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

Push back on government and state that all the various studies you have conducted so far indicate that the infrastructure is already at or above capacity and the area cannot sustain the level of growth required. Limit growth to roughly 1500 houses over the time period.

Smaller areas within the green belt could be used to provide areas of affordable housing in villages without having a major impact on the green belt.

Southend are currently consulting on its ‘Local Plan - Refining the Plan Options’, with the Consultation running through until 26 October 2021. The NPPF is clear that Local Authorities should also plan to meet housing needs that cannot be met within neighbouring authority areas (para.61), stating that, “In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for”.

In this regard, it is noted that within their Plan proposes a ‘Development Opportunity D’ of c.10,000 homes, of which 4,900 homes lies within Rochford.

It is imperative, therefore, that Rochford works alongside Southend to understand if it needs to plan for these 4,900 new homes alongside its own minimum of 7,200 homes, which would need to be reflected within the next stage of the Rochford District Local Plan.

No – All development sizes have been explored. Cross administration boundary work has not been considered in the options, but this would be difficult to navigate and plan.

No – All development sizes have been explored. Cross administration boundary work has not been considered in the options, but this would be difficult to navigate and plan.

In my previous comment I stated that the new housing Minister may have different plans for the way forward. Maybe one option is to join forces with Southend unitary council and make proposals on the brown field sites that are adjacent to council boundaries. Maybe. Pro-active approach to join forces and think of how best to use this land for housing and services would be appreciated by Ministers. I also think that local government should work closely with different Government Depts especially the NHS and see what is required so maybe the brownfield sites could be used more purposefully.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.80. See our response to Question 6.

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

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

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

and with regard to access to land:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[see document]

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

Dear Sir / Madam,

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

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Kind Regards,
Jane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Spatial Themes

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Housing for All

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Employment and Jobs

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Biodiversity

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


YES

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

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

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


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

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

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

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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


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

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


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


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

Community Infrastructure

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Heritage

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

Town Centres and Retail

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Transport and Connectivity

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


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

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


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

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

Green Belt and Rural Issues

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


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

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

Planning for Complete Communities

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


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


N/A

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



N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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


N/A


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

N/A

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


N/A




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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A

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

N/A



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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A



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

N/A



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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A






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


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

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


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

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


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

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

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

Planning refs. CFS027, CFS098, CFS086 CFS029 & CFS053
Having looked at the Rochford plans for possible development, I was somewhat taken aback at the massive loss of greenspace.

The current infrastructure can barely support the current level of housing, and yet here is a plan to rob us of valuable green space and place even more burden upon the local amenities and services. If additional housing has to be considered, then please brownfield sites ONLY.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed plans within the Spatial Options Consultation 2021. The plans for additional housing developments will further reduce the green spaces locally and infringe upon greenbelt land.
A brief word about the consultation itself; while the documentation has been made available and residents have been informed, I do not believe that it is presented in a manageable or accessible format. There is a plethora of information the questionnaire is very long, and the language used is formal, wordy, and fairly technical in nature. I expect that despite many residents having concerns many will not respond as they will see it as too time-consuming and impenetrable.

An uncertain future
Given the upheaval caused by the pandemic this is probably not the time to make firm plans for the next 20 years. We have been going through a period of huge change. The way we work and live are likely to be affected for some time to come, some changes will be permanent with more people working from home some or all the time. In turn this means that the use of office and retail space will change significantly. More people are moving towards online shopping and gradually retailers are improving the online shop experience. These changes are likely to free up space for redevelopment of existing office and retail space into residential use. I believe that rather than building on green field sites we should consider a more conservative approach to wait to see whether the effects of the pandemic mean that existing sites can be redeveloped. Once the green field sites have been used, they are gone. Furthermore, the pandemic has highlighted the need for areas of nature for recreation and health. It can surely not be wise to shrink these areas while adding to the population? This cannot have a positive effect on the health and wellbeing of the local population.

Local character, Historic Towns
The character of the local area is being gradually eroded with the green spaces between towns such as Rochford, Hockley, and Rayleigh dwindling. If the proposed blue sites on the interactive map https://rochford.opus4.co.uk/ you have provided were to be used for development the area is close to becoming one large conurbation. Thus, the towns will lose their character and simply become areas within a larger whole.

Greenbelt
There are many proposed sites that appear to sit within, or directly on or adjacent to the boundaries of Metropolitan Green Belt land. These appear to include, CFS07L, CFS027, CFS053, CFS160, CFS134, CFS002, CFS045, CFS251, CFS074, CFS082, CFS078, CFS080, CFS081, CFS135, CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS160, CFS105, CFS024. Moreover, some of these sites would appear to involve building within Marylands Nature reserve in Hockley (CFS024) or within Hockley Woods (CFS160) or next to the boundary of Betts Farm ancient woodland and Folly Wood (CFS064). This would obviously cause immense damage to the natural environment, loss of ancient woodland and potential loss to rare species. Even if the woodland itself is not built upon the disruption to the site while building work is taking place and the loss of linking areas of open land will have a detrimental effect on the woodland environment, causing fragmentation. Studies done by charities such as The Woodland Trust state that inappropriate development of land adjacent to woodland can cause chemical pollution, disturbance to wildlife, fragmentation, introduction of non-native plants and other negative cumulative effects. Please see: Threats to woods and trees - Woodland Trust
I would draw your attention to the following paragraph within The National Planning Policy Framework revised 20th July 2021.
“13. Protecting Green Belt land 137. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 138. Green Belt serves five purposes: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land”
And
“Proposals affecting the Green Belt 147. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”
Within The draft vision for Rochford in 2050 Strategic Priority 5 is “Making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape”. I believe the plans for housing developments within the green belt will directly obstruct this priority.


Congestion, Pollution, Gridlock
An area of huge concern amongst residents is the effect of all the additional traffic created both during the building of new developments and once built from the increased traffic caused by increased population. Infrastructure in the local area is woefully insufficient already. The B1013 links Rochford, Hawkwell, Hockley and Rayleigh. Greensward Lane and Ashingdon Road link to this road. Should further housing be added to the area the pressure on these roads will be immense. There will be further delays, additional pollution, and road traffic accidents. There is already severe traffic especially at peak times along these roads. One small accident can cause gridlock. Rochford District Council is fully aware of these issues as they have been raised time and time again by residents.

In conclusion I implore you to consider carefully the impact of further residential developments on the infrastructure, character, and green field sites of our area. Examine meticulously the emerging trends due to the effects of the pandemic and our increasing dependency on information technology and take a far more conservative approach to the management of our open spaces.

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

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

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford
District? Is there anything missing from the vision that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for
the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able
to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses
to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
No provision for emergency housing.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of
separate visions for each of our settlements to help
guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and
objectives we have identified? Is there anything
missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
No comments.

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

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

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

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

Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating
development away from areas at risk of flooding and
coastal change wherever possible? How can we best
protect current and future communities from flood
risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, their houses and businesses but also the natural areas as well. The district needs adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas.
New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc.
The plan must include or identify a flood plane that is protected from development.

Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and
Upper Roach Valley should be protected from
development that would be harmful to their
landscape character? Are there other areas that you
feel should be protected for their special landscape
character? [Please state reasoning]
All the coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a significant risk of
flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all
natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to
source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon
and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities
in the district to supply low-carbon or renewable
energy?
Yes.
New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources.

Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than
building regulations? What level should these be set
at? [Please state reasoning].
Yes. The Town Council believes that you should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and
encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. You must plan for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher! Keep the technology under review to capitalise on new development.

Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation
should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install
solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs;
there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without
damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain
whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings

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

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making
charter the right ones? Are there other principles that
should be included? [Please state reasoning]
They are, as long as they are adhered to.

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

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best plan to
meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing? [Please state reasoning]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities,
residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will
be achievable.

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure?
What is required to meet housing needs in these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are
met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold. The Council would like to safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families.
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state
reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.

Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.

Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations
for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state
reasoning]
See answer to Q20.

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that
we meet our employment and skills needs through
the plan? [Please state reasoning]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour

Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the
current employment site allocations to provide
enough space to meet the District’s employment
needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally
protect any informal employment sites for commercial
uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state
reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a
potential to expand or continue effectively.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
employment facilities or improvements to existing
employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or
business accommodation that you consider Rochford
District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. (We need to find funding for this
as it is important!) HGV training school and modern transport training. Improve manufacturing base.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the
plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic
growth, e.g., skills or connectivity?
Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs
at the end of training. CCTV where appropriate.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best manage the
Airport’s adaptations and growth through the
planning system? [Please state reasoning]
No comments.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important wildlife
value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local
Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that
you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing
development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings. These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are
the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important geological
value as a local geological site, having regard to the
Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites
that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best
delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific
locations or projects where net gain projects could be
delivered?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off
site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality
green and blue infrastructure network through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as
well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and
island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most
appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are
there any other areas that should be considered or
preferred? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced. Existing sites must be retained
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new
strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities
within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how can we address the need for sufficient
and accessible community infrastructure through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning
and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or
improved community infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have
particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to
community infrastructure, including schools,
healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can
we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
Rayleigh is overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer
capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify
a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best meet our open
space and sport facility needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment
the right ones? Are there other locations that we
should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should
be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver
improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be
protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have
an opportunity to make specific comments on open
spaces and local green spaces in the settlement
profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best
address heritage issues through the plan? [Please
state reasoning]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage
list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they
have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to
those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be
considering for conservation area status beyond those
listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered

Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that
should be protected for their historic, cultural or
architectural significance? Should these be considered
for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated
assets? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you think we can best plan for
vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and
Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and
neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state
reasoning]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe
offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local”
business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their
businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies. Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 5 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new
business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with
existing town centre boundaries and extent of
primary and secondary shopping frontages in
Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what
changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary
shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what
uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved
retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state
reasoning]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the
area.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best address our
transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport
connections are needed? What could be done to help
improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes
proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is
now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a
cycle network as part of the plan.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
transport connections, such as link roads or rapid
transit? What routes and modes should these take?
[Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
As the preferred strategy option is 3b, this could create opportunities for improved links to Southend. You should also consider more and smaller buses to link the towns and villages. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a
complete review of sustainable transport.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural
exception sites? If so, where should these be located
and what forms of housing or employment do you feel
need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to
comment on the use of specific areas of land in the
next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
[Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
The plan is adequate so far is it goes, but you have more work to do. You must plan for a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. More attention is needed to initiatives that design-out crime and fear of crime, and this needs to be functional, sustainable and viable. The Draft Vision Statement ignores the over-development, the lack of infrastructure and facilities we already suffer. Indeed, Rochford District Council’s stated aim within their Asset Strategy and the plans of other Public Service providers is to reduce facilities in the Town further. This is at the same time as demand is growing from a sharply increasing population. This is particularly relevant for the growing elderly population. This will make the next 25 years very challenging.
1/ Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a carcentric highway use. We regret we do not because it is unrealistic, our response must be to inject a note of realism looking forward based on RDCs policies and past action. This goes to the heart of the new Local Plan.
We regret a realistic Vision Statement based on the current trajectory of further development recommended in the Draft Local Plan will be rather more dystopian. We could see a Rayleigh chocked by traffic. Although pollution should decrease with electric vehicles the advent of driverless vehicles, both domestic and commercial, servicing an ever-expanding population could result in gridlock. Pollution will increase from fossil burning home heating systems in many of the new homes. Failure to support public transport will inevitably maroon older residents in their homes far from those few
facilities and shops that remain in our town centre.
Public services offered by police and council (most likely giant unitary council catering for half million people based far away in an urban area), will seem very distant to most people. Most of the green open spaces not in public ownership, also some that are publicly owned, will be built on and have disappeared by 2050. Many public facilities and local public service providers will be taken away and sold off to property developers. The town centres will cease to be the shopping and social areas we know today as a result of Council plans and changing shopping habits. Rayleigh retail business will have closed and online and out of town retail parks will prosper with their free parking facilities. In the same way that London boroughs developed through the decades and centuries, the traditional housing we know today, with private gardens will be replaced by blocks of flats with large vehicle parking areas with recharge points.
2/ Another vision could be forged with the right policies in an enlightened Local Plan. RDC could opt for a garden village settlement away from all the Districts Towns and villages. Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made
cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary
shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Council Offices, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive
through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred
Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted
sites should be made available for any of the following
uses? How could that improve the completeness of
Rayleigh?
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary
shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.
c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called
windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing
large scale development.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets
Q57.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Hockley Wood
Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and
Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
Q58.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing
EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. You must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
[Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the
Governments home building targets
Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Protection needs to be given to development that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significant amount of green belt land left to separate the two areas to prevent urban sprawl. Rawreth Lane gets heavily congested at peak times, and with Wolsey Park still not complete this is likely to increase. If there is an accident or breakdown on the road network, it has a huge knock on through Rayleigh and the surrounding areas and Watery Lane isn’t a reliable back up for when there are issue. Therefore, further development on the boundary or
otherwise could be detrimental to not only local residents but the wider District too. RDC should be supporting farmers wherever possible to continue to grow their crops in the district and protect suitable farm land in the area. We do not want to lose the local producers

Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not
require individual vision statements? Are there
communities that you feel should have their own
vision? [Please state reasoning]
At this time – yes, but we feel they should have some consideration in the future, in order to protect
them. It would be for the communities to decide their vision statements and we would be happy to
support them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural
communities? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could
take to improve the completeness of our rural
communities?
Listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific; travel links, facilities, affordable housing and so on. Empower Parish and Town Councils to take
relevant local actions

As a local resident I am writing to raise my objections to more housing being considered in and around Wakering.
Traffic is already a problem trying to get out of the area and on the A127 in both directions. More housing will only make this much worse. Wakering is accessed by country roads and there are limited options for access. Should there be an emergency evacuation due to flooding etc. this could be problematic.
The current infrastructure: drainage, doctors, hospitals, schools, police, fire brigade etc. barely cope, so more stress on this would just make it worse. More houses mean more traffic, more pollution, higher crime. People live here because they like village life, being part of the spreading suburban sprawl will affect people negatively.
The increased population will negatively impact the environment and wildlife including biodiversity.
Road traffic accidents will increase as more people use the local country roads. Public transport is already insufficient, and this will struggle. There is no local railway station to help cope with all extra load.
Building in condensed areas must run contrary to the environment bill and programmes to reduce carbon footprints.
I am shocked at the numbers of new houses being discussed in the local and wider area. No additional infrastructure has been added for the recent and current developments, so we are forced to accept an increasingly worse service, more pollution and less green space.
Rather than adding to the burden on current areas and infrastructure, I think the new town developments such as Milton Keynes should be considered, and the required infrastructure could be designed in rather than ignored or swept under the carpet.
Thanks for your attention, and I hope you will seriously consider peoples objections to these proposals.

Spatial Options Consultation:
I oppose any further residential development in the Rochford Council area - in particular in Great Wakering and the bordering area of Southend Borough Council.
The grounds for my objection include:

A lack of infrastructure:
There are only 2 roads in and out of Great Wakering. In the event of an emergency evacuation of the village - which is very probable because many homes are already built on an ever-expanding (because of global warming and the resulting higher tides) flood plane.
The junction of Alexandra Road and the High Street regularly floods resulting in water lapping into our house. When I lived in the adjacent Brougham Close we had a major claim against Anglian Water when the sewage system failed to cope with heavy rainfall.
There is one primary school in the village and each year there are not enough school places to fulfil demand.
The Wakering Medical Centre has already tipped over through demand, with complaints lodged as residents are unable to get through on the phone line and emails are unanswered, let alone are residents able to secure an appointment.
Parking is a major issue in Great Wakering. With families regularly owning more than two vehicles per dwelling, will the proposed developments be able to factor in sufficient parking spaces? Where will any overspill be accommodated. There’s certainly no more room on our residential streets.
Like the majority of those who have chosen to live in the village, I have done so because of the quality of life this gives me and my family.
The erosion of the nearby countryside would have a huge detrimental effect on the quality of life for me, my family and thousands of local residents.
Can the authorities guarantee that the developers will follow building guidelines to ensure there is no disruption to local residents’ lives? There are multiple complaints made about the development of the Wimpy estate on Star Lane. The local authorities appear powerless to enforce the nuisance of noise and pollution from this development. My family has not been able to enjoy the expected peace of our garden for several years because of the noise and pollution coming from this development. What guarantees can be given that further developments will not blight the peace and tranquility of village life?
More housing will increase crime. Insurance premiums will rise. What compensation will be available for locsl residents to redress this negative impact on their finances?
Water supply has been cut off to Great Wakering in recent months due to a failing infrastructure that can be traced all the way back to the Bournes Green roundabout. Will the supply be able to cope with the additional demand of local houses.
The village is blessed with biodiversity and wildlife. Birds of prey, Canadian geese, a duck pond overflowing with wildlife, Great Wakering Common - it’s upkeep in the charge of local residents - is brimming with wildfowl, animals and flora. . . there is a true sense of village community in our corner of Essex and this will be terribly eroded by any proposed development.
It is a fact that the majority of serious road accidents occur on rural roads. Fatalities along Southend Road are commonplace. There are two blind corners on this mile-long stretch of road - my heart is in my mouth every time I go along this road. Add further vehicles to the mix and you will be responsible for adding more deaths and serious injuries to these hard-to-bear statistics.
This area is a peninsula-people have to travel to work. There is no nearby train station and the bus services have limited capacity, a handful of destinations and run a limited service on Sundays that means those without vehicles are cut off from the rest of the world from early on in the evening.
Building homes in condensed areas goes against both the environmental legislation and the UK Government’s goal of carbon neutrality.
How can this and all the other developments be allowed to go ahead while Boris Johnson grandstands in meetings with the president of the USA demanding North America gets its house in order when it comes to the environment?
It is my understanding that the only reason the areas under consideration have been chosen is to satisfy central government edicts that do not take into account the intricacies of our local area.
If the Government is so keen to “level up” the UK - don’t level Great Wakering’s countryside. Develop the homes required away from the over-populated south east of England and protect what countryside remains.

I would like to register my concern over the proposals to build on yet more sites in an already crowded and over populated area. I have lived in Victor Gardens for 37 years and one of the reasons we moved to this area was because of the green spaces and rural way of life. There have already been massive developments in the area and many old character houses have been demolished, new large houses built and the character and feel of the place has been spoilt already. The two square hideous houses built next to the Dentist and Barbers in White Hart Lane are just one example. We have lost a lot of our green fields already and to suggest we can accommodate all these houses on the New Local Plan is ludicrous. If lockdown has taught us one thing, it is that green spaces are needed for not only physical well being but also for our mental well being. The traffic around this area is already too busy. If you walk up the Main Road in Hawkwell to Hockley there is a continuous stream of traffic no matter what time of day you walk. Children walking to and from Westerings school are being subjected to constant pollution from the cars, as are the children waiting at bus stops to take them to school.Trying to get anywhere locally by car means being stuck in traffic and the B1013 is already a bottle neck, it took me 50 minutes to do a 15 minute journey last week and it regularly takes me over 35 minutes to do this journey,yet the Council want to build thousands of houses which will feed onto these roads. More cars will add to the already congested roads causing even more traffic problems and pollution. The footpaths which at the moment are used by people to get around, as well as for recreation, will have houses built adjacent to them preventing people from having the option of walking in a rural setting. It will be like walking through a housing estate.The argument that is used is that we need affordable housing, but all the evidence shows that the houses being built are huge houses which are not affordable to the first time buyers. Neither of my two adult children can afford to live in this area,so who are we building the houses for? Why not build 50 -100 smaller affordable houses in every town and village rather than target one area and swamp it.
If the plans go ahead, we will lose the character of Hawkwell , which will just become a part of Rochford and Hockley, swallowed up with no definition of where it starts and finishes, with one continuous traffic problem. Considering how much money was spent last year by the Government on health, I'm surprised that health hasn't been taken into consideration for this proposal. You can't keep building on already built up areas and expect the infrastructure, the Drs, the well being of people, the schools and the other amenities to cope, let alone severe flooding which will happen as more land is built on. We have had problems with flooding in the past and I remember houses in Hawkwell Chase flooding in the 90s, Hill Lane has been flooded on several occasions as has the road under the railway bridge by St Mary's church.
I strongly object in particular to the proposal to build on site CFS074 and sites CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020,

I am emailing in connection with the proposed building of 214 houses on the field CFS064.
I have lived in Hockley for 30 years and have been saddened for most of those with the over development of the area no space is to small to squeeze as many properties on and no green belt / green space is safe from developer's.
In general there seems to be no thought or planning as to the effect that all these new house will cause to the area .
With already thousands more people living in the area try to get a doctors appointment/drive anywhere at rush hour/find a dentist or a school for your children its already impossible and that's before the enormous development off Rawreth lane and London Rd.
As for this proposed development the most obvious problem is access 214 new houses means over 400 new cars trying to either enter the development down folly chase or through Betts Farm.
But the biggest reason that not only this but any further development In the area should not go ahead is peoples quality of life green space is so important not just for people to walk and stay fit in but for the local wildlife to live in its easy to think just one more house or one more development of 214 house won't make that much difference but sooner or later if we continue with this madness we will end up not only with no open space but in total gridlock .
There are other parts of the country to build new houses in away from the south east and while I understand the London attraction maybe you and Central government should be encouraging new business to open away from the capital thuse solving the need for everyone to live in the same corner of the country .
Think big and don't take the easy option because sooner or later this over development will have gone too far and there will be no turning back.

Assuming emails will be accepted and previous near impossible navigation if the whole document is not required then I provide the following comments; observations and objections on the spatial options using CFS064 as an example and objecting to.that and development of Bull Lane; Napier Road and Wellington Road as well.

1) the whole process is flawed. Even at the "tail" of the pandemic some residents are unable or unwilling to contribute because of issues in attending events and/or lack of internet access preventing them viewing the proposals.

2) the central Government building requirements are based upon ideas originally drawn up by John Prescott in a Labour government. They do not take account of fundamental changes in working environment brought about by factors such as technology; COVID; and the demise of the High St. This may well see more town and city space particularly in London becoming available for accommodation. I am aware of a number of London companies "hotdesking" workers and essentially having only 50% attending on any one day. Couple this with the ability to store and use data electronically it is clear lots of office space will become available and the knock on effect may be other city shops close as there are less people using them. This relieves pressure on surrounding areas for building of more homes

3) the local plans take little account of the need to maintain open spaces. As seen in the Pandemic these were crucial for wellbeing. Plans involving building on Hockley Woods and fields around Betts Wood are not credible.

4) plans to build on areas around Bull Lane Nelson; Napier; and Wellington Roads put in jeopardy RDC's pledge to maintain gaps between the various towns and villages in the area. Here in particular the Hockley and Rayleigh buffer is already eroded by Bullwood Hall developments and new properties added to Turret Farm ( were these approved)

5) proposals to release agricultural land. Anyone who walked around the area in the pandemic will be well aware many of these plots are apparently used for growing food. Given current supply problems and the growing need to feed people this element seems to be fundamentally flawed.

6) it is clear from your own Q&A councils are out of their depth. Several correspondents have already raised the issue of the lack of infrastructure and the response has been GP surgeries; schools etc only need to be provided for large developments (approx 1000 houses). Clearly house builders know how to play the game and avoid such commitments (and provision of sufficient affordable housing).

7) in relation to several of the points above why all the councils (predominantly tory) in the Thames Gateway do not group together to lobby Tory central government for more power to determine their plans and to reach a better outcome for developments than seeing inner London borough's rent or buy large swathes of housing stock.

8) as with 3 above will Southend Airport remain open? Believe this is leased by RDC to Southend BC but, given the lack of passenger flights and income; one wonders if it will last. Is lease income being maintained? Is airport being subsidised? Would make ideal building plot

9)There is also a need to maintain historic and scientific areas as well as minimising impact on wildlife using green belt impacts all these

10) the roads are gridlocked at peak times and delivery times. Especially B1013. This is already the busiest B road in the county and adding any development in the vicinity is going to make this worse. Impacting health and particularly that of children in schools along the route RDC will be aware of the Coroner's findings in respect of the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah where air pollution was given as the cause. Perhaps RDC can confirm they have addressed all current air pollution problems and fully and correctly assessed all risks of this nature were further developments to take place

We have attended a consultation and studied the map with all the blue planned farm fields for housing.
There seem to be an awful lot of planning . I know people need somewhere to live .
But the environment is important too.
To reduce the amount of housing I suggest The council should talk about the environmental impact this will have on our area.
With 600 houses come 600 cars or a lot more .I live in a close with 8 houses And 14 cars.
I also think we should do lots more to encourage people to cycle.
A stripe on a pavement like in Ashingdon road is not good enough. It's dangerous for the children walking to Holt Farm school.
There should have been a proper distinguished border The pavement was wide enough to do that
Hall road could have a cycle path Behind the trees Not just a stripe on the road .
Ironwell lane could be made into bridle path one side cycling path next to it At the moment Ironwell can not be used if it rains a lot.
So my opinion is Reduce the amount of housing .Spend the council TAX The council receives from all the houses already build on saving the enviroment
By providing alternative transport To reduce the amount of cars
By providing proper cycling routes Especially to schools .And providing convenient public transport.

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

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

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

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

Heritage

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

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

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

Highways

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

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

Housing

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

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

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

The draft vision at present appears to be too vague and lacks a real vision. It is clear that the two big challenges facing the country in the next 20-30 years are a lack of homes, particularly for both young and elderly, along with the impending threat of climate change and its attendant impacts. Therefore, both of these need to be reflected in the vision. Rochford should strive, in its local plan, to not only meet its housing supply but to plan beyond, as well as to meet the threat of climate change by encouraging
all developments to be ‘green’, to exceed climate change targets and to seek alternatives to the private car to transform how Rochford residents travel.
For example, the ‘Our Society’ vision needs to have a greater vision for the delivery of new housing and
supporting infrastructure. Rochford should welcome the challenge of building at least 360 homes per year, by choosing to focus on high quality developments and the attendant benefits of planning for the delivery of these homes.
Similarly, the ‘Our Environment’ vision does not refer to climate change, which is a missed opportunity, given the pressing need facing the Country in addressing Climate Change impacts and its repeated messages within the NPPF, particularly as detailed within Chapter 14, and at paragraph 153 which states that, “Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change…”.
Alongside this, the Covid-19 pandemic has transformed how people work, with more people now choosing to work from home, more often. This needs to be reflected in the ‘Our Economy’ vision – can Rochford provide the employment hubs and flexible working conditions to meet the new ‘normal’ for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been to a meeting held by our local councillors to explain your unrealistic vision for housing development in this area. We do not have the infrastructure to support these extravagant proposals. I strongly object to any further developments in this area. The current housing development has had an devastating effect on our surroundings and it would be ridiculous to impose any more development in this area.
I suggest that you build a new town, similar to that recently built at Beaulieu near Chelmsford, schools, shops , doctors were built within the new estate so there was minimum strain and impact on surrounding towns snd villages.

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

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

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

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

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

There are three questions for which I would appreciate a response. See below.

Whilst we accept that an enormous amount of work has gone into producing this options consultation I'm sure you would acknowledge that the average person would find these documents extremely complicated and somewhat difficult to understand.

However, having lived in Rayleigh since 1980 and witnessed considerable growth within the Rochford area as a whole we find options 1 and 2 to be totally unacceptable. I will not list all our concerns and objections since your own CONS for both options speak for themselves.

However Rayleigh itself is choking under the weight of traffic both entering the town and passing through, principally to gain access to the A127. To even consider intensification or extention would be madness. Rochford Council has already allowed considerable development along the A129 to the west of Rayleigh Town, the major area off Rawreth Lane and now a flats development behind Marks & Spencers. Your proposal for the Mill Hall and The Civic Suite sites has quite rightly met with considerable opposition from local residents. Surely that is a clear indicator that Rochford residents do not want further development within Rayleigh. This latter proposal even being within the Rayleigh Conservation Area!

Only this morning I returned on foot from the Rayleigh Wier back into the town along the A129 into the High Street. The traffic was solid and creaping along for the whole distance which further extended into Websters Way. The smell of petrol fumes was considerable and I had to cover my nose for most of the way. The current level of pollution is unacceptable and I even believe these roads have historically failed to meet the required standards for air pollution. The inevitable increase in traffic such centralised development would produce will only exacerbate the problem. I would also mention that we live in Highfield Crescent, very close to Websters Way and [redacted]'s asthma has worsened over the years, I believe as a direct consequence of this increase in traffic.

I also note that "National Policy also requires that Local Plans provide strategies that accommodate unmet need from neighbouring areas". You imply that your plans could help accomodate some of this need. There appears to be no mention of any reciprocal offers or arrangments. Are there any?

As general comment we are not in favour of random piecemeal development and as such options 3 would be by far our preferred choice.

The only development suitable for any form of housing in Rayleigh is the Castle Road waste disposal site which is totally inadequate, causes considerable traffic congestion and should have been relocated years ago.

Given this is a consultation document and emphasises that decisons are yet to be made can you explain why RDC has already embarked on a partnership with Voyage to develop a number of sites within Rochford including Rayleigh Mill Hall and the Civic Suite?

Have contracts been signed by RDC to develop these sites?

We do find these development of green belts really troubling. The fact that you seem content to ride roughshod over the purpose of this legislation in halting urban sprawl is a major concern to us, as we chose to move here to get away from such sprawl. While building on green belts is permitted, it is only to be undertaken in exceptional circumstances. We do not feel this is exceptional in any way.

We are concerned that you make no effort to give any breakdown of the infrastructure improvements that you would need to undertake with each of the plots. How can you ask residents to give their opinions without supplying this vital data? Certain developments might be more palatable if you had included the link roads, schools and doctors surgeries which would be included. Current infrastructure is already seeing long delays in getting to see doctors and children not being offered their first place in primary schools (which ironically causes more road traffic). We find this lack of planning surprising as it is clear you have done intensive reviews of each of the plots, without seeming considering this vital factor.

The fact that the roads are already in a very poor state of repair, gives us no confidence that such improvement can be achieved prior to building, or even post the builds.

With reference to the areas near where we live, without understanding the infrastructure improvements needed, it is difficult to draw up a comprehensive list of objections. However, to start the ball rolling, with this development, we would like you to formall record the following objections.

Site reference: CFS023

1. You are looking to build right on the edge of ancient and well used woodland, which would clearly damage it physically, but also the nature of the woodlands itself.

2. To build the road into this development you would need to compulsory purchase a large number of plots to be able to put in a road and footpath of a suitable width.

3. Again ,with regard to the road, you would also need to cut down a number of trees which currently line the track, a number of them appear to be very old.

4. Our house is only a few meters from the proposed road, which would reduce our privacy as well as increase air pollution, and noise levels.

5. Having any development along the already crowded Greensward Lane/Ashingdon Road with its large number of schools located on or adjacent, would simply cause more road congestion, and with the road already often reduced to a crawl, which in turn would also increase the air and noise pollution for residents.


You have placed scores against schools and healthcare, but have you approached these establishments to ask if they can service these new developments? You simply cannot score against existing needs, but need to score against the projected ones. For example I know an existing local primary is full, so how can you score a 5.

Our view is that if more new houses are needed, you should focus on new town developments where you can suitably create the infrastructure needed, as part of the development itself. People moving there would fully understand what they are moving into. We would suggest building close to the A130 to the West, with their improved road links, or to the South East with links to A1159/A13. We would also suggest working alongside the surrounding councils of Wickford and Southend to produce a fully joined up offering as joint developments.

We see a number of these proposals, as death by a thousand cuts to small towns such as Hockley, which will forever change their makeup and character. We were under the impression that it was the council’s duty to protect the hamlets under their charters, but these plans seem to go totally against these aims.

With Covid, we are likely to see homework now becoming more widely used. This in turn will see more offices converting to residential use (such as Victoria Ave, in Southend), which may have a big impact on the need to build more homes in rural areas such as ours.

To restate our initial comments, we believe on top of the callus building on Green Belt, you need to produce a fully realised infrastructure plan for the regions first, to sit alongside any proposals. Only then should residents be asked for their views.

Reference: CFS027 CFS098
I am writing to you to express my objection to the proposed development for 329 houses around the Wellington Road/Bull Lane Farm area. Reference: CFS027 CFS098

This is an absolutely ludicrous proposal, both from a infrastructure and environmental perspective; the high road is already an immensely overcongested road, that even before the Bullwood Hall development, was at breaking point. Dumping another estate directly adjacent to such a road is utter madness, will lead to increasing pollution and further congestion exposing safety issues on such a busy site, with nearby schools.

The second important concern is environmental; as a council Rochford District have consistently expressed desire to enhance local environment, create green spaces, reduce pollution and do their part in striving towards a greener future; building housing estates on land adjacent to one of the most ecologically important ancient woodland sites in Essex, as well as obliterating beneficial farmland (crazy when food security is a serious future concern), grassland and hedgerows, is completely at odds with concern for the environment. Talk of improving the environment is utterly irrelevant if you as a council continue to allow the destruction of swathes of countryside to meet ludicrous government targets, made by worthless bureaucrats who don't give a rats arse about the lives of people in this area.

If there is a need for local afford housing there are sites that could be considered which will cause little, if any, environmental damage; the Eldon Way industrial estate is a good example. In fact such a proposal was suggested some years back. Converting disused high street shops to housing also makes sense. Building over what little green space we have left in this area, will be detrimental to the environment as well as society; as the pandemic demonstrated, countryside and green spaces proved essential to mental and physical wellbeing.