council through the SHLAA/Call for Sites process by Claremont Planning have considered the flood risk present on the site at length and it is advanced that the flood zone 3 areas should be removed from consideration for development and instead contribute toward public open space provision and ecological enhancement measures. Any development on the northern parcel should be focused upon redeveloping the existing dwelling on the site, away from the flood prone
areas and towards the frontage with Daws Heath Road.
3.3. When assessing the flood risk of the promoted land at Lower Wyburns Farm within their initial site assessments, the Council also recognise that the majority of the promoted land is at low risk of flooding, scoring the northern and southern parcels of the site as 3 and 4 respectively for flood risk on a scale on for which 5 represents the best performing sites.
Given that the vast majority of the promoted land at Lower Wyburns Farm south of Daws Heath Road is located within Flood Zone 1, and the Council’s recognition that the site performs strongly in respect of flood risk; Claremont Planning consider that the
development of this land would be in accordance with the recommended sequential approach to flood risk in the Plan.

4. 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?

4.1. Meeting the need for different types, sizes, and tenures of housing by requiring a suitable or negotiable mix of housing that is responsive to the type and location of development, as promoted by Option 2, is recommended by Claremont Planning. It is considered that this represents the most pragmatic approach to meeting these needs by providing flexibility in the market to ensure that the right types of homes are delivered in the right locations. Applying a blanket housing mix policy would fail to recognise that some types of land are
more well suited to certain forms of development. For example, both the Housing Topic Paper 2021 and 2017 SHMA establish that there is the greatest need for small and midsized semi-detached and detached dwellings. Claremont Planning consider that the release of Green Belt land, including the site at Lower Wyburns Farm should be strongly considered by the Council whereby the release of this land will both assist the Council in
meeting their overall housing need and facilitate the delivery of an appropriate mix of housing. In particular this will assist delivery of family sized housing which is better suited to delivery on greenfield land than constrained urban sites.

5. Green and Blue Infrastructure
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver quality green and blue infrastructure network throughout the Plan?
5.1. The Green and Blue Infrastructure Topic Paper 2021 identifies that previous housing and economic growth throughout South Essex has not been sufficient to meet the region’s growth potential. As such, Claremont Planning maintain that although delivering quality
green and blue infrastructure is valuable, this must be balanced against the region’s need for growth. It is therefore recommended that identifying general objectives for strategic green and blue infrastructure through the plan (Option 2) is pursued by the Authority, with this Option relying on other existing allocations, such as open space, local green space, and local wildlife site designations to deliver improvements. The suggestion identified within the Topic Paper that the Plan could still contain policies that help to deliver improvements to green and blue infrastructure, including the capture of funding through planning obligations associated with development is recommended to be advanced
alongside this approach. Advancing Option 2 would continue to promote the delivery of improvements on site where appropriate, without constraining the ability of development to make the most effective use on land by requiring on-site improvements to be delivered.
Moreover, it is not considered that detailed, site-specific policies are relevant for inclusion within a strategic plan of this nature where national planning policy establishes in Chapter 3 of the NPPF the role that strategic policies should play, which is to set the overall strategies for the pattern, scale and design quality of places. As such, policies relating to site specific provision of green and blue infrastructure would be more appropriately dealt
with through the preparation non-strategic level Plans and Policies such as those in Neighbourhood Plans.
5.2. The Green and Blue Infrastructure Topic Paper 2021 also establishes that the connectivity of green and blue infrastructure is challenging, with many poor green and blue linkages between towns, villages, rural areas and waterfronts. Whilst Option 3, requiring certain new
developments to provide local green and blue infrastructure on-site, may increase the quantum of green and blue infrastructure throughout Rochford, there is risk that this may worsen the connectivity of these spaces through their piecemeal development.
Contrastingly, securing funding through planning obligations as part of Option 2 could deliver strategic improvements to this network to be made in accordance with a wider vision for the area. This would represent a more effective and deliverable strategy, meeting that criteria for soundness as identified in the NPPF.

6. 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?
6.1. Claremont Planning support the ambition of Options 5 and 10 in their recognition that delivering a suitable mix of uses including residential development is essential in
continuing to support the vitality and viability of town centres. It is considered important however, that the Council recognise the importance of allowing settlements to expand through new development outside of the existing settlement boundary, as this can allow the population of settlements to grow. This in turn can increase footfall to existing shops and services, and enhance the vitality and viability of these settlements, especially where good pedestrian connectivity to the town centre is present. Whilst it is recognised that the
consultation document identifies that town centres within the District have not suffered declines in footfall as acutely as national trends would indicate, further development and growth at a settlement could ensure that town centres remain sustainable in the future.

7. Green Belt and Rural Issues – Plan Objective 20 (p.69-70)
7.1. The recognition that the release of Green Belt land will be required to meet housing needs through the emerging Plan is strongly supported. It is agreed that the Council can demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify this release, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the NPPF. The Consultation Document has sought to establish that a spatial strategy reliant on urban intensification will not deliver sufficient housing to meet the Council’s objectively assessed need and confirms that early discussions with adjacent authorities has not identified capacity for accommodating unmet need arising from Rochford. As such, it is agreed and supported that the emerging Local Plan will be able to
demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the release of Green Belt land.
7.2. The Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Joint Green Belt Study (February 2020) forming the evidence base to this consultation contains detailed site assessments that identify the contribution made by promoted sites to the purposes of the Green Belt. Within
this report, the land at Lower Wyburns Farm was assessed as making a strong contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, finding that the site presents a strong openness and has a closer relationship with the surrounding countryside than the urban area. Likewise, the initial assessment proformas prepared by the Authority also rated the identified site as relatively strongly performing Green Belt. These conclusions are refuted and it is considered that these assessments failed to recognise several key features of the promoted land which diminish its contribution to the Green Belt. Notably, assessments of the land around the site have failed to identify that both the north and south parcels of the site are currently in use and developed; with the original farmhouse and livery stables in the southern parcel alongside a range of buildings and yards that accommodate B2 Industrial uses with external storage areas and further Sui Generis horticultural and
residential uses located within the northern parcel. As such, a large quantum of the promoted site’s area represents previously developed land and should be prioritised for development.
7.3. The Joint Green Belt Study however establishes that the environmental and sustainability effects of development need to be considered when releasing land from the Green Belt, where it may be that the most sustainable locations for development may not be
appropriate or sustainable, with this pragmatic approach to Green Belt release strongly supported by Claremont Planning where it accords with the provisions of paragraph 142 of the NPPF. Specifically, paragraph 142 of the Framework recommends that plans should give first consideration to land which is previously developed and/or well served by public transport when considering Green Belt release. It has been established that a proportion of the land promoted by Southern and Regional Developments at Lower Wyburns Farm
represents previously developed land, as previously recognised in the Council’s 2017 SHELAA assessment of the southern parcel (CFS068), with built form existing on the southern parcel of the site in particular with a variety of B2 industrial sheds alongside an established concrete hardstanding and occupied by structures extending up to two stories in height, obscuring any view of the wider countryside and significantly reducing the land’s openness. Moreover, the industrial units occupying the land at present host a variety of established uses, including a lawn mower repair shop and vehicle servicing, alongside a camping and caravan site, whilst the northern parcel of land is used as a plant nursery. As
such, both parcels benefit from established activity and transport movements further reducing openness characteristics attributed to the site.
7.4. At present the Green Belt Study does not adequately consider the characteristics of the site with respect to its established uses, built form and recognitions as previously developed land. This is demonstrated through the Parcel Assessments included in the Green Belt Study, with the promoted land included incorrectly within Parcel 21 alongside undeveloped farmland. The parcel sizes identified through the study vary considerably in
shape and size, with specific characteristics of land informing the parcel sizes. An example of this and the resulting assessment of Green Belt factors is Parcel P29 that covers the land off Rayleigh Down Road and The Drive, where residential buildings and area of external caravan storage alongside/ horticultural/agricultural buildings have been recognised within a smaller parcel area and assessed as having less contribution to
Green Belt as a result. This approach of applying a smaller parcel should also have been identifeid for the land at Lower Wyburns Farm, which would have enabled its assessment separately from the woodland, playing fields and pasture that makes up the rest of parcel
21 to the east. The Green Belt Study undertaken has therefore not allowed for the appropriate assessment of edge of settlement sites that would otherwise be considered as sustainable allocation options and be taken forward for further consideration through the
Local Plan process.
7.5. The reduced openness and lack of rural character afforded by the existing structures on site reduces the land’s contribution to the Green Belt considerably. In accordance with the principles established by the Joint Green Belt Study, alongside the reduced contribution of
the land to the purposes of the Green Belt, the highly sustainable location of the site adjacent to Rayleigh and the accessibility of local services and facilities from the site, should also ensure that the land at Lower Wyburns Farm is identified as a suitable candidate for Green Belt release.

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

8.2. Promoted sites CFS068 and CFS069 (Land at Lower Wyburns Farm) identified on Figure 44 should be made available for residential development. Although land at Lower Wyburns Farm promoted by Southern and Regional Developments is not identified on the walking completeness score map presented within the ‘Complete Communities’ Topic Paper, the site is located adjacent to areas afforded attributed a walking completeness score of 8-10 showing that reasonable levels of services and facilities are located within the ‘walking catchment’ of the land. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that the
Council be pragmatic in applying walking completeness scores where the Topic Paper confirms that being located outside of the comfortable walking catchment for a specific facility does not mean that the facility is inaccessible. This assertion is particularly relevant
for Rayleigh, where the Topic Paper establishes that 56% of the settlement is located within the walking catchment of a frequent bus service. A review of the promoted land’s context confirms that the site is located within a 5 minute walk from existing bus stops sited along the Eastwood Road. These bus stops provide very frequent services to a range of destinations including, Southend-on-Sea, Shoeburyness, Rayleigh, and Basildon Town
Centre. As such, Claremont Planning recommend that the Council recognises the highly sustainable location of the promoted land at Lower Wyburns Farm for residential
development, given both the variety of services and facilities located within the land’s walking catchment, and the site’s close proximity to frequent public transport services.
8.3. Moreover, the vision for Rayleigh advanced by the Consultation Document sets out the ambition to provide for a diverse range of housing which meet the needs of all in the community. The 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) establishes that both within Rochford, and across the South Essex region, the greatest additional demand for housing will be generated by households requiring family housing with three bedrooms. As such, it is considered that the release of the land at Lower Wyburns Farm from the Green Belt, and its allocation for residential development can strongly contribute to delivering housing to meet this need where greenfield land is considered to be more appropriate for
the delivery of family-sized housing. It is also advised that the Authority acknowledge the strategic location of the land at Lower Wyburns Farm in close proximity to the District boundary and connection to the A127 as a location which may be appropriate to meet any unmet need for family housing arising from the wider South Essex region.
8.4. It has been established that Rayleigh benefits from high levels of completeness, with a large percentage of the settlement located within the walking catchment of education, sport, leisure, and health facilities however, the ‘Complete Communities Topic Paper’ identifies that only 18% of Rayleigh is located within the walking catchment of green infrastructure. Previous representations made to the Authority promoting the land at Lower Wyburns Farm have identified that the site’s development will include provision of an area of public open space to the north west of the site. As such, it is considered that the allocation of the site will both continue to ensure that development at Rayleigh is located in the most sustainable locations, that are areas within the walking catchment of a good range of services and facilities, whilst also seeking to address deficiencies in green infrastructure provision in Rayleigh.
Enclosed: Site Location Plan: Lower Wyburns Farm, Daws Heath Road, Rayleigh
:Dwg SK001 Illustrative Masterplan

Rochford District Council – Land to the north of Sutton Road, Rochford
Representations to the Spatial Options Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1. On behalf of Southern and Regional Developments Ltd, Claremont Planning Consultancy has been instructed to prepare and submit representations to the Spatial Options consultation being undertaken by Rochford District Council to inform the emerging Local Plan.

Strategy Options
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
1.2. Claremont Planning on behalf of Southern and Regional Development’s Ltd are generally supportive of the settlement hierarchy proposed. Rochford is identified as a ‘Tier 2’ settlement within the hierarchy recognising the settlement’s sizeable population and comprehensive local service base. Whilst it is acknowledged that Rochford has a considerably smaller population than
that of Rayleigh, meriting its location below Rayleigh within the settlement hierarchy; the placement of Hockley and Rochford within the same ‘Tier’ in the hierarchy is disputed. Although the populations are of a similar size, the proposed settlement hierarchy fails to account for the
strategic location of Rochford adjacent to London Southend Airport. The close proximity of Rochford to the airport provides the settlement with key transport infrastructure which connects Rochford to the wider South Essex region and rest of the country. As such, it is considered that Rochford should be distinguished from Hockley within the proposed settlement hierarchy by
virtue of its local and nationally strategic location.
1.3. It is recommended that the spatial strategy advanced by the emerging Local Plan be strongly informed by the proposed settlement hierarchy In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), development plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. As such, it is
advisable that the overall distribution of growth is informed by this imperative and larger quantum of growth apportioned to those settlements which are identified by the hierarchy as being most sustainable. The proposed settlement hierarchy acknowledges the sustainability of Rochford for development, whilst these representations have also sought to illustrate the strategic location of
the settlement due to the presence of the London Southend Airport and its planned continued expansion to provide additional employment floorspace and associated employment opportunities.

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

Strategy Option 1: Urban Intensification
1.4. It is advised that Strategy Option 1: Urban Intensification is not advanced. The current standard
method identifies a housing requirement of 7,200 dwellings in the district across the next 20 years however the consultation document establishes that approximately only 4,500 new dwellings can be delivered through Option 1. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF identifies that Plans must provide a strategy which as a minimum seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs in order to be found sound. Delivering development through Strategy Option 1 will result in a substantial shortfall in housing delivery and will unlikely be considered sound by the Inspector when the Plan is examined.
Strategy Option 2: Urban Extensions
1.5. It is recognised that Strategy Option 2, which seeks to spread development across a number of development sites of between 10 and 1,500 homes adjoining existing towns and villages, could deliver a sustainable distribution of housing growth. The dispersal of urban extensions based on the settlement hierarchy is supported, where this would therefore see the largest quantum of growth apportioned to the most sustainable settlement settlements within the District as established by the proposed settlement hierarchy and it is therefore recommended that growth at sustainable settlements such as Rayleigh and Rochford should be prioritised if this option is taken forward.
1.6. Moreover, the land north of Sutton Road at Rochford as promoted by Southern and Regional Developments, has been identified within the initial appraisal undertaken by the Council as making a potential contribution to Strategy Option 2. It is agreed that the promoted land off Sutton Road could make an effective contribution to the delivery of this Strategy Option where the land abuts established areas of residential development at the settlement and is located in close proximity to employment opportunities at the Purdeys Industrial Estate. As such, the land at Sutton Road is considered to represent a logical location for the further expansion of Rochford should Option 2 be advanced by the Authority.
Strategy Option 3: Concentrated Growth
1.7. Concentrating growth in one or more locations of 1,500+ dwellings, as promoted within Strategy Option 3 is not supported. Large allocations and the development of new settlements, by virtue of their complexity and infrastructure requirements, have much longer lead-in times for delivery and therefore would be likely to contribute towards meeting housing needs towards the end of the Plan period and beyond. As such, pursuit of this Strategy Option alone will not deliver sufficient housing to meet the Authority’s housing needs in the earlier years of the Plan, leaving the Authority vulnerable to speculative development which is not Plan lead particularly if delays in the delivery of these allocations arise. Topic Paper 9: Housing prepared in support of the
Spatial Options Consultation 2021 illustrates that over the last 10 years Rochford’s historic rate of housing delivery is 227 dwellings per annum, requiring an uplift of around 60% in annual housing completions to meet the local housing need identified for the new Local Plan. The
Authority should note that paragraph 69 of the NPPF advises against the concentration of growth as proposed within Strategy Option 3, instead recommending that development plans should seek to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare. Given the uplift in housing delivery which will be required to meet housing need, it would be prudent that the Council also consider allocating sites of a variety of sizes which can be builtout relatively quickly and make a more immediate contribution to housing supply.
Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination
1.8. Strategy Option 4 advances a balanced combination of the various Strategy Options presented, including making the best use of urban capacity (Option 1), building on one or two large growth areas (Option 3), and a number of smaller urban extensions (Option 2). Claremont Planning strongly recommend that the Authority pursue the blended approach promoted within Option 4. It is considered that Option 4 represents the most sustainable means of meeting the District’s
housing requirement, by maximising sites available within the existing urban area, and delivering smaller urban extensions at sustainable locations in accordance with the proposed settlement hierarchy. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF establishes that a blended approach which allocates small, medium, and larger sites for development is advisable, ensuring that any potential delays in the delivery of larger allocations do not adversely affect housing delivery in the District.
1.9. Paragraph 35 of the NPPF sets out the tests for ‘soundness’ of development plans, establishing
that plans should, as a minimum, seek to meet their areas objectively assessed housing need and be informed by agreements with other authorities so that any unmet need from neighbouring areas can be accommodated where it is practical to do so. As established, the land at Sutton Road as promoted by Southern and Regional Developments has been assessed by the Council under reference CFS067 within their 2021 Site Appraisal Paper prepared in support the Spatial Options consultation. Within this assessment, the land at Sutton Road is positively considered by the Authority and its availability and deliverability for residential development recognised.
Moreover, Claremont Planning assert that the Council should recognise that the land at Sutton Road performed strongly through this assessment in relation a wide variety of criteria including but not limited to flood risk; landscape harm; site hazards and conditions; and access to facilities and services. As such, the land at Sutton Road should be strongly considered for allocation
through the emerging Local Plan, given both its environmental, and social sustainability.

2. Spatial Themes
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?

2.1. National policy, chiefly paragraph 161 of the NPPF is clear in its expectations that development plans apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development which includes taking into account all sources of flood risk as well as current and future impacts of climate change. As such, it is agreed that a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change should be adopted by the Plan, and this would be a sound approach that is consistent with national planning policy. As recognised by the Council, much of the District is influenced by high flood risk that is likely to be subject to coastal change as a result of climate change. As such, it is recommended that development opportunities within areas at lower risk of flooding are fully considered by the Authority. Approaching flood risk and coastal change sequentially would also accord with the proposed settlement hierarchy, concentrating development at the main settlements of the District, including Rochford and Rayleigh which are the areas within the District
at lower risk of flooding.
2.2. The land at Sutton Road promoted by Southern and Regional Developments represents a suitable location for development if the sequential approach to flood risk is adopted. Although an inappreciable area to the extreme south east of the land is located within Flood Zone 3, the
Environment Agency’s flood map for planning identifies that this area of the site also benefits from flood defences; whilst the rest of the land promotion is located within Flood Zone 1, being at low probability of flooding. 2.3. Within the 2021 Site Appraisal Paper, the Council identified that the promoted land at Sutton Road performs very strongly in relation to flood risk, recognising that this small area of flood risk on site is not detrimental to the land’s deliverability. The pragmatic approach advanced by the Council in relation to flood risk on site is therefore supported. Moreover, any development scheme proposed on the site would be designed such to sensitively respond to the risk of flooding on site, through the promotion of this area as public open space. This would ensure that flood
risk on site can be suitably accommodated whilst also enhancing the quality of any development scheme pursued through the provision of high quality public open space. Given that the vast majority of the promoted land at Sutton Road is sited within Flood Zone 1, alongside the Council’s recognition that the site performs strongly in respect of flood risk, Claremont Planning consider that the development of this land would be in accordance with the recommend sequential approach to flood risk in the Plan.

3. 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?

3.1. Meeting the need for different types, sizes, tenures of housing by requiring a suitable or negotiable mix of housing that is responsive to the type and location of development, as promoted by Option 2 is recommended by Claremont Planning. It is considered that this represents the most pragmatic approach to meeting these needs by providing flexibility in the market to ensure that the right types of homes are delivered in the right locations. Applying a blanket housing mix policy would fail to recognise that some types of land are more well suited to certain forms of development. For example, both the Housing Topic Paper 2021 and 2017 SHMA establish that there is the greatest need for small and mid-sized semi-detached and detached dwellings.
Claremont Planning consider that the release of Green Belt land, including the promoted land off Sutton Road should be strongly considered by the Council whereby the release of this land will both assist the Council in meeting their overall housing need, and facilitate the delivery of an appropriate mix of housing. In particular this will assist the delivery of family sized housing which
is better suited to delivery on greenfield land than constrained urban sites.

4. Future of London Southend Airport
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own opinions, how do you feel we can best manage the Aiport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
[please state reasoning].

4.1. Following the adoption of the current Joint Area Action Plan for the London Southend Airport in 2014, the context for the Airport’s future growth has altered substantially. The consultation document establishes that the Airport’s development will need to respond to the emerging Government Aviation Strategy. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially impacted the Airport, with planned growth now envisaged to take place over a much longer time period than initially anticipated. Claremont Planning therefore agree that it is prudent to prepare an updated Joint Area Action Plan which accounts for both the changed policy, and economic
context of the Airport’s growth.
4.2. The regional importance of the airport, alongside its strategic cross-boundary location within Southend but adjacent to Rochford necessitates that a joint approach for the Airport’s growth is advanced in accordance with a coherent vision. Although Option 2 would satisfy the need for a joint, cross boundary approach to the Airport’s growth, national policy is clear that strategic policies should be focussed on setting overall strategies for the pattern scale and design. As such, development at London Southend Airport would more appropriately be considered within a detailed Area Action Plan rather than through Local Planning Policy. As such, Claremont
Planning would support the pursuit of Option 4, where this Option will ensure that any resultant Area Action Plan can be prepared in accordance with policies contained within the new Local Plan.

5. Green and Blue Infrastructure
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver quality green and blue infrastructure network throughout the Plan?
5.1. The Green and Blue Infrastructure Topic Paper 2021 identifies that previous housing and economic growth throughout South Essex has not been sufficient to meet the region’s growth potential. As such, Claremont Planning maintain that although delivering quality green and blue infrastructure is valuable to the wellbeing of Rochford residents, this must be balanced against
the region’s need for growth. It is therefore recommended that identifying general objectives for
strategic green and blue infrastructure (Option 2) is pursued by the Authority, with this Option relying on other existing allocations, such as open space, local green space, and local wildlife site designations to deliver improvements.
5.2. The suggestion identified within the Topic Paper that the Plan could still contain policies that help to deliver improvements to green and blue infrastructure, including the capture of funding through planning obligations associated with development is recommended to be advanced alongside this approach. Advancing Option 2 would continue to promote the delivery of improvements on site where appropriate, without constraining the ability of development to make the most effective use on land by requiring on site improvements to be delivered. Moreover, it is not considered that detailed, site-specific policies are relevant for inclusion within a strategic plan of this nature where national planning policy established in Chapter 3 of the Framework the role those strategic
policies should play, which is to set out the overall strategies for the pattern, scale and design quality of such places. As such, policies relating to the site specific provision of green and blue infrastructure would be more appropriately dealt with through the preparation of non-strategic level Plans and Policies, such as those in Neighbourhood Plans.
5.3. The Green and Blue Infrastructure Topic Paper 2021 also establishes that the connectivity of green and blue infrastructure is challenging, with many poor green and blue linkages between towns, villages, rural areas, and waterfronts. Whilst Option 3, requiring certain new developments to provide local green and blue infrastructure on-site, may increase the quantum of green and blue infrastructure throughout Rochford, there is risk that this may worsen the connectivity of these spaces through their piecemeal development. Contrastingly, securing funding through planning obligations as part of Option 2 could deliver strategic improvements to this network to be made in accordance with a wider vision for the area. This would represent a more effective and deliverable strategy in meeting that criteria for soundness as identified in the NPPF.

6. 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 ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant?

6.1. Claremont Planning support the ambition of Options 5 and 10 in their recognition that delivering a suitable mix of uses including residential development is essential in continuing to support the viability and vitality of town centres. It is considered important however, that the Council recognise the important of allowing settlements to expand through new development outside of the existing settlement boundary, as this can allow the population of settlements to grow. This in turn can
increase footfall to existing shops and services, and enhance the vitality and viability of these settlements, especially where good pedestrian connectivity to the town centre is present. Whilst it is recognised that the consultation document identifies that town centres within the District have not suffered declines in footfall as acutely as national trends would indicate, further development could ensure that town centres remain sustainable in the future.

7. Green Belt and Rural Issues – Plan Objective 20 (p.69-70)
7.1. The recognition that the release of Green Belt land will be required to meet housing needs through the emerging Plan is strongly supported. It is agreed that the Council can demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify this release, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the NPPF. The Consultation Document has sought to establish that a spatial strategy reliant on urban intensification will not deliver sufficient housing to meet the Council’s objectively assessed need, and confirms that early discussions with adjacent authorities have not identified capacity for accommodating unmet need arising from Rochford. As such, it is agreed that the
emerging Local Plan will be able to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the release of Green Belt land.
7.2. The Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Joint Green Belt Study (February 2020) supporting this consultation contains detailed site assessments of the contribution made by promoted sites to the purposes of the Green Belt, including an assessment of the promoted land north of Sutton Road at Rochford that is within a wider Parcel 63. The assessment of the land presented within the Green Belt study is supported, where the assessment recognises the diminished contribution
made by the site to the purposes of the Green Belt, particularly safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and preventing coalescence, by virtue of the site’s relative enclosure by the established Rochford settlement. When the harm of the Parcel’s release was assessed at Stage 2 of the Study, it was concluded that moderate harm to the Green Belt would result. Claremont
Planning contest this conclusion, and assert that instead the harm resulting from the Parcel’s release is instead low, or low-moderate. The Stage 2 assessment undertaken recognises that this parcel of land is weaker performing Green Belt due to its high level of containment, going on to establish that by virtue of this containment the release of land in this area would be of no harm to adjacent Green Belt parcels. Due to the recognition within this assessment that the release of
this land from the Green Belt would not be detrimental to the wider Green Belt, the subsequent conclusion that moderate harm to the Green Belt would result, is not considered to be robustly justified.
7.3. National planning policy, chiefly paragraph 142 of the NPPF, sets out that where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, a pragmatic approach to Green Belt release, giving first consideration to land which is previously developed and/or well-served by public transport, should be advanced. Claremont Planning support the assertion made within the Joint Green Belt
Study paper that the environmental and sustainability effects of Green Belt release need to be considered alongside the harm to the Green Belt of release, where the most sustainable locations for development may not be the areas which would result in the least harm to the Green Belt. Where this nuanced approach to Green Belt release is considered, Claremont Planning contend
that the merits of releasing the promoted land off Sutton Road are especially evident where it has been established that the site represents a both a highly sustainable location for development at one of the District’s main settlements, and a location at which harm to the Green Belt arising from the land’s release is limited. In light of both the limited contribution made to the Green Belt by this parcel, alongside the negligible harm arising from the land’s release and highly sustainable location, it is strongly recommended that the Council consider the promoted land at Sutton Road
for Green Belt release.

8. Planning for Complete Communities
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you
feel is missing?
8.1. The proposed vision statement for Rochford and Ashingdon is generally supported by Claremont
Planning, where it proposes the further growth and development of the settlement. In particular, the vision statement’s recognition of the settlement’s strategic location close to key employment sites and London Southend Airport, and intention to bolster its regionally significant role is strongly supported. However, it is considered that the proposed vision statement places too great an emphasis on economic growth at the settlement. Instead, Claremont Planning recommend
that the proposed vision statement be amended to include a more balanced and holistic approach
to growth, where it is considered that the Council should recognise the role that residential development has in supporting both the vitality and viability of town centres, alongside a recognition that economic and jobs growth must be supported by sufficient housing provision to
support the local workforce. Moreover, as a ‘Tier 2’ settlement in the District, Rochford represents a highly sustainable location for residential development and should therefore represent a location for significant growth through the emerging Local Plan to assist in meeting the District’s housing needs. As such, it is advised that the vision statement be revised to recognise the role of residential, alongside economic development in realising the growth ambitions of the district.
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
8.2. Promoted site CFS067 as identified on Figure 45: Map of Rochford and Ashingdon, should be made available for residential development. Through these representations to the Spatial Options consultation, Claremont Planning have sought to identify that the central location of the promoted land at Sutton Road within the Rochford settlement establishes the land as both a highly sustainable, and logical location for further residential development. This assertion is complemented by the 2021 Complete Communities Topic Paper prepared by the Authority within with the promoted land is located within an area identified as having a high walking completeness score of 11-13, meaning that there are a large number of services and facilities located within walking distance of the site. However, the Complete Communities Topic Paper also identifies that whilst the most complete areas in the settlement are located near the town centre, there are areas of low population density in and around the centre where future growth might optimise proximity to services. As established, the land off Sutton Road is entirely enclosed by the established Rochford settlement, and abuts existing residential development and employment
land at all elevations. Given the high walking completeness score of the land, the development
of the site represents an opportunity to both locate development at the most sustainable locations
within the settlement, whilst increasing the number of residents living in ‘complete’ areas.
8.3. The Complete Communities Topic Paper demonstrates that Rochford has good levels of
completeness in respect of access to education, health, civic, and sport and leisure facilities whilst only 8% of the settlement is located within the walking catchment of green infrastructure. It is considered that the release of the promoted land off Sutton Road for residential development represents an opportunity to address this shortfall. Within the south of the site at Sutton Road is
a small area of Flood Zone 3 which is promoted for use as public open space / access arrangements through any development proposal advanced. Moreover, the north-easternmost corner of the land is located within the Southend Airport Public Safety Zone within which
development potential is restricted. As such, this area is also promoted for and provides an opportunity to deliver public open space and ecological enhancement. Through careful scheme design it is therefore considered that any proposed development on site will deliver a connected series of public open spaces and green infrastructure, supporting both recreational activities and
delivering biodiversity gains. Given the relative enclosure of the site by established development, it is considered that both future occupants and residents of the wider site area will benefit from this enhanced green infrastructure provision.
Enclosed : Site Location Plan

I have used email as I found the on-line portal difficult to navigate

My objections/comments are as follows:

The draft vision that Rochford will be a green and pleasant place is flawed if we give away large swathes of green belt.
The strategic option 2 provides an inordinate amount of development in Rayleigh as a whole. There is already major congestion on the town’s roads in particular London Road, Rawreth Lane, A130, A127 and Hockley Road. These roads are at capacity especially during rush hours, and other peak times such as school start/finish times.
In particular the proposed developments:
CFS 027, 029, 053, 054, 086, and 098 all proposed in an area bounded by Hockley Road and Bull Lane would create further congestion on already busy roads (Hockley Road) and untold congestion in Bull Lane area which is simply not capable of carrying the amount of traffic that would be generated.
Valuable green belt land would be lost which has an effect on everybody’s wellbeing as well as the wildlife that would be displaced, a bridal path would also be lost between Napier and Wellington Roads.
The number of homes would also generate more private motor vehicles, and any talk of cycle routes is nonsense as the size of the local roads are not capable of adding cycle routes.
My opinion is that Strategic option 3 would be the most preferable even though it is your submission that it might be the hardest of your options.

I agree with your settlement hierarchy but just because Rayleigh is at the top that should not mean that it becomes over developed and loses its identity and becomes an urban sprawl. You state Rayleigh has a large town centre, this is true if you want a haircut or something to eat but for anything else you are wanting. It is not a requirement for more retail space but you should be looking at why are retailers moving out of the high street, is it because of high business rates, the movement of shopping habits to the Internet and are these changes that are unlikely to be reversed. The local doctor’s surgeries are at capacity and being able to register with an NHS dentist almost impossible. Rayleigh does not have a Police station that is open to callers for either advice or to report an incident.

Strategic priorities
1. Southend Airport - I disagree that there is a need to further develop this airport, it has been difficult to attract operators to the airport with EasyJet withdrawing and Ryan Air running routes that go via Ireland, so Southend to Bristol 6 hours with one change, since COVID has struck the reduction in air traffic has reduced the noise nuisance especially to those directly under the flight path.
2 - Shops and leisure - Rayleigh town centre does not have shops that provide day to day requirements meaning travel to out of town sites, leisure facilities are at maximum capacity with the ability to book into Clements Hall leisure centre difficult at peak times 3. Transport - Most of the district’s roads are already running at capacity in peak times with severe delays common. There is no way that dedicated cycle routes could be implemented due to road sizes and if they were it would cause more congestion which in turn would harm the environment due to emissions.
4. Although there are no hospitals in the district those in adjoining districts are at capacity with some of the worst waiting lists in the country. Our doctors and dentists are at capacity and if you were to progress strategic option 2 it will be difficult to provide increased school capacity in the right place as the developments are spread over a large number of areas.
Lastly you state that 57% of the required housing would be in Detached/Semi detached housing of 3-5 bedrooms, based on property prices in Rayleigh this is not going to be affordable for the younger generation, but will attract families which come with 2 plus cars to an already over crowded town.

Dear Sir / Madam
Rochford Local Plan Spatial Options (Regulation 18)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Spatial Options Document. These representations are submitted on behalf of Rydon Homes which has land interests to the south of Wellington Road, Rayleigh (Call for Sites references CFS053 and CFS086). Rydon is promoting the land for the residential development of around 110 homes (including affordable housing.
By way of clarification, the Rydon representations comprise of the following documents :
- this letter which provides a strategic overview of the issues raised in the Regulation 18 document
- a schedule which provides responses to certain of the questions posed in the
Regulation 18 document
- a Green Belt assessment prepared by Liz Lake Associates
- a Landscape Assessment prepared by Liz Lake Associates
- Transport Strategy site prepared by Vectos
- Local Plan Evidence Base Appraisal Technical Note prepared by Vectos
- Surface Water Flood Risk Technical Note, prepared by Stuart Michael Associates
- Design Assessment prepared by Omega.

Overview of the Regulation 18 Document
The strategic direction of the Reg 18 Plan is strongly supported since it seeks to move towards a more sustainable pattern of development where new development can be low carbon and be located where a good range of facilities can be accessed by foot, cycle or
public transport. It is considered that these over-arching principles strongly point to a strategy which locates most development in the main towns. In this context, Rayleigh should be considered the primary focus for development in the District since
- it is the largest town, by a large degree
- it contains the widest range of facilities, services, jobs and public transport
- it is the only ‘Tier 1’ settlement in the District and is at the top of the District retail hierarchy
- this approach is also supported by the conclusions of your Integrated Impact Assessment.
Whilst it is accepted that major urban extensions can sometimes have the ‘critical mass’ to deliver infrastructure, many Local Plans have been found unsound because of a lack of range and choice of sites plus the delivery risks involved in a strategy based around a very limited number of large sites. A failure of one large site can prejudice the whole plan.
It is for these reasons that in addition to Rayleigh being the primary focus for development in the District, the new housing allocations should be in the form of a mix of sizes and locations around the town. This will allow scope for diversity, choice and the involvement of smaller
housebuilders. It is also a robust delivery strategy. For reasons explained below, it is considered that the land south of Wellington Road fulfils all the objectives of your emerging Local Plan and can assist in improving the ‘completeness’ score of Rayleigh.
The consultation document seeks views on the overall level of development in the District. Comments on the three options are :
- Option 1 ‘Current Trajectory’ (4,500 homes) : This would substantially undershoot the Government’s standard methodology and is a strategy which is likely
to fail at Examination
- Option 2 ‘Standard Methodology’ (7,200 homes) : This is the absolute minimum housing provision needed to avoid the plan being found unsound
- Option 3 ‘Standard Methodology + 50%’ : Whether the uplift is 50% or some other figure is not the real issue. Government policy states that the Local Authorities
should seek to meet the unmet needs of adjoining areas, where this is achievable. In view of this, the Local Plan evidence base should investigate the degree to which
Rochford can exceed 7,200 homes in the period to 2040 in order to meet unmet housing needs from adjoining areas and provide more affordable housing.
For these reasons, the Plan should adopt ‘Option 3’ and seek to provide housing in excess of 7,200 homes.
South of Wellington Road
As noted above, Rydon is promoting 6.31hectares of land south of Wellington Road as a housing allocation for around 100 homes.
In addition to complying with your emerging strategy of locating allocations is sustainable locations where facilities can be accessed by foot, cycle and public transport, the promotion of this site is supported by Rydon’s own evidence base. These documents are attached, but can be summarised below :
1. Green Belt Review by LLA : This report assess the Green Belt role of the site and places this in the context of the Council’s study undertaken by LUC. The main
problem with the LUC report is that its site assessment is insufficiently ‘fine grained’ to pick up smaller sub areas which have development potential within large parcels
which, overall, are not seen as having potential. The LLA report then provides a Green Belt assessment of a sub area made up of only sites CFS053 and 086. This
identifies how this site is effectively an indent in the eastern built-up edge of Rayleigh with development on three sides. It also has a strong tree / hedgerow boundary on its eastern side and its topography slopes inward towards the urban area of the town. In
combination, this means that the site could be developed without materially compromising the purposes of the wider Green Belt around Rayleigh.
2. Landscape Assessment by LLA : This ties in closely with the LLA Green Belt review and demonstrates that sites CFS053 and 086 have significantly different
landscape characteristics from the wider area of open countryside to the east. As such, it is capable (with mitigation) of being developed with limited impact on the
wider landscape.
3. Sustainable Transport Assessment by Vectos : Whilst the Local Plan concept of ‘completeness’ is supported, it is felt that the methodology used is flawed. As a
consequence, sites CFS053 and 086 are given much poorer ‘completeness’ scores than they actually merit. The Vectos report suggests some amendments to the
methodology to make it both more logical and accurate. As a consequence, the Rydon sites, with the existing public footpath / bridleway route to Napier Road and on
to the Town Centre can be seen as very sustainable location. It will also assist the achievement of ‘completeness’ in Rayleigh.
4. Drainage Report by SMA : In response to the drainage concern identified in the Site Assessment, Stuart Michael Associates (SMA) have been commissioned by Rydon
Homes Ltd to assess the impact of the risk of flooding from surface water on the Site.
Whilst the site is located within Flood Zone 1, the site is also identified as being low, medium and high risk of surface water flooding. SMA’s report confirms that any
surface water flooding is constrained to the peripheries and low lying areas of the site within and adjacent to the existing watercourses. Proposals can therefore be brought forward with no risk of flooding. It should be noted that the proposals could also include provision to mitigate risk of flooding to properties outside the site and
downstream of the site.
5. Design Assessment by Omega : The Design report seeks to synthesise all the evidence contained in the Rydon evidence base to produce an illustrative masterplan. This shows a development of between 92 and 110 homes arranged within generous levels of open space. The urban context analysis indicates certain design themes which could be adopted to ensure that a sense of place can be created, as well as somewhere which echoes the essential characteristics of the best of Rayleigh’s urban fabric.

Conclusions
Rydon welcomes the publication of the Regulation 18 document and supports many of its aims and objectives which work towards a more sustainable and low carbon future. As part of this, your own evidence base and the Integrated Impact Assessment would suggest that the town of Raleigh should be the primary focus of new development. Rydon support this and consider that its own evidence base clearly makes the case for the allocation of around 110 homes south of Wellington Road.
Should you wish to discuss these representations in more detail, we would be pleased to arrange an early meeting.

Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 Spatial Options Consultation
Representations on behalf of Rydon Homes
Responses to Questions
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?
A : The draft ‘Vision’ for Rochford contains many appropriate and supportable elements, but it should contain a commitment to delivering sufficient high quality homes to meet need.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
A : Yes, there should be separate ‘Visions’ for each of the main settlements. This will help capture their diversity and distinctiveness. It may be necessary to have a a generic ‘villages / hamlets’ Vision for the smallest 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?
A : The strategic objectives are generally supported. However, the number should be expanded to cover cross-cutting themes. An example would be to make the link between the objective for zero carbon and the concentration of new development in sustainable locations (ie. the larger towns) explicit.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
A : Yes, the settlement hierarchy is sound. It correctly identifies Rayleigh as the Tier 1 primary settlement in the District.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
A : Dealing first with the level of Growth, Option 1 (Current Trajectory) would fail to meet the standard methodology figure. As a consequence, it is probable that the Plan would be found unsound and fail. Option 2 (Standard Methodology) is the minimum possible figure
that the Plan could pursue and could still be found unsound since it would not be attempting to meet the unmet needs of adjoining local authorities. Option 3 (Standard Methodology + 50%) has the greatest chance of being found sound since it would allow Rochford to meet some unmet needs from adjoining authorities and would allow a greater portion of affordable housing in the District to be met. The reference to 50% in Option 3 is misleading. Option 3 should just have the objective of exceeding the standard methodology figure by whatever the District can accommodate. This may be +15%, it may be +60%. The evidence needs to be produced to justify a specific figure.
With regard to the spatial strategy options, the most sustainable and deliverable option is 2A (Urban Extensions Focussed on Main Towns). However, in reality, this is likely to take the form of Option 4 (Balanced Contribution) since in order to meet the overall housing
provision, there will need to be both urban intensification and some strategic releases at the main towns.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?
A : A refined option would be a Balanced Contribution made up of
(i) Some urban intensification
(ii) Small / medium urban extensions at main towns
(iii) A limited number of strategic releases to ‘top up’ the yield from (i) and (ii) to meet the selected housing provision.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
A : Zero carbon should be added to the list of themes.

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?
A : A sequential approach to flood risk is both logical and in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF.

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?
A : The Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should have continued protection.

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?
A : Agree in principle, the difficult question is what is the appropriate percentage which is both viable and deliverable.

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?
A : This may not be necessary since the Government is already proposing to strengthen Building Regulations to deliver high energy efficient standards. If the Local Plan was to propose even higher standards, this would need to be rigorously tested in terms of the impacts on both viability and delivery.

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?
A : Yes, a high level ‘place making charter’ would be useful, in principle to provide guidance whilst not being inflexible.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
A : The principles are generally supportable. However, carbon negativity (as opposed to being carbon neutral) is unrealistic.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
A : Rydon supports this objective in principle. However, design guides, codes and masterplans should only be produced in full collaboration with landowners and developers. Any documents should be regarded as flexible and allow alternative approaches to come
forward, where these can be fully justified.

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?
A : A single Design Guide for the whole District would become too generic and fail to identify what makes each settlement unique. Settlement specific design guides would be most effective, as long as they do not stifle innovation and can allow alternatives approaches,
where fully justified.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?
A : It is important that any documents are not too prescriptive and allow a degree of flexibility. All documents should include a date by which they will be reviewed.
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?
A : The appropriate response is to negotiate a site specific mix which is appropriate to the settlement and the characteristics of the site itself (Option 2). National Space Standards are appropriate. The approach to Part M4 of the Building Regulations could reflect that adopted in the London Plan.

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?
A : Option 4A is the most appropriate solution to meeting open space needs if they can all be met on site. Any needs which cannot be met on site should be met by off site contributions.

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?
A : Option 2 (incorporating Town Centre policies in the Local Plan) is the most appropriate approach.

Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make?
A : Given the status of Rayleigh as the Tier 1 settlement in the Settlement Hierarchy and its wide range of shops and services, it should be defined as the only ‘Primary Town Centre’ at the top of the retail hierarchy.

Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
A : The Vision for Rayleigh is appropriate in that it captures the need for new allocations to be accessible by foot, cycle or public transport.

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
A : Rydon is promoting the residential allocation of sites CFS053 and 086 south of Wellington Road, Rayleigh for around 110 homes. The justification for this allocation is set out in the attached Sellwood Planning covering letter plus
- The Green Belt Review by Liz lake Associates
- The Landscape Assessment by Liz Lake Associates
- The Sustainable Transport Assessment of the Promotion Site by Vectos
- Drainage report by SLR
- Design Assessment by Omega.
In summary, the land being promoted by Rydon accords with the emerging spatial strategy of the Local Plan in that it is located in Rayleigh which is the most sustainable settlement in the District with the greatest range of services, facilities, jobs and public transport. Within Rayleigh, the site is within easy walking / cycling distance of a wide range of facilities and can assist in the achievement of the ‘completeness’ objective of the Local Plan. The development of the site will cause no material harm to the wider Green Belt and countryside since it represents an indent in the built form on the eastern side of Rayleigh, with development on three sides. The eastern boundary of the site is strongly vegetated and when combined with the topography would represent a strong and defensible long term boundary to
the Green Belt in this location.

Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas?
A : Yes, sites CFS053 and 086 south of Wellington Road.
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?
A : The green spaces shown are of local significance and should be identified as such. No additional green spaces should be identified as having local significance.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION (REGULATION 18) - BARRATT DAVID WILSON HOMES RESPONSE: LAND EAST OF STAR LANE AND NORTH OF POYNTERS LANE, GREAT WAKERING

On behalf of our client, Barratt David Wilson Homes (‘BDW’), please find enclosed representations to the
Spatial Options consultation currently being undertaken by Rochford District Council (‘the Council’).

Background

BDW
BDW is the nation’s leading housebuilder, creating great new places to live throughout Britain. In 2019/20,
BDW delivered over 12,600 new homes.

BDW are experts in land acquisition, obtaining planning consents and building the highest quality homes in
places people aspire to live. This expertise has been shared with the Council in recent times through the
delivery of other schemes in the District – including the High Elms Park development in Hullbridge.

BDW is committed to being a sustainable housebuilder and continue to integrate sustainability into their
business practices, helping to create better homes and communities and a strong business for the longer term.

Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering
BDW is currently promoting Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering as an
allocation for housing in the emerging Local Plan. This land ownership covers two HELAA parcels: CFS057
and CFS070. These representations are supported by a Framework Plan which is appended to this letter,
alongside a site location plan.

BDW would like to make the following observations on the content of the Spatial Options consultation.

Vision, Priorities and Objectives
Q2: Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?

Whilst BDW agree with the draft vision for Rochford District in principle, we would like to make the following
observations.

As currently drafted, no reflection of the purpose, aims and objectives of the emerging South Essex Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) is made. The Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) (2018) between the six constitutive Councils (plus Essex County Council) involves a commitment to work together on strategic planning matters, including meeting the housing needs of entire sub-region in full (our emphasis) (see Chapter 9). The relationship between Rochford and Southend-on-Sea is imperative to achieving this, as recognised by the current in-tandem production of new Local Plans in these areas – including the production of a joint evidence base (e.g. Green Belt, HELAA). The evidence base (see HELAA June 2020 Update) is clear that Southend will be unable to meet its objectively assessed housing need on deliverable sites within its administrative boundaries in both policy-on and policy-off scenarios (a shortfall of 6,671 dwellings from 2020-2040), whilst Rochford (in a policy-off scenario) contains deliverable sites to provide a surplus of 35,935 dwellings from 2020-2040 – including Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering. Given the relationship between the two administrative areas, it is imperative that the Council works constructively with
Southend (and other Council’s within the South Essex JSP) to meet the commitment of the JSP to deliver
South Essex’s housing need in full. It is important that the commitment to working with the JSP Councils to meet the needs of the area in full is recognised in the development of a vision that looks further ahead than
just the Plan period (i.e. to at least 30 years) to ensure future generations have clarity on the growth of the
District in the context of the JSP area.

With regards to ‘Our Society’, the Council’s supporting text should be evolved to recognise that although
focussing on previously developed land may be the priority, the evidence base demonstrates there is
insufficient land within these categories to deliver its objectively assessed needs. The HELAA (June 2020
Update) demonstrates a total of 4,320 dwellings can be provided (including a 39dpa windfall) on previously
developed / currently approved sites – a shortfall of 2,880 dwellings. The Urban Capacity Study indicates that
this, at a maximum, can be increased to 5,000 dwellings, still leaving the Council with a shortfall. The Vision
needs to evolve to cover a longer period (as per Paragraph 22 of the NPPF) and recognise that growth on
greenfield sites (including Green Belt) must now take place under an appropriate strategy – which should allow
for a mix of sites and a range of homes to be delivered which can help combat affordability issues and support
Growth across the plan period (see our answer to Q6).

With regards to ‘Our Environment’, the Council’s pledge to retain an extensive Metropolitan Green Belt
designation is noted, but in light of the evidence regarding objectively assessed development needs it is
important that this is clearly defined to allow for future growth to be accommodated within the Green Belt
following Plan reviews.

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

BDW agree with this approach, in principle, insofar as it allows for both the correct quantum and type of
development to be delivered within each settlement to meet the Council’s identified needs.
Please also see our response to Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q59.

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

BDW broadly agree to the strategic priorities and objectives identified in principle.

However, as set out in our response to Q1, BDW consider the Council should amend Strategic Priority 1,
Objective 1 to reflect the need to deliver its objectively assessed needs – as a minimum – including
consideration of the contribution that could be made to solving housing numbers across the South Essex JSP
area.

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

No.

We have reviewed the Council’s Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study (SRH) (2020) (undertaken by Troy
Planning for both Southend-on-Sea and Rochford) and the supporting Topic Paper 4: ‘Complete Communities’
(produced by Rochford District Council and focussing solely on Rochford District) to inform this view.
We do not wholly oppose the Council’s decision to consider the ‘completeness’ of settlements as a means of
both formulating the position of settlements within the hierarchy, as well as the likely level of development
required within these settlements to instigate their completeness. The latter is particularly beneficial with
regards to promoting sustainable development in rural areas, as required by Paragraph 79 of the NPPF.
We also welcome the elements of the conclusions with regard to ‘capacity for growth’ (see Paragraph 11.17 –
Paragraph 11.36 of the SRH) which aptly reflects that ‘significant growth’ would be suitable in Rayleigh,
Rochford (with Ashingdon) and Hockley (with Hawkwell); ‘some growth’ at Great Wakering and Hullbridge; and
‘sustained limited growth’ at Rawreth, Great Stambridge, Stonebridge, Paglesham, South Fambridge and
Canewdon – with the latter comparatively more ‘complete’ then the others.

However, BDW consider there are elements to the approach taken to the SRH Study could be improved and
given greater weight.

Firstly, we feel it is the presence of day-to-day facilities that is the most important consideration on the
sustainability / completeness of a settlement. Based on Table 2 of the Topic Paper (pg. 10), the settlements
can be ranked accordingly:

Settlement - Rayleigh
Total Facilities - 17
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 3/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Rochford (including Ashingdon)
Total Facilities - 17
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 3/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Hockley (including Hawkwell)
Total Facilities - 16
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 2/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Wakerings and Barling
Total Facilities - 12
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 2/3
Civic - 3/5
Health - 2/3
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Hullbridge
Total Facilities - 12
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 4/5
Health - 2/3
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Canewdon
Total Facilities - 7
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 1/2

Settlement - Rawreth
Total Facilities - 6
Green Infrastructure - 1/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Paglesham
Total Facilities - 3
Green Infrastructure - 1/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - Great Stambridge
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - South Fambridge
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - Stonebridge (including Sutton)
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

The table above shows a clear hierarchy across the settlements. Rayleigh, Rochford (including Ashingdon)
and Hockley (including Hawkwell) are all equally as sustainable and have high / the highest levels of
completeness. Thereafter, the Wakerings and Barling, and Hullbridge, are the next most “complete”
settlements – with moderate levels of completeness. The rural settlements are comparably lower, with the
exception of Canewdon and Rawreth which are relatively more complete.

Whilst it is recognised that walking and active travel should be promoted, the SRH’s approach of using the %
of each space within a defined walking catchment of the services within the settlement fails to account for three
key points:

The areas of settlements with the highest completeness scores across the Districts are the central areas
of Rayleigh, Hockley (including Hawkwell), and Rochford (including Ashingdon). However, as the Council’s evidence base shows, the ability to locate new housing in these central areas is restricted by both capacity and its requirement to deliver dwellinghouses (rather than flats) – notwithstanding the aims to seek to support development in rural areas. Accordingly, this would require locating development in areas where walking completeness is not as high in peripheral areas, which as the data demonstrates, is equally issue across all settlements.

Secondly, and related to the above, the aggregated scores mask the most suitable sites within individual
settlements. For example, in Wakerings and Barling, the inclusion of the peripheral areas of the cluster
contribute predominantly to the settlement’s poorer walkability. BDW’s site at Land east of Star Lane and
north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering is well related to the centre of Great Wakering – and would have a far greater walkability score than more peripheral edges.

Finally, and related to the above, the completeness of settlements can only be improved where sufficient
development is provided to add additional infrastructure. For example, BDW’s site in Great Wakering would allow sufficient justification for the expansion of the adjacent school – with land reserved for this purpose.

In regard of the SRH’s assessment of public transport services, it has only looked at the quantitative aspects
via the frequency of services. Paragraph 105 recognises that maximising sustainable transport solutions will
vary between urban and rural areas. Indeed, predominantly, this will be recognised as the frequency of
services – and therefore the qualitative aspect of these services is equally, if not, more important. In the case
of Great Wakering, 91% of the settlement has access to a non-frequent bus service. However, a number of
the available services (e.g. 8, 14) allow access to Southend – which the SRH recognises as the Tier 1
Settlement for both areas combined. With the exception of the most complete settlements in Rochford, Great
Wakering is a sustainably located settlement with (relatively) good transport access to Southend.

In light of our thoughts above, we consider the Council should retain its existing hierarchy – as set out at
paragraph 4.9 of the Core Strategy:

Tier 1: Rayleigh; Rochford (and Ashingdon); Hockley (and Hawkwell)
Tier 2: Hullbridge and Great Wakering
Tier 3: Canewdon
Tier 4: All other settlements

In accordance with the ‘capacity for growth’ conclusions, Tier 1 should seek to receive ‘significant growth’, Tier
2 ‘some growth’, and Tier 3 and 4 ‘sustained limited growth’ – although with recognition that Canewdon is far
more sustainable than other rural settlements. The Council should seek to distribute growth accordingly,
informed by the relative constraints of each site.

As an additional observation, the Council will have to consider how any extension North / North East of
Southend would be considered within the settlement hierarchy if this option is to be carried forward.

Q6: Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We support Spatial Option 2B primarily, but also Option 4.

We have reviewed the supporting Topic Paper 11: ‘Strategy Options’ (produced by Rochford District Council) to inform this view.

As recognised by the Council, Option 1 would fail to deliver its development needs. The HELAA (June 2020
Update) and Urban Capacity Study (2020) have concluded that insufficient space exists within the existing urban areas and on previously developed sites to meet the Council’s identified need. Paragraph 61 of the
NPPF is clear that local housing need defined by the standard method determines “the minimum number of
homes needed […] unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”. In the absence of
exceptional circumstances required to justify an alternative approach, Option 1 cannot be reasonably
progressed by the Council.

Accordingly, the Council will be required to release Green Belt Land.

Option 2a would fail to promote sustainable development in rural areas, in order to enhance or maintain their
vitality – as required by paragraph 78 of the NPPF. As our answers to this consultation have demonstrated,
there are capable sites – such as Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering – which
have the potential to deliver such growth, as well as to fund the additional infrastructure these communities
need.

Whilst Option 3a, 3b and 3c could instigate the delivery of large numbers of dwellings (notwithstanding the
potential to deliver development that meets cross-boundary issues – see below) the Council should have due regard to the fact that large strategic sites often have longer build-out times, and the requirement of Paragraph
69 to identify at least 10% of housing requirement on small- and medium-sites. Furthermore, as noted above,
there are clear opportunities for this delivery to be directed to existing settlements.

In light of the above, we consider Option 2B would provide a more dispersed growth strategy that provides
opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District – on both small and large sites, brownfield and
greenfield sites, and across different settlements.

We loosely also support Option 4, which recognises that a combination of all listed strategies to deliver the
broad range of requirements of national policy and the development Rochford needs. Option 4 will be heavily
influenced by any decision of the Council to deliver housing in excess of its minimum. The evidence currently
demonstrates that Southend will require cross-boundary delivery due to insufficient land, and Rochford should
continue to work constructively with Southend (and other surrounding authorities) to ensure that housing
delivery is satisfied across the South Essex Housing Market Area.

Q7: Are there are any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered further?
See our response to Q6.

Spatial Themes

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

No.

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.

Paragraph 162 of the NPPF confirms the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with
the lowest risk of flooding from any source, and that development should not be allocated or permitted if there
are reasonable available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lowest risk of flooding.

The evidence provided by the South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (April 2018) confirms
Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering is predominantly located in Flood Zone 1
(including accounting for climate change). As illustrated on the Framework Plan, it is possible for development
to be concentrated in these areas, with those small areas of Flood Zones 2/3 being kept free from development.

In accordance with Paragraph 162, this site should be a preferred option for allocation.

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?


BDW would expect these designations to be afforded the necessary weight in the emerging Local Plan and/or
at the planning application stage. Subject to the Council selecting either Option 2b or 4 as set out in the response to Q.6 above, BDW also suggests that sites which are unconstrained from such designations should be the focus of allocations in the emerging Local Plan.

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?

Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring a percentage of energy in developments to be from low-carbon and renewable sources, this should be subject to consideration of viability.

BDW is committed to being a sustainable housebuilder and continue to integrate sustainability into their
business practices, helping to create better homes and communities and a stronger business for the longer term. BDW has a proven track record as a sustainable housebuilder, including achieving a 22% reduction in
carbon emissions since 2015 and aims to be the country’s leading sustainable national housebuilder by
achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 (the first major housebuilder to do so); in addition to 100% of their own electricity to be renewable by 2025; and new homes design to be net zero carbon from
2030.

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?

Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring energy efficiency standards of developments to be higher than
the building regulations, this should not be a requirement for all developments. The ability to achieve this will be subject to the viability of a scheme.

Therefore, to be acceptable in planning terms, developments should meet the energy efficiency standard set out by building regulations. If a scheme were to exceed building regulations, this should be recognised as a bespoke merit / positive of the scheme that should weigh favourably in the planning balance.

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?

BDW support the inclusion of a place-making charter and the listed standards, in principle.

Whilst broad objectives (e.g. aiming for carbon-neutrality; tackling air quality; promoting active travel) may help
achieve a collective Vision for the area, sufficient account and flexibility must be given for settlement / site-specific circumstances.

Please see our response to Q16 and Q59.

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

Please see our response to Q14.

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

Yes.

Following the recent update to the NPPF, paragraph 128 now requires all local planning authorities to prepare
design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model
Design Code.

Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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?

BDW oppose the imposition of a single, broad design guide/code for the District. As the Council recognise,
this would fail to account for and preserve the mix of historic, natural, and urban environments that help to
create distinctive local vernacular and character. Conversely, BDW would also oppose the production of
specific, prescriptive design codes on a site-by-site basis which would not provide sufficient flexibility, restrict
the use of innovative methods and technologies, and frustrate artistic interpretation – all of which may impact
a development’s viability and contribution to “beauty”.

BDW support the imposition of broad strategic objectives (as set out in the place-making charter, as well as the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code) with sufficient flexibility for design to be responsive to circumstances of a site as they evolve. This might include more specific, but still broad objectives are settlement/area level.

Indeed, paragraph 129 of the NPPF advises that developers may also choose to prepare design codes in
support of planning application for sites they wish to develop. This option would give the freedom to provide
interpretation and sufficient resourcing from the private sector to develop appropriate design codes, in
accordance with the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code.

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

Please see also our response to Q16b.

BDW would expect the Council’s adopted design guides/codes to implement broad objectives (at District and Area level) that reflect the 10 characteristics of well-designed places, as set out in the National Model Design
Code. More site-specific design would be influenced by developer produced design codes at submission stage,
reflecting the broad aims.

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?

BDW support Option 4. This would involve taking a market-led approach to housing mix and not specifying
the types, tenures and sizes of houses that need to be delivered through a specific policy.

Option 4 would provide the flexibility required to address site-specific circumstances and respond to the types
of housing required as set out in the most up-to-date housing market assessments. This is the current approach to defining dwelling types, as set out in Policy H5 (Dwelling Types) of the adopted Core Strategy. Option 1 and 3 are too prescriptive and could lead to sites being unviable and not reflecting the needs of the local area. This in turn could delay allocated sites coming forward, leaving the Council facing problems with housing delivery.

If Option 4 was not preferred by the Council, and sufficient evidence was provided to justify such an Option, Option 2 would provide a suitable alternative, as it would factor in a level of negotiation on suitable housing mix (subject to market conditions and viability) – whilst seeking to take account of, and be responsive to, the type or location of development.

BDW support Option 5 in principle, requiring all new homes to meet the Nationally Described Space Standard
(NDSS). As recognised by the Council, the NDSS is currently an optional technical standard, and the Council
would be required to provide sufficient justification for implementing the standard – taking account of need and
viability.

With regard to Option 6 and 7, the requirement for new homes to meet Part M4(2) and Part M4(3) of the
Building Regulations is also an optional technical standard. PPG Paragraph 007 (Reference ID: 56-007-
20150327) confirms that, based on a housing needs assessment, it is for the local planning authority to set out
how it intends to approach demonstrating a need for this requirement, taking account of such information as
the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people (including wheelchair user dwellings), the
accessibility and adaptability of existing housing stock, and the overall impact on viability. In respect of Part
M4(3), Paragraph 009 (Reference ID: 56-009-20150327) is clear that where local plan policies requiring
wheelchair accessible homes are implemented, these should be applied only to dwellings where the local
planning authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live within that dwelling. BDW would expect the appropriate evidence to be provided (within the updated SHMA or a Local Housing Needs
Assessment) to justify the inclusion of these bespoke policies.

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?

As set out in Figure 28 of the consultation document (taken from the South Essex SHMA) the overwhelming
need for dwellings in Rochford District are houses (85%), rather than flatted development (15%). BDW observe
the allocation of smaller, urban/previously developed sites will not satisfy the prevailing demand for
dwellinghouses, which typically require a greater extent of land.

In addition, whilst a strategy that focused development within and adjoining the main built-up areas with an
emphasis on the re-use of previously developed land would promote urban regeneration, it must be
emphasised that this strategy could result in the under delivery of affordable housing owing to viability issues.

It is well documented that the provision of affordable housing on brownfield land / urban sites is challenging
due to the expense associated with acquisition costs, remediation and/or higher than normal construction
costs. Given that market housing is required to subsidise the construction of the affordable housing, the
inevitable consequence is that Council’s targets for the delivery of affordable housing are seldom met when
such a growth strategy is adopted. This, in part, forms our reasoning for a more dispersed, mixed strategy
which includes the release of both underperforming areas of Green Belt which would allow the expansion of
existing towns and villages. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states “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” should be supported.

Such a strategy will also ensure the required level of affordable housing is delivered as schemes on greenfield
sites can viably support delivery of affordable housing compared to brownfield land for the reasons referred to
above.

Utilising this strategy will also disperse the effects of development, rather than focus this predominantly on a
single area – which could ultimately lead to negative impacts such as traffic congestion, noise and air pollution
and stretched community resources/infrastructure – for example. Dispersal will allow a greater range of
housing choice and provide the right type of homes in the right areas to meet the needs of all communities – one of the key parts of the Council’s vision.

A more dispersed growth strategy also provides opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District and the wider South Essex HMA – as greenfield sites typically have quicker lead-in times / build out rates
compared to those often associated with complex brownfield sites.

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?
No.

Biodiversity

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?

Whilst the Environmental Bill is still to receive Royal Assent, the intention of the policy to achieve biodiversity
net gains is clear and supported in principle by BDW.

This does not mean the Council should not seek to encourage developments to secure biodiversity net gain in
excess of the 10% set in the draft Environmental Bill – which of course will be a legal minimum. However, any
requirement to demonstrate a net gain in excess of 10% should be subject to a viability assessment and should
not be considered a requirement to make the development acceptable in planning terms (i.e. any provision in excess of the 10% figure should be considered an additional benefit of a proposed scheme).

PPG Paragraph 022 (Reference ID: 8-022-20190721) advises that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of both on-site and off-site measures. National guidance does not
explicitly state the percentage split between such provision, but Paragraph 023 (Reference ID: 8-023-
20190721) confirms such gain can be delivered entirely on-site or by using off-site gains where necessary.

Therefore, BDW would expect the Council to reflect the ambitions of the Environmental Bill and incorporate
the necessary level of flexibility in any allocation requirement and/or policy, providing opportunities to create networks to not just support biodiversity enhancement on-site, but also to encourage residents to have access to the natural environment on other sites (off-site) across the District. This would ensure improvements are both beneficial and viable.

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?

BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.

Whilst the Council should seek to invest and protect existing community infrastructure, it should seek to first
locate development in areas with adequate proximity to existing infrastructure before seeking to promote sites
that are capable of facilitating the delivery of much needed community infrastructure in other areas. The latter
is evidence in the Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering – which has reserved
land in order to deliver a new school in Great Wakering on the current Great Wakering Primary Academy site.

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

Yes.

The Council recognise a widespread lack of access to community facilities across the District. Where greater
access is more recognised in the major settlements, a concentration of development may put stress on these
existing facilities – whilst not delivering in more rural settlements.

Therefore, the implementation of Option 2b and/or Option 4 – both of which would permit urban extensions
across the settlement hierarchy – would permit the wider delivery of existing facilities whilst not creating
pressure spots.

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?

Yes – see our response to Q.36.

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?

BDW support Option 4.

Larger and strategic developments are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic development of a site. As evidenced in the Framework Plan, BDW consider a variety of public open
spaces, including strategic, local equipped areas of play (LEAPs) and a Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) can
be incorporated into the proposals.

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

As set out in our response to Q38, BDW considers the Council should consider the potential for larger and
strategic-level development sites to deliver areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic
development of a site.

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?

Yes.

Larger and strategic development sites are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part
of a holistic development of a site.

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

No.

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?
BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.

As set out in our response to Q5 and Q6, the Council should seek to incorporate a dispersed growth strategy.
A more dispersed growth strategy will provide a balance between utilising and optimising existing connections
in the more sustainable settlements, whilst providing improvements to less sustainable locations. A more
dispersed growth strategy will also work to avoid overuse and unnecessary congestion on more densely
populated areas, which bring with them problems of air quality and noise pollution.

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

Please also see our response to Q51.

As part of a more dispersed Growth Strategy, the Council should seek to ease congestion by locating
development in locations which can benefit from wider improvements – such as, as the Council recognise, bus
services to Great Wakering. This should be combined and recognised with the delivery of such infrastructure
through contribution and/or bespoke delivery in larger allocations.

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.]

Please see our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities

Wakerings and Barling

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

As per our response to Q4, through the lack of current alternative evidence, we consider the Wakerings and
Barling (in particular, Great Wakering) should remain a Tier 2 settlement.

BDW consider the restriction of Great Wakering to “development that […] is locally-responsive and aimed at
meeting the ongoing housing and employment needs of local residents” fails to account for the opportunity
provided by this comparatively sustainable settlement to provide a substantial contribution to the District’s
housing need with the proposed allocation at Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great
Wakering.

The consultation document considers that the majority of Great Wakering has “reasonable walking access to
day-to-day services”, with BDW’s promoted site within the higher end of the walking completeness score (8-
10). In line with our Preferred Growth Strategy (Option 2b or 4), we consider this site has the potential to provide substantial growth at this settlement required to facilitate investment in infrastructure across the plan area, including the delivery of the school allocation and other infrastructure improvements – a key objective of the plan.

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

1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other

BDW consider Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering (HELAA Refs: CS057 and CS070) as suitable, available, and deliverable sites for approximately 800 dwellings.

Next Steps

We trust the above is clear and look forward to being notified as to the next steps with the emerging Local
Plan, and if you can please confirm receipt, it would be much appreciated.

Yours faithfully
David Churchill
Partner

Dear Sir,
I write to submit feedback on the proposed new housing development sites in our area.

(New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021) https://rochford.oc2.uk/document/207/28308#d28422

In common with the majority of residents I believe Rayleigh and surrounding areas already have enormous new build projects underway. We should stop further housing sprawl especially on the outskirts of towns such as Rayleigh where upgrading the road system is impractical. The uncertainty of the situation is causing anxiety amongst my friends and neighbours who maybe directly impacted.

My concerns are the usual ones:
• Loss of greenbelt and wildlife habitat
• Traffic congestion and associated air pollution
(Inability to widen the narrow residential roads in Rayleigh)
• Surface water drainage
• School and GP services

Fundamentally I fear we are on a path of infinite housing growth that surely cannot be sustained without deterioration to our quality of life. I feel we should halt all new housing developments on town borders (greenbelt land) and create new towns with the required infrastructure instead.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my feedback, please find my responses to the questions enclosed.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION (REGULATION 18) - BARRATT DAVID WILSON HOMES RESPONSE: LAND EAST OF STAR LANE AND NORTH OF POYNTERS LANE, GREAT WAKERING

On behalf of our client, Barratt David Wilson Homes (‘BDW’), please find enclosed representations to the
Spatial Options consultation currently being undertaken by Rochford District Council (‘the Council’).
Background
BDW
BDW is the nation’s leading housebuilder, creating great new places to live throughout Britain. In 2019/20,
BDW delivered over 12,600 new homes.
BDW are experts in land acquisition, obtaining planning consents and building the highest quality homes in
places people aspire to live. This expertise has been shared with the Council in recent times through the
delivery of other schemes in the District – including the High Elms Park development in Hullbridge.
BDW is committed to being a sustainable housebuilder and continue to integrate sustainability into their
business practices, helping to create better homes and communities and a strong business for the longer term.

Land South of Hall Road, Rochford
BDW is currently promoting Land South of Hall Road, Rochford (HELAA Ref: CFS084) as an allocation for
housing in the emerging Local Plan for approximately 250 homes. These representations are supported by a
Vision Document which is appended to this letter, alongside a site location plan.
BDW would like to make the following observations on the content of the Spatial Options consultation.

Vision, Priorities and Objectives
Q2: Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?

Whilst BDW agree with the draft vision for Rochford District in principle, we would like to make the following
observations.

As currently drafted, no reflection of the purpose, aims and objectives of the emerging South Essex Joint
Spatial Plan (JSP) is made. The Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) (2018) between the six constitutive
Council’s (plus Essex County Council) involves a commitment to work together on strategic planning matters,
including meeting the housing needs of entire sub-region in full (our emphasis) (see Chapter 9). The relationship between Rochford and Southend-on-Sea is imperative to achieving this, as recognised by the current in-tandem production of new Local Plans in these areas – including the production of a joint evidence base (e.g. Green Belt, HELAA). The evidence base (see HELAA June 2020) is clear that Southend will be unable to meet its objectively assessed housing need on deliverable sites within its administrative boundaries in both policy-on and policy-off scenarios (a shortfall of 6,671 dwellings from 2020-2040), whilst Rochford (in a policy-off scenario) contains deliverable sites to provide a surplus of 35,935 dwellings from 2020-2040 – including Land South of Hall Road, Rochford. Given the relationship between the two administrative areas, it is imperative that the Council works constructively with Southend (and other Council’s within the South Essex JSP) to meet the commitment of the JSP to deliver South Essex’s housing need in full. It is important that the commitment to working with the JSP Councils to meet the needs of the area in full is recognised in the development of a vision that looks further ahead than just the Plan period (i.e. to at least 30 years) to ensure future generations have clarity on the growth of the District in the context of the JSP area.

With regards to ‘Our Society’, the Council’s supporting text should be evolved to recognise that although
focussing on previously developed land may be the priority, the evidence base demonstrates there is
insufficient land within these categories to deliver its objectively assessed needs. The HELAA (June 2020
Update) demonstrates a total of 4,320 dwellings can be provided (including a 39dpa windfall) on previously
developed / currently approved sites – a shortfall of 2,880 dwellings. The Urban Capacity Study indicates that
this, at a maximum, can be increased to 5,000 dwellings, still leaving the Council with a shortfall. The Vision
needs to evolve to cover a longer period (as per Paragraph 22 of the NPPF) and recognise that growth on
greenfield sites (including Green Belt) must now take place under an appropriate strategy – which should allow
for a mix of sites and a range of homes to be delivered which can help combat affordability issues and support
Growth across the plan period (see our answer to Q6).

With regards to ‘Our Environment’, the Council’s pledge to retain an extensive Metropolitan Green Belt
designation is noted, but in light of the evidence regarding objectively assessed development needs it is
important that this is clearly defined to allow for future growth to be accommodated within the Green Belt
following Plan reviews.

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

BDW agree with this approach, in principle, insofar as it allows for both the correct quantum and type of
development to be delivered within each settlement to meet the Council’s identified needs.
Please see also our response to Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q56.

Q4: Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
BDW broadly agree to the strategic priorities and objectives identified in principle.
However, as set out in our response to Q1, BDW consider the Council should amend Strategic Priority 1,
Objective 1 to reflect the need to deliver its objectively assessed needs – as a minimum – including
consideration of the contribution that could be made to solving housing numbers across the South Essex JSP
area.

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?
No.

We have reviewed the Council’s Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study (SRH) (2020) (undertaken by Troy
Planning for both Southend-on-Sea and Rochford) and the supporting Topic Paper 4: ‘Complete Communities’
(produced by Rochford District Council and focussing solely on Rochford District) to inform this view.
We do not wholly oppose the Council’s decision to consider the ‘completeness’ of settlements as a means of
both formulating the position of settlements within the hierarchy, as well as the likely level of development
required within these settlements to instigate their completeness. The latter is particularly beneficial with
regards to promoting sustainable development in rural areas, as required by Paragraph 79 of the NPPF.
We also welcome the elements of the conclusions with regard to ‘capacity for growth’ (see Paragraph 11.17 –
Paragraph 11.36 of the SRH) which aptly reflects that ‘significant growth’ would be suitable in Rayleigh,
Rochford (with Ashingdon) and Hockley (with Hawkwell); ‘some growth’ at Great Wakering and Hullbridge; and
‘sustained limited growth’ at Rawreth, Great Stambridge, Stonebridge, Paglesham, South Fambridge and
Canewdon – with the latter comparatively more ‘complete’ then the others.
However, BDW consider there are elements to the approach taken to the SRH Study could be improved and
given greater weight.
Firstly, we feel it is the presence of day-to-day facilities that is the most important consideration on the
sustainability / completeness of a settlement. Based on Table 2 of the Topic Paper (pg. 10), the settlements can be ranked accordingly:

Settlement - Rayleigh
Total Facilities - 17
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 3/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Rochford (including Ashingdon)
Total Facilities - 17
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 3/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Hockley (including Hawkwell)
Total Facilities - 16
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 2/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Wakerings and Barling
Total Facilities - 12
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 2/3
Civic - 3/5
Health - 2/3
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Hullbridge
Total Facilities - 12
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 4/5
Health - 2/3
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Canewdon
Total Facilities - 7
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 1/2

Settlement - Rawreth
Total Facilities - 6
Green Infrastructure - 1/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Paglesham
Total Facilities - 3
Green Infrastructure - 1/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - Great Stambridge
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - South Fambridge
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - Stonebridge (including Sutton)
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

The table above shows a clear hierarchy across the settlements. Rayleigh, Rochford (including Ashingdon)
and Hockley (including Hawkwell) are all equally as sustainable and have high / the highest levels of
completeness. Thereafter, the Wakerings and Barling, and Hullbridge, are the next most “complete”
settlements – with moderate levels of completeness. The rural settlements are comparably lower, with the exception of Canewdon and Rawreth which are relatively more complete.
Whilst, it is recognised that walking and active travel should be promoted, the SRH’s approach of using the %
of each space within a defined walking catchment of the services within the settlement fails to account for three
key points:

• The areas of settlements with the highest completeness scores across the Districts are the central areas of Rayleigh, Hockley (including Hawkwell), and Rochford (including Ashingdon). However, as the Council’s evidence base shows, the ability to locate new housing in these central areas is restricted by both capacity and its requirement to deliver dwellinghouses (rather than flats) – notwithstanding the aims to seek to support development in rural areas. Accordingly, this would require locating development inareas where walking completeness is not as high in peripheral areas, which as the data demonstrates, is equally issue across all settlements.
• Secondly, and related to the above, the aggregated scores mask the most suitable sites within individual
settlements. For example, in Wakerings and Barling, the inclusion of the peripheral areas of the cluster contribute predominantly to the settlement’s poorer walkability. BDW’s site at Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering is well related to the centre of Great Wakering – and would have
a far greater walkability score than more peripheral edges.
• Finally, and related to the above, the completeness of settlements can only be improved where sufficient
development is provided to add additional resource. For example, BDW’s site in Great Wakering would allow sufficient justification for the expansion of the school – with land reserved for this purpose.

In regard of the SRH’s assessment of public transport services, it has only looked at the quantitative aspects
via the frequency of services. Paragraph 105 recognises that maximising sustainable transport solutions will
vary between urban and rural areas. Indeed, predominantly, this will be recognised as the frequency of
services – and therefore the qualitative aspect of these services is equally, if not, more important. In the case
of Great Wakering, 91% of the settlement has access to a non-frequent bus service. However, a number of
the available services (e.g. 8, 14) allow access to Southend – which the SRH recognises as the Tier 1
Settlement for both areas combined. With the exception of the most complete settlements in Rochford, Great
Wakering is a sustainably located settlement with (relatively) good transport access to Southend.

In light of our thoughts above, we consider the Council should retain its existing hierarchy – as set out at
paragraph 4.9 of the Core Strategy:
Tier 1: Rayleigh; Rochford (and Ashingdon); Hockley (and Hawkwell)
Tier 2: Hullbridge and Great Wakering
Tier 3: Canewdon
Tier 4: All other settlements

In accordance with the ‘capacity for growth’ conclusions, Tier 1 should seek to receive ‘significant growth’, Tier 2 ‘some growth’, and Tier 3 and 4 ‘sustained limited growth’ – although with recognition that Canewdon is far more sustainable than other rural settlements. The Council should seek to distribute growth accordingly, informed by the relative constraints of each site.
As an additional observation, the Council will have to consider how any extension North / North East of
Southend would be considered within the settlement hierarchy if this option is to be carried forward.

Q6: Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We support Spatial Option 2B primarily, but also Option 4.
We have reviewed the supporting Topic Paper 11: ‘Strategy Options’ (produced by Rochford District Council) to inform this view.
As recognised by the Council, Option 1 would fail to deliver its development needs. The HELAA (June 2020
Update) and Urban Capacity Study (2020) have concluded that insufficient space exists within the existing urban areas and on previously developed sites to meet the Council’s identified need. Paragraph 61 of the
NPPF is clear that local housing need defined by the standard method determines “the minimum number of
homes needed […] unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”. In the absence of
exceptional circumstances required to justify an alternative approach, Option 1 cannot be reasonably
progressed by the Council.
Accordingly, the Council will be required to release Green Belt Land.
Option 2a would fail to promote sustainable development in rural areas, in order to enhance or maintain their
vitality – as required by paragraph 78 of the NPPF. As our answers to this consultation have demonstrated,
there are capable sites – such as Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering – which
have the potential to deliver such growth, as well as to fund the additional infrastructure these communities
need.

Whilst Option 3a, 3b and 3c could instigate the delivery of large numbers of dwellings (notwithstanding the
potential to deliver development that meets cross-boundary issues – see below) the Council should have due regard to the fact that large strategic sites often have longer build-out times, and the requirement of Paragraph
69 to identify at least 10% of housing requirement on small- and medium-sites. Furthermore, as noted above,
there are clear opportunities for this delivery to be directed to existing settlements.
In light of the above, we consider Option 2B would provide a more dispersed growth strategy that provides
opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District – on both small and large sites, brownfield and
greenfield sites, and across different settlements.
We loosely also support Option 4, which recognises that a combination of all listed strategies to deliver the broad range of requirements of national policy and the development Rochford needs. Option 4 will be heavily
influenced by any decision of the Council to deliver housing in excess of its minimum. The evidence currently
demonstrates that Southend will require cross-boundary delivery due to insufficient land, and Rochford should
continue to work constructively with Southend (and other surrounding authorities) to ensure that housing
delivery is satisfied across the South Essex Housing Market Area.

Q7: Are there are any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered further?
See our response to Q6.

Spatial Themes
Q8: Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
No.
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.

Paragraph 162 of the NPPF confirms the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with
the lowest risk of flooding from any source, and that development should not be allocated or permitted if there
are reasonable available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lowest risk of flooding.
The evidence provided by the South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (April 2018) confirms
Land South of Hall Road, Rochford is predominantly located in Flood Zone 1 (including accounting for climate
change). As set out in the Vision Document, it is possible for development to be concentrated in these areas, with minor parts located in Flood Zones 2/3 free from development. These areas would instead be used for
surface water attenuation and other sustainable urban drainage (SUDS) options to mitigate flood risk. There
is also the opportunity to create biodiversity enhancements in this area.
In accordance with Paragraph 162, this site should be a preferred option for allocation.

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?
BDW would expect these designations to be afforded the necessary weight in the emerging Local Plan and/or
at the planning application stage. Subject to the Council selecting either Option 2b or 4 as set out in the
response to Q.6 above, BDW also suggests that sites which are unconstrained from such designations should
be the focus of allocations in the emerging Local Plan.
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?
Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring a percentage of energy in developments to be from low-carbon and renewable sources, this should be subject to consideration of viability.

BDW is committed to being a sustainable housebuilder and continue to integrate sustainability into their
business practices, helping to create better homes and communities and a stronger business for the longer
term. BDW has a proven track record as a sustainable housebuilder, including achieving a 22% reduction in
carbon emissions since 2015 and aims to be the country’s leading sustainable national housebuilder by
achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 (the first major housebuilder to do so); in addition to 100% of their own electricity to be renewable by 2025; and new homes design to be net zero carbon from
2030.

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?
Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring energy efficiency standards of developments to be higher than
the building regulations, this should not be a requirement for all developments. The ability to achieve this will be subject to the viability of a scheme.
Therefore, to be acceptable in planning terms, developments should meet the energy efficiency standard set out in the building regulations. If a scheme were to exceed building regulations, this should be recognised as a bespoke merit / positive of the scheme, that should weigh favourably in the planning balance.
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?
BDW support the inclusion of a place-making charter and the listed standards, in principle.
Whilst broad objectives (e.g. aiming for carbon-neutrality; tackling air quality; promoting active travel) may help
achieve a collective Vision for the area, sufficient account and flexibility must be given for settlement / site-specific circumstances.
Please see our response to Q16 and Q57.

Q15: Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
Please see our response to Q14.
Q16a: Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Yes.

Following the recent update to the NPPF, Paragraph 128 now requires all local planning authorities to prepare
design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model
Design Code.
Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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?
BDW oppose the imposition of a single, broad design guide/code for the District. As the Council recognise,
this would fail to account for and preserve the mix of historic, natural, and urban environments that help to
create distinctive local vernacular and character. Conversely, BDW would also oppose the production of
specific, prescriptive design codes on a site-by-site basis which would not provide sufficient flexibility, restrict the use of innovative methods and technologies, and frustrate artistic interpretation – all of which may impact
a development’s viability and contribution to “beauty”.
BDW support the imposition of broad strategic objectives (as set out in the place-making charter, as well as
the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code) with sufficient flexibility for design to be responsive to circumstances of a site as they evolve. This might include more specific, but still broad objectives are settlement/area level.
Indeed, Paragraph 129 of the NPPF advises that developers may also choose to prepare design codes in
support of planning application for sites they wish to develop. This option would give the freedom to provide
interpretation and sufficient resourcing from the private sector to develop appropriate design codes, in
accordance with the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code.

Q16c: What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are
suggesting?
Please see also our response to Q16b.
BDW would expect Council’s adopted design guides/codes to implement broad objectives (at District and Area level) that reflect the 10 characteristics of well-designed places, as set out in the National Model Design Code.
More site-specific design would be influenced by developer produced design codes at submission stage,
reflecting the broad aims.

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?

BDW support Option 4. This would involve taking a market-led approach to housing mix and not specifying the types, tenures and sizes of houses that need to be delivered through a specific policy.
Option 4 would provide the flexibility required to address site-specific circumstances and respond to the types
of housing required as set out in the most up-to-date housing market assessments. This is the current approach to defining dwelling types, as set out in Policy H5 (Dwelling Types) of the adopted Core Strategy. Option 1 and 3 are too prescriptive and could lead to sites being unviable and not reflecting the needs of the local area. This in turn could delay allocated sites coming forward, leaving the Council facing problems with housing delivery.
If Option 4 was not preferred by the Council, and sufficient evidence was provided to justify such an Option, Option 2 would provide a suitable alternative, as it would factor in a level of negotiation on suitable housing mix (subject to market conditions and viability) – whilst seeking to take account of, and be responsive to, the type or location of development.
BDW support Option 5 in principle, requiring all new homes to meet the Nationally Described Space Standard
(NDSS). As recognised by the Council, the NDSS is currently an optional technical standard, and the Council
would be required to provide sufficient justification for implementing the standard – taking account of need and
viability.
With regard to Option 6 and 7, the requirement for new homes to meet Part M4(2) and Part M4(3) of the
Building Regulations is also an optional technical standard. PPG Paragraph 007 (Reference ID: 56-007-
20150327) confirms that, based on a housing needs assessment, it is for the local planning authority to set out how it intends to approach demonstrating a need for this requirement, taking account of such information as
the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people (including wheelchair user dwellings), the
accessibility and adaptability of existing housing stock, and the overall impact on viability. In respect of Part
M4(3), Paragraph 009 (Reference ID: 56-009-20150327) is clear that where local plan policies requiring
wheelchair accessible homes are implemented, these should be applied only to dwellings where the local
planning authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live within that dwelling. BDW would expect the appropriate evidence to be provided (within the updated SHMA or a Local Housing Needs
Assessment) to justify the inclusion of these bespoke policies.

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?
As set out in Figure 28 of the consultation document (taken from the South Essex SHMA) the overwhelming
need for dwellings in Rochford District are houses (85%), rather than flatted development (15%). BDW observe
the allocation of smaller, urban/previously developed sites will not satisfy the prevailing demand for
dwellinghouses, which typically require a greater extent of land.

In addition, whilst a strategy that focused development within and adjoining the main built-up areas with an
emphasis on the re-use of previously developed land would promote urban regeneration, it must be
emphasised that this strategy could result in the under delivery of affordable housing owing to viability issues.
It is well documented that the provision of affordable housing on brownfield land / urban sites is challenging
due to the expense associated with acquisition costs, remediation and/or higher than normal construction
costs. Given that market housing is required to subsidise the construction of the affordable housing, the inevitable consequence is that Council’s targets for the delivery of affordable housing are seldom met when such a growth strategy is adopted. This, in part, forms our reasoning for a more dispersed, mixed strategy which includes the release of both underperforming areas of Green Belt which would allow the expansion of existing towns and villages. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states “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” should be supported.
Such a strategy will also ensure the required level of affordable housing is delivered as schemes on greenfield
sites can viably support delivery of affordable housing compared to brownfield land for the reasons referred to
above.
Utilising this strategy will also disperse the effects of development, rather than focus this predominantly on a
single area – which could ultimately lead to negative impacts such as traffic congestion, noise and air pollution
and stretched community resources – for example. Dispersal will allow a greater range of housing choice and provide the right type of homes in the right areas to meet the needs of all communities – one of the key parts
of the Council’s vision.

A more dispersed growth strategy also provides opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District and the wider South Essex HMA – as greenfield sites typically have quicker lead-in times / build out rates
compared to those often associated with complex brownfield sites.
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?
No

Biodiversity
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?
Whilst the Environmental Bill is still to receive Royal Assent, the intention of the policy to achieve biodiversity
net gains is clear and supported in principle by BDW.
This does not mean the Council should not seek to encourage developments to secure biodiversity net gain in excess of the 10% set in the draft Environmental Bill – which of course is a legal minimum. However, any
requirement to demonstrate a net gain in excess of 10% should be subject to a viability assessment and should
not be considered a requirement to make the development acceptable in planning terms (i.e. any provision in excess of the 10% figure should be considered an additional benefit of a proposed scheme).
PPG Paragraph 022 (Reference ID: 8-022-20190721) advises that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of both on-site and off-site measures. National guidance does not explicitly state the percentage split between such provision, but Paragraph 023 (Reference ID: 8-023-20190721) confirms such gain can be delivered entirely on-site or by using off-site gains where necessary.
Therefore, BDW would expect the Council to reflect the ambitions of the Environmental Bill and incorporate
the necessary level of flexibility in any allocation requirement and/or policy, providing opportunities to create networks to not just support biodiversity enhancement on-site, but also to encourage residents to have access to the natural environment on other sites (off-site) across the District. This would ensure improvements are both beneficial and viable.
BDWs site at Hall Road, Rochford is located on the River Roach and therefore offer substantial opportunities to improve the biodiversity of the site and deliver BNG.

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?
BDW support a combination of all listed Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient
and accessible community infrastructure through the plan.
Whilst the Council should seek to invest and protect existing community infrastructure, it should seek to first
locate development in areas with adequate proximity to existing infrastructure (such as Land South of Hall
Road, Rochford) before seeking to promote sites that are capable of facilitating the delivery of much needed
community infrastructure in other areas.

Q36: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
Yes.
The Council recognise a widespread lack of access to community facilities across the District. Where greater
access is more recognised in the major settlements, a concentration of development may put stress on these
existing facilities – whilst not delivering in more rural settlements.
Therefore, the implementation of Option 2b and/or Option 4 – both of which would permit urban extensions
across the settlement hierarchy – would permit the wider delivery of existing facilities whilst spreading the
existing pressures.

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?
Yes – see our response to Q.36

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?
BDW support Option 4.
Larger and strategic developments are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic redevelopment of a site. As set out in our Vision Document, Land South of Hall Road has incorporated
approximately 4.18 ha of public open space, including a local equipped area of play (LEAP) within the current
design.
Q40: Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
Yes.
However, the Council should consider that larger and strategic development sites are capable of delivering
areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic redevelopment of a site.

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?
Yes.
Larger and strategic development sites are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part
of a holistic redevelopment of a site.
Q42: Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?
No.

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?
BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.
As set out in our response to Q5 and Q6, the Council should seek to incorporate a dispersed growth strategy.
A more dispersed growth strategy will provide a balance between utilising and optimising existing connections in the more sustainable settlements, whilst providing improvements to less sustainable locations. A more
dispersed growth strategy will also work to avoid overuse and unnecessary congestion on more densely
populated areas, which bring with them problems of air quality and noise pollution.

Q52: Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
Please see also our response to Q51.
As part of a more dispersed Growth Strategy, the Council should seek to ease congestion by locating
development in locations which can benefit from wider improvements. This should be combined and recognised with the delivery of such infrastructure through contribution and/or bespoke delivery in larger allocations.
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.]
Please see also our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities
Rochford and Ashingdon
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing?
As per our response to Q4, in lack of current alternative evidence, we consider Rochford and Ashingdon should
remain a Tier 1 Settlement.
However, BDW consider the vision for Rochford and Ashingdon as ‘the gateway to our rural countryside’
undermines the designation of these areas as a Tier 1 settlement.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edge blue should be made available for any of the following uses:
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other
BDW consider Land South of Hall Road, Rochford (Ref: CFS084) provides a suitable, available, and deliverable site for approximately 250 dwellings.
The Vision Document supporting this submission provides detailed analysis of its suitability and deliverability, including how opportunities and constraints have been overcome.

Next Steps
We trust the above is clear and look forward to being notified as to the next steps with the emerging Local
Plan, and if you can please confirm receipt, it would be much appreciated.

Yours faithfully

David Churchill
Partner
E: david.churchill@carterjonas.co.u