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

We support the use of the standard methodology figure of 360 homes per annum as a sensible premise upon which the growth options are based.

On that basis, the Lower Growth Scenario of 4,500 homes appears to be effectively a ‘marker’ only rather than a realistic scenario, as the negative implications of not providing enough homes in terms of affordability and need are well explained in the document, and there is no substantive rationale put forward as to why less than the standard methodology could be justified in the case of Rochford district (as Green Belt of itself would not be sufficient justification, particularly in light of the disadvantages of this approach as stated).

The document rightly explains that delivering transformational infrastructure essentially requires larger scale growth. Given the disparity between the Vision end date and the growth scenario end date, a further option that therefore warrants consideration in terms of how best to manage growth and deliver substantive new infrastructure is for the Plan to cover the longer time period to 2050 i.e. the higher growth figure of 10,800 could be justified either because of the economic and housing benefits (as per the graphic on page 28), or because by looking to plan over the longer timeframe, it creates more opportunities to deliver the larger types of new infrastructure referred to in the table on page 28.

In terms of the strategic options, Strategy Option 1 (Urban Intensification) is effectively a part of all of the options, and therefore with the exception of the first bullet point under “pros +” for this option (no release of Green Belt land), the other positives listed actually apply in all of the other scenarios as well. As the benefit of the first bullet point is more than off-set by the negatives listed and the fact that it is not a feasible strategy for a sound Plan anyway, Strategy Option 1 can effectively be discarded as it is only a sub-element of the other strategies, rather than a strategy in its own right.

In order to avoid confusion, it would be helpful if the next iteration of the Plan could explain that Strategy Option 1 is not an option in its own right, but will form a sub-element of all options going forward.

As currently worded, it is unclear as to what the actual implications are of increasing development within the existing urban areas. The text refers to a figure of 1500 new homes arising from the Urban Capacity Study, which appears to include an assumption relating to higher densities, whilst the table acknowledges that higher densities could have negative impacts on local character because of the fact that most of the existing towns are built at what might loosely be referred to as suburban densities. In order to understand the implications of delivering 1500 units, it would be helpful for the consultation document to explain what this figure means in terms of assumed densities and house types, compared to what exists already, as without that context, it is difficult for the reader to appreciate what increasing urban densities actually means, and what the implications might be (including what standards the Council might consider need relaxing in order to achieve higher densities). It would also be helpful to explain what figure the Council consider could be achieved from urban capacity if all existing standards (parking, garden areas etc) are maintained, and if densities are limited to typical existing densities.

The key issue with Strategy Option 2 (Urban Extensions) is that a reliance only on smaller scale urban extensions at the expense of larger strategic sites is likely to make strategic-scale infrastructure less deliverable. We recognise that this is referred to in the pros and cons analysis, but the first bullet points under “pros +” for this option is not sufficiently clear on the difficulties of delivering substantive infrastructure from a myriad of different sites in different locations, not just in terms of the lost funding from sites that come in under infrastructure thresholds or where existing capacity justifies no contributions at all for smaller sites, but also the issue of securing land for new infrastructure projects, where no individual site may be of sufficient scale to deliver land for infrastructure and housing. In essence, Strategic Option 2 is the ‘worst of both worlds’ option as far as local residents would perceive it – the growth occurs but without the necessary infrastructure.

If Strategic Option 3 (Concentrated Growth) were progressed on the basis of maximising infrastructure delivery from a single strategic site, then Option 3a (west of Rayleigh) presents clear advantages over Options 3b and 3c, both because of the position of Rayleigh in the settlement hierarchy, and because of the relative location of growth west of Rayleigh and its ability to interconnect with adjoining regional centres at Chelmsford and Basildon. As we have noted above, Rayleigh is the most sustainable settlement for expansion, is strategically the best placed, and is subject to the least constraints (for example in terms of agricultural land quality, wildlife designations, access to the strategic highway network, and other environmental designations). Strategic growth at Southend reinforces the pressure on the urban infrastructure in and around Southend, and in particular places further pressure on the arterial road links, whereas strategic growth west of Rochford would see growth concentrated at a lower order centre without the wider facilities and infrastructure to support it.

A key issue for Strategic Option 3, which is hinted at in the ‘Cons’ section but is not explicit, is the long lead in time for the largest strategic sites. Not only do they raise more complex issues of infrastructure co-ordination (the Council will no doubt be aware that the last two Plans in Essex to be found unsound both depended on complex infrastructure proposals where delivery couldn’t be properly evidenced), but the lead-in time itself for delivery could also cause difficulties for the Council in maintaining an appropriate land supply for the short and medium terms.

Strategic Option 4 (Balanced Combination) is largely a continuation of the existing Core Strategy approach to the distribution and scale of development. It combines the positive aspects of all of the previous options, but we would also note the additional positive aspects that should be added to the list of “Pros”, being:
• As an extension of the existing Core Strategy approach of balanced growth, this approach has previously been held to be sound, deliverable, and sustainable, through testing at Examination in the past.
• It is an approach that has proved to be successful – whilst the pace of growth may differ slightly from the original trajectory, by and large, the strategy of balanced growth has been successfully implemented, and the relevant infrastructure to support the scale of development envisaged in the Core Strategy has been secured. The balanced growth approach therefore has a proven track record.

With the above in mind, we would query the “Cons” that have been listed against this approach.

With regard to the first bullet point, this strategy is no more complex in terms of the co-ordination of infrastructure than the existing Core Strategy, and infrastructure has been successfully secured even where this transcends individual sites (an example being the securing of the improvements to the Rawreth Lane/Hullbridge Road/Hambro Hill junction through co-ordinated delivery from the Hullbridge and Rayleigh allocations).

In terms of risk of delivery (the second bullet point), all of the major allocations under the existing Core Strategy are progressing, and therefore there is no evidence of substantive risk.

In terms of the third bullet point, any release of land from the Green Belt of the scale envisaged under Options 2, 3 and 4 will be noticeable, and there is no reason to suppose that a smaller number of larger Green Belt releases is any more harmful to the perceived openness of the Green Belt than multiple smaller changes. Far greater weight should be placed on the ability of Strategy Option 4 to provide a portfolio of sites of different size, that will be important for delivery.

In relation to the final bullet point in the list of ‘Cons’ for Strategy Option 4, one of the advantages of this option compared to dispersed growth is that it better allows for impact on services to be managed. Settlements do change character when they grow, but that change need not be harmful if it is well managed, and the quality of new development is good.

On the basis of the above, we do not consider that any of the “cons” listed against Option 4 really stand up to substantive scrutiny. Whilst Option 3 has merits in terms of delivery of large scale growth and infrastructure, Option 4 offers a significant number of benefits and no substantive disbenefits, and has the significant additional benefits of being tried and tested.

Conclusion on Growth Scenarios

In summary therefore, Strategy Option 1 is not a strategy in its own right, and it would be helpful if future consultations could make this clear. It would also assist understanding if the potential impacts of higher density could be explained and quantified.

Strategy Option 2 essentially relates to a very wide dispersal of growth across the district, which will not only create significant issues in terms of infrastructure delivery, but will also lead to a highly unsustainable pattern of development in terms of travel movements and maximising access to public transport and locating development close to the main facilities and services. Whilst elements of Option 2 will no doubt be important in terms of providing a range of deliverable sites that serves the needs of the larger settlements, this Option in isolation does not deliver the same benefits as Option 4.

Strategy Option 3 is higher risk and likely to lead to delayed delivery due to the scale of the strategic sites envisaged, but if this option were pursued, Option 3a has clear advantages over Options 3b and 3c, due to the locational advantages of Rayleigh, the relative environmental constraints, and the likely impacts.

Strategy Option 4 is essentially a continuation of the existing, successful Core Strategy, which has proven to be deliverable, has proven to be capable of delivering co-ordinated infrastructure, and which delivers a balanced portfolio of strategic sites alongside other smaller scale opportunities both within and adjoining the main towns.

We therefore strongly support Option 4.

4 – A balanced approach to growth and delivery seems the most logical, as by allocating different sized developments it will ensure housing and infrastructure delivery throughout the whole plan period. Different sized sites will also serve different community needs. For example, smaller urban extensions will absorb some of the community housing need in areas where services are already provided. Larger growth areas which require their own infrastructure will provide more homes, with a larger number of affordable dwellings, but will only be available for completion in the later stages of the plan period due to their strategic size.

Option 4

I object to the over use of green space and green belt land to build too many houses on. Although I recognise the need for further housing within this area, I think you need to consider the infrastructure, medical/healthcare impact prior to any development.
With the changes in Government, especially the Housing Dept, I think you should wait until the Minister sets out his proposals as these may be totally different.
I think there does need to be a preferred option and strategy for housing, but think of flooding, services provision, transport, healthcare and climate impact first.

Strategy 2 provides a better balance without over whelming infrastructure, although infrastructure improvements will be needed.
The average benefits quoted might not be reflected in all areas of development in Rochford, it is too diverse and lacks amenities everywhere to generate the revenue/jobs stated. These are likely to happen in areas more developed currently that have the opportunity for retail/job creation.

I am an older resident of Rayleigh and find your online document difficult to use. Here briefly are my comments,
Please consider Brownfield sites rather than using up more green belt in the area.
We need an Infrastructure approach first as schools, GP’s roads, and even the local hospitals are buckling under with too many people coming in and no new infrastructure.

I understand the Government have changed their planning rules so there now is not so much need to push for so many thousands of properties to be built,
My preference would be a new concentrated area rather than using up small patches of land. Rather like the Southend idea. Create a new ‘garden community’ in a suitable place and providev all the infrastructure and facilities required.Your strategy options 3a and 3b.
Please maintain and protect all the Rayleigh and the borough’s heritage.
Kind regards
Anne Kehoe

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?

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more housing. We do not have the infrastructure. Government targets, or no government targets,
what you are allowing to happen to our communities is permanently destroying what has made this
area such a beautiful place to live for many, many generations. Council officers and councillors need
to have much more integrity when carrying out these consultations and making planning decisions.
There needs to be more determination to stop this endless destruction. There are many stories from
around the country of councils and councillors that are being creative and taking a few more risks in
order to save and preserve their communities and their heritage. I expect to see more of this from
Rochford District council in the years ahead - be more tenacious - we are counting on you. The
residents in Ashingdon have shown us this can be done with their successful campaign against SER8
- now it's time for the Council to step up to the plate. It's time to start representing your residents and
the people that pay your wages!
We strongly object to any development on green belt land. We are in the middle of an environmental
crisis - the evidence of which is all around us. The council must immediately cease to approve any
further development on green belt sites and only brown belt sites must be considered. With this in
mind, all proposed green belt sites must be removed from the local plan in order to make green belt
development as difficult as possible.
Furthermore, we would add that the local infrastructure simply cannot cope. Medical facilities are all
vastly over-subscribed. There is a lack of doctors and NHS dental places, not enough school places
and already over-sized classes. The County Council have proved how utterly inept they are at even
attending to the most basic repairs on some of our most dangerously damaged roads. We simply
cannot allow more traffic to go through the district's roads until all outstanding repairs have been
addressed and a proper strategy has been drafted, presented, and agreed with the residents of our
district for how the roads will be managed and maintained proactively going forwards. The county
council have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to get on with this and now need to be put
under pressure by district councils and their residents.
Road capacity is another serious issue. This can be evidenced if you try and travel anywhere by car
on a Monday to Friday during rush hour or on a Saturday (if, heaven forbid, you try and go anywhere
to possibly try and enjoy your spare time away from your home). This view is clearly widespread
among many residents and councillors based on the events surrounding the recent rejection of SER8.
Any further development that is approved (for example, on brown belt sites) must have ample
infrastructure included within the proposals. This must also factor-in the infrastructure deficit we are
already running due to existing developments having been allowed to go ahead without adequate
controls and safeguards being in place to ensure that supporting infrastructure is also delivered.
Therefore, any new developments must deliver not only their own infrastructure needs but also help
'pay down' some of the deficit that has been built up. The council must (we repeat - MUST) make sure
the infrastructure is secured and committed to. Furthermore, the infrastructure must (we repeat -
MUST) be delivered before any housing is allowed to be developed. This must be a prerequisite. The
council must not allow another Hall Road situation to materialise. It is actually beyond a joke that Hall
Road still does not have a school, with no sign of one appearing anytime soon. The word
incompetence just doesn't cut it.
In addition to the above, we would like to add the following specific objections to the following sites:
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. The house building would ruin the landscape and
views that are available from Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell Common and from Main Road Hawkwell
(looking towards Gusted Hall). This land should be kept out of the local plan and (when the
opportunity allows) used to extend the natural areas around Cherry Orchard and Gusted Hall.
CFS045 - Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell
CFS251 - Land at Peartree Cottage, Holyoak Lane, Hockley
CFS191 - Land at Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
CFS160 - Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley
CFS161 - 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ
CFS083 - Land south of Hall Road and west of Ark Lane, Rochford
CFS078 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and south of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS079 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and east of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS135 - Land at Flemings Farm Road, Eastwood
CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
CFS037 - The Ramblers & Dahlia Lodge, Eastwood Rise, Leigh
CFS134 - Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood
CFS027 - Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS029 - Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 - Land north of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS053 - Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
We would like to request that this land is removed from the Local Plan. The location falls within, or
very close to, the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area. This area has been afforded a
special status for good reason and therefore these sites must be removed from the Local Plan. We
would also request for the Special Landscape Area to be extended to encompass the land in the
above sites. Losing any land within, or close to, the Special Landscape Area would result in a
permanent loss or deterioration of very special green spaces - these must be protected for
environmental and wildlife reasons as well as to be enjoyed by future generations.
CFS064 - Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. This field offers a unique home for wildlife and is one
of the few remaining rural landscapes and walks for residents living on Betts Farm. Hockley Primary
school would also not stand any chance of catering for the number of places a development of this
size would require. Even with a possible extension, the school, surrounding roads and facilities were
simply not built/designed to cater for the number of residents this would require. There are also
significant issues with road access from Folly Lane which is already an extremely hazardous road.
CFS264 - Land at Greenacres Nursery, Hockley
CFS040 - Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the damage to wildlife, the environment, and
the effect on the landscape within the area. There are also already significant road safety issues with
Church Road, Folly Lane, and Fountain Lane. All these roads are very dangerous to navigate based
on current traffic levels and this would be made significantly worse with any/all of these developments
taking place. There are also regular flooding issues on Church Road which would only get worse with
further building on surrounding land.
CFS082 - Land between Ironwell Lane and Hall Road, Hawkwell
CFS081 - Land at Stroud Green, north of Hall Road, Rochford
CFS002 - Land at Nursery Corner, between Rectory Road and Hall Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the total number of new dwellings that they
could represent (in particular CFS082 and CFS081). The area is already unable to cope with traffic
and infrastructure demand. The views from Ironwell Lane out onto these sites have been enjoyed for
hundreds of years. They have already been permanently compromised by the Hall Road development
and no further destruction of the area can be allowed to take place.
CFS132 - Ivanhoe Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS219 - Ivanhoe, Ironwell Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4JY
CFS240 - Old Parsonage, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, Essex, SS5
CFS118 - The Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS140 - Old Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS018 - Land between The Grange and Red Roof in Ironwell Lane SS5 4JY
CFS036 - Land adjacent to Rectory Terrace off Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must all be removed from the local plan due to the surrounding roads already being
significantly over-subscribed thanks for the Clements Gate development. They are nowhere near any
schools (resulting in yet more traffic) and will also detract from the otherwise beautiful countryside that
can be enjoyed when walking up Ironwell Lane.
CFS194 - Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS169 - Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
CFS020 - Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to their proximity to St Mary's church. The
surrounding landscape has always been farmers’ fields and countryside and it must stay this way.
The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from St Mary's
and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must
continue to be left as green belt countryside.
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS017 - Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan in order to protect the amount of green space
around a densely populated area. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers’ fields and
countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with today's traffic and
infrastructure demands. The views from Clements Hall and the public footpaths out onto these sites
have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.
CFS216 - Land at Fambridge Road, Ashingdon
This site must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses (which the
surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support) and the fact the land is within the Coastal
Protection Belt Special Landscape Area. The Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area must
be protected and enlarged.
CFS121 - Land north of A127, Rayleigh
CFS261 - Land east of Oxford Road, Rochford
CFS222 - Land at Dollymans Farm, Doublegate Lane, Rawreth
CFS163 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS164 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS148 - Land north of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS171 - Land to the North of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS146 - Land at Rawreth Hall Farm, Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS147 - Land north of London Road, Rayleigh
CFS099 - Land to the west of Hullbridge
CFS149 - Lane Field and Hullbridge Hill, Watery Lane, Hullbridge
CFS172 - Land At Cracknells Farm, Hullbridge
CFS265
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses - which the
surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support.
COL27 - Freight House Car Park, Rochford
COL13 - The Freight House, Bradley Way, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan and retained in their current form. They should
continue to be made available to the residents of the district as community facilities.
COL07 - The Mill, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh
This site must be removed from the local plan and retained in its current form. It should continue to be
made available to the residents of the district as a community facility.
CFS063 - Land south of Watts Lane, Rochford
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
Sector D (All references)
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the inadequate roads in the area. Even with
new or enlarged roads the existing roads already struggle with the volumes of traffic that they need to
cater for today.
We respectfully ask you to make sure our views and those of our family (including our two sons –
Roland and Gordon Harwood) are fully represented in this process and during the subsequent stages
of the local plan being written and implemented.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more housing. We do not have the infrastructure. Government targets, or no government targets,
what you are allowing to happen to our communities is permanently destroying what has made this
area such a beautiful place to live for many, many generations. Council officers and councillors need
to have much more integrity when carrying out these consultations and making planning decisions.
There needs to be more determination to stop this endless destruction. There are many stories from
around the country of councils and councillors that are being creative and taking a few more risks in
order to save and preserve their communities and their heritage. I expect to see more of this from
Rochford District council in the years ahead - be more tenacious - we are counting on you. The
residents in Ashingdon have shown us this can be done with their successful campaign against SER8
- now it's time for the Council to step up to the plate. It's time to start representing your residents and
the people that pay your wages!
We strongly object to any development on green belt land. We are in the middle of an environmental
crisis - the evidence of which is all around us. The council must immediately cease to approve any
further development on green belt sites and only brown belt sites must be considered. With this in
mind, all proposed green belt sites must be removed from the local plan in order to make green belt
development as difficult as possible.
Furthermore, we would add that the local infrastructure simply cannot cope. Medical facilities are all
vastly over-subscribed. There is a lack of doctors and NHS dental places, not enough school places
and already over-sized classes. The County Council have proved how utterly inept they are at even
attending to the most basic repairs on some of our most dangerously damaged roads. We simply
cannot allow more traffic to go through the district's roads until all outstanding repairs have been
addressed and a proper strategy has been drafted, presented, and agreed with the residents of our
district for how the roads will be managed and maintained proactively going forwards. The county
council have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to get on with this and now need to be put
under pressure by district councils and their residents.
Road capacity is another serious issue. This can be evidenced if you try and travel anywhere by car
on a Monday to Friday during rush hour or on a Saturday (if, heaven forbid, you try and go anywhere
to possibly try and enjoy your spare time away from your home). This view is clearly widespread
among many residents and councillors based on the events surrounding the recent rejection of SER8.
Any further development that is approved (for example, on brown belt sites) must have ample
infrastructure included within the proposals. This must also factor-in the infrastructure deficit we are
already running due to existing developments having been allowed to go ahead without adequate
controls and safeguards being in place to ensure that supporting infrastructure is also delivered.
Therefore, any new developments must deliver not only their own infrastructure needs but also help
'pay down' some of the deficit that has been built up. The council must (we repeat - MUST) make sure
the infrastructure is secured and committed to. Furthermore, the infrastructure must (we repeat -
MUST) be delivered before any housing is allowed to be developed. This must be a prerequisite. The
council must not allow another Hall Road situation to materialise. It is actually beyond a joke that Hall
Road still does not have a school, with no sign of one appearing anytime soon. The word
incompetence just doesn't cut it.
In addition to the above, we would like to add the following specific objections to the following sites:
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. The house building would ruin the landscape and
views that are available from Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell Common and from Main Road Hawkwell
(looking towards Gusted Hall). This land should be kept out of the local plan and (when the
opportunity allows) used to extend the natural areas around Cherry Orchard and Gusted Hall.
CFS045 - Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell
CFS251 - Land at Peartree Cottage, Holyoak Lane, Hockley
CFS191 - Land at Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
CFS160 - Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley
CFS161 - 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ
CFS083 - Land south of Hall Road and west of Ark Lane, Rochford
CFS078 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and south of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS079 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and east of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS135 - Land at Flemings Farm Road, Eastwood
CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
CFS037 - The Ramblers & Dahlia Lodge, Eastwood Rise, Leigh
CFS134 - Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood
CFS027 - Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS029 - Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 - Land north of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS053 - Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
We would like to request that this land is removed from the Local Plan. The location falls within, or
very close to, the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area. This area has been afforded a
special status for good reason and therefore these sites must be removed from the Local Plan. We
would also request for the Special Landscape Area to be extended to encompass the land in the
above sites. Losing any land within, or close to, the Special Landscape Area would result in a
permanent loss or deterioration of very special green spaces - these must be protected for
environmental and wildlife reasons as well as to be enjoyed by future generations.
CFS064 - Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. This field offers a unique home for wildlife and is one
of the few remaining rural landscapes and walks for residents living on Betts Farm. Hockley Primary
school would also not stand any chance of catering for the number of places a development of this
size would require. Even with a possible extension, the school, surrounding roads and facilities were
simply not built/designed to cater for the number of residents this would require. There are also
significant issues with road access from Folly Lane which is already an extremely hazardous road.
CFS264 - Land at Greenacres Nursery, Hockley
CFS040 - Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the damage to wildlife, the environment, and
the effect on the landscape within the area. There are also already significant road safety issues with
Church Road, Folly Lane, and Fountain Lane. All these roads are very dangerous to navigate based
on current traffic levels and this would be made significantly worse with any/all of these developments
taking place. There are also regular flooding issues on Church Road which would only get worse with
further building on surrounding land.
CFS082 - Land between Ironwell Lane and Hall Road, Hawkwell
CFS081 - Land at Stroud Green, north of Hall Road, Rochford
CFS002 - Land at Nursery Corner, between Rectory Road and Hall Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the total number of new dwellings that they
could represent (in particular CFS082 and CFS081). The area is already unable to cope with traffic
and infrastructure demand. The views from Ironwell Lane out onto these sites have been enjoyed for
hundreds of years. They have already been permanently compromised by the Hall Road development
and no further destruction of the area can be allowed to take place.
CFS132 - Ivanhoe Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS219 - Ivanhoe, Ironwell Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4JY
CFS240 - Old Parsonage, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, Essex, SS5
CFS118 - The Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS140 - Old Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS018 - Land between The Grange and Red Roof in Ironwell Lane SS5 4JY
CFS036 - Land adjacent to Rectory Terrace off Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must all be removed from the local plan due to the surrounding roads already being
significantly over-subscribed thanks for the Clements Gate development. They are nowhere near any
schools (resulting in yet more traffic) and will also detract from the otherwise beautiful countryside that
can be enjoyed when walking up Ironwell Lane.
CFS194 - Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS169 - Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
CFS020 - Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to their proximity to St Mary's church. The
surrounding landscape has always been farmers’ fields and countryside and it must stay this way.
The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from St Mary's
and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must
continue to be left as green belt countryside.
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS017 - Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan in order to protect the amount of green space
around a densely populated area. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers’ fields and
countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with today's traffic and
infrastructure demands. The views from Clements Hall and the public footpaths out onto these sites
have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.
CFS216 - Land at Fambridge Road, Ashingdon
This site must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses (which the
surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support) and the fact the land is within the Coastal
Protection Belt Special Landscape Area. The Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area must
be protected and enlarged.
CFS121 - Land north of A127, Rayleigh
CFS261 - Land east of Oxford Road, Rochford
CFS222 - Land at Dollymans Farm, Doublegate Lane, Rawreth
CFS163 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS164 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS148 - Land north of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS171 - Land to the North of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS146 - Land at Rawreth Hall Farm, Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS147 - Land north of London Road, Rayleigh
CFS099 - Land to the west of Hullbridge
CFS149 - Lane Field and Hullbridge Hill, Watery Lane, Hullbridge
CFS172 - Land At Cracknells Farm, Hullbridge
CFS265
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses - which the
surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support.
COL27 - Freight House Car Park, Rochford
COL13 - The Freight House, Bradley Way, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan and retained in their current form. They should
continue to be made available to the residents of the district as community facilities.
COL07 - The Mill, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh
This site must be removed from the local plan and retained in its current form. It should continue to be
made available to the residents of the district as a community facility.
CFS063 - Land south of Watts Lane, Rochford
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
Sector D (All references)
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the inadequate roads in the area. Even with
new or enlarged roads the existing roads already struggle with the volumes of traffic that they need to
cater for today.
We respectfully ask you to make sure our views and those of our family are fully represented in this
process and during the subsequent stages of the local plan being written and implemented.

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

1. Introduction
These representations are submitted by Wood Group UK Ltd (Wood) on behalf of Bloor Homes Ltd.
⚫ Section 2 provides a summary response to the Spatial Options consultation,
specifically in support the ‘Potential Cross-Boundary Opportunity’ east of Wickford,
explaining why the site should be part of whichever Strategy Option is taken forward
as it performs so well.
⚫ Section 3 sets out further detailed justification for a strategic land allocation to the
east of Wickford - centred on the release of sites CFS222 and CFS239 from the Green
Belt and improvements to remaining Green Belt in this area1
- in the context of
national Green Belt policy, sustainability, limited harm and the Council’s evidence base.
⚫ Section 4 explains the specific opportunities and benefits associated with a strategic
land allocation east of Wickford, supported by a concept masterplan and proposed
revision to the Green Belt boundary. This is intended to aid understanding of the
significant potential of this location.
⚫ Section 5 provides answers to the specific questions identified in the consultation
document.

2. Summary
A strategic site allocation to the east of Wickford has such significant credentials in sustainability
and Green Belt terms that it should be allocated as a strategic site whichever Strategy Option is
taken forward - the allocation could be central to Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4. Option 1 (urban
intensification) is unsound given that it does not meet the district’s housing needs and would not
constitute a positively prepared plan.
The size and status of Wickford as essentially a Tier 1 settlement equivalent to Rayleigh at the top
of Rochford’s settlement hierarchy means that this is where development should be focussed.
Wickford is a highly sustainable location for growth and development. It has a range of services,
two secondary schools, strategic employment, retail and a recently upgraded railway station
providing trains to London Liverpool Street. This is all within close proximity to land east of Wickford, which adjoins Wickford Business Park, lies on the A129 high frequency public transport
corridor and is just a 15-minute bus/cycle journey to the railway station and town centre.
In Green Belt terms the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for reviewing boundaries required by NPPF140
are evidenced and justified by the lack of available land outside the Green Belt to meet the district’s
needs through to 2040. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the promotion of sustainable
patterns of development and use of previously developed land or sites well-served by public
transport are policy requirements (NPPF142) which the site supports given the sustainability
credentials outlined above. The extent of land controlled by Bloor in this location also provides
the opportunity for compensatory improvements to the remaining Green Belt, through the
provision of new/enhanced sports pitches, biodiversity net-gain and improvements to
walking/cycle links (also NPPF142).
Land east of Wickford is well-related to the urban edge, is visually well-contained, already contains
urbanising influences and has the long term robust boundary of the A130. The presence of the
A130 as such a strong recognisable physical barrier - central to defining Green Belt boundaries
through plan-making under NPPF143(f) - is a particular advantage that other strategic Green Belt
locations in Rochford district do not have (for example, in contrast, there is no such significant and
defensible barrier for development sites centred on Strategy Option 3b, north of Southend).
Release of land east of Wickford will therefore not result in urban sprawl, nor lead to neighbouring
towns merging or encroachment into the countryside. In Green Belt terms land east of Wickford is
a unique opportunity and the best performing strategic location for Green Belt land release,
resulting in the least harm.
From a landscape and heritage perspective it also one of the best performing strategic locations
assessed as part of the Spatial Options consultation (again, in contrast, Strategy Option 3b is in
proximity to designated heritage assets and in an area with low landscape capacity to
accommodate new development). It also an area of lower landscape sensitivity when compared
with other options.
As illustrated on the accompanying plans (Appendix A), a strategic site allocation east of Wickford
can deliver around 1,500 new homes and employment at a scale which supports the delivery of
new community infrastructure, including a primary school and new local centre (convenience retail
and other community facilities). An allocation here would reduce the pressure on other
communities in Rochford district.
In terms of delivery, the land is all under the single control of Bloor Homes, a 5* housebuilder
committed to working with Rochford District Council, the local community and key stakeholders to
realise the opportunities presented by this important opportunity.

3. Justification for a strategic land allocation /
cross boundary opportunity east of Wickford
3.1 Green Belt
NPPF Green Belt Policy
Exceptional circumstances (NPPF140)
The case for exceptional circumstances for Green Belt land release in Rochford – as required by
NPPF140 - is established under Strategy Options 2 and 3. As recognised on page 29 of the Spatial
Options, Strategy Option 1 (urban intensification), predicated on no Green Belt land release, will
not meet Rochford’s growth needs, and is therefore unlikely to be considered sound, being not
positively prepared. Green Belt land is needed. The question is where the best locations are to do
so whilst limiting the overall harm to the Green Belt and with respect to the requirements of
NPPF142 and NPPF143 in particular.
Promoting sustainable patterns of development and giving first consideration to land which has
been previously-developed ‘and/or’ is well-served by public transport (NPPF142)
Wickford is rightly recognised as equivalent to a Tier 1 settlement2
– i.e. the top of the settlement
hierarchy alongside Rayleigh. It has two secondary schools, strategic employment and retail, with
Wickford railway station - recently subject to a £4m package of improvements – providing trains
into London Liverpool Street.
Land east of Wickford is highly sustainable, as supported by the Council’s evidence base, including
the Complete Communities Topic Paper. As shown on Figure 4 of this topic paper the site adjoins
frequent public transport (more than 4 services per hour), with bus stops to the north west
(Southend Road roundabout3
), east (A129/Old London Road) and west (Hodgson Way). As part of
a strategic site allocation there is the potential to route a bus into the site and enhance
accessibility.
As supported by the Site Appraisal Paper all key facilities are nearby, including secondary school
(Beachamps High), local shops and Post Office (centred around the junction of Southend
Road/Fanton Walk/Bruce Grove), healthcare (Shotgate Surgery), jobs and employment (at
Dollymans Farm, Wickford Business Park & Fanton Hall Farm). Furthermore, the site is well-located
in proximity to extensive areas of open space, including sports pitches at The Warren, Rayleigh FC
Boys & Girls, Chichester Ground Football Pitches and Shotgate Park (with respect to the Site
Appraisal Paper, the site should at least score ‘4’ given proximity within 400-800 metres). Land
east of Wickford is just a 15-minute bus/cycle journey from the railway station and the town centre.

Promoting sustainable patterns of development in NPPF Green Belt terms therefore means
directing a significant share of new growth and development towards Wickford, whichever Strategy
Option of 2, 3 or 4 is pursued.
The site is already part brownfield and part developed with clear urbanising influences - as
acknowledged in the Site Appraisal Paper - encompassing one of the district’s twelve ‘informal
employment areas’ (Economy & Skills Topic Paper) as well as an existing dwelling and curtilage at
Dollymans Farm.
A particular benefit in terms of sustainable patterns of development is the ability to provide a scale
of development which supports additional infrastructure and investment, with the 1,500 homes at a
level which sustains provision of a new primary school, as well as supporting facilities including a
local centre, which alongside existing and enhanced public transport all helps to create a truly
‘walkable’ neighbourhood. The ability for strategic allocations to deliver infrastructure
improvements is identified in the Spatial Options Document, supporting Strategy Options Topic
Paper and the Interim Integrated Impact Assessment IIA4
. This will also be a sustainability benefit to
the existing area – including users of Wickford Business Park and neighbouring residential areas.
This would support the intentions of Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4 whereby the ability to fund and
deliver new infrastructure is identified as a clear opportunity.
Delivering compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the
remaining Green Belt land (NPPF142)
Compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the remaining Green
Belt - another key objective of NPPF142 - could also be secured given the extent of land within
Bloor Homes’ control (e.g. around CFS223, 226, 227, 230 & 238). Improvements could include a
combination of enhanced green infrastructure connectivity, new recreational routes for walking and
cycling and additional playing fields/sports provision. This would also align with NPPG002 (Green
Belt - Reference ID: 64-002-20190722) in terms of the range of compensatory improvements. By
tying such improvements in with the allocation and future planning permission, this would also be
deliverable in the context of NPPG003 (Reference ID: 64-003-20190722) and can be secured via the
S106 process.

Defining a clear Green Belt boundary (NPPF143(f))
The A130 is a significant clear physical feature and long term permanent boundary to the east of
Wickford which would form a logical defensible boundary which is capable of enduring beyond the
plan period. In this regard land east of Wickford is a unique opportunity – with no other strategic
locations having such a significant and robust Green Belt boundary, in combination with
accessibility, sustainability and suitability (being of lower environmental value).
The Council’s Green Belt Study (Assessment Area AA01 / Sites 222, 239, 238 & 223)
Against the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt – to prevent urban sprawl (NPPF137) – the
Green Belt Study rightly recognises that the area makes a weak contribution. Surprisingly it then
identifies a ‘High’ harm impact score which then follows through into the Site Appraisal Paper.

This appears predicated on the conclusion that the area makes a ‘strong contribution’ to
preventing encroachment on the countryside. However, the assessment is flawed because it fails to
reflect the existing urbanising influences in the area, incorrectly stating that the area is
undeveloped. The presence and extent of ‘urbanising land uses and features that could diminish
openness or compromise the rural character of the countryside’ are identified as key factors in the
Green Belt Study’s own methodology (2.46, 2.477, 2.50 and 2.53) but then disregarded in the
assessment of Parcel 1/AA01. Examples of the urbanising features on the site are illustrated on the
photographs presented at Figure 2. Urbanising influences include the employment areas at
Dollymans Farm (note: non-agricultural uses), and residential use at Dollymans Farm itself, as well
Fanton Hall employment area to the south east. The presence of the A129 and A130, pylons,
employment distribution infrastructure and railway line are also urbanising influences.
Furthermore, the assessment of encroachment and wider performance of the land in this area in
terms of Green Belt purposes then fails to reflect the role of strong physical boundaries, i.e. the
A130 in this case. The dictionary definition of encroachment concerns a gradual advance beyond
usual or ‘acceptable limits’ – the acceptable limit in this case being the A130. This should be a
fundamental consideration as part of the assessment and at present is a significant omission in the
study’s methodology and in the appraisal of Parcel 1/AA01. The assessment should be revised to
conclude a weak contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
In reality, and as explained earlier in this section this is a unique and strongly performing Green
Belt site because it is so well-related to the existing urban edge, already contains urbanising
influences, is visually well-contained and has such a strong boundary in the A130 that other
strategic development locations do not have. It is the best option with the least level of harm to
the Green Belt particularly with regard to the fundamental policy aim of the NPPF in preventing
urban sprawl.
Revised scoring for Parcel 01 (from the Stage 1 Assessment) and Parcel AA01 (from the Stage 2
Assessment) is therefore presented in Figure 3. It is concluded that the overall contribution to
Green Belt purposes is weak and the harm of release reduces to low-moderate. This should then
be coupled with the site’s sustainable development credentials.

Wider local plan evidence base: Site Appraisal Paper – Land East of Wickford
The Site Appraisal Paper identifies all land within Bloor Home’s control in this location as
deliverable within 5-years subject to policy, encompassing sites CFS222, CFS239, CFS238, CFS223
and CFS226. The Site Appraisal Paper shows how well-located the area is in landscape terms, lying
outside of the more sensitive landscapes in the district. Informed by the findings of the Landscape
Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study identifies land east of Wickford as lying within a ‘LowMedium’ landscape sensitivity and ‘Medium-High’ landscape capacity to accommodate
development. The main development sites comprising CFS222 and CFS239 are also unaffected by
designated heritage assets, unlike other strategic development areas assessed in the District.
These sites all perform well in terms of accessibility given proximity to high frequency public transport on the A129 and access to facilities and services. However, there is an inaccuracy in the
scoring with respect to access to open spaces. This does not reflect the latest position on the ground, whereby the sites are very well-located in proximity to extensive areas of open space,
including sports pitches at The Warren, Rayleigh FC Boys & Girls, Chichester Ground Football
Pitches as well as Shotgate Park. The scoring for CFS222 and CFS239 should be increased from ‘1’
to ‘4’ given the extent of open space provision already within 400-800m.
In terms of access to public transport, whilst accessibility to high frequency bus routes is
recognised, the scoring for CFS222 does not yet reflect the ability to deliver
enhancements/improvements as a central part of any development scheme. In reality CFS239 –
which scores well with a ‘4’ given that it abuts the A129 and is within 400 metres of bus stops at
Southend Road roundabout – would form part of the single comprehensive allocation which aligns
with the masterplan enclosed at Appendix A. The masterplan reflects the ability for a bus to route
in and out of the scheme in order that new homes would be within 400m, so this could easily be dealt with as part of the allocation and consenting process, in which case CFS222 would also score
4.
Figure 4 presents the revised scoring for sites CFS222 and CFS239 under Bloor’s control on land east of Wickford which are to form the main area for Green Belt land release presented in section 4.
The land clearly outperforms other locations with respect to Green Belt, landscape, accessibility,
ecology and heritage.

4. Strategic land allocation - concept masterplan,
potential & opportunities
As summarised in section 2 and justified in section 3, land east of Wickford is the best location for a strategic land allocation, and should play an important role under Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4. In Green Belt terms, Wickford’s status akin to a Tier 1 settlement, accessibility to high frequency
public transport, services and facilities – and ability to deliver new community infrastructure – is
entirely consistent with promoting the sustainable patterns of development envisaged by NPPF142.
The A130 is a strong and longer term defensible Green Belt boundary unique to this location, helping limit sprawl and encroachment. Alongside the area’s relationship with the existing urban edge, visual containment and existing urbanising influences it is the best performing location for
Green Belt land release with the least harm to the overall role and function of the Green Belt in Rochford district.
In landscape and heritage terms this area would also result in the least harm when compared with other strategic options. It provides the opportunity for the Council to deliver growth in a location which minimises impacts on existing communities and environmental assets.
Appendix A provides a draft concept masterplan, with Appendix B providing a context plan and proposed revision to the Green Belt boundary in this location.
The draft concept masterplan is based on the following key features and benefits.
⚫ Around 1,500 homes, a mix of market and affordable in response to local needs, on a net residential area of around 40ha.
⚫ 2ha of land for a new 2FE primary school, supporting the Spatial Options opportunity to deliver growth at a scale which provides and sustains new infrastructure.
⚫ A new local centre, located next to the new school site, providing convenience retail
and other community uses.
⚫ A robust, long-term and defensible Green Belt boundary, capable of enduring beyond the plan period and supporting the sustainable patterns of development envisaged by NPPF142(f) Green Belt policy. The A130 and railway line provides a clear boundary using an existing physical feature that is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent, entirely consistent with NPPF132(f). Appendix B sets out the proposed Green Belt boundary revision.
⚫ New and enhanced playing pitches as a ‘hub’ for sports and recreation. The Council’s Playing Pitch Assessment and Action Plan identifies the opportunity to provide greater security of tenure for sports provision in this location – including at The Warren (CFS226) which is land under Bloor’s control. Further pitches could be provided west of the Warren/A130 or land to the east which is also within Bloor’s control. This would utilise existing bridleways all of which would link sports provision with the new homes, across the existing Pegasus crossing on the A129, with access off the A129.

Alongside the bridleways and existing crossing, the scheme would promote the use of public transport through the ability to route a bus into the site to secure a 400m walkable catchment and could provide ped/cycle links to the west through to Wickford.
⚫ Visual containment can be maximised by retaining key landscape features and enhancing structural planting alongside the site’s northern and eastern boundaries, complemented by the provision of sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to deliver net biodiversity gain all on-site. 50% of the site would comprise green uses.
⚫ Access would be via a new roundabout on the A129, providing a tree-lined avenue
into the neighbourhood, with a potential secondary access located to the east (refer to
the masterplan in Appendix A for details).

5. Response to specific questions
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
For the reasons explained in section 2, the cross-boundary opportunity east of Wickford has such
significant and unique credentials in sustainability, Green Belt and deliverability terms that it has a
role to play in delivering all Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4.
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?
Standards for new developments relating to both energy supply and energy efficiency standards should be left to national building regulations (e.g. linked to the Future Homes Standard or similar
initiatives in the future).
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
Under Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4, a strategic land allocation east of Wickford could clearly support
the opportunity for new green infrastructure, including a new hub for sports provision in this
location (improving both the quality and quantity of sports pitches), improvements to GI
connectivity (e.g. upgrading existing bridleways), biodiversity net gains and further strategic
landscaping, particularly associated with the establishment of a robust and defensible Green Belt
boundary to the east of Wickford / west of the A130. This package of measures would also support
the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, as set out in NPPF142.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to
deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
Under Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4, a strategic land allocation east of Wickford can deliver growth at
a scale – 1,500 homes plus employment - which provides and sustains new community facilities,
including land for a 2FE primary school, new local centre (which provides convenience retail and
other community provision), extensive green infrastructure as well as new and enhanced sports
provision. Further details are provided in sections 3 and 4 of these representations.
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?
Bringing forward a strategic land allocation east of Wickford – under Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4 –
would support improvements to open space and sports provision. There are opportunities to deliver additional pitches as well as greater security of tenure, for example, on retained Green Belt
land centred on sites CFS223 and CFS226, all on land which Bloor Homes controls and would tie in
with a new strategic land allocation. The opportunity to provide greater security of tenure at The
Warren in particular (CFS223) is identified in the Playing Pitch Assessment and Action Plan. Further
details are provided in sections 3 and 4 of these representations, with the opportunity to provided
new pitches identified on the concept masterplan presented in Appendix A (6-7ha of
new/enhanced pitch provision complemented by extensive green infrastructure and biodiversity
net gains).
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?
The potential for impacts on the significance of heritage assets and their setting is a key constraint
to consider through plan-making and subsequent decision-taking on planning applications. The
Council should look therefore towards options with no/limited heritage constraints, as is the case
for land east of Wickford, recognised in both the Site Appraisal Paper and IIA.
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?
Growth should be directed to the most sustainable locations already well-served by high frequency
public transport, services and facilities, and where there is the opportunity to deliver a scale of development to sustain new services and facilities to deliver truly walkable neighbourhoods.
Promoting sustainable patterns of development is central to the review and release of Green Belt land and where land east of Wickford performs particularly well. Wickford is equivalent to a Tier 1
settlement, has rail access into London Liverpool Street, with the opportunity that Bloor has identified just a 15-minute bus/cycle ride to the station and lying on a high frequency public transport corridor (recognised in the Connecting Communities Topic Paper). Land east of Wickford
is already identified as having a positive contribution to sustainable transport in the IIA. Further detail on transport and sustainability for the cross-boundary opportunity east of Wickford is provided in sections 2, 3 and 4 of these representations.

Having reviewed the Strategy Options presented, Option 3b appears less suitable in transport terms for the following reasons.
⚫ A review of the potential development sites outlined in Figure 17 associated with Option 3b of the Spatial Strategy Options shows there is a lack of suitable infrastructure to support a significant level of housing growth in this region when compared with other strategic options (e.g. land east of Wickford). Figure 2 of the Complete Communities Topic Paper shows that this area is also less well-served by public transport – highlighting non-frequent bus services and services less than 4 per hour when compared with the high frequency public transport provided on land east of Wickford (tested under Option 3a).
⚫ The land identified for Option 3b within the Spatial Strategy Options is sandwiched between the River Roach to the north, Potton and Foulness Islands to the east, the existing settlement of Southend-on-Sea, and the River Thames to the south and London Southend Airport to the west.
⚫ The only strategic route to and from this area is via the A127 which provides a route
west towards the A130 (north / south route) and the M25. All vehicle redistribution and growth associated with a new, large residential settlement in this area would therefore be required to utilise the A127 as the main route in and out of the area. This route also serves as the main route for London Southend Airport which is due to continue to expand.
The other option for movement into and out from the area is less strategic and comprises the A13 London Road though this would require traffic to travel through
the centre of Southend-on-Sea.
⚫ If a strategic scale of development is proposed then significant new transport
infrastructure may be required, whereby the location of Option 3b presents limitations. For example, the proximity of London Southend Airport to the A127 to the south, and River Roach to the north mean there is very little scope to enhance a connection east from lands north of the town centre.

Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state
reasoning]
Land east of Wickford sits within Rawreth parish but is fundamentally related to and links to
Wickford/Shotgate, lying east of the A130. Engagement with the parish council will be central to
our approach, including how the wider transport, green infrastructure, sports pitches, school and
local centre to benefit existing residents in this area.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 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 Rawreth?
Linked with the response to Q63a, the cross-boundary opportunity east of Wickford should be
recognised and allocated as part of the new local plan under whichever strategy option is taken
forward. The opportunities associated with this land allocation are presented in sections 2, 3 and 4
of these representations, supported by the concept masterplan provided in Appendix A.
Essentially, it would comprise a new walkable neighbourhood of around 1,500 homes, employment
plus 2FE primary school and local centre, through removing sites CFS222 and CFS239 from the
Green Belt. A new defensible Green Belt boundary would be established to the west of the A130
and north of the railway line, as shown on the plan enclosed at Appendix B.
Retained Green Belt land under Bloor Homes control – comprising CFS238, CFS223, CFS226, CFS227 and CFS230 – could deliver compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and
accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, including new and improved sports pitches (e.g. CFS222 and CFS226/The Warren), biodiversity net gain, improved walking/cycle links and strategic landscaping.

Having looked at the proposals for the new local plan, the Hullbridge area is totally over developed already, with appalling insufficient infrastructure, chaos and gridlock occur regularly. The pollution levels in this region have already been proven to be unacceptably high and a danger to health, due to thousands of extra cars on our badly maintained roads that were built for a very small population decades ago. If just half the proposed developments go ahead, it will be wilful neglect of the present and future populations by RDC.
That's without even taking the flood risk into account.

Simple, no more development. Schools are full, Doctors are full, roads are atrocious.

We have viewed the proposed Plan for the area surrounding our home in Blower Close and would like to record our objections to the proposal. Having lived here for 28 years we have enjoyed the Green Belt and the amenities it provides. If the Green Belt were to be developed it would devalue the whole area. The infrastructure would not meet the needs of your proposals. It is nearly impossible at the moment to get a Doctor’s appointment. There is so much traffic already that the Town is often gridlocked with queues of traffic trying to reach the main roads in and out of Rayleigh. It is often impossible to find empty spaces in the existing car parking areas and we know from experience that able-bodied drivers often use the Disabled Parking bays.

Under your Plan the development of the Green Belt would not enhance the whole area. We have seen the development alongside Hall Road, Rochford. Initially it was proposed that there would be a Doctors Surgery and a new school. The plans were passed before the developer sold off part of the area to another developer which allowed them not to build either a school or a surgery for the use of the residents. Indeed an area was sold to a London Borough to meet their housing needs. In Rawreth Lane we have yet another development reaching London Road and where traffic is reduced to a single lane. In Hullbridge they have built houses and had to build a new roundabout for the increased traffic from Watery Lane and Rayleigh. And there are always huge queues of traffic. Under your plans, fewer people would want to live in such congestion,

I do not think the local towns and villages can sustain any more housing,the area is totally gridlocked at present the roads cannot cope with the volume of cars at present let alone adding more housing to the area.
Southend hospital is overwhelmed as are the doctor surgerys and schools,infrastructure must be addressed before any more homes are built,and not just a couple of new roundabouts as we have seen done in Hullbridge.
I have lived in Hullbridge since 1962 and am using the same roads as of then to enter and exit the village the amount of cars on the narrow old roads cannot cope anymore,also the amount of gas and water leaks on these roads lately from high volumes of traffic and heavy lorries is ridiculous .
Hullbridge has endured nearly 4 years of traffic lights,dust,noise and disruption from all the new housing estates in the area it is not fair on the local residents in the area enough is enough !!!!
I appreciate the need for more housing but do not see affordable housing at present with houses being sold at £400,00 plus,the only winners at present are the large building firms such as Barretts etc.
A whole new town needs to be built such as we had before like Basildon and south Woodham,where shops ,doctors and services are put into place to service the expanding population,unlike as is happening at present where 500 plus homes attached to existing towns with nothing more than a new roundabout is put in to service the area.
Rochford council is appalling in their handling of the housing being allowed at present without sorting the bigger problems out that the area has,any car journey is taking twice as long nowadays and to get a hospital or doctors appointment is getting longer by the day.
The whole area has reached saturation point essex needs green space and less traffic if we are to combat, climate change and give our kids and grandkids a future,please look at one new big town to give the housing and AFFORDABLE housing the area needs rather than keep tagging new housing estates onto already over stretched areas as is happening at present.

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.

You must be fully aware of the pressures existing with the fully stretched Hospital and Doctor Surgeries, Schools, Packed Highways and traffic jams, more so at peak times that affects travel and bus service delays,let alone the poor condition of the roads and streets throughout the district. There may also be loss to the current green belt.
All these provisions must be greatly improved and developed before any further approval to building, particularly housing, is granted.
In the past it seems that these points have been ignored or somehow skirted around by developers.
Your observations would be appreciated.
So let us see Action First, but possibly the status quo will remain.

Dear Mark Francois and Rochford DC

I oppose the local plan and want my comments noted officially.

I strongly disagree with more houses being built in Rochford district.
The roads are massively overloaded and filled with pot holes.
The Dr's surgeries are at breaking point.
We have already lost enough green spaces.
Overpopulation is ruining Rochford district.

I suggest if the government want more housing they build new towns in unpopulated areas, or better still end immigration.

I understand there is a need to find space for some more homes but looking at the amount of blue area designated as potential land for housing it completely dominates the Rochford area. Without an infrastructure of roads and services then the proposed developments will totally destroy the character of the area which will become a tasteless suburban area with endless traffic delays combined with inadequate services for the residents.
Please fight back against demands for so many new homes in the area and focus on improving what limited service we have at the moment as the current new builds are completed and put stress on existing services/road network

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Options Plan CFS053,CFS086,CFS098,CFS029,CFS027

I am writing to object about the proposed development of the above sites.
This Green Belt land has been used for the enjoyment of the local community for many years. It is what makes this corner of Rayleigh such a valuable asset to the town for all to be enjoyed. In particular residents enjoy walking through the field behind Nelson Road and this was even more apparent during the Pandemic. The local community can experience the space, countryside and nature giving some sanctuary from the situation we find ourselves in.To propose to cover the area in housing would totally remove and ruin this natural environment which the community is currently able to experience. It is what helps make Rayleigh the popular town which it is.
The field between Wellington Road and Nelson Road (CFS053) is mostly on a hill. For the residents living along Nelson Road, due to the difference in height, this will mean their properties will be completely overlooked and will cause a total lack of privacy which has been enjoyed for many years. How can the visual amenity of the area be so disregarded? The nature of this hill already causes flooding issues as does similar situations in Albert Road and Blower Close. To cover the area in housing and concrete would be removing land which helps soak up this excess water.
Nelson Road is already used as a cut-through by vehicles from the Hockley Road with cars often speeding dangerously. To then add hundreds of more cars to this scenario from new homes would cause major highway safety issues. Due to the location of Fairview Park, there are many children and dog walkers who use the lane from Albert Road, up to Napier Road and then across Nelson Road through to the park entrance which lays opposite between 62 and 64 Nelson Road. More cars would cause a definite safety issue. That is without taking into consideration the excess traffic and pollution which is already an issue in the area. Traffic along the Hockley Road is a big problem with often extremely long delays and that is before the impact is felt from the new housing at Bullwood Hall. It is also a problem for emergency services to travel around the area at busy times of the day.
Access is also a concern. Wellington Road is presently a small, quiet turning and is certainly not fit to have hundreds of extra vehicles using it. Napier Road not only is a private road but is extremely narrow and I believe a recent planning application was refused due to access issues.
Our doctors and schools are already over-subscribed with local children not guaranteed a place at their local school (a fact I know from personal experience) and it is already virtually impossible to get a doctor’s appointment.
If more housing is a necessity, surely the best option would be to create a new area on land that is presently more rural and have less impact on the existing communities. Infrastructure can be built to sustain a new community rather than totally ruining what Rayleigh already enjoys and represents. Please protect Rayleigh for our future generations.

Firstly – the consultation document was inaccurate, misleading and used historical data – this makes the consultation invalid.
To evidence this I will give just one example of each of these;
Inaccuracy: map marked the Wakerings and Barling contained area CFs060 – which was then omitted on the map titled ‘stonebridge and Sutton’
Misleading: Even though it was clearly minited at a policy planning committee meeting (prior to the spatial options consultation being released) to use ‘ward names only’ (minuted as voted unanimously by the committee) it contained a map called ‘Stonebridge and Sutton’ this mislead residents.
Historical data: figures 9 and 10 (relating to Rochford residents work/destinations) this data is from 2011!
I will now comment on the areas to the east of the district; Named: ‘Wakerings and Barling’ and ‘Stonebridge & Sutton’ and list the reasons why the sites put forward are not suitable:
Road infrastructure:
Wakering/Barling is a peninsula with only 2 main roads into and out – if there is an emergency (as there has been historically) then these roads will barely cope. One road will NOT even be able to be widened as there are houses either side at key points. There are no viable options for a 3rd road.
Sites put forward for consideration provide no indication of where they would exit/entrance be – we have already seen the impact of a site in the current local plan where an inappropriate exit/entrance has been allowed – at the behest of Essex County Highways. The country lanes are not suitable for large developments – to reinforce this remember that the Majority of accidents (killed and seriously injured) happen on rural roads – more building will increase the use of the country lands and increase accidents.
Then think where the traffic would travel to and from: Only recently the leader of Rochford Council spoke against a development in the heart of the district clearly siting ‘severe’ impact on already struggling roads – this development was refused by the planning committee. This was a small development compared to some of the sites put forward for consideration - Access from the east of the district to and through the rest of the district is beyond capacity and cannot be expected to take any more traffic so if that one small site was deemed unsuitable because of its impact on the road – then building anywhere below this area in the district should be too.

Flooding:
Much of the east of the east of the district is in a high risk flood zone – this is expected to increase with the impact of global warming. Where it is not tidal flood risk there are areas of ‘high risk of surface flooding’ this will only increase with development.

Drainage and sewer systems are already at capacity with regular issues and reports to the flood forum – it is unable to take more homes. (fact: refer to reports to flood forum)

Impact on the environment
The sites put forward are currently farmland. This would result in a detrimental impact on: wildlife, bio-diversity, sites of archaeological interest. It will also increase the carbon footprint as removing land that currently acts to reduce carbon.
Increased traffic will increase the carbon output of this community. Pollutants and particles increase and reduce air quality.

You will be aware that the carbon footprint of a newbuild 2 bed house is 80 tonnes of C02e – of course the new local plan may include a pledge that all houses are carbon neutral (but how this be enforced?) But even if homes are carbon neutral there will ultimately be an increased carbon footprint from population increase – but leaving the agricultural land will at least allow for a ‘green lung’ in the east of the district.

This consultation does not explain how the new plan will meet the requirements of the government’s own Environment Bill and the government’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Health and well-being
People live in a village community because of the way of life. By building more houses the community element will be lost. Health and well-being of residents will be detrimentally affected. Crime will increase – and fear of crime. Poorer air quality – there is an abundance of reasons why health and well-being will be affected in Public Health England’s report on Health and wellbeing in rural areas.

My final comment is not to urbanise the east of the district. (forget the terminology of ‘garden village’ as it will be no such thing – it will be a bolt on to Southend) There may be a duty to cooperate with Southend Council – but there is a more pressing, more important duty to address carbon neutrality. By leaving our rural fields and providing a green lung this will at least go some way towards this.

would like to comment on your consultation as follows.

A Who in their right mind would ask for comments to such an important matter at the height of the holiday period. Councillors or Officers?
Do the Agents/Developers have any knowledge of the sites in-question as “Suitability Assessments” seem to bear little or no resemblance as to what is actually in place?

B My comments are based mainly on the possible sites within Sutton Parish

C CFS 155 Open spaces you say good - not if house are build - Public service you say good = half hourly bus service along Fossetts Way 09.30 - 14.30 week days only not weekends -healthcare facilities you say good - try & get a Doctors appointment within 4 weeks A & E overstretched now

D CFS 165 - all the above apply

E CFS 123 - all the above apply

F CFS 076 -all the above apply note thatPublic Transport Service are classed as MEDIUM why doesi this not apply to the proposed site CFS 123 which show GOOD when it is next door.

G CFS 155 Surely this site already has planning permission for SUFC for training pitches & match day car parking. would it be the intention that should the proposed stadium not go ahead planning permission would be requested for houses

The Parish of Sutton does not have a good Public Transport Service - East - West along Shopland Road to Purdys Estate there is no Public Service. North - South along Sutton Road service 60 every 1hr 30min 6 days a week. The service 61 along the southern boundary Fossetts Way 30 min service from 09.22 to 15.01 weekdays only.
Shopland Road is a 2 lane country road with no public footpaths - street lighting paid for & maintained by Sutton PC very sparse
Sutton Road is a 2 lane county road with public footpath to one side again street lighting paid for & maintained by Sutton PC very sparse.
The road network with Sutton will not take much more traffic before it grinds to a halt, which it does on a regular basis if there are any problems on each of these roads or within Southend BC area or further into Rochford.
One has to consider developments planned to the south of Sutton PC ie Fossetts way development eastern end, the SUFC developments including the proposed flats on the corner of Sutton Road & Fossetts Way, these could add approx 1,000 vehicles on a normal working day plus the unknown number on a match day.
All the proposed sites are on Greenfield or Green Belt land used for Agricultural purposes, which we must strive to maintain for future foods production & generations

I appreciate the need for more dwellings but feel that RDC should investigate all BROWNFIELD sites before involving GREENBELT/GREEN FIELD sites, also an in-depth investigation to the road network before development takes place not leave it until the sites are approved & in process of being built. This also applies to Schools, Doctors, Hospital, Public Transport.
All sites that have been given permission prior to this consultation should be made to start/complete, as I am sure that there are 1 or 2 where the developers are sitting on land banks to improve profitability

I hope that this is of some help

Dear Sirs,
( From an ordinary long-term Rochford District Resident ).
In keeping with your requirements, I submit my own observations via this e mail format, as follows.

THE BIGGER PICTURE -
Rochford District shares a small Peninsular with two other Authorities, each preparing New Local Plans.
The nett impact is in the order of a 30%+ increase in population plus unrestrained ‘Windfall Developments’.

The three sides of the area are already subject to shrinkage due to Sea Level rise erosion - as shown on
the Environmental Agency ‘ Flood Risk for Planning ‘.
Existing urbanizations are already at risk, particularly to the East of the District ( The Wakerings ).

The Southern half of the Peninsular has already been Overdeveloped ; the A13 Highway has long since lost it’s strategic status, it’s traffic loading redirected onto the only alternate E<>W Trunk Road ( A127 via A130 ).

The Northern half of the zone lies within the Rochford District, and is predominantly semi-rural Green Belt but already under attack from existing Local Plan (Rawreth, Hullbridge, Hockley, Rochford & potentially Ashingdon).

The whole Peninsular is served by just one, 100 year old, Road ( A127 East ), one NHS Hospital, declining Public Services / Law and Order / Civic Amenities / High Street collapse / Homelessness / Food Banks /even Pot Holes!!.

In simple terms a 30%+ increase in population will not be tenable ( nor reflect the sham NPPF ‘ Localism ‘ ); and will introduce “denser” new urbanizations and the associated Social problems thereafter.
………………………………

LEARNING FROM THE PAST -
Modern history illustrates a series of events which we now face once again - the post crisis / austerity due to 1. WW1 ( + Spanish Flu ).
2. WW2 ( Damage + Debt ).
3. Closely followed by the knock-on Baby Boomer impact.
——————————
4. 2008 Fiscal Crash - ( Existing Local Plan ).
5. COVID 19 Pandemic Debt - ( New Local Plan ).

Notation as above :-
1. Housing in such large numbers could only be achieved via a Government Managed scheme, a very relevant reference to our area would be the huge Becontree Estate ( 100 years ago ).
2. Likewise a ‘real’ housing emergency tackled in the same way ( Stevenage, Harlow, Basildon, Bracknell……New Towns* ).
3. The same principal, in modernised form, was then used to
create the likes of Milton Keynes / Crawley ……etc;.

These solutions were holistic ( Homes>Employment,Schools, Hospitals,Transport Links,Road Networks,Police Stations etc;), with economy of scale delivering Infrastructure at “ low cost per front door “.
——————————
4. The existing Local Plan is not working because the so called Housing Crisis has been subcontracted, piece-meal, to Private Developer’s ( not meeting targets, quality issues emerging and above all no Government Strategic Infrastructure ).
5. The New Local Plan would appear to be more of the same, which, albeit Brown Field or Green Belt, will not address the core problem of the overwhelmed Infrastructure and Public Services.

The Essex County Council ‘Growth & Infrastructure Report 2016 quantified the shortfall in Essex Infrastructure funds as £Billions.
There is no point in discussing the merit of each potential Site if the fundamental fabric of physical Infrastructure is ignored; this approach is not a vision for the future but simply negligent.

The scale of Housing created by the NPPF needed an all Essex solution ( as before ) - namely strategically located New Towns*, not bolt-on / lean-to extensions to already failing Towns/Villages.
…………………………….

SUMMARY OVERVIEW -
I OBJECT to this Spatial exercise because it relegates the key issue ( Infrastructure ) as a third priority - your Doc Reference Page 25 / Section 3/51. In fact it fails to create any confidence that the oft repeated mantra ( Infrastructure First ) is not, once more, ‘ talking the talk ‘ rather than ‘ walking the walk ‘.

An uncoordinated 30%+ increase in Peninsular population has to be challenged. The three Authorities should combine their resource and expertise to produce a (Town & Country Planning
Act) structured assessment, as to why it is not viable. In fact the Spatial Study is the actual purpose of such an appraisal !!.

The 3 key existing issues are obvious :-
+ The critical E<>W access and egress ROUTE ( A127 East ) between
the Rayleigh Weir and Sutton Road needs De-Bottlenecking and a modern remote managing system ( like a Motorway ).
+ The critical NHS HOSPITAL & related Services needs either to be
duplicated; or relieved by a network of new Medical Centres to deal with the mundane, leaving the Hospital to treat only serious illnesses.
+ Technology is slowly but surely eroding the need for mass a commute,
providing local EMPLOYMENT means more than the odd Business Park & Industrial Estate. We need to be looking to the coming Electric Power revolution and create a hub for the Industry & Services it will create.

Quite simply, due to the shear scale (£Billions) of such a Project, the task is beyond the capabilities of any single Council with limited resources and part-time Councillor’s.

GOVERNMENT “ OUTSOURCING “ A HOUSING CRISIS, IS ABDICATION OF THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY - WHICH NEEDS CHALLENGING BY THOSE WHO REPRESENT US ( RDC ).

* FOOTNOTE - or by any other name ( Garden Suburbs )

We would like you to know that we feel any kind of action to the needed changes within the Rochford District will probably be ignored as many complaints and comments have been made over the many years we have lived here and very little has been done. Our roads in the area are in the most disgusting condition causing danger not only to motorists but cyclists, motor bike riders and pedestrians. The work that does get done is inadequate and has to be redone on frequent occasions. Drains are blocked and cause rain to flood roads. The housing estates are being built regardless of the lack of infastructure, the inability for some children to attend schools within their catchment areas, due to overcrowding, a lack of GP surgeries, parking facilities, which are overpriced and inadequate. The bus service regardless of the increased population is still poor, sites which are part of our heritage are either sold off or left to deteriorate as is the site where the old police station is in Rochford. The possibility of Mill Hall being pulled down, leaving no social centre for sport, entertaining etc. is also on the cards. Shops are closing due to high business rents and are left in poor condition making them undesirable to new business ventures. The gatehouse at the end of Hawkwell Park Drive is falling into disrepair beyond belief with overgrown garden etc. We thought this was a listed Grade 11 building. The cake shop next to it is a disgrace and would not tempt me or many people i know to have a cake made there particularly when you see the state of the waste ground outside. The parking at the end of Hawkwell Park Drive is appalling causing back ups of traffic into the road around which cars/vans turning off the main road are unable to progress. The overspill of cars from White Hart Lane Service Station, which are left in Hawkwell Park Drive and Park Gardens is also unacceptable. The cost of our Council tax is high enough to warrant all of these problems being resolved and I am afraid, as are many people I know, feeling that your request that we have an input into the future of our area is a complete waste of time.

I would like to provide my general comments regarding the consultation on the Spatial Options document as follows;

 Based upon the government’s own statistics of 2.4 people and 1.3 cars per household, the proposed 7,200 new homes in Rochford district would equate to in excess of 17,000 additional people and over 9,000 additional cars, which when put into perspective, represents a similar population to South Woodham Ferrers.

 I note that most of the promoted sites are to the West of Rayleigh and this would inevitably mean those people would be drawn to Rayleigh which is already over developed and consequently overburdened in every respect.

 All of the major sites promoted are too far away to walk to Rayleigh or the station and that will force more people to drive exacerbating congestion, which is already at unacceptable levels, and indeed pollution.

 Promoted sites next to major roads, especially the A127, should not be considered due to air and noise pollution. The Rayleigh Weir junction is already overly congested as are the roads that lead from it.

 Any voluminous development in Rayleigh will be devastating and I am opposed to it.

 I am in agreement with the Liberal Democrat Group, there needs to be a more radical approach, a plan should be made for a whole new town/village incorporating all of the appropriate infrastructure and that this should do be done in conjunction with adjacent councils and not in isolation.

When will Rochford Council see that they are killing the environment that we live in. Nature, green spaces and generally the nice place we used to live and call home. With climate change high on the agenda what about flooding in the future. Rayleigh has changed significantly since I moved here 30 years ago with housing estate after housing estate being built in and around the surrounding areas. The roads are often gridlocked, not a good environment to bring up children. Also who are buying all these new houses? Where are all the people coming from? Will Rochford council not be happy until we are living in a concrete jungle with very few fields and green spaces left to enjoy and for nature to survive.

We already have gridlock, no doctor appointments available, primary school places difficult to secure especially KS2, no dentists taking on NHS patients, not enough appropriately designed and filled recreational areas and no appropriate activities to capture our current teenage population. I am in a state of disbelief that with all of the above points in mind you deem it sensible and appropriate to build even more unaffordable housing. I strongly object to your plans to increase and continue to build within the Rayleigh district